Atheists turning to cult behaviour?

[abaris]

Kinda of what I'm trying to get at. Should pure atheism be necessarily followed up by a few humanistic principles? Pure atheism itself doesn't actually ensure any less madness.

As has been said a million times. Atheism is nothing more than the disbelief in a higher being. It's not an organisation and it's certainly not a religion. People defining themselves as atheists have greatly differing opinions on most other aspects of life.

So in short, I don't know what you're getting at.

[ManMachine]

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? Or what else explains this?

It may not be a religion, but most atheists behave exactly like members of organized religion. Sorry if this has been brought up before. It's a worrying trend. A lot of late teen, early 20 atheists I've met won't think twice before using 'cunt' or 'faggot', or other such forms merciless insulting.

This is explained by human behaviour both adolescent anti-authoritarian behaviour (very normal) and pack behaviour (where the pack follows the behaviour of the charismatic leader, and maintains that behaviour as it's norm even long after the originator of the behaviour has departed/left/died).

MM

[robvalue]

Er.... erm.... uhm...

My mind is just spinning round on the spot

Sure, humanism is incredibly important and should be combined with everyone. That includes atheists. I understand what you're saying, but I see no practical way of encouraging atheists specifically to be humanists in a way that is more productive than just encouraging everyone to be. Is your point that religion makes it harder to encourage humanism? I think that it certainly does, because they have self-imposed barriers, and divinely inspired prejudices messing everything up.

How can you speak out against atheist behaviour? I speak out against any bad behaviour. Pointing out that the person is an atheist is like pointing out they like toast. Their idea of atheism and their own extensions of it may be causing problems, in which case you can point out what these problems are and why they shouldn't be making atheism into something bad.

Once again, I agree with the sentiment, but I have no idea how it could be practically put into action. It's simple to blame stuff on religion, and credible, because they do actively worship a book that condones that bad stuff. They refuse to alter the book, or get a new book. They validate that bad stuff.

But atheism is just... nothing. It's a blank canvas. One atheist's canvas is nothing like, or in any way guided or restricted by, any general template. So how you point out that a crime is "non-religiously motivated" is what I'm having trouble with.

[SoFarEast]

As has been said a million times. Atheism is nothing more than the disbelief in a higher being. It's not an organisation and it's certainly not a religion. People defining themselves as atheists have greatly differing opinions on most other aspects of life.

So in short, I don't know what you're getting at.

You quoted what I was trying to get at. To rephrase,

Should pure atheism be necessarily followed up by a few humanistic principles?

If atheistm isn't about anything then why get together in conferences? And if you are getting together, why not for something positive?

[robvalue]

We're getting together for support as a persecuted minority, and to try and release the privileged and harmful hold religion has on society. They are the positive reasons for specifically atheists to get together. Some atheists may get together for negative reasons too, such as to go kill christians or something.

Anything else is just people getting together.

Again, I'm all for it. If all atheists were humanist as well, that would be great. But how can you possibly go about achieving that specifically? If you replace the word atheist with sane or non-delusional then hopefully you'll see my point.

Can we make being sane also about being humanist? See what I mean? To me, the words are interchangeable in practical terms. Even "adult" fits well, since religious people are essentially still children when it comes to viewing reality.

---

Imagine a headline on the news: "Sane person kills 3 people."

It doesn't make sense or add anything. You can't point to it being something that is in itself nothing more than default.

---

What you could point to, is stuff like atheism+. But that is by definition, not atheism. I'm not saying I am pointing at them, I know very little about it. I just mean it would be a meaningful claim.

[SoFarEast]

How can you speak out against atheist behaviour? I speak out against any bad behaviour. Pointing out that the person is an atheist is like pointing out they like toast. Their idea of atheism and their own extensions of it may be causing problems, in which case you can point out what these problems are and why they shouldn't be making atheism into something bad.

Yeah. No one can just have "Atheism". Each has extensions. There are scientific atheists, rational atheists but also fascist atheists, racist atheists. But the problem I feel is the generic idea of atheism which everyone claims to identify with is pure non belief. Yet, the extensions are inevitable. Why not append the emptiness of pure atheism into something meaningful?

Once again, I agree with the sentiment, but I have no idea how it could be practically put into action. It's simple to blame stuff on religion, and credible, because they do actively worship a book that condones that bad stuff. They refuse to alter the book, or get a new book. They validate that bad stuff.

Yes again! it seems much easier to blame religion. But then again religion might only be an excuse for inhumane behavior, mullahs are probably drunk with idea of power. But when an atheist indulges in bad behavior in the name of freedom, and when others say it's not my problem "I'm just a non believer". How do you deal with that?

I'm clueless too as to what the solution is.

But atheism is just... nothing. It's a blank canvas. One atheist's canvas is nothing like, or in any way guided or restricted by, any general template. So how you point out that a crime is "non-religiously motivated" is what I'm having trouble with.

I'm not claiming they are non-religiously motivated. Just that pure atheism, arguably more logical than religion, is however insufficient,

---

This is explained by human behaviour both adolescent anti-authoritarian behaviour (very normal) and pack behaviour (where the pack follows the behaviour of the charismatic leader, and maintains that behaviour as it's norm even long after the originator of the behaviour has departed/left/died).

MM

Thank you. Pack behavior. That sums it up perfectly.

[CapnAwesome]

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? Or what else explains this?

It may not be a religion, but most atheists behave exactly like members of organized religion. Sorry if this has been brought up before. It's a worrying trend. A lot of late teen, early 20 atheists I've met won't think twice before using 'cunt' or 'faggot', or other such forms merciless insulting.

What the fuck are you talking about??

[robvalue]

I think we're in total agreement with what would be ideal, in that all atheists would also by choice be humanists. That would be fantastic, and a great thing to encourage.

But I think we also agree that we have no idea how you could achieve that Any way to try and enforce it would be a contradiction in terms! We already have laws, and people should be trying to raise their children well.

And I totally agree, people use religion as excuse. People hate gays, they hate blacks, whatever. But instead of admitting they have no good reason other than a gut reaction, they hold up religion as a viable explanation. That is despicable. No one has done, or can do, the same thing with atheism because there is nothing to hide behind.

Well, some crazy person might have tried to I suppose.

[SoFarEast]

What you could point to, is stuff like atheism+. But that is by definition, not atheism.

Agree with you entirely. I am not redefining atheism, don't want to do it surely. I just hope that atheists would start addressing some severe problems in their midst, without the "Don't ask me, I'm just a disbeliever" or "It's called freedom".

[robvalue]

Well... yes, if someone is saying they don't care that someone else is behaving badly, then that is sad.

I don't think I've ever heard anyone use the excuses you cite though, except against ridiculous theist accusations. So I haven't experienced the problem you describe. Sure, some people don't give a fuck about anyone else, and some of them are atheists. But I've not heard anyone hold up atheism as part of their "defence".

The only way it becomes an issue is when religious people say things like, "You atheists caused Hitler! You atheists have no morals! You atheists..."

The response to this is that they are attacking a strawman. Religious people need educating on what the fuck atheism is.

If someone is accusing me of being part of "a group" that is responsible for something, then I am quite within my rights to say I am not part of that group. I will happily get on board and address the bad behaviour in question, but I'm not going to take responsibility personally. How could that work?

---

Just out of interest SFE, are you not identifying as an atheist? I see you have irrelegious down, and people on the forum have all sorts of weird stuff in their description.

But even if you don't call yourself an atheist, you are one, if you don't believe god claims. It's just the definition.

---

Personally, I choose to put the word atheist forward specifically just to help the overall movement. The more people there are openly calling themselves the same thing, the easier it gets to become one more of them.

Of course, I'm not trying to suggest I look badly on another atheist who chooses to not immediately identify as such. There's no such atheist dogma But from the point of view of a religious guy who is on the fence of jumping ship, seeing lots and lots of "atheists" is more reassuring than hundreds of different definitions and ways of saying the same thing, but which may not be obvious as such. If you see what I mean

Just like the gay movement. I'd call myself gay, rather than different, specially-sexualled, curious.... I don't know, I'm making these words up. But I hope you get my point