A+ Atheism on the Rise

Atheist activist organizations continue their efforts to expel Lawrence Krauss from their community.  The latest is none other than the Freedom From Religion Foundation:

In light of well-documented allegations of sexual misconduct against Lawrence Krauss, and in keeping with FFRF’s commitment to feminist values, the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s Board of Directors voted on Feb. 22 to remove Professor Krauss from the organization’s honorary board.

So the day after Krauss releases his version of the accounts, FFRF kicks him in the face.  They endorse the Buzzfeed account as  “well-documented allegations” and strip him of his position.

What’s news to me is that the FFRF is an organization committed to “feminist values.”  You have to wonder how many gullible non-feminist atheists have been donating money to this feminist organization, especially given that Jerry Coyne has often promoted them.

What’s interesting is how these events are helping to define modern day atheism.  It’s looking more and more like PZ Myer’s version of atheism is winning out, such that post-modernism and social justice ideology are merging with atheism.  A+ atheism is the wave of the future.

In fact, let me make a prediction.  The last holdout  to the post-modernist surge within atheism are the Richard Dawkins’ organizations.  I predict that when Dawkins eventually passes away, feminists and other forms of postmodernists will infiltrate his organizations and take over.  In fact, I predict further that there will come a day when these feminists will change of the name of the Richard Dawkins Foundation to something else that doesn’t have the words “Richard Dawkins” in it.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in atheist wars, Richard Dawkins, Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to A+ Atheism on the Rise

  1. Mark Plus says:

    This nonsensical social-justice ideology has nothing to do with atheism as such. A logically parsimonious atheist can take the tragedy of the human condition straight: Gods don’t exist, but neither can “social justice,” because society’s losers, outcasts, outsiders, misfits, defectives, utopians, etc., have conflicting grievances that they can’t reconcile.

    On top of that, the reality-oriented atheist can also accept that man’s nature is obdurate, and that you can’t reshape it like clay into the arbitrary configurations demanded by the political correctness of The Current Year.

  2. Michael says:

    This nonsensical social-justice ideology has nothing to do with atheism as such. A logically parsimonious atheist can take the tragedy of the human condition straight: Gods don’t exist, but neither can “social justice,” because society’s losers, outcasts, outsiders, misfits, defectives, utopians, etc., have conflicting grievances that they can’t reconcile.

    Sure. But I think you’ll find this to become an increasingly minority position. My focus has always been on the forms of atheism that seek to influence our culture – New Atheism, Social Justice Atheism, Atheist Activism. I have long recognized individual atheism, expressed as a philosophical outlook, as reasonable.

  3. TFBW says:

    I predict that when Dawkins eventually passes away, feminists and other forms of postmodernists will infiltrate his organizations and take over.

    I’m not betting against that. In the long term, the politically obsessed always take over any organisation which can act as a tool for their activism, and what is the RDF except a platform for activism? The more interesting question arises as to what their agenda will be once they’ve beaten the old school New Atheists down into irrelevance.

  4. Michael says:

    The more interesting question arises as to what their agenda will be once they’ve beaten the old school New Atheists down into irrelevance.

    Indeed. The social justice atheists are New Atheists, after all. They are just even more extreme and authoritarian. Their fight against “religion” is really a fight against Christianity. Since they don’t value free speech, they are the types who will try to get Christianity incrementally equated to hate speech.

    Also, as the A+ ideology expands throughout the atheist activist world, I look for Sam Harris to eventually switch sides.

  5. stcordova says:

    ” I look for Sam Harris to eventually switch sides.”

    Whoa!

    Mike, you’ve not been wrong on any major call that I can remember. Sometimes I’m amazed at what you predict. I can’t say I see why this will happen, but hey, you’re batting 1000 for now!

  6. stcordova says:

    “A+ Atheism on the Rise”

    What ever happened to the Ayn Rand atheists? I actually really liked them. My favorite being TJ Rodgers, CEO of Cypress Seminconductor.

    SJW and A+ atheists are freaking scary. I hope the “revolution destroys itself.”

  7. You know how on The Office, Michael Scott couldn’t control himself and always had to interject? Dawkins is like that – except that Michael Scott was likeable. He will likely have something to say in defense of Krauss. I still think the guy deserves to be heard. He may act like a pig to women, but these are accusations that are murky. Also, one of his biggest accusers is Melody Hensley. Not the most stable or reliable source. Dawkins will step in it. He’ll say something that will escalate the holy war in the atheist horde. Should be fun to see.

  8. TFBW says:

    @stcordova: “What ever happened to the Ayn Rand atheists?”

    They are Objectivists first, and atheists second. Also, they don’t collectivise. A+ atheists are leftist herd animals who naturally congregate into large groups and often chant in unison. They don’t even think of people as individual entities: they must group by gender, race, sexuality, and so on. Objectivists are rightist individuals who would rather express their own opinions. Getting them to operate collectively is like herding cats. That’s why there are no Objectivist political parties worth mentioning: it’s like asking them to play a game they want to abolish.

    In other words, they’re out there still, but you have to look for them. They are also far less common.

  9. Dhay says:

    > So the day after Krauss releases his version of the accounts, FFRF kicks him in the face.

    Interesting: “the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s Board of Directors voted on Feb. 22 to remove Professor Krauss from the organization’s honorary board. The board vote was taken promptly after the first BuzzFeed article was published online.” Yet it took two weeks for the FFRF to announce the removal. Was the removal conditional, the announcement held in abeyance?

    I’m unclear from the FFRF website whether the “honorary board” — sixteen names and photos — is different from the “Board of Directors” — no names, no photos — or not. I cannot imagine that the honorary directors gathered, discussed the issues and voted, nor even that they Skyped together. It seems too implausible.

    May I suggest the FFRF is being economical with the truth, and that, perhaps, its executive officer e-mailed a recommendation of removal to the honorary board members, after which it’s taken two weeks of reluctant (in some cases) contemplation — plus a landslide of others abandoning Krauss, and Krauss’ own published response — to get the replies back.

    *

    The honorary board members (excluding Krauss and his replacement) … “includes a. Sean B. Carroll, b. Jerry Coyne, c. Richard Dawkins, d. Daniel C. Dennett, e. Ernie Harburg, f. Jennifer Michael Hecht, g. Susan Jacoby, h. Robin Morgan, i. Mike Newdow, j. Katha Pollitt, k. Steven Pinker, l. Ron Reagan, m. Robert Sapolsky, n. Edward Sorel and o. Julia Sweeney.”

    I wonder: which eight or more voted to remove Krauss.

  10. stcordova says:

    TFBW: “In other words, they’re out there still, but you have to look for them. They are also far less common.”

    Thanks for the response.

    Crying shame. TJ Rodgers blasted an SJW Catholic Nun, and I still revere him for doing so. Here’s a snip from his long letter.

    http://www.cypress.com/documentation/ceo-articles/cypress-ceo-responds-nuns-urging-politically-correct-board-make

    “Dear Sister Gormley:

    Thank you for your letter criticizing the lack of racial and gender diversity of Cypress’s Board of Directors. I received the same letter from you last year. I will reiterate the management arguments opposing your position. Then I will provide the philosophical basis behind our rejection of the operating principles espoused in your letter, which we believe to be not only unsound, but even immoral, by a definition of that term I will present.

    The semiconductor business is a tough one with significant competition from the Japanese, Taiwanese, and Koreans. There have been more corporate casualties than survivors. For that reason, our Board of Directors is not a ceremonial watchdog, but a critical management function. The essential criteria for Cypress board membership are as follows:
    • Experience as a CEO of an important technology company.
    • Direct expertise in the semiconductor business based on education and management experience.
    • Direct experience in the management of a company that buys from the semiconductor industry.

    A search based on these criteria usually yields a male who is 50-plus years old, has a Masters degree in an engineering science, and has moved up the managerial ladder to the top spot in one or more corporations. Unfortunately, there are currently few minorities and almost no women who chose to be engineering graduate students 30 years ago. (That picture will be dramatically different in 10 years, due to the greater diversification of graduate students in the ’80s.) Bluntly stated, a “woman’s view” on how to run our semiconductor company does not help us, unless that woman has an advanced technical degree and experience as a CEO. I do realize there are other industries in which the last statement does not hold true. We would quickly embrace the opportunity to include any woman or minority person who could help us as a director, because we pursue talent — and we don’t care in what package that talent comes.

    I believe that placing arbitrary racial or gender quotas on corporate boards is fundamentally wrong. Therefore, not only does Cypress not meet your requirements for boardroom diversification, but we are unlikely to, because it is very difficult to find qualified directors, let alone directors that also meet investors’ racial and gender preferences.

    I infer that your concept of corporate “morality” contains in it the requirement to appoint a Board of Directors with, in your words, “equality of sexes, races, and ethnic groups.” I am unaware of any Christian requirements for corporate boards; your views seem more accurately described as “politically correct,” than “Christian.”

    My views aside, your requirements are — in effect — immoral. By “immoral,” I mean “causing harm to people,” a fundamental wrong. Here’s why:

    I presume you believe your organization does good work and that the people who spend their careers in its service deserve to retire with the necessities of life assured. If your investment in Cypress is intended for that purpose, I can tell you that each of the retired Sisters of St. Francis would suffer if I were forced to run Cypress on anything but a profit-making basis. The retirement plans of thousands of other people also depend on Cypress stock — $1.2 billion worth of stock — owned directly by investors or through mutual funds, pension funds, 401k programs, and insurance companies. Recently, a fellow 1970 Dartmouth classmate wrote to say that his son’s college fund (“Dartmouth, Class of 2014,” he writes) owns Cypress stock. Any choice I would make to jeopardize retirees and other investors from achieving their lifetime goals would be fundamentally wrong.
    ….
    Finally, you ought to get down from your moral high horse.

    I posted this 1996 letter to contrast with what is said or could be said today! It’s so sad where we are today. I’m really in shock A+ atheism is on the rise. I expected atheists to be more rational. Seriously, even as a Christian I used to enjoy being around atheists because of their critical thinking and skepticism which was a more refreshing climate than what I experienced in some Christian circles. Now a lot of the atheists are just circus nutjob SJWs. Disgusting.

  11. Kevin says:

    stcordova: “I expected atheists to be more rational. Seriously, even as a Christian I used to enjoy being around atheists because of their critical thinking and skepticism which was a more refreshing climate than what I experienced in some Christian circles.”

    Your experiences have been vastly different than mine. I’m rather astounded to encounter an atheist who bases his views upon critical thinking. They certainly do have skepticism…about God. Otherwise, their level of skepticism is on par with anyone else.

  12. TFBW says:

    @Michael: “Also, as the A+ ideology expands throughout the atheist activist world, I look for Sam Harris to eventually switch sides.”

    I find that hard to imagine. For one thing, it seems that an affinity for extreme Leftism (a touchstone of A+ as far as I’m concerned) is a personality trait one either has or does not. The New Atheists have always tended towards elitist liberalism, which is where I’d put the likes of Harris and Dawkins. It’s a funny thing that those liberals tend to treat the radical left as pets, and the moderate right as Hitler. Meanwhile, the radical left keep saying, “liberals get the bullet too,” but the liberals never seem to notice. Suffice it to say, I think that Sam is constitutionally and by upbringing an elitist liberal, coming from Hollywood stock as he does, and doesn’t even understand what it takes to blend into the A+ landscape.

    More specifically, since my descriptions of political groupings are probably inept, I think that the key issue which prevents Sam from blending into the A+ herd is his position on Islam. It’s a deal-breaker. The New Atheists made capital out of 9/11: they took the atrocities of Islamic terrorists and laid the blame on religion in general, but usually then targeted Christianity in particular, what with it being the dominant religion in the West. So long as Christianity was the target, all the atheist factions operated in unity. But speak out against Islam, as Sam does, then the divisions start to show. Under Social Justice doctrines, Muslims are an oppressed group in the West, so they can do no wrong. Islam must be recognised as a religion of peace, and the hijab must be praised as empowering to women.

    Do you think that Sam can or would perform a pivot like that on the subject of Islam, given his track record? I doubt it. He might choose to avoid the subject, rather than change his tune, but that won’t be sufficient to pass the ideological purity testing of A+. Sam, I think, will occupy a low-profile niche, keeping his rhetoric down to a level below that which will attract an A+ fatwah on his head. Or he will underestimate the need to keep his head down, and eventually get the Krauss treatment.

    I stand prepared to be proved wrong. Politics is not my strong suit, to put it mildly.

  13. Michael says:

    TFBW,

    I think your analysis is spot on. Islam is indeed the deal breaker, if for no other reason that there is just too much there to recant and apologize for. If he kept silent about it for a few years, and proved himself a useful ally in other areas, he might be able to get away with it (with the realization that they can snap the Islam leash on him if he strayed).

    At the very least, he is going to have to try to navigate this terrain if his fan base starts to get too small. In the end, it’s his desire for fame and money that drives his decisions. He has already toned down his criticism of Islam and is now virtue signaling to the metoo movement.

  14. nsr says:

    I could never get my head around the SJWs’ huge blind spot where Islam is concerned, until I realised my own naivete: SJWs are only interested in the rights of women or gays or persecuted minorities when it affects their own personal freedom or perhaps more importantly their own monetary gain.

    I’ve long thought that New Atheism was about removing God and replacing him with worship of the human species. I wonder if A+ is taking that a step further where instead of honouring and respecting the species, each individual makes him or herself God.

  15. Dhay says:

    > [Harris] has already toned down his criticism of Islam …

    And even of Christianity, to the point where he has had to remind (or is it inform) “many” of his listeners that he is indeed antipathetic towards Christianity:

    I apparently have many listeners who don’t realise just how deep my atheism runs; …

    https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2018/02/12/the-new-atheist-show/#comment-22896

    But he’s keen to correct them and ramp it back up.

  16. stcordova says:

    “They are Objectivists first, and atheists second.”

    Ben Shapiro reports Antifa SJW nutjobs violently shutting down Objectivist Yaaron Brooks (after reporting attacks on Christina Hof-Sommers and Jordan Peterson).

    I used to feel threatened by the Ayn Rand thinkers, but I grew to really appreciate them, especially now.

    One might say A+ on the rise, I interpret it (somewhat equivalently) as science and reason going down!

  17. stcordova says:

    Sargon of Aakaad gives his account of the Yaaron Brooks incident. Glorious!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.