Arguing with friend on whether we're cult-like

[Lauren]

As for repeating what other atheists said before, it is not dogmatic if it is accurate.

That's what i said but then I tried to find a dictionary definition of dogma to back it up and couldn't find one that said dogma had to be unsubstantiated to qualify as dogma.

---

All babies are atheists is one of them. Rejecting a position (belief in a deity) requires some basic understanding of the subject, which to me makes the labeling of babies as atheists rather disingenuous.

But if your definition of atheist is "anyone who isn't theist" then it's true. That's the definition I use, being an atheist doesn't require rejection or understanding. I agree babies aren't explicit atheists, but they are implicit atheists because they don't explicitly hold the theist view point and are not theists.

Although I don't use that argument, even though I think it's true, it doesn't really contribute much.

[leo-rcc]

As for repeating what other atheists said before, it is not dogmatic if it is accurate.

That's what i said but then I tried to find a dictionary definition of dogma to back it up and couldn't find one that said dogma had to be unsubstantiated to qualify as dogma.

Well lets look at that shall we?

Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, or by extension by some other group or organization. It is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from, by the practitioner or believers.

This is the important part.

If what is being repeated is demonstrated to be false, it is someting that rational people will drop like a hot potato and move on. Repeating the same thing over and over despite it being false is dogmatic, specially if it is pointed out to you.

---

But if your definition of atheist is "anyone who isn't theist" then it's true. That's the definition I use, being an atheist doesn't require rejection or understanding. I agree babies aren't explicit atheists, but they are implicit atheists because they don't explicitly hold the theist view point and are not theists.

Sure, but that is not a valid argument in favour of atheism as it is so often used.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yeah atheist babies is a hard sell type argument..lol I can see where they're going with it, but in the end, its just an appeal to emotion made by asserting that babies are born with no knowledge and therefore default to the null. Proving a negative, no matter which side it comes from, is easily one of my least favorites as well.

[Anomalocaris]

I was arguing with a friend (implicit atheist, but simply labels herself "agnostic" or "don't care") over email who said that people such as myself (explicit atheist who tends to be quite vocal about it) are being cult-like.

She wasn't suggesting atheism itself is a religion or cult, but simply that people who spend a lot of time talking about it, hanging out with other atheists, watching atheist YouTube videos, reading atheist books, donating to secular charities, and getting all riled up about religion are acting like we're in a cult. And places like TAM are our holy pilgrimages (I've never been to TAM - that was what started the argument, I was talking about wanting to go).

Also she said we "talk funny" because we use terms like "logical fallacy" and "god of the gaps" which normal people (I don't know what 'normal people' are) don't use in conversation, and that we just parrot arguments by Richard Dawkins instead of thinking for ourselves, and we should just be quiet and act like "normal" atheists and agnostics and be nice. She also said that if I had kids (I don't yet) I'd probably be reading them Dawkins as bedtime stories to indoctrinate them.

Are there any atheists like me here who get this? Does she have any valid points about us, or some of us? I know I enjoy listening to podcasts and following what's going on in the atheist visibility movement or atheist community or whatever you want to call it that doesn't sound pretentious. And I am aware of the standard kind of fallacies theists make in their repeated, unoriginal arguments but I don't think I'm incapable of thinking for myself.

I said we're not a cult because there's no dogma, and she said that we have things we dogmatically believe, even though they might be correct we don't think them up for ourselves, just learn them from other atheists and go around repeating them. I want to think I'm a free thinker who is capable of understanding the world without just parroting high-profile atheists. She hurt my feelings, but I don't know what to say now, and I don't like fighting with friends it's upsetting.

No, she does not. Because we are examinig the same underlying phenomenon with its own causes and mechanism, (Theism, it's fundamental baselessness, and it appearent shaping by common human behavioral and perceptive quirks), one should expect that a good proportion of observant people will detect this mechanism and perceive these cause, and thus arrive at similar overall conclusions about the nature of this mechanisms. The fact that many agree does not mean we parrot each other or Richard Dawkins. Independent minded people with a respect for rigorous observation need not read Dawkins or Menkin or Harris to observe the origin of belief in god has much to do in plastering over the need to studiously attack ignorance (God of gaps) and the mechansim of continued belief in god has much to do with its permissiveness towards decadant pleasures of wish thinking (believe him cuz he loves you).

Any particular god, on the other hand, is the end product of a long string of parroting. No amount of observation and analysis, only brainless parroting, would lead one to believe a apocolyptic preacher nailed like a bug to a cross by the romans infact is the one and the same as a being, supposedly intelligent, all knowing, capable of doing anything, who impreganated the preacher's mother so the virgin can give birth to himself. Even less could we conclude with parroting that we must debase our own will, personality, or independence of intellect so as to seek his forgiveness for a crime which could hardly be a crime in any reasonable society, which we have no evidence was ever committed, and we ourselves most absolutely certainly did not commit.

[Lauren]

Well lets look at that shall we?

Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, or by extension by some other group or organization. It is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from, by the practitioner or believers.

This is the important part.

If what is being repeated is demonstrated to be false, it is someting that rational people will drop like a hot potato and move on. Repeating the same thing over and over despite it being false is dogmatic, specially if it is pointed out to you.

Thanks, I could have looked a bit harder admittedly, I think I just skimmed dictionary.com and it wasn't very helpful.

Sure, but that is not a valid argument in favour of atheism as it is so often used.

Atheist means anyone who's not theist, it's not more than that. I use it like that, I've reason to believe that most of the people I follow online including Dawkins use it like that, unless I've misunderstood them.

It tends to be theists who want to redefine it the other way around such that it's a positive belief of some sort, hoping to shift the burden of proof on to us.

[The Grand Nudger]

Arguing over the definition of a word, or shifting the burden of proof consumes precious time that the theist would otherwise have to spend providing evidence for his god. It's a pretty clear decision in the logistics of a debate.

[leo-rcc]

Atheist means anyone who's not theist, it's not more than that. I use it like that, I've reason to believe that most of the people I follow online including Dawkins use it like that, unless I've misunderstood them.

Well I'm sorry but I've seen plenty of examples online which basically assert that since babies are born atheists atheism is the true position. Which is why I don't like that argument at all. Let kids grow up first before we start labeling them.

But as I said, it is their prerogative to use the argument, I just don't like it and won't use it myself.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well I'm sorry but I've seen plenty of examples online which basically assert that since babies are born atheists atheism is the true position.

Wow, that is pretty brutal, truth by being "first to post". Bit of a stretch, I hadn't seen that one used so bluntly before..lol.

[Lauren]

Arguing over the definition of a word, or shifting the burden of proof consumes precious time that the theist would otherwise have to spend providing evidence for his god. It's a pretty clear decision in the logistics of a debate.

Exactly.

[ElDinero]

Don't forget that the people you supposedly recycle arguments from (Dawkins, Hitchens etc) use quotes extensively, and speak with great admiration of people that were heroes to them. The phrase goes 'If it's not broke, don't fix it' and this is true. You'll see Hitchens et al quote Hume, Spinoza, Lucretius, Einstein, Russell, Jefferson, Franklin and so on throughout their books because they are people who had good ideas and worded them in elegant ways.

Similarly, some of their own arguments appear flawlessly presented in the words they use, so why would I make what would probably be a poorer attempt at making the same point when I can make it concisely and clearly by using their wording, or very similar?