I'm an atheist and I know a lot of others, but none who make it a part of their identity (I'm sure some do). Like the only time it really comes up in conversation is in response to someone bringing up a religious perspective. In fact, I've had a lot of people assume I'm especially religious because I don't cuss much, don't drink much, etc.
Is not drinking part of the bible? Jesus literally has a whole story where a party runs out of booze so he uses his heavenly powers to make multiple buckets of booze to keep the buzz rolling ..
That same little voice in my head that tells me I should bite babies and squeeze puppies because it'll make them cuter. Oh my god, do you think that's God?! I should probably start following through with cute aggression! Unless it's not God, which means... Fuck you, I'm gonna get drunk at this funeral!
If god didn't want me to nosh on baby toes, why did he make them look so damn noshable? In this Ted talk, I'll explain why cannibalism is a divine mandate, based on...
It's amazing how often people say dumb stuff like that.
And, by the way, I don't actually have any issue with cussing and drinking. I was a manager at a conservative company for a long time, so cussing just because something that isn't a default, and alcohol doesn't seem to do any of the fun stuff for me like it does for other people (no buzz, no relaxation, no reduced inhibitions), so it's just not something I'm drawn to.
Oh! Right! I'd forgotten about that. I don't drink, smoke, and I limit swearing. That did lead people to assume I was religious, when the exact opposite was true.
In my experience, atheists only mention they are atheists when Christians try to impose their beliefs on them first. Which is why it seems like they mention it constantly.
An atheist could be the most altruistic, outgoing, charitable person you've ever met, or the most evil person on this planet, or somewhere in between. The good, the bad or the ugly. We cannot say anything about them other than they don't use religion to justify how they live.
That said I've run into atheist forums that became borderline cults. And I say that as an atheist and a skeptic. I remember reading a site by PZ Myers called Pharyngula which was ostensibly about evolution but turned into a cult called Atheism+ which tacked its own beliefs onto a lack of belief. It became so obnoxious it reminded me of Globo Gym in Dodgeball "we're better than you and we know it!" . Fortunately they're nothing these days but it shows cults don't need the supernatural, they just need groupthink.
Atheism+ was (is) more about bringing social issues into the discussion, rather than focusing solely on godlessness. It was trying to be more intersectional to bring in women, trans people, gay people, groups that historically were not welcome in predominantly white and male atheist spaces.
Atheism becomes more powerful when it can make allies. Together, we stand.
Unfortunately the dudebro contingent was ... unhappy with that.
I am not talking about supporting women, trans / gay rights etc. That is perfectly fine, and it was not that. Like I said I was an avid follower of that site and I saw the toxicity take hold. Myers increasingly used unhinged, defamatory hate speech and followers would dogpile anyone who defied the group think or cast doubt on his utterances. It was genuinely authoritarian and cult-like, that they were the superior ones, they were Atheism+ or sometimes "New Atheism", that anyone else was fair game for the worst smears. Luckily his obnoxiousness became so hard to ignore that he basically ostracized himself into irrelevance.
No I wasn't but I witnessed it. I saw people banned for arbitrary and unfair reasons. I saw Myers declare that anyone who didn't believe exactly what he did was a troll. I saw the vile accusations and slurs and supporters shit on people who cast doubt on these accusations and slurs. Difference of opinion was not a thing to be countenanced. Atheist groups got fed up with it and some even released statements to that effect. So his marginalization and atheism+ was self inflicted and well deserved.
Idk about that. You definitely have people who wear their Atheism on their sleeves.
But they tend to be influencers and pundits and politicans and celebrities anyway. So they were going to leverage every aspect of their personality, regardless of their beliefs.
You could say the same about religious people, too, of course. You always notice the loudest people in the room. You rarely count the Silent Majority
There are entire sects of certain religions where the main focus is on spreading their religion as much as they possibly can. They literally send religious agents into locations with the express intent to convert non-believers. This is done in a methodical, organized, and in some cases, militant manner. That's not really comparable to YouTube atheists "wearing their atheism on their sleeve".
There are entire sects of certain religions where the main focus is on spreading their religion as much as they possibly can.
There are entire departments in major secular industries and even whole multi-billion dollar businesses dedicated to marketing, advertisement, and sales.
That’s not really comparable to YouTube atheists “wearing their atheism on their sleeve”.
The big difference between Atheism and Sectarianism is that we have a very successful model for monetizing secterian beliefs. That's creates a vicious cycle of recruitment, expansion, collections, and new recruitment.
But all you're ultimately describing is a business cycle. Kellogs and Ford Motor Company operate the same way. I see more ads for big-ass trucks than I do Jesus, even living in the Bible Belt.
As soon as someone figures out how to make Atheism marketable (and guys like Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and Ricky Gervais have definitely made progress), you'll have people running Atheist MLMs in the same way the Mormons do.
you'll have people running Atheist MLMs in the same way the Mormons do.
lol bet. goofy ass opinion
This is akin to a cheater thinking everyone else also cheats. Just because all the churches run grifts for your pocket cash, you think athiests (whove been around just as long) will do the same. okay
Huh, what a reply. Not really sure what to do with this one.
Like, first off, it feels like you're trying to conflate atheists and secularism with... capitalism for some reason? Like, you understand that businesses employ religious people as well as atheists right, and that secular organizations don't exclude religious people, they're just devoid of religious affiliation?
And second, Henry Ford and John Kellogg never ordered crusades be carried out in the name of personal motor vehicles and/or oatmeal enemas. The Catholic Church literally commanded the slaughter of millions of Muslims in the name of their god. And don't get me wrong, I'm no bootlicking capitalist, and I recognize that most corporations are evil and greedy, and run by evil and greedy people. But nothing a corporation has done really compares to the violence and bigotry perpetrated by most of the larger religious sects, especially of the Abrahamic religions.
I'm pointing out that marketing isn't unique to religious organizations. And that conspicuous evangelism is what people fixate on because that's what they see, in the same way that New Atheism is what Christians see because that's the cohort of half-a-dozen self-promoting demagogues who do the Buy My Book media circuit from time to time.
And second, Henry Ford and John Kellogg never ordered crusades be carried out in the name of personal motor vehicles and/or oatmeal enemas.
Oh how totally wrong you are.
Henry Ford and Antisemitism: The Notorious “Dearborn Independent”. Ford famously proselytized the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion through his newspaper, his car dealerships, and his political lobbying campaigns. He's arguably the proximate cause for an antisemitic resurgence in Europe in the World War interregnum period.
In Germany, Theodor Fritsch reprinted Ford’s Dearborn Independent articles as books in four, cumulative volumes. In 1924, Heinrich Himmler – a leader of the Nazi Party – wrote of Ford that he was “one of our most valuable, important, and witty fighters.” In Mein Kampf (“My Struggle”), Adolf Hitler’s autobiographical manifesto, Henry Ford is the only American referred to favorably, where Hitler calls him the “only a single great man.” He continues, “Ford, [who], to [the Jews’] fury, still maintains full independence… [from] the controlling masters of the producers in a nation of one hundred and twenty millions.”
He quite literally did order a crusade in the name of his car company.
But nothing a corporation has done really compares to the violence and bigotry perpetrated by most of the larger religious sects
As often as not, they are joined at the hip. Aristocrats need the clergy to cement their social legitimacy. Clerics need the aristocrats to assert military dominance. The two groups routinely co-mingle socially, crib off one another's notes, and prop each other up politically.
From Constantine to Osteen, these people build the institutions to serve one another. Modern day plutocrats like the Kochs' ALEC, the Peter Thiel Foundation, and the Trump/Kushner business conglomerate cultivate religious fervor in their base of support to build up fanatical support. Meanwhile, church groups and cult societies that align with them are lavished with private money, while those that resist or rebel become the target of government sanction.
Ok, sure, but the oroginal post is about how atheists specifically don't proselytize like religious people do. And your argument is that... Capitalists do marketing? Like what?
I guess there are a few notable examples of celebrities that are ardent atheists (or agnostics), such as Rchard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, or Carl Sagan. However, I don't think that I see that so much for pundits unless you are talking about people that are brought on specifically to speak about atheism or religion. And when it comes to politicians, atheism is usually anathema to them. I tend to see them all professing how important their faith is, even if it otherwise seems out of character for them. The only one that I can think of who is openly atheist is Kyrsten Sinema (at least in the United States), but I don't think she uses the term "atheist."
It's almost like you are trying to say atheism is pushed on people more than 1/100th as much as religion is pushed on people. They are not even remotely comparable.
Ah, the toupée fallacy, "all toupées look fake, I've never seen one that looked real". Bro never asks about someone's beliefs, only knows that the Atheists who tell him outright are Atheists, and he makes a sweeping assumption about all Atheists.
To be fair, it's not an "official classical" fallacy. It's more of a tongue in cheek knock-off of selection bias. Pretty sure I've only seen it online.
Though I like it in cases like this, as it highlights how the group was selected based on the availability heuristic. Which to that point, survivorship bias would have fit really well here as well.
Looking back on it, I could have just posted the picture of that plane diagram and gotten my point across.
I'm 60. Thirty years ago, I didn't tell people I was atheist for fear of retribution. Such as being shunned, or getting fired from my job. Not that being atheist is the reason that would be given. That was a real concern at the time. I did get fired from one of my first jobs very soon after admitting I was atheist. It may have been coincidence, but I don't' think it was.
I also didn't know of any other atheists apart from my parents and one good friend. No surprise since no one else was speaking up either. But, I did feel isolated.
I've never met IRL someone who fully rejects all types of supernatural belief, as I do.
In short, no, atheists are not going around telling people they're atheist without being prompted. I do recommend you start a low carb diet, though, and get more exercise.
I've never met IRL someone who fully rejects all types of supernatural belief, as I do.
You have now. I think of all religion the exact same way as I think of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, Roman and Greek Gods, Harry Potter, etc.
And I don't mind sharing that belief, either. I'm not rude about it, I NEVER bring it up ony own, but I also won't politely accept their superstitions as a logical argument for ANYTHING. If we're doing something because God wants us to, then I'm against it. Show me a real reason that isn't a fantasy, and I'll consider it.
Religious reasons are the same as saying Mickey Mouse told me so, and I would have absolutely no problem saying "I'm not doing this just because your "God" says so, give me a real reason," no matter who is in the room. That's not being rude, being rude is demanding I do something stupid because YOUR psychopathic imaginary friend says so, and you're terrified that he will punish you if we don't. I'm not doing something I disagree with, just because you are afraid of your own imaginary friend. Go fuck yourself with your childish nonsense.
It helps that I'm self-employed, and my incompetent boss has the same beliefs as me.
I've met plenty online, but never face to face. As I didn't grow up with religion, I wasn't aware of the wide range of beliefs and the various terms people used. When I was first starting out in life, I thought there were atheists, and believers, and didn't understand there was a gray area in between. A deep soup of "spiritual" beliefs that people ascribed to, mixed and matched, and would still describe themselves as "atheist", and strictly, they were sometimes, it just wasn't how I thought of atheism. It took me a while to sort through all that.
I remember in grade school, when I had first encountered the word "atheist" and knew that described me, I mentioned it to a kid. That kid was my sometimes-antagonist, almost-bully. When I said I didn't believe in god that little shit was shocked. He never talked to me or bothered me again. LOL.
I try to be respectful of other's beliefs, we're all just trying to get through life, and some of us don't have as many cards to play with. That "respect" usually means I don't talk about such things with them, and that usually works just fine. But, as I'm sure we all know, there are a few who just can't stop themselves from "spreading the word" with every encounter. Them I avoid.
Hello! Fully atheist 79+ over here. I grew up in a Protestant Christian home, even taught Sunday school, but somehow never really caught the bug. I flirted with a mother goddess/earth spirits flimflam for a while when I was in a hippy phase, but soon came to my current stance: I'm glad some people find comfort in myths and fairy stories, but I don't buy any of it. Death is the end, there is no soul (I mean, look around you!), no afterlife, no heaven or hell. It's all methods of social control or (at best) self-soothing.
Luckily I've never had to deal with being ostracised for my atheism. The closest I've come was a friend chastising me for blasphemy. I pointed out that you had to be a believer for it to count as blasphemy. She also tutted about some Mexican-style skull decorations in a cafe, and I had to break it to her that it was some weird Christian thing, a bit like the Roman torture device she was wearing, lol.
I'm very fortunate in that I was raised without religion. What's strange to me is that out of four kids, I'm the only one that didn't end up with some sort of spiritual beliefs. We were all raised in the same house by the same parents, but the others... I don't know what happened with them.
I'm going to hold people at attention on an air plane while espousing the vows of atheism. Some good atheist rock music that people really do like to convince them to follow atheism. Not just any though, MY form of atheism. /s
Not to mention all those atheists who spend money advertising & billboards trying to recruit people into being atheists with promises of salvation with free videos and courses.
You forgot the part where athiests are trying to legislate that schools display the 10 athiest commandments in every class room. Damn athiests, pushing their atheism down our throats
EDIT : The point isn't whatever happened as a result of the campaign. the point is, there are proselytizing atheists out there, and OPs sarcasm isn't correct, the things they are saying would be ridiculous to happen are happening.
Under the leadership of Pol Pot, who was an ardent Marxist atheist,[163] the Khmer Rouge enforced a policy of state atheism. According to Catherine Wessinger, "Democratic Kampuchea was officially an atheist state, and the persecution of religion by the Khmer Rouge was only matched in severity by the persecution of religion in the communist states of Albania (see Religion in communist Albania) and North Korea (see Freedom of religion in North Korea)."[164] All religions were banned, and the repression of adherents of Islam,[165] Christianity,[166] and Buddhism was extensive. It is estimated that up to 50,000 Buddhist monks were massacred by the Khmer Rouge.
Like, personal atheism is all well and good, but don't pretend that shit like this doesn't happen.
There is a difference between secularism and anti-theism, and there are anti-theistic atheists that behave like proselytizing religious people, who are doing something worse than certain religious people (obviously not the fucking fundementalists). There are religious people that are using the religion to turn people away from crime and addictions etc, and taking that away from people to be an edgelord is an asshat move.
Secularism is when people are treated equally regardless of their faiths, and institutions are set up based on ideals outside of religious teachings.
Anti-theism is when edgelords talk as if the only thing that would solve the world's problems is getting rid of religion, but don't realise that when the USSR and Pol Pot did that, somehow it didn't make a utopia.
I've seen a number of problems that come with self improvement and behavioral changes through faith:
~ Let go and let God; very often God doesn't come through, and that can feel like a betrayal and become a relapse.
~ Religious faith often comes with ideological baggage. Mainline and fundamentalist Christianity, for instance, have ingrained prejudice against women and LGBT+ folk, and depending on the faith, persons of color.
~ Institutions that engage in faith-based group support such as 12-step programs are covers for labor exploitation cults, and those who have benefited from those programs are then pressured to provide free labor to their program elders. That's exploitation and abuse.
Now, I don't have figures from trustworthy sources regarding the positive-outcome rate of faith based recovery programs. I don't know if longitudinal studies exist that are not by sources with an agenda, so I'm relying on personal experience, which is therefore anecdotal. But from what I've seen, depending on faith as the foundation of your recovery is risky.
This isn't to say 12S programs are worthless. In fact they use a shotgun approach and offer several pillars of support, many of which do not depend on the second step. But 12S programs are run with an ulterior motive, so it has a similar risk as sending a troubled teen to seek counsel in a youth ministry. Buyer beware.
Thank you for a well thought out, reasonable, balanced and accurate take.
The point is more that the motivations and impacts of removing faith from people can lead to unexpected outcomes, and I agree that faith based redemption isn't a guarantee, nor the only solution to undesirable behaviour.
Thus, instead of creating a more reasonable atmosphere for atheists, this campaign was just throwing stuff out there and just seeing what happened. Which isn't exactly a noble way of achieving things.
The new atheist movement was a response to two things.
One, the 9/11 attacks, which demonstrated just how severe a threat suicide terror attacks facilitated by religious conviction could be. And...
Two, the rise of fundamentalist Christianity as a political force in the United States and the UK. Before the 9/11 attacks George W. Bush announced he would stop enforcing the rule that tax-exempt churches were not allowed to endorse specific candidates or referendums, and Protestant Evangelical churches immediately started preaching how to vote. (I don't know the specific mechanisms of religion in British politics, but it was a concern expressed by Dawkins as early as his 2002 TED talk.)
Dawkins was also specifically frustrated at (rather novice) attacks on biological evolution from Christian and Islamic organizations, who sought to change how science was taught in schools to adhere to their respective dogmas.
The new atheist movement was facilitated by the early internet, largely to raise awareness of specious religious arguments (against science, against LGBT+, against abortion access, in favor of corporal punishment, and so on) and also to assist nontheists, agnostics and philosophers to better define what they do or don't believe.
Also, atheists were (and still are) distrusted, more so than rival religions. Anti-atheist propaganda by religion-affiliated political organizations was sometimes put up on billboards and in schools. One of the missions of the new atheist movement is to counter prejudice against atheists that continues on to this day.
Since then, the new atheist movement has also a subset that helps religious victims of abuse deconstruct their faith. It turns out we have a whole lot of those coming out of Christianity and Islam, alike, and that seems to be the movement with the longest tail, and has only grown since major figures of the NAM have revealed their less-than-savory natures.
(Dawkins' arguments are robust, regarding atheism and addressing the religious debate sector. He just is an extreme dick, and has revealed himself to be so on social media.)
I agree with the majority of the things you are saying, however, the distinction between New Atheism and existing secular frameworks, ideals and organisations is the aggression, counterattacking nature that emboldened a callous attitude in it's followers. People of varying religious perspectives were able to participate in processes like the enlightenment and emancipation, and governments formed around that time aimed to replace the power of the church but not humiliate followers.
There are documented posts of edgelords who took that shit too far that illustrated the picture of a fedora wearing edgelord saying things like "oh my science" and trying to get people to abandon their faith, who were not toxic with their faith.
That's what the OP is complaining about, and the response that atheists don't congregate or proselytise is not correct.
No one particularly says "fuck the Quakers and humanists" or "Fuck the UN" because of their secular stance. Secular, interfaith dialogues take place, and instead of respectful inclusion in that, new atheists were more interested in holding up and bringing disproportionate attention to the Finsbury park imam with the hook hands who was preaching all kinds of hate.
Just fucking report him to the cops man. There are many other mosques in London that are basically an apartment over there that some guy runs once in a while for the benefit of the community to get together and celebrate an event, who has a fucking day job.
Or saying that torture was necessary and not even that bad, which is awful for human rights, and then literally throwing in the towel because he couldn't handle it when they did it to him. Abu Hamza
Heh, I'm reminded of a handful of right-wing pundits who asserted torture is not that bad in 2003 shortly after the revelations at the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal turned into the CIA extrajudicial detention and enhanced interrogation program. They volunteered to be waterboarded by SERE and cracked inside minutes. The whole US torture program affair is even worse given that before the George W. Bush administration, interrogation techniques used by the US were based on the Hanns Scharff methods, which don't involve torture or any kind of coercion at all.
But my position on the risks of mores founded on religious dogma come from witnessing the rise of white Christian nationalism, which is the result of a deliberate effort to reshape Christian morality so that it's entirely unrecognizable compared to a basic reading of the bible, hence we have major religious figures asserting:
~ wealth accumulation is good
~ leaving the poor and the sick to languish is acceptable
~ tolerating LGBT+ folk is abominable
~ casting out the immigrant is righteous
~ waging aggressive war can be just.
I haven't been able to read that into the bible, and yet the churches in power here are eager to prosecute anyone who disagrees.
It's a clear demonstration that the alleged word of God can be corrupted to any purpose, and it raises a philosophical question of why our creator would provide doctrine that could be so easily misunderstood and deliberately perverted. Despite the Protestant value of Sola scriptura, the Christian is forced to choose what ministers to believe, what scholarly opinions to accept, what interpretations to accept as canon, and what passages to prioritize over others. And for most Christians, they default to whatever values they were raised with.
Dan McClellan points out the bible is neither inerrant, nor univocal, nor inspired. Also that, from the beginning, the bible has been reshaped to fit local customs and serve as a proof text. We see this in how slavery is given full-throated endorsement in both testaments, even though it is proscribed in post-enlightenment society.
We have to, as a collective, figure out on our own what our values are. Very commonly, divine command theory serves to bypass rules of reciprocity and avoidance of harm in order to serve hierarchical agendas. And history has borne this out time and again.
More than a couple of former homeless drug addicts I know are now strong conservative christians who love trump, white nationalism, and the fascism that goes with it all.
You think they were white nationalist fascists when they were homeless? What groups have they been around since they got clean and got a place to stay?
no, as in they found a group of people, and ruined their lives to the point where they became homeless and a drug addict, then their escape from that was in a group of fascists.
Surely you know that people's behavior is highly influenced by their childhood and conditions outside their control. I'm not dismissing personal responsibility to try to live an ethical life here.
I'd guess they probably led a more ethical life on heroin than on fascism, regardless of their housing situation.
Full of? Yes, there are sadly too many innocent people in the prison system but it isn't full of them. Even if you include folks that are in on non-violent drug charges (like I was) as part of the innocent number, the place is still mostly populated by real criminals many of whom are seriously dangerous.
Your link contains no evidence of people relapsing because of it.
And personally, as someone religious, these busses were far more kind and tasteful than Christian ones, and at their worst new atheists weren't as bad as similarly crazy Christians, and I acknowledge they got pretty bad
the point is, there are proselytizing atheists out there, and OPs sarcasm isn't correct, the things they are saying would be ridiculous to happen are happening.
And yet I've never once noticed an atheist street preacher and have seen fucking countless Christian ones. There may be some atheists being shitty out there but I don't quite get dying on the hill of comparing the two extremes at all.
The point is that this community should be a refuge for atheists and a secular place that breeds mutual respect between you guys and other secular people, some of which are of faith, instead of becoming the turbo fedora that was /r/atheism.
What's funny is I have literally never even considered myself an atheist, I'm an agnostic. And I would agree that some atheists are jerks or at least too intense about their lack of belief. But I can also take a valid point, such as the one from the original post here.
I'm making a comment about the misguided motivations of the people running the bus campaing. The point isn't that "it does harm" it's that , yes, there are atheists running conversion ... plans? schemes? actions? ... out there.
No one is pretending it doesn't exist, you're being a contrarian and missing the forest for the trees. Were you also out there correcting the BLM movement that all lives matter as well?
The reason you didn't answer my question is because it would also address why a handful of people talking about and doing this stuff makes no meaningful difference.
136 replies
I'm an atheist and I know a lot of others, but none who make it a part of their identity (I'm sure some do). Like the only time it really comes up in conversation is in response to someone bringing up a religious perspective. In fact, I've had a lot of people assume I'm especially religious because I don't cuss much, don't drink much, etc.
B-b-but what's stopping you from cursing and drinking if you don't believe in god?
Reminds me of the christian apologist that said he would rape and murder if god didn't exist, since there wouldn't be any consequences
If the threat of eternal torture is the only thing keeping you from murdering and raping then you just might be an absolutely horrible person
Is not drinking part of the bible? Jesus literally has a whole story where a party runs out of booze so he uses his heavenly powers to make multiple buckets of booze to keep the buzz rolling ..
He's also nice to poor people and sex workers. That woke fucking heretic.
And he was middle eastern with brown skin. So he’s an immigrant taking our jobs too
If it takes threats of eternal suffering to force you to a good person, you’re not a good person
I curse and drink as much as I want to!
Which is a lot, and not a lot any more, respectively.
That same little voice in my head that tells me I should bite babies and squeeze puppies because it'll make them cuter. Oh my god, do you think that's God?! I should probably start following through with cute aggression! Unless it's not God, which means... Fuck you, I'm gonna get drunk at this funeral!
Honestly pretty good time to get drunk.
If god didn't want me to nosh on baby toes, why did he make them look so damn noshable? In this Ted talk, I'll explain why cannibalism is a divine mandate, based on...
It's amazing how often people say dumb stuff like that.
And, by the way, I don't actually have any issue with cussing and drinking. I was a manager at a conservative company for a long time, so cussing just because something that isn't a default, and alcohol doesn't seem to do any of the fun stuff for me like it does for other people (no buzz, no relaxation, no reduced inhibitions), so it's just not something I'm drawn to.
Curiously, I stopped cursing by hanging around with my wife's kids, who took expletives seriously.
And I don't drink because it makes me feel cruddy.
Curiously, I stopped cursing by hanging around with my wife's kids, who took expletives seriously.
And I don't drink because it makes me feel cruddy.
Curiously, I stopped cursing by hanging around with my wife's kids, who took expletives seriously.
And I don't drink because it makes me feel cruddy.
Holy quadruplicate post, Batman!
Yeah, I think the problem is upstream, either with Blåhaj Lemmy or higher.
But I've been getting a lot of failure-to-post errors.
Curiously, I stopped cursing by hanging around with my wife's kids, who took expletives seriously.
And I don't drink because it makes me feel cruddy.
Oh! Right! I'd forgotten about that. I don't drink, smoke, and I limit swearing. That did lead people to assume I was religious, when the exact opposite was true.
In my experience, atheists only mention they are atheists when Christians try to impose their beliefs on them first. Which is why it seems like they mention it constantly.
An atheist could be the most altruistic, outgoing, charitable person you've ever met, or the most evil person on this planet, or somewhere in between. The good, the bad or the ugly. We cannot say anything about them other than they don't use religion to justify how they live.
That said I've run into atheist forums that became borderline cults. And I say that as an atheist and a skeptic. I remember reading a site by PZ Myers called Pharyngula which was ostensibly about evolution but turned into a cult called Atheism+ which tacked its own beliefs onto a lack of belief. It became so obnoxious it reminded me of Globo Gym in Dodgeball "we're better than you and we know it!" . Fortunately they're nothing these days but it shows cults don't need the supernatural, they just need groupthink.
I think that's a mischaracterization.
Atheism+ was (is) more about bringing social issues into the discussion, rather than focusing solely on godlessness. It was trying to be more intersectional to bring in women, trans people, gay people, groups that historically were not welcome in predominantly white and male atheist spaces.
Atheism becomes more powerful when it can make allies. Together, we stand.
Unfortunately the dudebro contingent was ... unhappy with that.
A slymepitter, you have discovered.
I am not talking about supporting women, trans / gay rights etc. That is perfectly fine, and it was not that. Like I said I was an avid follower of that site and I saw the toxicity take hold. Myers increasingly used unhinged, defamatory hate speech and followers would dogpile anyone who defied the group think or cast doubt on his utterances. It was genuinely authoritarian and cult-like, that they were the superior ones, they were Atheism+ or sometimes "New Atheism", that anyone else was fair game for the worst smears. Luckily his obnoxiousness became so hard to ignore that he basically ostracized himself into irrelevance.
I was also on Pharyngula back then and had an entirely different experience. Did you find yourself among the dogpiled?
PZ mostly does spider posts these days.
No I wasn't but I witnessed it. I saw people banned for arbitrary and unfair reasons. I saw Myers declare that anyone who didn't believe exactly what he did was a troll. I saw the vile accusations and slurs and supporters shit on people who cast doubt on these accusations and slurs. Difference of opinion was not a thing to be countenanced. Atheist groups got fed up with it and some even released statements to that effect. So his marginalization and atheism+ was self inflicted and well deserved.
Idk about that. You definitely have people who wear their Atheism on their sleeves.
But they tend to be influencers and pundits and politicans and celebrities anyway. So they were going to leverage every aspect of their personality, regardless of their beliefs.
You could say the same about religious people, too, of course. You always notice the loudest people in the room. You rarely count the Silent Majority
There are entire sects of certain religions where the main focus is on spreading their religion as much as they possibly can. They literally send religious agents into locations with the express intent to convert non-believers. This is done in a methodical, organized, and in some cases, militant manner. That's not really comparable to YouTube atheists "wearing their atheism on their sleeve".
There are entire departments in major secular industries and even whole multi-billion dollar businesses dedicated to marketing, advertisement, and sales.
The big difference between Atheism and Sectarianism is that we have a very successful model for monetizing secterian beliefs. That's creates a vicious cycle of recruitment, expansion, collections, and new recruitment.
But all you're ultimately describing is a business cycle. Kellogs and Ford Motor Company operate the same way. I see more ads for big-ass trucks than I do Jesus, even living in the Bible Belt.
As soon as someone figures out how to make Atheism marketable (and guys like Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and Ricky Gervais have definitely made progress), you'll have people running Atheist MLMs in the same way the Mormons do.
lol bet. goofy ass opinion
This is akin to a cheater thinking everyone else also cheats. Just because all the churches run grifts for your pocket cash, you think athiests (whove been around just as long) will do the same. okay
Not even close
Huh, what a reply. Not really sure what to do with this one.
Like, first off, it feels like you're trying to conflate atheists and secularism with... capitalism for some reason? Like, you understand that businesses employ religious people as well as atheists right, and that secular organizations don't exclude religious people, they're just devoid of religious affiliation?
And second, Henry Ford and John Kellogg never ordered crusades be carried out in the name of personal motor vehicles and/or oatmeal enemas. The Catholic Church literally commanded the slaughter of millions of Muslims in the name of their god. And don't get me wrong, I'm no bootlicking capitalist, and I recognize that most corporations are evil and greedy, and run by evil and greedy people. But nothing a corporation has done really compares to the violence and bigotry perpetrated by most of the larger religious sects, especially of the Abrahamic religions.
I'm pointing out that marketing isn't unique to religious organizations. And that conspicuous evangelism is what people fixate on because that's what they see, in the same way that New Atheism is what Christians see because that's the cohort of half-a-dozen self-promoting demagogues who do the Buy My Book media circuit from time to time.
Oh how totally wrong you are.
Henry Ford and Antisemitism: The Notorious “Dearborn Independent”. Ford famously proselytized the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion through his newspaper, his car dealerships, and his political lobbying campaigns. He's arguably the proximate cause for an antisemitic resurgence in Europe in the World War interregnum period.
He quite literally did order a crusade in the name of his car company.
As often as not, they are joined at the hip. Aristocrats need the clergy to cement their social legitimacy. Clerics need the aristocrats to assert military dominance. The two groups routinely co-mingle socially, crib off one another's notes, and prop each other up politically.
From Constantine to Osteen, these people build the institutions to serve one another. Modern day plutocrats like the Kochs' ALEC, the Peter Thiel Foundation, and the Trump/Kushner business conglomerate cultivate religious fervor in their base of support to build up fanatical support. Meanwhile, church groups and cult societies that align with them are lavished with private money, while those that resist or rebel become the target of government sanction.
Ok, sure, but the oroginal post is about how atheists specifically don't proselytize like religious people do. And your argument is that... Capitalists do marketing? Like what?
all these examples are christians doing christian things.
wheres the athiests doing christian things like you said?
I guess there are a few notable examples of celebrities that are ardent atheists (or agnostics), such as Rchard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, or Carl Sagan. However, I don't think that I see that so much for pundits unless you are talking about people that are brought on specifically to speak about atheism or religion. And when it comes to politicians, atheism is usually anathema to them. I tend to see them all professing how important their faith is, even if it otherwise seems out of character for them. The only one that I can think of who is openly atheist is Kyrsten Sinema (at least in the United States), but I don't think she uses the term "atheist."
Maybe things are different in Europe, though.
Even the three you mentioned wrote and spoke about atheism in reaction to theistic imposition on policy and science.
It's almost like you are trying to say atheism is pushed on people more than 1/100th as much as religion is pushed on people. They are not even remotely comparable.
If that's what you are trying to say.
Ah, the toupée fallacy, "all toupées look fake, I've never seen one that looked real". Bro never asks about someone's beliefs, only knows that the Atheists who tell him outright are Atheists, and he makes a sweeping assumption about all Atheists.
Poor vegans get this one constantly.
As an atheist vegan, I.... fuck I've done it again.
People who think they can "always tell" if someone is trans
I feel that one also has the false positive version as well.
"Toupée fallacy"? Interesting, I only know that as survivorship or selection bias.
To be fair, it's not an "official classical" fallacy. It's more of a tongue in cheek knock-off of selection bias. Pretty sure I've only seen it online.
Though I like it in cases like this, as it highlights how the group was selected based on the availability heuristic. Which to that point, survivorship bias would have fit really well here as well.
Looking back on it, I could have just posted the picture of that plane diagram and gotten my point across.
I do think it clicks on a particularly viceral level unlike the other options. It may be tongue in cheek, but it's very rhetorically effective
Oh, you are another shot aircraft poster?
Apparently I'm not quite clever enough for that. I'm more of a "take too long to get to the point" and "hindsight is 20/20" poster. ¯\(ツ)/¯
I hand out pamphlets that are just blank pieces of paper.
I'm 60. Thirty years ago, I didn't tell people I was atheist for fear of retribution. Such as being shunned, or getting fired from my job. Not that being atheist is the reason that would be given. That was a real concern at the time. I did get fired from one of my first jobs very soon after admitting I was atheist. It may have been coincidence, but I don't' think it was.
I also didn't know of any other atheists apart from my parents and one good friend. No surprise since no one else was speaking up either. But, I did feel isolated.
I've never met IRL someone who fully rejects all types of supernatural belief, as I do.
In short, no, atheists are not going around telling people they're atheist without being prompted. I do recommend you start a low carb diet, though, and get more exercise.
You have now. I think of all religion the exact same way as I think of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, Roman and Greek Gods, Harry Potter, etc.
And I don't mind sharing that belief, either. I'm not rude about it, I NEVER bring it up ony own, but I also won't politely accept their superstitions as a logical argument for ANYTHING. If we're doing something because God wants us to, then I'm against it. Show me a real reason that isn't a fantasy, and I'll consider it.
Religious reasons are the same as saying Mickey Mouse told me so, and I would have absolutely no problem saying "I'm not doing this just because your "God" says so, give me a real reason," no matter who is in the room. That's not being rude, being rude is demanding I do something stupid because YOUR psychopathic imaginary friend says so, and you're terrified that he will punish you if we don't. I'm not doing something I disagree with, just because you are afraid of your own imaginary friend. Go fuck yourself with your childish nonsense.
It helps that I'm self-employed, and my incompetent boss has the same beliefs as me.
I've met plenty online, but never face to face. As I didn't grow up with religion, I wasn't aware of the wide range of beliefs and the various terms people used. When I was first starting out in life, I thought there were atheists, and believers, and didn't understand there was a gray area in between. A deep soup of "spiritual" beliefs that people ascribed to, mixed and matched, and would still describe themselves as "atheist", and strictly, they were sometimes, it just wasn't how I thought of atheism. It took me a while to sort through all that.
I remember in grade school, when I had first encountered the word "atheist" and knew that described me, I mentioned it to a kid. That kid was my sometimes-antagonist, almost-bully. When I said I didn't believe in god that little shit was shocked. He never talked to me or bothered me again. LOL.
I try to be respectful of other's beliefs, we're all just trying to get through life, and some of us don't have as many cards to play with. That "respect" usually means I don't talk about such things with them, and that usually works just fine. But, as I'm sure we all know, there are a few who just can't stop themselves from "spreading the word" with every encounter. Them I avoid.
Hello! Fully atheist 79+ over here. I grew up in a Protestant Christian home, even taught Sunday school, but somehow never really caught the bug. I flirted with a mother goddess/earth spirits flimflam for a while when I was in a hippy phase, but soon came to my current stance: I'm glad some people find comfort in myths and fairy stories, but I don't buy any of it. Death is the end, there is no soul (I mean, look around you!), no afterlife, no heaven or hell. It's all methods of social control or (at best) self-soothing.
Luckily I've never had to deal with being ostracised for my atheism. The closest I've come was a friend chastising me for blasphemy. I pointed out that you had to be a believer for it to count as blasphemy. She also tutted about some Mexican-style skull decorations in a cafe, and I had to break it to her that it was some weird Christian thing, a bit like the Roman torture device she was wearing, lol.
I still did not tell anyone, not even my parents that I am an atheist. I am hardcore atheist like you. Just a lot younger than you
I'm very fortunate in that I was raised without religion. What's strange to me is that out of four kids, I'm the only one that didn't end up with some sort of spiritual beliefs. We were all raised in the same house by the same parents, but the others... I don't know what happened with them.
maybe they got inspired with new age spirituality wave that came in 70s
I'm going to hold people at attention on an air plane while espousing the vows of atheism. Some good atheist rock music that people really do like to convince them to follow atheism. Not just any though, MY form of atheism. /s
Unified Atheist League or United Atheist Alliance?
Unión of Atheistic Assholes, actually
spits obviously not the uaa dogs
That was exactly one very obnoxious woman, and she did - in fact - get banned from flying on a number of airlines.
There was reports of others doing the same, but they're so few that might as well be anecdotal.
Not to mention all those atheists who spend money advertising & billboards trying to recruit people into being atheists with promises of salvation with free videos and courses.
It's the "no good wigs" fallacy.
It affects literally no other part of reality so the only way you'd find out is if they told you.
You forgot the part where athiests are trying to legislate that schools display the 10 athiest commandments in every class room. Damn athiests, pushing their atheism down our throats
"why do you see the twigg that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the SEQUOIA that is in your own"
*twiggg
I kind of wanna go door to door handing out Atheism pamphlets now.
I'd just like to thank mom and dad and the FSM for my big win!
Don't forget the Atheists banging at your door and ask you if you have heard of Atheism, your lord and savior!
Hahahaha
Don’t forget the atheist call to prayer
In atheism they let you have more than one husband or wife.... For dinner, they don't have to be your wife or husband.
Richard Dawkins has entered the chat.
Doesn't he believe in AI Chatbot God now?
Goddess*.
According to Dawkins, he's talking to Claudia. And, for some reasons, I can sort of understand why.
[email protected]
Richard "my llm has consciousness" Dawkins.
Loved watching him back in the day but I suppose everyone has blind spots.
He once blamed 800 years of Irish persecution by the English on religion because he's a complete fucking moron
He is not a scientist, he is a science journalist
John McAfee shits himself in corner
I am an atheist
I find atheists that make atheism their entire personality really fucking annoying
Be as atheist as you like but don't shove it down everyone's throat
Why does there have to be a label for the belief in nothing. Just don't even label it idk just a thought.
It is the literal truth that Atheists loudly proclaim their love for those they see as their gods.
And I've also killed all the people I wanted to kill.
The number is zero, in case people still don't understand...
Judging by the downvotes I'm getting the impression that a lot of people aren't mentally running a logical analysis of what I wrote...
Mf forgot "the new atheists" who did all that shit, plus bought advertising space to make people who turned their life around through faith relapse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist_Bus_Campaign
EDIT : The point isn't whatever happened as a result of the campaign. the point is, there are proselytizing atheists out there, and OPs sarcasm isn't correct, the things they are saying would be ridiculous to happen are happening.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide#Religious_groups
Like, personal atheism is all well and good, but don't pretend that shit like this doesn't happen.
lol, if you turned your life around 'through faith', you never really recovered -- you just switched one addiction for another.
LMAO just don't get addicted to heroin lol, git gud
Don't get addicted to Jesus, either. It'll fuck up your life.
yeah obviously.
It's late, I'm going to give a shit reply.
There is a difference between secularism and anti-theism, and there are anti-theistic atheists that behave like proselytizing religious people, who are doing something worse than certain religious people (obviously not the fucking fundementalists). There are religious people that are using the religion to turn people away from crime and addictions etc, and taking that away from people to be an edgelord is an asshat move.
Wanting to not be ruled by theocrats and forced to follow their fucked up rules is not 'edgelord'.
That's secularism, not anti-theism.
Secularism is when people are treated equally regardless of their faiths, and institutions are set up based on ideals outside of religious teachings.
Anti-theism is when edgelords talk as if the only thing that would solve the world's problems is getting rid of religion, but don't realise that when the USSR and Pol Pot did that, somehow it didn't make a utopia.
So you think this is happening, because someone bought an ad campaign for atheism 20 years ago?
I think atheists behave like that, and the proof I have if it is that bus campaign. Thus, op is wrong.
Your argument is "something I think is like this happened once, therefore the trend strong for thousands of years has been erased"
Having been in yhe recovery community, including twelve-step programs, I wasn't impressed with the effectiveness of newfound religious faith.
Also I was lucky enough to have moved on from the 12S groups before I was pressed into the labor abuse cult.
Are you willing to claim that people finding self improvement and behavioral changes through faith , 100% of the time fuck it up and don't succeed?
Some people reform through religion. Taking that away from them puts them at risk of relapse of whatever.
I've seen a number of problems that come with self improvement and behavioral changes through faith:
~ Let go and let God; very often God doesn't come through, and that can feel like a betrayal and become a relapse.
~ Religious faith often comes with ideological baggage. Mainline and fundamentalist Christianity, for instance, have ingrained prejudice against women and LGBT+ folk, and depending on the faith, persons of color.
~ Institutions that engage in faith-based group support such as 12-step programs are covers for labor exploitation cults, and those who have benefited from those programs are then pressured to provide free labor to their program elders. That's exploitation and abuse.
Now, I don't have figures from trustworthy sources regarding the positive-outcome rate of faith based recovery programs. I don't know if longitudinal studies exist that are not by sources with an agenda, so I'm relying on personal experience, which is therefore anecdotal. But from what I've seen, depending on faith as the foundation of your recovery is risky.
This isn't to say 12S programs are worthless. In fact they use a shotgun approach and offer several pillars of support, many of which do not depend on the second step. But 12S programs are run with an ulterior motive, so it has a similar risk as sending a troubled teen to seek counsel in a youth ministry. Buyer beware.
Thank you for a well thought out, reasonable, balanced and accurate take.
The point is more that the motivations and impacts of removing faith from people can lead to unexpected outcomes, and I agree that faith based redemption isn't a guarantee, nor the only solution to undesirable behaviour.
Thus, instead of creating a more reasonable atmosphere for atheists, this campaign was just throwing stuff out there and just seeing what happened. Which isn't exactly a noble way of achieving things.
The new atheist movement was a response to two things.
One, the 9/11 attacks, which demonstrated just how severe a threat suicide terror attacks facilitated by religious conviction could be. And...
Two, the rise of fundamentalist Christianity as a political force in the United States and the UK. Before the 9/11 attacks George W. Bush announced he would stop enforcing the rule that tax-exempt churches were not allowed to endorse specific candidates or referendums, and Protestant Evangelical churches immediately started preaching how to vote. (I don't know the specific mechanisms of religion in British politics, but it was a concern expressed by Dawkins as early as his 2002 TED talk.)
Dawkins was also specifically frustrated at (rather novice) attacks on biological evolution from Christian and Islamic organizations, who sought to change how science was taught in schools to adhere to their respective dogmas.
The new atheist movement was facilitated by the early internet, largely to raise awareness of specious religious arguments (against science, against LGBT+, against abortion access, in favor of corporal punishment, and so on) and also to assist nontheists, agnostics and philosophers to better define what they do or don't believe.
Also, atheists were (and still are) distrusted, more so than rival religions. Anti-atheist propaganda by religion-affiliated political organizations was sometimes put up on billboards and in schools. One of the missions of the new atheist movement is to counter prejudice against atheists that continues on to this day.
Since then, the new atheist movement has also a subset that helps religious victims of abuse deconstruct their faith. It turns out we have a whole lot of those coming out of Christianity and Islam, alike, and that seems to be the movement with the longest tail, and has only grown since major figures of the NAM have revealed their less-than-savory natures.
(Dawkins' arguments are robust, regarding atheism and addressing the religious debate sector. He just is an extreme dick, and has revealed himself to be so on social media.)
I agree with the majority of the things you are saying, however, the distinction between New Atheism and existing secular frameworks, ideals and organisations is the aggression, counterattacking nature that emboldened a callous attitude in it's followers. People of varying religious perspectives were able to participate in processes like the enlightenment and emancipation, and governments formed around that time aimed to replace the power of the church but not humiliate followers.
There are documented posts of edgelords who took that shit too far that illustrated the picture of a fedora wearing edgelord saying things like "oh my science" and trying to get people to abandon their faith, who were not toxic with their faith.
That's what the OP is complaining about, and the response that atheists don't congregate or proselytise is not correct.
No one particularly says "fuck the Quakers and humanists" or "Fuck the UN" because of their secular stance. Secular, interfaith dialogues take place, and instead of respectful inclusion in that, new atheists were more interested in holding up and bringing disproportionate attention to the Finsbury park imam with the hook hands who was preaching all kinds of hate.
Just fucking report him to the cops man. There are many other mosques in London that are basically an apartment over there that some guy runs once in a while for the benefit of the community to get together and celebrate an event, who has a fucking day job.
Or saying that torture was necessary and not even that bad, which is awful for human rights, and then literally throwing in the towel because he couldn't handle it when they did it to him. Abu Hamza
Heh, I'm reminded of a handful of right-wing pundits who asserted torture is not that bad in 2003 shortly after the revelations at the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal turned into the CIA extrajudicial detention and enhanced interrogation program. They volunteered to be waterboarded by SERE and cracked inside minutes. The whole US torture program affair is even worse given that before the George W. Bush administration, interrogation techniques used by the US were based on the Hanns Scharff methods, which don't involve torture or any kind of coercion at all.
But my position on the risks of mores founded on religious dogma come from witnessing the rise of white Christian nationalism, which is the result of a deliberate effort to reshape Christian morality so that it's entirely unrecognizable compared to a basic reading of the bible, hence we have major religious figures asserting:
~ wealth accumulation is good
~ leaving the poor and the sick to languish is acceptable
~ tolerating LGBT+ folk is abominable
~ casting out the immigrant is righteous
~ waging aggressive war can be just.
I haven't been able to read that into the bible, and yet the churches in power here are eager to prosecute anyone who disagrees.
It's a clear demonstration that the alleged word of God can be corrupted to any purpose, and it raises a philosophical question of why our creator would provide doctrine that could be so easily misunderstood and deliberately perverted. Despite the Protestant value of Sola scriptura, the Christian is forced to choose what ministers to believe, what scholarly opinions to accept, what interpretations to accept as canon, and what passages to prioritize over others. And for most Christians, they default to whatever values they were raised with.
Dan McClellan points out the bible is neither inerrant, nor univocal, nor inspired. Also that, from the beginning, the bible has been reshaped to fit local customs and serve as a proof text. We see this in how slavery is given full-throated endorsement in both testaments, even though it is proscribed in post-enlightenment society.
We have to, as a collective, figure out on our own what our values are. Very commonly, divine command theory serves to bypass rules of reciprocity and avoidance of harm in order to serve hierarchical agendas. And history has borne this out time and again.
More than a couple of former homeless drug addicts I know are now strong conservative christians who love trump, white nationalism, and the fascism that goes with it all.
Sounds like the problem might be with them and not with the groups they spend time with.
You think they were white nationalist fascists when they were homeless? What groups have they been around since they got clean and got a place to stay?
no, as in they found a group of people, and ruined their lives to the point where they became homeless and a drug addict, then their escape from that was in a group of fascists.
They seem to be a general fuckup
Nope they found Jesus and white nationalism in the same room
Surely you know that people's behavior is highly influenced by their childhood and conditions outside their control. I'm not dismissing personal responsibility to try to live an ethical life here.
I'd guess they probably led a more ethical life on heroin than on fascism, regardless of their housing situation.
Prisons are full of good christians
You have a good point, but make it poorly. Prisons are also full of innocent people. And guilty people get acquitted all the time.
Full of? Yes, there are sadly too many innocent people in the prison system but it isn't full of them. Even if you include folks that are in on non-violent drug charges (like I was) as part of the innocent number, the place is still mostly populated by real criminals many of whom are seriously dangerous.
You're taking that way too literally. My point is just that there are many innocent people convicted every year.
Your link contains no evidence of people relapsing because of it.
And personally, as someone religious, these busses were far more kind and tasteful than Christian ones, and at their worst new atheists weren't as bad as similarly crazy Christians, and I acknowledge they got pretty bad
And yet I've never once noticed an atheist street preacher and have seen fucking countless Christian ones. There may be some atheists being shitty out there but I don't quite get dying on the hill of comparing the two extremes at all.
The point is that this community should be a refuge for atheists and a secular place that breeds mutual respect between you guys and other secular people, some of which are of faith, instead of becoming the turbo fedora that was /r/atheism.
What's funny is I have literally never even considered myself an atheist, I'm an agnostic. And I would agree that some atheists are jerks or at least too intense about their lack of belief. But I can also take a valid point, such as the one from the original post here.
What are people going through recovery supposed to do when they experience a trigger, craving, or temptation?
I'm making a comment about the misguided motivations of the people running the bus campaing. The point isn't that "it does harm" it's that , yes, there are atheists running conversion ... plans? schemes? actions? ... out there.
No one is pretending it doesn't exist, you're being a contrarian and missing the forest for the trees. Were you also out there correcting the BLM movement that all lives matter as well?
we are in a thread of an image of a post that does pretend it doesn't exist, which has recieved over a thousand upclicks.
The reason you didn't answer my question is because it would also address why a handful of people talking about and doing this stuff makes no meaningful difference.