An Opinion on Atheism Plus

September 3, 2012 at 6:53 am Phil Stilwell 3 comments

It is not an ideological position that should be the primary goal of those hoping to make the world a better place, but rather the practiced exercise of rationality. Atheism Plus is merely a position that hides the primacy of rationality behind a tag that represents a position that may have been arrived at irrationally. If rationality is maintained as our primary goal, our various positions such as those on the god question, social justice, and humanist ideals will inevitably migrate towards a convergence on maximal rationality. Our commitment to rationality will also serve as the foundation for dialog between positions.

Entry filed under: Phil Stilwell. Tags: A+, atheism plus, rationality.

Top 10 reasons why men should not be ordained for ministry Deconversion Videos

3 Comments Add your own

1. David | September 3, 2012 at 8:23 am

That makes sense, except that AtheismPlus leaders seem to only accept one worldview as “rational”
2. cag | September 3, 2012 at 1:05 pm

The problem with calling something irrational is whose value judgment to use. As an example, I am totally in favor of confiscating all vehicles owned by a convicted drunk driver. This is completely rational to me, but others would call it vindictive and irrational.

I see A+ as being a subset of atheists who reject certain traditional male/female roles, making it OK for people to perform to their potential. It is also a work in progress, with nothing set in stone. To eliminate all forms of irrational behaviour from a group would end up with a group the same size as a group of all the people living up to the teachings of the imaginary jesus.
3. ubi dubium | September 4, 2012 at 11:12 am

Can’t say I agree with this article. A+ stems from those of us who are tired of being told “atheism isn’t about social justice” or “just stop whining about harassment, atheism isn’t the same as feminism”.

So – a new group, for atheists who also want to pursue additional progressive goals. What’s all the fuss? For instance, If a group of atheists wanted to form a group to support religious freedom in the boy scouts, nobody else would be whining about that. If you support their goals, join, if you don’t then don’t join. If a group wanted to form an atheist knitters club, I doubt anybody would raise a fuss either.

So what’s the big deal here? Some of us feel that, as atheists, we should be using skepticism on wider issues, not just the ones skeptics have traditionally tackled. And we’d like to have a safe space to talk about these issues in, where we are not constantly dealing with actual sexual harassment, or people constantly explaining why sexual harassament isn’t actually a problem. So we have a moderated forum, where we can safely discuss our goals:

Atheists plus we care about social justice.
Atheists plus we support women’s rights.
Atheists plus we protest racism.
Atheists plus we fight homophobia and transphobia.
Atheists plus we use critical thinking and skepticism.

If this matches your goals, and you feel like joining, then do. If you don’t then don’t join. I really don’t understand why anybody has such objections to a new interest group forming within our community.