Atheists turning to cult behaviour?

[robvalue]

You are proposing that atheists be enforced to also behave well? I think you're entirely missing the point again.

There is no atheist school, no book, no one teaching you how to behave. An atheist is just a person who happens to be non delusional. Everyone should be encouraged to be a good person, atheists included. But changing the definition of atheism to include something else, so you can highlight people not conforming to that is a bizarre solution.

Again, I'm not trying to be confrontational, my tone is meant to be matter of fact. I'm smiling and enjoying the discussion

---

I think your heart is totally in the right place, but your analysis and method are skewed by the desire to make atheism into more than it is.

[Foxaèr]

Secondly, you seem to argue its more important to make sure Atheism is not defined as a religion, than making sure that Atheists dont behave exactly the way religious people do.

When an atheist behaves inhumanely, there is no religious connotation behind the behavior. The misnomer is in the clear and unnecessary comparison you may be, or may not be, inadvertently making between relative inhumane behavior and theism.

[robvalue]

I agree, atheists should be good people! If not they suck! No arguments. But since atheists are just non-linked people, how do you propose this could be enforced in a way different to what we do now? I suppose better education in schools would be a practical measure. Teach what atheism is along with religion, and promote tolerance. I'd be all for that.

---

Atheism is not a religion. It is a nothing. It's no different than not believing in UFO abductions. It really is that simple, hence my confusion as to your point.

[SoFarEast]

You are proposing that atheists be enforced to also behave well? I think you're entirely missing the point again.

Not enforced. Suggested or at least taught in a non enforcing manner. For example, suicide should be legal. Anyone can kill themselves if they want to. but shouldn't there be some guiding principle asking one not to kill himself/herself? Teaching one to deal with issues in other ways?

Again, I'm not trying to be confrontational, my tone is meant to be matter of fact. I'm smiling and enjoying the discussion

No I don't see you as confrontational.

[robvalue]

I'm glad you don't I am absurdly logical and the emotionless Internet can make expression hard.

Sure, I totally agree in theory with what you are saying. But we already have in place the things you speak of. I'm trying really hard to understand your point. Are you saying that religion has in place certain desirable things like reasons to not behave badly, and to handle specific scenarios, so atheists need something to fill the gap? Again, in theory I totally agree. But I would instead propose that such wisdom should be taught to everyone, in schools, as public information etc. The idea of taking all the atheists aside and telling them this is what I'm finding bizarre.

Also I find it a misguided point, because there's no evidence religious people behave any better than atheists. So the religious stuff is not "working" any better than general stuff. So teach everyone to be good.

[SoFarEast]

When an atheist behaves inhumanely, there is no religious connotation behind the behavior. The misnomer is in the clear and unnecessary comparison you may be, or may not be, inadvertently making between relative inhumane behavior and theism.

I'm just drawing a parallel. The way I've seen certain atheists behave isn't arbitrary inhuman behavior. There is clearly an audience for it amongst other atheists that drives this further. Maybe that's isn't how religion works, but that's pretty much how a cult forms in my view.

[robvalue]

A cult... Again I find your words very weird. Some atheists may join together and make a cult. But that's nothing to do with atheism. Atheism does not lead to cult like behaviour, because it is literally "nothing". It's a default position to ludicrous claims. Nothing more.

---

If/when religion stops being a big deal, the word atheist will disappear. That's because it has no inherent positive claims or rules.

---

Some people choose to extend their atheism in any number of ways. That's all there is to it.

[SoFarEast]

Sure, I totally agree in theory with what you are saying. But we already have in place the things you speak of. I'm trying really hard to understand your point. Are you saying that religion has in place certain desirable things like reasons to not behave badly, so atheists need something to fill the gap? Again. In theory I totally agree. But I would instead propose that such wisdom should be taught to everyone, in schools, as public information etc. The idea of taking all the atheists aside and telling them this is what I'm finding bizarre.

Religion is a mess. I don't support it. I can see why my use of the word 'religion' is causing confusion. I'll try to avoid it.

My point is most atheists when asked would say, atheism is pure disbelief, absolutely nothing else. Agreed. But then this lack of absolutely anything else gives space to some subcultures. Misogyny, gay bashing. To clarify, I don't think all atheists are misogynists. But no one wants to do anything about it, everyone just says "I don't need to do anything. I'm just a non - believer". Yet, thy would readily take it onto themselves to attack other cultures like Islam and Christianity in the name of reason.

[robvalue]

What do you mean atheists don't want to do anything about it? What exactly can we do?

I speak out whenever I can against any such terrible behavior. But I have no inherent power as an atheist to influence other atheists. Atheists are governed only by society and the law, just as people are. Religion just muddies the water by imposing other arbitrary rules of no value which support bigotry and other stupid things.

If I could do something to stop the behavior, I would. But the link to atheism... I still don't understand. We can't call an atheist meeting and discuss it.

You seem to be making the analogy to religion, where the moderates stand by while the radicals do things that are featured in the same book. It's not like that at all. I have literally nothing to do with other atheists in the world, I'm not bound to them, nor them to me.

I'm not responsible for what other atheists do, but I will try my best wherever possible to speak against it and stop it. Do you propose more than this? I am trying really hard here

I can accuse them of not being true atheists, or sullying the good name of atheism, but that doesn't make sense.

---

What do you mean by "attack" christianity and islam? If you mean speak out against it, then yes, a lot of people do that and I'm all for it. I speak out against all wrong in the world. That's quite different to bullying individual people, or performing acts of violence.

---

This is the liveliest debate I think I've had, and the longest one that hasn't turned into the other person just insulting me or resorting to dishonest tactics. Great That is generally because I am debating theists of course who rarely ever back up a point even when proved utterly wrong.

[SoFarEast]

I can accuse them of not being true atheists, or sullying the good name of atheism, but that doesn't make sense.

Yeah, that wouldn't make sense. For me, meaningful humanistic principles can only be incorporated within an atheist. At the same time I see a lack of humanism within atheism can lead to some bad behavior.

In light of the two, I was wondering if there is a need to combine them both. Not to redefine atheism with some guiding principles, but to encourage them together.

What do you mean by "attack" christianity and islam? If you mean speak out against it, then yes, a lot of people do that and I'm all for it.

Most atheists don't need to speak out against Islam, they do. Their atheism doesn't insist they should, they still do. Their rationale for speaking out against it, is the tribal inhuman behavior Islam brings about. But then very few speak out against non religious bad behavior, even though in essence it is inhuman. How can one claim to be rational and speak out sometimes and not some other times?