Atheists Criticizing Other Atheists

[Youssuf Ramadan]

Many people in China are atheists, they don't believe in God, but don't necessarily subscribe to those other beliefs.

Indeed.  And not just China.  It has often been said that religious belief is something of a smorgasbord in that people take what they want and leave everything else.  For many, this applies to other areas of life too.

[Naberius]

I come from a country called Romania that was under communist rule for 44 years. These people were atheists, do you know what they did? They made prostitution illegal, they never legalized gay marriage, they were not pro-choice, they demolished churches, they controlled the entire economy and there was no economic freedom, they controlled the press, people who spoke out against them were killed without trial.

They were only atheists in the sense that they abolished the Eastern Orthodoxy.  They were still just as dogmatic and religious to their Stalinist tract, with one institution superceding the other, so I wouldn't afford them the title of atheist like you and I.

While religions can certainly bring out the worst in humanity, so can other ideologies, or even no ideology at all.People aren't naturally inclined to goodness.

You can't exactly speak for anyone else when you make this claim.  This was obviously shaped by your personal experience and its regrettable that you believe it.  "Goodness" and "badness" aren't so much states of being as they are consequences to actions, and I would argue that people the world over are consistently demonstrating their tendency to do good for one another.  Moreover, I certainly wouldn't call atheism an ideology.  Ideologies are codified and systemic, with a guided purpose that requires conforming participants for use on the political battlefield.  A tea partier is an ideologue.  An atheist parties with tea.

But atheism is just disbelieving in gods, who said that they need to hold any particular political view? Where is the logical pathway from atheism to being a leftist or rightist? PZ Myers has no right to dictate what other atheists should or should not believe.

He doesn't have the right, as you say.  But it's his prerogative as a so-called militant atheist to deploy his humanist values into all his areas of interest, and so why not include politics and cultivate a following, as others have done?  It's a wonderful alternative compared to what others are pushing.

They may not believe in gods but they can hold other irrational or bizarre opinions. They can even twist science for their own agenda just like creationists.

Agreed.  

if you consider folks like calpurnpiso or atheismdefended (both YouTubers) who say that "religion is a mental illness" even though that's not factually accurate and no reputable psychiatrist would ever agree with them.

Richard Dawkins was told by a variety of colleagues not to name his book the God Delusion for this very reason.  Certainly it's not a mental illness as coloured by the DSM-V.  But because religion emulates behaviour that we would otherwise consider abnormal (a cracker is the body of Christ, say)then we do have at the very least a poetic license to use such terms.

Atheists aren't rational by default, some of them are racists, some of them are communists, some of them hold ridiculous political views that would never work like Atheism+, some of them publish libelous rape accusations if you consider the whole fiasco with Freethought Blogs publishing third hand accounts of rape accusations against Michael Shermer.

Yes, that is a problem.

In conclusion, I don't find atheists to be particularly more rational or more moral compared to believers, I think atheists often call themselves "rationalists", "skeptical" and "logical" with little to back it up, and I'm not very fond of atheist supremacism in general.

I cannot agree with this claim.  Atheists are categorically more rational compared to believers, and probably morally as well depending on what you mean and which religion is on the table.  "Atheist supremacism" isn't something I encounter very often, maybe because you coined it.  I take it to mean atheists think they're superior to believers.  Certainly this is true on a macro-level.  We're on the side of science, we're on the side of progress.  No matter what kind of father, what kind of spouse, what kind of rugby coach a believer is, s/he will always remain fundamentally flawed because his/her beliefs do not conform to the evidence of reality, and their entire life and the lives around them will have been informed by bad decisions because of this at some point.

[Solitary]

This is the reason I prefer to be called a freethinker and humanist. A disbelief in God is all it means, and nothing more.  :roll:  Solitary

[barbarian]

This is the reason I prefer to be called a freethinker and humanist. A disbelief in God is all it means, and nothing more.  :roll:  Solitary

I always hear that free thinker and humanist I don't mind being referred to as that, but I would much rather be known as an independent thinker and good people or company.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Call me whatever you want, but I simply don't buy the bullshit of religion.  If the magic man in the sky gave one rats ass this site wouldn't exist. We would all currently be burning in H E double hockey sticks.

Ok, I'm at the YMCA. You're obviously right. I'm in hockey stick heck.  :roll:

[VladK]

They were only atheists in the sense that they abolished the Eastern Orthodoxy.  They were still just as dogmatic and religious to their Stalinist tract, with one institution superceding the other, so I wouldn't afford them the title of atheist like you and I.

They were certainly atheist, it would be a No True Scotsman to say that they were not. They also claimed to be pro-science, pro-reason, while obviously practicing neither.

Our Program is based entirely on the scientific, and moreover the materialist, world-outlook. An explanation of our Program, therefore, necessarily includes an explanation of the true historical and economic roots of the religious fog. Our propaganda necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism; the publication of the appropriate scientific literature, which the autocratic feudal government has hitherto strictly forbidden and persecuted, must now form one of the fields of our Party work. We shall now probably have to follow the advice Engels once gave to the German Socialists: to translate and widely disseminate the literature of the eighteenth-century French Enlighteners and atheists.

http://www.newyouth.com/archives/classi ... igion.html

You can't exactly speak for anyone else when you make this claim.  This was obviously shaped by your personal experience and its regrettable that you believe it.  "Goodness" and "badness" aren't so much states of being as they are consequences to actions, and I would argue that people the world over are consistently demonstrating their tendency to do good for one another.

They can do good, but let's not overestimate our capacity for goodness (or for rationality for that matter). People have done bad things, or at the very least acted in self-serving ways, for a variety of reasons. Religion is just one of them. Non-religious ideologies is another. They have also acted in ways that harmed (or at least do not help) their fellow man for money, sex, power, status, family, their pet dog and sometimes for purely sadistic purposes. It's pretty important to point out these things, especially to the kind of militant atheists who have somehow come to believe that religion is the ultimate bane of humanity or something and if only we can get rid of it we will enter into the "age of science" and create some kind of earthly paradise. Yeah right...

Take this guy for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soZc8l2Fcn8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCrr0NqXxbY
"100 years after religion is dead and gone, what will the world look like? In this video Dusty takes a look at the century following the death of religion."

Moreover, I certainly wouldn't call atheism an ideology.  Ideologies are codified and systemic, with a guided purpose that requires conforming participants for use on the political battlefield.

Sure, I was mainly referring to non-religious ideologies, capitalism, communism, feudalism, feminism, centrism whatever you can think of that is a belief system without God behind it. All can be taken too far by humans and it's also argued that some of these ideologies (like communism for example) are inherently flawed no matter how you approach them, I'd certainly agree with that.

A tea partier is an ideologue.  An atheist parties with tea.

An atheist can be an ideologue of anything, including the tea party ideology. It certainly has a somewhat appealing side in that it supposedly stands for smaller government. I would like to see something resembling the tea party minus the dumbass social conservatism and maybe slightly less extreme in economic terms because you can't have ZERO regulation. You also can't credibly support small government in economic terms while supporting big government in the private lives of citizens. I've actually talked to a tea partier who wanted to ban pornography *facepalm*. Yeah, cause that's "freedom".

But given the NSA mass spying, the loss of economic freedom (some charts don't even listen USA in the top 10 economically free countries anymore), the bailouts, the stupidly high debt the US has, not surprised that many Americans want smaller government though. I dunno, maybe I'm just an outsider, but it seems like it's been demonized more than necessary.

He doesn't have the right, as you say.  But it's his prerogative as a so-called militant atheist to deploy his humanist values into all his areas of interest, and so why not include politics and cultivate a following, as others have done?  It's a wonderful alternative compared to what others are pushing.

The problem I see is he is not just an atheist who disagrees with other atheists and is interested in debate. I've seen how he bans people, calling them "trolls" or "sexists" even when they're not. He just wants to impose his ideology on other atheists and "excommunicate" those who disagree with his politics. Not surprising considering he is a key member in the "Atheism+ movement". They are very radical and exclusionary. Since its inception it has been all about imposing ideological purity on New Atheist activists. Read this critique: http://thunderf00tdotorg.wordpress.com/ ... agreement/

Richard Dawkins was told by a variety of colleagues not to name his book the God Delusion for this very reason.  Certainly it's not a mental illness as coloured by the DSM-V.  But because religion emulates behaviour that we would otherwise consider abnormal (a cracker is the body of Christ, say)then we do have at the very least a poetic license to use such terms.

I don't mind the title, since delusion can mean being very wrong about something. It doesn't necessarily imply theists are mentally ill.

I cannot agree with this claim.  Atheists are categorically more rational compared to believers, and probably morally as well depending on what you mean and which religion is on the table.  "Atheist supremacism" isn't something I encounter very often, maybe because you coined it.  I take it to mean atheists think they're superior to believers.  Certainly this is true on a macro-level.  We're on the side of science, we're on the side of progress.  No matter what kind of father, what kind of spouse, what kind of rugby coach a believer is, s/he will always remain fundamentally flawed because his/her beliefs do not conform to the evidence of reality, and their entire life and the lives around them will have been informed by bad decisions because of this at some point.

Well, as I said, there are more objective ways to prove they're so super intelligent, okay maybe Dawkins or Thunderf00t are smart (they are scientists after all) but the average YouTube atheist would probably not invited to join Mensa or some other organization for high IQ people. Likewise, some of the most popular YouTube atheists (like TheAmazingAtheist) are high school or college dropouts, yeah science and education for the win LOL, plus given all the widespread drama with Coughlan and Keane and even smart (when it comes to hard science anyway) people like Thunderf00t and others it doesn't appear that they're particularly social people either capable of resolving conflicts maturely and "rationally" so that's another black ball on the claim that these are exceptional individuals.

No matter what kind of father, what kind of spouse, what kind of rugby coach a believer is, s/he will always remain fundamentally flawed because his/her beliefs do not conform to the evidence of reality, and their entire life and the lives around them will have been informed by bad decisions because of this at some point.

Oh I dunno, take a more extreme example: Islamic jihadists. They may have irrational religious or political beliefs, but some of them are engineers or chemists (with university degrees too) and can craft very dangerous and effective explosives. Irrational beliefs in one aspect of life don't necessarily spread to the other.

So why would a coach be less of a coach if he's a believer? The only thing that matters is his ability to get people in shape and make them win the game. Because "his/her beliefs do not conform to the evidence of reality"? I wonder how many people in general have correct beliefs about everything? Not many. Can we even tell all the time?

We're all on the side of progress? Well, I think you might want to re-check that. It doesn't even matter too much how you define progress, it's very easy to find a regressive atheist by any standards. I wouldn't consider for example someone who claims "end human rights now because of overpopulation" to be progressive, and I could give other examples of so called "progressives" taking us backward, but that's just going to turn off-topic too much so I'll stop here. You got the idea.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Atheists are just humans, and thus liable to be total cunts just as much as anyone else.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

The reason I brought up Atheism+ is because it's an example of why you cannot have a united "atheist house" or "community". I personally find them so obnoxious and confrontational that they're about as desirable to me as Scientology.

Spot on.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Being organised doesn't have to be this obnoxious. It's the American pop culture and the way these people interact make it this obnoxious.

:eyeroll:

Stated principles are one thing, how they are applied is another, and it has little to do with one's nation of birth.  There are dissimulative extremists in every culture you care to look at.

[VladK]

Thunderf00t became a YouTube celebrity (at least 100k subs I think and that was years ago, not to mention millions of views) because of his early science videos "Why Do People Laugh At Creationists" where he explained in scientific terms why creationists are wrong. He barely talked about feminism before.

We are...
Atheists plus we care about social justice,
Atheists plus we support women's rights,
Atheists plus we protest racism,
Atheists plus we fight homophobia and transphobia,
Atheists plus we use critical thinking and skepticism.

This may not seem radical at first glance, but that's just the surface of it. It's not the complete picture. The reality includes more than that. You should read some of the statements made by core founding members like Richard Carrier or Jen McCreight, or the members of the Atheism+ forums. Also the extent of their support for social justice, women's rights, anti-racism etc.

Take for example this claim: https://twitter.com/jennifurret/status/ ... 6825350145

"Dear smug humanists: My critique of the atheist movement included you. Your groups are infamous for being mostly old, white, men"

Now replace a few words and tell me if this sounds racist or at the very least race baiting:

"Dear smug rappers: My critique of the hip-hop scene included you. Your groups are infamous for being mostly young, black, men"

Am I supposed to take seriously the claim that they "protest racism", especially when some of them accuse Pat Condell of being a secret racist for criticizing Islam too much? It seems there is quite a big gap between what racism objectively means and what they want it to mean.

Here is another thing, Richard Carrier's claim that you're either with them (atheism+) or you're an evil bigot who should be shunned. We've heard it all before, the whole "you're either with us or against us" and we're not buying it. It is exactly an attempt to impose ideological purity and avoid debating the issues. The easier way to "win" when you have an ideology you want to promote, is to convince others that your opponents are terrible people (bigots, racists, sexists, non-compassionate, trolls etc.).

Their claim to be pro-skepticism is without merit, I mean completely without merit. Their forum allows less dissent than many creationist forums. Everything is heavily regulated, censored and very little criticism of Atheism+, its people, its values, its intentions is allowed.

I also don't like the way they intend to supposedly promote "women's rights" because they use extremely biased concepts like "male privilege" and complain about trivial stuff like damsels in distress in videos games (they support Anita Sarkesian's videos).

[Naberius]

They were certainly atheist, it would be a No True Scotsman to say that they were not.

I never said they weren't atheists, only that the movement that followed was organized in such a way that it had become analogous to religious fervour.  My point is I wouldn't lump them in with the New Atheists.

They can do good, but let's not overestimate our capacity for goodness (or for rationality for that matter). People have done bad things, or at the very least acted in self-serving ways, for a variety of reasons. Religion is just one of them. Non-religious ideologies is another. They have also acted in ways that harmed (or at least do not help) their fellow man for money, sex, power, status, family, their pet dog and sometimes for purely sadistic purposes. It's pretty important to point out these things, especially to the kind of militant atheists who have somehow come to believe that religion is the ultimate bane of humanity or something and if only we can get rid of it we will enter into the "age of science" and create some kind of earthly paradise. Yeah right...

I don't dispute this on a case-by-case basis, but if we were looking quantitatively at inhumanity thoughout history, anything done in the name of "non-religious ideology" would be all but eclipsed by religion by several orders of magnitude.  I suspect its eradication wouldn't bring about an earthly paradise, if such a thing is even likely, but at the very least it would be an improvement.  

The problem I see is he is not just an atheist who disagrees with other atheists and is interested in debate. I've seen how he bans people, calling them "trolls" or "sexists" even when they're not. He just wants to impose his ideology on other atheists and "excommunicate" those who disagree with his politics. Not surprising considering he is a key member in the "Atheism+ movement". They are very radical and exclusionary. Since its inception it has been all about imposing ideological purity on New Atheist activists.

Fair enough.

So why would a coach be less of a coach if he's a believer? The only thing that matters is his ability to get people in shape and make them win the game. Because "his/her beliefs do not conform to the evidence of reality"? I wonder how many people in general have correct beliefs about everything? Not many. Can we even tell all the time?

Let's forget the coach example.  Take Tom Cruise.  Very talented, high-octane man who's great at what he does.  Also a scientologist.  The personal, emotional damage subscribing to that asinine belief system would have had zero impact on the life of an equally successful albeit non-religious actor.  Having a world-view informed by said belief system is going to cause an individual to behave in any number of ways not congruous with a healthy mind no matter any other positive outcomes of their lifestyle.  You might argue that there are a variety of non-religious people who are also malfunctioning, but remember I'm speaking quantitatively.

We're all on the side of progress? Well, I think you might want to re-check that. It doesn't even matter too much how you define progress, it's very easy to find a regressive atheist by any standards. I wouldn't consider for example someone who claims "end human rights now because of overpopulation" to be progressive, and I could give other examples of so called "progressives" taking us backward, but that's just going to turn off-topic too much so I'll stop here. You got the idea.

As you said, there are bad apples in all disciplines.  But on the whole I'm reporting on what I've observed of the atheist mind vis-à-vis the religious one.  I'll admit, I'm not familiar with all the youtube atheists or the drama there.

[Shol'va]

I also have had the misfortune of having lived under Ceausescu for a number of years, and have a different perspective on this whole "atheists did this". But, I am out of time so this will have to wait for another occasion.
Suffice to say that laying this at the feet of atheism is folly, as it is to say the same about Stalin and others.

[Aletheia]

But atheism is just disbelieving in gods, who said that they need to hold any particular political view? Where is the logical pathway from atheism to being a leftist or rightist?

Much of the "atheist community" is comprised of people who for whatever reason (or none at all in some cases) simply do not believe in any deities. It's from this "atheist community" that we start to see the internal organization of independent groups, the majority of the "atheist community" in places like America and Europe, for example, would tend to favor humanist or secular preferences. They still cling to the title "atheism" when in reality they have started to organize themselves based on their subsequent philosophical and political views.

I would suppose that many of theses "atheist+" are either mistaken when they try to include these philosophical viewpoints and political preferences into the meaning of atheism or, they are using the only unifying feature, "atheism," as a means to provide some sort of solidarity to an incredibly diverse group.

Furthermore, it has to be considered that many atheists are deconverts from some religion, usually a very dominating political force in their country of origin, and being suddenly isolated can be disconcerting to say the least. Knowing there are others who have come to a similar realization is comforting. Making this group's presence politically relevant is a matter of survival for the recent deconverts so they may avoid being re-absorbed by the dominating religion - often by force, or being punished (as is the case in theocracies or quasi-theocracies). Then there is the problem of old habits forged by a lifetime of religious indoctrination. These are the growing pains of a group cast into exile with only one unifying feature, and one that provides no means for philosophical viewpoints or insight into political motivations. So, like the religious members from which these deconverts have diverged from, they assimilate traits they like from other areas in order to create a coherent (or mostly coherent) way of life complete with an outlook on life, political preferences, and some measure of social power.

Being an atheist means so little as far as definitions go, but it has so many profound implications on a person's life - especially if religious themes are dominating in their country of origin. Yes, I do believe it's time the "atheist+" have a reality check. It is time they simply remove the term "atheist" when describing their philosophical and political views so they can remove the unifying feature which really does mean so little and finally stand firmly (and alone if necessary) in the group they happen to be (whether it be feminism, democrat, republican, libertarian, humanist, secularist... etc).

Before being too terribly harsh on atheists who are prone to being "atheist+" it might help to step back and review over the reasons each one of us even bothered seeking out other atheists when all another atheist can ever truly offer that is guaranteed identical is their lack of belief in a deity.

[Plu]

Atheism belongs to everyone who came to the point -for this and that reason- to reject the massive bullshit we are born and trapped into and welcome reality.

Or to never have been indoctrinated in it in the first place. A group often forgotten, but probably home to the lowest level of atheists. Because the group you described at least requires rejection; a conscious decision of some sorts that is often paired with problems. Those who simply haven't been raised religiously don't even have that.

Atheism is possibly the most useless way to group people you can come up with. Or at least the most useless one that for some reason is still considered a group, even though it isn't really. It would probably make more sense to group people by their favored breakfast than it does to group them by their lack of belief in gods. At least you'd still have some kind of cultural identity between people based on what they eat in the morning.

[St Giordano Bruno]

Of course, it is called freedom of speech. Something very alien to many living under a theocracy.