Wednesday, 29 August 2012

Atheism is not a religion, but perhaps Atheism+ IS!

Following on from yesterday's post about the new vile and divisive Atheist+ movement, someone asked the reasonable question "What is the difference between Atheism+ and Secular Humanism?"  From the definition given yesterday there appears to be no big difference.

The charming, respectful and compassionate Richard Carrier says:

The problem with “Secular Humanism” is that it is an umbrella term that includes more than just “Atheists” in the Atheism+ sense: it also includes humanists of other varieties, whom we do not identify with (see related comment). And Secular Humanism as such does not specifically endorse all the elements of Atheism+ but rather a more vague and ambiguous set of values, which we might all agree with, but we happen to embrace more than that, and are less vague about it. Hence, we are Atheists plus. And we are atheists above all because we are principally (just not only) combating religious belief, identifying it (along with secular irrationality as well) as the primary threat to human happiness the world over. This is something that people who self-identify as “Secular Humanist” often don’t endorse or agree with; and even when they do, as many don’t, the label is unclear when adopted, as to which you are. Atheism+ is clear.

And of course he is right on his last point  Atheism+ is clear enough.  It represents exactly those values that we all associate with religious bigots.  I will just whisper one word . . .


and then shout the words of Richard Carrier himself

Reasonableness, compassion, and integrity

All of these are missing from Atheism+.  It reminds me of a religion!

See also:
Which Atheism plus is the right one?
Not what you say but how you say it!

The Watson inconsistency and the real outrage!

1 comment:

Bruce Gerencser said...

That is my take too. Protest all they want but atheism+ has many of the markings of fundamentalist religion. A demand of fidelity to certain beliefs. An us vs them view those tey disagree with us. Exclusivism rather than inclusivism.

I left this kind of thinking and I certainly don't want to go back.