Some of you might remember when I blogged about the controversy over “atheist plus”. Someone disssed a hero of mine, Neil Armstrong, so I finally stopped ignoring the fence. One of my recent commenters here was kind enough to comment on another post and I went out to see his website. That got the whole thing started again. I wanted to give this a little more air than just replying in comments here. All of this just goes to show that atheism means nothing more than having no belief in gods and that atheists are as varied as theists. We’re all so-very human. And that’s what the Boss likes.
The comment (from the link above)I am replying to from “myatheistlife“:
I used âmy atheismâ in reference to atheism plus because they insist that to be a good atheist you must agree with their platform of social justice⌠which of course really isnât social justice. Itâs more feminism than social justice. They do not promote equality for all unless theyâve undergone radical doctrinal changes quite recently. Their use of censorship in several forms and insistence that even those who originally supported the idea be censored because they actually believed in equality for all is the reason that I have no kind words to say about atheism plus-ers.
When you assert that for me to be a good atheist I must agree to your social justice ideals it is âmy atheismâ that weâre talking about. My understanding of this group is not easily said in a sound-bite so where you read those words may have been less than illuminating. For the record, atheism plus is a bad choice of names in the views of many. When you read it, it does not say social justice, it says atheism plus something else. Atheism is not a world view. They might as well have said âgodless people doing stuffâ but the idea as I understood it was that atheist doesnât carry enough of a world view for them so they wanted something more but used the same name. It didnât help them nor atheists in general.
Consider the Westboro baptist church. When you mention that name and someone is unsure of who you mean as in the case of calling them the WBC, the easy way to clarify is to say those âgod hates fagsâ protest people.
When you say atheism plus and are asked to clarify, what comes to mind? The feminazi atheist club. Theyâll have to work pretty hard to get over that one.”
I find your excuse to be weak, MAL. You could have written the sentence without the word âmyâ but you didnât. Your post demonstrates repeatedly that you think you have some right to the term “atheist” and the concept of atheism, declaring anyone who doesnât agree with you a “cult” (how reminiscent of how religions treat new sects) and using âmyâ only underlines that fact. You cannot cope with people coming up with a phrase that dares use the term âatheistâ in a way that you do not approve of. If you did not think you owned that term, there is little reason you would be upset.  For example, if I saw someone say “ailurophile plus” I wouldn’t have a fit over someone else claiming to like cats *and* something else. In this post above, you want to claim that âatheist plusâ people claim that a âgood atheistâ are those who agree with them. I identify as atheist plus and I find that a “good” atheist is one that can defend their atheism, not some moral view. And you, MLA, have decided that you can call atheist plus people âbadâ. How curious that you find it acceptable to do yourself, declaring that anyone who disagrees with you is good or bad. It seems hypocritical. Continue reading “What the Boss Likes – a follow-up to a prior post”
![reality-check[1]](https://clubschadenfreude.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/reality-check1.jpg?w=1100)
Club Schadenfreude 