• 1
The problem with any "group" is it's exclusivity.


Is it a bad thing that Nobel prize winners are so exclusive? How about pharmacists, or athletes?

No, if there are problems with a group it comes from the way they conduct themselves. When a group views any act as justified because it was done under their banner, it is a problem. When a group abandons its stated principles, it is a problem. When a group does not respect basic human rights to individual liberty, it is a problem.

Many Atheists already support these things. They do so of their own accord, and on their own.


Wait, if so many atheists already support those things, why do you feel it's necessary to advertise your support of those things?

This is a group that insists on it's members adhering to a very stringent form of behavior.


Do you have an example of this? I've identified as A+ since the beginning, and never had any strict rules imposed on me. From what I understand, it's merely a label for anyone who is an atheist, and a feminist, and a humanist.

Though to be honest, the "feminist" part is a bit redundant; when you look at the underlying premises, feminism is the end result of following humanist principles in an unjust world. So A+ can be better thought of as Atheism+Humanism.

So even the new-improved ASH places greater "restraints" on people than A+. And yet you call the latter "stringent?"

  • 1
?

Log in