Following on from yesterday's Part 1, this is a continuation of some of the views opposing Atheism+.
Here, 'Hayesenberg' gives a shorter, less thorough, but very poignant attack on Richard Carrier's diatribe.
He rightly points out the lack of individualism in Atheism+ policies.
talks about Thunderfoot's (non-)involvement and brings clarity to the definition of atheism, and its lack of status as a 'group'. The whole business of "you're with us or against us" comes under the spotlight.
Noelplum99 has a good go at Atheism+ at this link, and CardinalVirtues here
For what initially appears to be an opposing viewpoint, here's Matt Dillahunty in a video that some people claim to be in support of A+. That would be worrying, but watch it and decide for yourself.
What have you decided? He speaks well about the ideas but seems not to have completely realised the utterly radical views expressed by Richard Carrier.
Matt says that he has been A+ for years. Although he says that he agrees, he sensibly says that no member of his atheist organisation is actually required to agree.
So you have to choose between Carrier's and Dillahunty's approach. Dillahunty is sensible but on that basis it seems unlikely that he will be included by Carrier. Unlike Carrier, he is happy that other people can hold opinions that are not identical to his own.
It is obvious that I agree with Dillahunty. His skepticism is more important than his atheism, and indeed is the cause of his atheism. Without atheism he would still be a secular humanist.
And if I said that that was all there is to it ... then I would be wrong.