Some religions are secular- Atheists should oppose these too

[TaraJo]

@OP: It's been said that trying to organise atheists is like herding cats, because (to quote Prof Dawkins) "they tend to think independently and will not conform to authority." Not to mention you risk ending up with a faceful of bloody clawmarks.

I know, and that can be really frustrating. The religious groups, at least here in the US, they're unifying and using the force of that unity to force their religion down my throat. We can't push back because, as you stated, it's like herding cats.

[Puddleglum]

I think thats why Athiesm+ asre so appalling. They demand we fllow their silly religion.

[TaraJo]

I think thats why Athiesm+ asre so appalling. They demand we fllow their silly religion.

Sort of. It's a 'us vs. them' mentality. In this case, 'us' is everyone in Atheism+ and 'them' is, everyone else.

Hey, if they want to form their own group where they work on social activism (or social activism circle jerks) from an atheist perspective, that's fine, too. In fact I think it's a good thing to do that instead of demanding that everyone else in atheism conform to their way of thinking. What I have a problem with is that they form their own group and use it to demonize everyone else who doesn't buy into it.

[Puddleglum]

or social activism circle jerks

Thats so sexist . The idea of jerking off is so male and oppressive. I think you need to check your white privelage here and interact with your genderqueer subalternate.

[ThomM]

Most religions are based on the supernatural. As athiests we reject this. However we now have beleif systems that are entirely based on faith positions and actively seek to demonise those who try and use reason to oppose them.
-----
THere have always been belief systems that did not depend on a Supernatural being as the center of the belief. Buddhism and Confucianism are great examples of those.

And they are basically based on living a moral and ethical life -

And it is far better to be IN FAVOR of that - that to oppose anything.

[KichigaiNeko]

I think it is just human nature to turn almost anything into a religious exercise. Environmentalism= started as a sincere concern and attempt to do something about our planetary eco-systems and has taken on a religious flavour to the point that now if "you are NOT with us YOU are against us" ....

Just human nature is what I am thinking



Buddhism and that ilk have declared their religiosity too gain political clout.

So @ OP you are calling for atheists to have a non-belief in politics?? I am in agreeance with Stimbo

Thus I for one balk at being urged what I "should" do as an atheist.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Most religions are based on the supernatural. As athiests we reject this.

Yes they are,and no, 'we' don't actually.

An atheist is simply a person who does not believe in gods. Atheism has no position on any other matter,including dualism.

'As a skeptic",I do not believe in god (s), angels,demons, the soul,afterlife,the supernatural generally,the paranormal, alien visitations, dragons,mountain trolls,or fairies living at the bottom of my garden. (to name a few) due to a a lack of credible evidence.

Atheism+ seem to be a bunch of arrogant ignoramuses with whom I simply cannot be bothered.

What you are doing is antithetical to atheism.

People are free to define their atheism in any terms they wish.

I don't think you are in any privileged position to tell anyone that your definition of atheism is any more valid than any other definition of atheism.

[Creed of Heresy]

You know I keep hearing about Atheism+ and all it sounds like to me is just like a group of atheists who have no fucking clue what atheism even really means. They're trying to make more of something than there should be and this kind of thinking is exactly what leads to religions being founded and I am NOT FUCKING TOLERATING atheism becoming a fucking religion with established creeds and beliefs and organization! The creed of heresy extends to ALL creeds, dammit.

[genkaus]

People are free to define their atheism in any terms they wish.

No, they are not. Words do have a meaning that you may not feel free to redefine.

I don't think you are in any privileged position to tell anyone that your definition of atheism is any more valid than any other definition of atheism.

Actually, if his definition matches the one in the dictionary, then yes, he is exactly in that privileged position. That special privilege is given only to the people who are right.

[TaraJo]

I've been looking more and more at Atheism+ and I've been wondering why I didn't wind up falling in with them. I mean, I've spent a long time on internet forums strongly populated by the kind of hyper-feminists they love, so you'd think it would rub off on me, right?

So I did a little self reflection and I think I've realized what's happened with me and I do have a bit of a theory or two that I wanted to see what other people here think of.

A bit of my history; I've been an atheist ever since I was 20, so that's 14 years identifying as atheist (god I feel old ). It wasn't until 2009, just three years ago, that I first got involved in the ts-forum that became the hyper feminist forum; however, at that time it wasn't so feminist; that was something that only seemed to start to happen in late 2010 or early 2011.

One of the important skills I learned when I became an atheist was to question things and to look at everything from an analytical angle. Yes, that includes turning those questions on the basic beliefs of feminism; sometimes I agree, sometimes I don't and sometimes I think they're making a mountain out of a molehill. And, yes, that's where a lot of the conflict seems to come from. In case you hadn't noticed, hyper-feminists aren't very friendly to the idea of their theories being questioned. However, as I go into more detail, I found a couple of specifics there.

First, it's well accepted that religion in general has played a role in homophobia and misogyny, right? If you don't believe me, talk to someone who has escaped from a fundamentalist group. I suspect that a lot of the feminists and social activists had been led to reject religion not because of a sincere questioning of supernatural beliefs but because they've seen the negative impact religion has on their social justice causes. And while feminism doesn't specifically talk about Gods or supernatural woo, they don't even realize that they're exhibiting many of the same behaviors as religious fundamentalists: The 'you don't understand it if you don't agree with me' attitude, attacking people over slight disagreements over dogma/feminist theory, an 'us vs. them' attitude that includes demonization of 'them.' Most alarmingly, they both seem to lack an awareness that the rest of the world thinks they're batshit crazy and neither one seems to care how they're dividing whatever groups they're in.

Then there's a second group I call hipster activists: they can only object to something if it's mainstream. Yep, they'll attack Christianity here in the US because it's the mainstream religion, but when you try to speak out on the abuses and flaws to Islam, they're attacking you because Islam isn't mainstream (at least not in the US, anyway). They justify it by citing the power and privilege that comes with being mainstream and having the majority of the population on your side, but this mindset fails to notice that privilege levels don't determine truth. If just ten people in the entire world believe in the flying spaghetti monster, that doesn't mean the flying spaghetti monster is any more factual than God. What's worse, this mindset doesn't take into account that many beliefs or ideas are mainstream for a reason: they work or they're true. I mean, cutting my foot off isn't exactly mainstream either, is it?