Atheists turning to cult behaviour?

[SoFarEast]

I think his criticism is rather apt. Rather than working to change what is obviously a serious problem in your society, one that extends to violent assault against women, you come to an Internet forum and start throwing around comparisons to cults, and overbroad accusations of homophobia and sexism?

Seems to me like you ought to have bigger fish to fry.

No one argues that there is sexism and homophobia in atheist ranks. Many of us here have, both here and elsewhere, have spoken up vociferously regarding those failings, both within the atheist community (such as it is), and in our broader society. To then have someone come in and castigate us as being cultish bigots without noting that he's living in a society where such problems extend much, much deeper -- well, I suppose Internet activism is cheaper.

Have you done anything to help alleviate the plights of Indian women?

Cato's criticism applies to himself. That's what he misses. He did as little by telling me what to do, as you say I'm doing by telling someone else what to do. Truth be said, your criticism of me applies to yourself.

I do agree entirely without criticism of me. I'm doing little to make the plight of women better by coming here. But then that's not really what I wanted to do. I was honestly more curios as to the merits of movements like secular humanism and as to whether people saw a rational basis in it. We have no such movements here (none I know of).

Yes, my initial post can easily be assumed of accusing atheists to be bigoted cultists. But no, I was not getting at that. And heck, if there is a way to change the thread title please let me know. It's the first thing I'd do.

I'm a young man, and have limited resources. But I do what I can. If someone knows how things can be done better, I would, I would try my best. I mean it. And I'm sure telling me "Go fuck yourself" isn't going to help the plight of women in India.

---

The reason for that is because atheism doesn't address relations between the genders, or differences in sexuality. You're stretching the term beyond its meaning.

Perhaps it might help you to understand that not all atheists are rational people. But yes, you were making an overbroad generalization.

I agree that atheists should do more to combat sexism and homophobia within its ranks. I also think that greater good is served when they address sexism and homophobia in the wider world outside the atheist terrarium -- because there are many religions which openly advocate for sexism, bigotry, and so on.

I agree. I have also admitted to being unaware of proper ways to combat sexism. This thread actually directed me to people I can take it up with if need be.

I have however been put into an uncomfortable spot having to defend a claim I didn't make, that atheism leads to bigotry. It wasn't my intention. And in my attempts to deflect these claims, I think a mess has resulted.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Cato's criticism applies to himself. That's what he misses. He did as little by telling me what to do, as you say I'm doing by telling someone else what to do. Truth be said, your criticism of me applies to yourself.

No, it doesn't. I've marched in support of gay rights. Twice I've intervened when I saw guys getting a girl drunk in order to rape her, once at a party I was attending, once after a recording session, unwinding. That's not counting voting, and treating with people without regard to their genitalia or sexual proclivity. I've put my money where my mouth is, locally.

Now, I don't know what Cato has or hasn't done about these issues on his own, but you're assuming the worst about him, it seems to me. It's entirely possible he volunteers at a battered women's shelter, for all that either of us know.

I'm thinking perhaps you shouldn't be so fast and loose with your assumptions, especially when they are so uncharitable as those included in your OP.

I do agree entirely without criticism of me. I'm doing little to make the plight of women better by coming here. But then that's not really what I wanted to do. I was honestly more curios as to the merits of movements like secular humanism and as to whether people saw a rational basis in it. We have no such movements here (none I know of).

Secular humanism is not atheism. It can have a rational basis, just as atheism can; or, again like atheism, it can be an irrational strain. People can be right for the wrong reasons -- or no reason at all.

Yes, my initial post can easily be assumed of accusing atheists to be bigoted cultists. But no, I was not getting at that. And heck, if there is a way to change the thread title please let me know. It's the first thing I'd do.

No, your original post stated the following:

Hello.

I've observed a growing trend in public interactions and online spaces in the way atheists behave. Bullying women, insulting gays, alienating anyone who doesn't subscribe to nerd culture. Is the lack of humanistic principles in Atheism leading to cult behavior?

Notice you don't qualify "atheists" with "some", or another modifier that indicates it's not a broad generalization. Insulting gays is certainly bigoted behavior. And you specifically introduce the idea of atheism leading into cultism. These are not "assumptions" I've made; these are your words.

I'm a young man, and have limited resources. But I do what I can. If someone knows how things can be done better, I would, I would try my best. I mean it. And I'm sure telling me "Go fuck yourself" isn't going to help the plight of women in India.

I don't think that was his intent. I think his intent, one which I agree with, was to tell you to get the fuck off your high horse and stop criticizing others when you, by your own admission, have done nothing on your own.

[SoFarEast]

No, it doesn't. I've marched in support of gay rights. Twice I've intervened when I saw guys getting a girl drunk in order to rape her, once at a party I was attending, once after a recording session, unwinding. That's not counting voting, and treating with people without regard to their genitalia or sexual proclivity. I've put my money where my mouth is, locally.

Please accept my apology. I was not aware. Stupid thing to do on my part.

No, your original post stated the following:

Hello.

I've observed a growing trend in public interactions and online spaces in the way atheists behave. Bullying women, insulting gays, alienating anyone who doesn't subscribe to nerd culture. Is the lack of humanistic principles in Atheism leading to cult behavior?

Notice you don't qualify "atheists" with "some", or another modifier that indicates it's not a broad generalization. Insulting gays is certainly bigoted behavior. And you specifically introduce the idea of atheism leading into cultism. These are not "assumptions" I've made; these are your words.

Ok. I admit this is a total mess. I didn't explain myself clearly and was lost myself deflecting people's accusations never trying to explain myself clearly. My intention to point out the bad behavior of some atheists was to see if anyone agreed it would be more rational or socially beneficial if people tried to identify with anything more than pure disbelief. Bad grammar and trying to defend a little too much has clearly made a mess.

I don't think that was his intent. I think his intent, one which I agree with, was to tell you to get the fuck off your high horse and stop criticizing others when you, by your own admission, have done nothing on your own.

I still think Cato was only being a dick. He asked me for where I come from, dug up some stats and posted all with the sole purpose of maligning.

I however, get the point.

Aaaaaarggghhhhh!!! I have a devouring headache! Maybe I'll try this some other time in a better manner.

[Chas]

I agree, her over-reaction certainly wasn't justification for Dawkins remark.

Sure it was. Her over-the-top reaction is not immune from ridicule.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Please accept my apology. I was not aware. Stupid thing to do on my part.

[...]

Ok. I admit this is a total mess. I didn't explain myself clearly and was lost myself deflecting people's accusations never trying to explain myself clearly. My intention to point out the bad behavior of some atheists was to see if anyone agreed it would be more rational or socially beneficial if people tried to identify with anything more than pure disbelief. Bad grammar and trying to defend a little too much has clearly made a mess.

[...]


I still think Cato was only being a dick. He asked me for where I come from, dug up some stats and posted all with the sole purpose of maligning.

I however, get the point.

Aaaaaarggghhhhh!!! I have a devouring headache! Maybe I'll try this some other time in a better manner.

Well, many of us here are dicks ... but there's often a point to it, y'know?

I like any guy who can rethink his position, though.

I don't like the idea of bundling behavioral prescriptions with atheism, myself. I think a better process is to appeal to the rational process and point out their irrationality as it arises, and combat their shitty behavior as it arises as well. Commandments seem to be honored most in the breach, but if you can make a calm appeal to reason when, say, you see an atheist being sexist, you may not change his mind, but you will let his victim know that she's not alone, and that in itself will be a tonic to her. You may also be able to enlist observers to the incident onto your point.

Of course, you may also get an ass-whoopin'. You rolls the dice, and pays your bets.

[Mister Agenda]

A huge stretch from 'some damage' to 'terrorism' don't you think. I'd think even a stray instance of vandalism qualifies as 'some damage'. You're taking a bit too much liberty interpreting me aren't you?

If all you're getting your panties in a twist about is someone who might possibly be influenced by some online atheists to tag a church, then absolutely we shouldn't do any more than express our disapproval and make our arguments against it.

I'm not making vague assertions. I'm making a generic claim which I argue applies irrespective of geographic location.

If you keep geography out of it, you can't make that claim.

So me choosing to keep context (here my nationality) out of it is sensible enough.

More like 'evasive enough'.

You mean vague concrete assertions? Doesn't add up.

Because you can't make vague assertions about concrete things? That's what you want to go with as a response?

This is completely irrelevant and total rubbish.

I'll take that opinion for what it's worth, given the quality of your contributions thus far.

Everyone is born an atheist. Almost everyone comes across various ideas of a god.

By 'comes across', I take it you mean 'is heavily indoctrinated from childhood to believe in their parent's idea of God or gods'.

Once one identifies as an atheist, he has chosen to reject every such idea of god, and sees atheism as a valid stance. A rational person only identifies with what he would consider a valid stance. Any person seeking to identify with a valid stance is also attempting to be rational.

Even irrational people think their stances are rational and valid. People generally don't think they're being irrational, even when they are.

Also, you've bypassed the whole question by trying to separate rationality and mental faculty into two non overlapping sets. Would you deny someone with better mental tools is more rational?

Would you deny that many people who have better mental tools were lucky enough to have a better education? Being arrogant about one's rationalism isn't rational.

Also, it's of no concern as to what the public consensus is on this Neil dude .

Unless you're making claims about what atheists think, which you were. Then counter-examples become very germane.

Some actively seek. Are you saying people don't search for an identity?

No.

Who said it's a humanist thing? It's a logical conclusion if point 3 holds up.

Point 3 does not hold up.

Someone has to count how many times this has been said.

It is truly amazing that it never seems to sink in with certain people no matter how many times it's said, isn't it? Go ahead and count them, and then ask yourself why you said what you said anyway.

I have to go with 'no'.

Thanks. That's the closest I've got to an answer.

You're welcome. I'm sorry that my more detailed responses before I went monosylabbic weren't helpful.

I'm not nitpicking and replying. As for all your other points which I have not responded to, I am in agreement with them

I'll try to keep that in mind. If I didn't respond to something, you can take it as either I agree, or that I consider objecting to be picking a nit.