'Plus' in the title is what makes me remember 'brights' and how quickly that flamed out in a chorus of derision.

It's a prejudice against those who strongly feel pseudo-tribal affiliations generally. Consider 'Packers Fans Plus Social Justice'. Lot of real smartypantses there, would you think? If you had to guess?
It's a problem of specificity, that's all. (People on board with their political agenda) - (atheists) = >0. (Atheists) - (people on board with their political agenda) = >0 also.

It occurs to me on reflection that the 'Atheism' part may simply be intended to marshal a perceived groundswelling of atheism towards their political agenda. Perhaps they even anticipate the problem of specificity and reason that those who do match both profiles are apt to be particularly passionate because of that fact - ie, it's a feature, not a bug. In which case, fair enough, though it still doesn't interest me.

I wasnt basing it on your characterisation of the forum (in fact, I re-read your post and a victim mentality undercuts my criticism). Also, to be fair, it was my gut reaction - I havent looked into it beyond your first post. I dont pretend this to be a reasoned position based on evaluating their viewpoint but it's nonetheless a real reaction based on their (or at least your) PR effort.

"Atheism Plus is:

1) Atheists plus we care about social justice
2) 
Atheists plus we support women’s rights
3) 
Atheists plus we protest racism,
4) Atheists plus we fight homophobia and transphobia
5) 
Atheists plus we use critical thinking and skepticism."

When I read these I get an implied sense of "...and you other atheists dont". Presumably, the target market of all of those statements is actually theists and not people like me. So I suppose the point they're trying to make is "you can be a good person, even if you dont believe in God". I cant help reading it from my perspective though. I'm not an Atheist Plus, nonetheless I also care/support/protest/fight and use all of those things (ok - I'm something of an armchair protester, but shouting at the television counts when you're over forty ).

Again - this is just an emotional response. I felt the same repulsion to the 'brights' as All-In Flynn did. I never cared to find out what they actually 'stood for' - I had no interest given the self-celebratory, pompous title they chose for themselves.

Yeah, it feels forced to me too. I think grassroots political organisations work best when they coalesce around a particular theme/movement/agenda. This feels to me like some enthusiastic atheists got together, 'had a great idea!' and decided to push it into something of an ill-defined, vaguely socially progressive vacuum - almost like "If we include every worthy cause we're bound to get heaps of people flocking to our banner! Right?"

Including transphobia? Seriously? I mean I'm against whatever they define that as, I suspect, but how often does it come up at dinner parties?

I didn't see this listed anywhere yet. It doesn't deserve its own thread, but it belongs somewhere in this forum.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/god...n-right,30087/

An interesting article the mods deleted for being off topic coz they want to manipulate theists into arguing but be to be weaklings about it when they do.

Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust
by Jerry Bergman
http://www.trueorigin.org/holocaust.asp

You should probably learn one of the corollaries to Godwin's Laws, that is to say: invoke Hitler or the Nazis and you automatically lose the argument.

I don't believe in Godwin's Law.

I think people use the Nazis in arguments a lot because their evil makes such an impression that it's almost palpable and that is strong not a forfeit.

Too bad atheists suffer so much from mental fancy play syndrome so they fall for mental sleight of hand tricks so easily.

Good and evil used to be childishly easy concepts to recognize.

Yah, I know why people use Nazis in arguments, but that doesn't make it the appropriate thing to do.

I'd consider it more GTO than FPS, but that's just me.

Yes, they were childishly easy concepts to recognize...back when we had a childlike view of the world.

I wonder if the reason for the deletion was something else?

It doesn't really matter. I hardly read the threads on here these days.

This really isn't an appropriate place for a theist to post because the lopsided numbers makes it too rigged an environment.

It's either too wild on here or there's no freedom of speech. There's never a happy medium on here.

Besides atheistic ideas are so alienating. I really can't relate to them. Evolution only belongs in a science class. It's stupid when it spills over into morality and other public spheres and the continuous giving of an evolutionary explanation for everything will probably break up the social institution of the family which is the basic building block of all society.

I can't imagine posting here as a theist unless one were interested in debating atheists.

Atheism isn't so smart.

They follow science instead of God.

Why would God reveal Himself through science when it could interfere with His management of men along a specific course?

Read Psalm 25. God has a way outlined for men to progress along though the pagans were always trying to disrupt it in the OT.

The atheists on here are quite mistaken on certain things. I remember in the past where tame_deuces accused the Christians of invading his country and disrupting it.

Well his country wasn't so great pre-Christianity. You can google and find examples of Viking infanticide. It wasn't uncommon for the Vikings to kill their children particularly their female ones.

It took Judaism and Christianity to reverse that trend and you still have nasty stuff like cannibalism still around in primitive un-Christianized societies. A state of nature isn't so nice.

Actually it's made me pose a lot of questions then research into things.

Do you know how much psycho mumbo jumbo today is trying to upstage what God has been saying in the scriptures for thousands of years?
Look at this article:
http://www.stevenaitchison.co.uk/blo...es-your-brain/


Belief and bible study has been creating positive thinking and rewiring people's brains a lot longer than psychology has but psychology is here trying to take the credit by explaining it.

God can re-wire your mind through daily bible study if you don't let scepticism and what other people think derail you.

And if Splendour doesn't believe in something, it therefore doesn't exist.

Don't even go there as you never put up an argument for anything anyway.

All you do is get personal with the theists on this board while never demonstrating anything yourself.

A "law" in the context Godwin is using it means: "a general rule or principle that is thought to be true or held to be binding."
http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/searc...on&FORM=DTPDIA


If you're silly enough to grant law status to Godwin's opinion what can I say?

People just use the Nazis because they're an easy example for people to identify.

There's nothing inherently wrong in doing that.

quote: Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies[1][2]) is an argument made by Mike Godwin in 1990[2][non-primary source needed] that has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."[2][3] In other words, Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably makes a comparison to Hitler and the Nazis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law


His law has been refuted. There are plenty of long threads on 2+2 where Nazis never crop up in the discussion.

How about you read one sentence to the left of what you bolded? Godwin never specified what qualified as "enough time"...you did. You also need to learn what "approaches 1" means. So, nope, his law has not been refuted.

Then he's unprovable because a discussion could continue indefinitely....

So it's his opinion...not a law.

Besides there could be a group of people who never heard of Nazis having an online discussion.

Now you're getting it!

A thread wouldn't be likely to grow sufficiently large if its composers consisted of those whom have never heard of Hitler.

You're more tenacious than a French bulldog puppy, aren't you?

http://specials.msn.com/msnvideo/vid...om=en-us_msnhp

Dear God, Splendour put a smile on my face. What is the world coming to?

I was just agreeing with you. If you get value out of it, that's good.

I don't think I'd bother though - presumably there are theistic forums where people share their religious views without worrying about being challenged on them by atheists.

Meh, debating atheists gets old. They mostly say the say things over and over.

Well, I agree again really.

For different reasons I'm sure

Really I find most of the arguing senseless.

Like the questions on why does God allow suffering.

It's irrelevant. It's really just a phase to be passed through.

We're in impermanent bodies. We're promised better ones.

How do you get from the impermanent ones to the better ones?

You have to die and that includes suffering.

But people like to complain about this when one of the big examples of the Hebrews in the Wilderness is that complaining will get you nowhere.

I don't even worry about suffering though like anyone else I'd like to avoid it.

This life is temporary and over analyzing things can produce weak mindsets where you object to and over value the small things and neglect to value the great ones.