StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I've been linking to a few different atheist sites off of Facebook based on various posts and gawd... aside from a few buzz word differences, the posters are just as ignorant, knee jerking, and over reactionary as idiot religious posters.

And holy shit, if you disagree with the article CHRISTIAN SPIN DOCTORING!

Is there a group or term that separates atheists that can actually think for them selves as opposed to those that just get high enough over the intelligence bar to not believe in "God" and are just exchanging one set of dogmatic catchphrases for another?

Havok wrote:I've been linking to a few different atheist sites off of Facebook based on various posts and gawd... aside from a few buzz word differences, the posters are just as ignorant, knee jerking, and over reactionary as idiot religious posters.

And holy shit, if you disagree with the article CHRISTIAN SPIN DOCTORING!

Is there a group or term that separates atheists that can actually think for them selves as opposed to those that just get high enough over the intelligence bar to not believe in "God" and are just exchanging one set of dogmatic catchphrases for another?

Athiesm is no different than other forms of faith. There are reasonable people who actually have a brain and who are at least somewhat respectful of opposing viewpoints, and then there are assholes.

In my experience you have the "true" atheists of various stripes and colors (however they wish to define themselves), who have reached that point through reasoning, thought, and intellectual rigor. Then you have "atheists" who have not arrived at that position through any actual reasoning of their own, but rather latch onto it as a convenient camp to belong to because they've decided they hate "organized religion" (a key phrase which often sets off red flags when I hear it), or, sometimes, because they're actually just disillusioned faithful who are mad with or alienated from their religion of choice. Whenever you see a self-proclaimed "ex-atheist" they are invariably from this latter category, having since reconciled their emotional baggage with their religion/daddy issues.

Some people in all groups are assholes, news at 11.

Plenty of bigoted atheists out there. I find atheist elitism goes well with general hatred of "backwards" people from places like the Middle East, South America, and Africa.

Havok wrote:Is there a group or term that separates atheists that can actually think for them selves as opposed to those that just get high enough over the intelligence bar to not believe in "God" and are just exchanging one set of dogmatic catchphrases for another?

"Smugtheist" is a good one for the latter. I believe I've heard Dawkinsbro or something like it used too.

Though it can be a fine line between the kind of people you're talking about and super intelligent people like me who have thought all this out and are totally secure and still love mocking religion and religious people.

Mongoose wrote:Plenty of bigoted atheists out there. I find atheist elitism goes well with general hatred of "backwards" people from places like the Middle East, South America, and Africa.

I've noticed that this particular sort of atheist seems to lean heavily towards young, straight, white and male. I've heard it suggested that it's partly an over compensation to being part of a less than esteemed minority for the first time.

Ralin wrote:

Mongoose wrote:Plenty of bigoted atheists out there. I find atheist elitism goes well with general hatred of "backwards" people from places like the Middle East, South America, and Africa.

I've noticed that this particular sort of atheist seems to lean heavily towards young, straight, white and male. I've heard it suggested that it's partly an over compensation to being part of a less than esteemed minority for the first time.

That assessment makes sense based on what I've seen.

Honestly I think they're worse. It just sounds so tone deaf and strange coming from them. If you're trying to be the smart one then why resort to such hateful, ignorant, unresearched screeds against blanket groups of people? It's nonsense. It's defensive petty nonsense and it just sounds like junior high crap.

This is a real annoyance to me too. I don't like talking about what I think because I don't want to have to defend a bunch of total morons who I don't really share anything with. There's no secret handshake you need to be of no theism, it's the opposite of a secret handshake, so it's reliably going to be a mix of just about everyone you find. I think some of the nastiest examples are fellow Americans who can pin this tag on themselves and feel smarter and more put upon. It's not the "new Goth" or something but a lot of commentators seem to treat it like it's a form of rebellion to shock the system. It creates an antagonistic relationship.

Thunderfoot is an example of this--he posted some things that got him a lot of heat from other skeptic sorts on I forget what it was... but guys like P.Z. Meyers came in to comment because they're part of that community, and then they're shitting back and forth and people of both camps come out of the woodwork to argue if or if not there was a problem with the way skeptics conventions were treating women... etc. It turned into a mess. I don't go on blogs or out to cons or anything for this--it's a way of thinking and not a lifestyle choice for me--but when I look up videos for people who used to post cool science stuff and now it's ranting about feminists destroying atheism I just throw up my hands.

But no, there's no term. Someone can be an atheist and any other combination of things. In the aforementioned fight there was a lot of slinging back and forth between liberal and conservative skeptics, which is odd, since that's a political/ideological divide I didn't expect to see.

The intolerance comes from setting themselves up for a fight, and continuing to attack people instead of trying to weaken a bad idea. Arguments about tone in a debate left entirely to the side, because the people we "hear from" are often the ones most interested in being heard it's easy for an attention-seeking narcissist to make a big stink and claim a feeling of superiority for it. Changing a label to call them faketheists or septic-skeptics or something to demean them will only make them dig in and feel like they're the last bastion of sanity in a world gone mad.

But I find it really offensive, personally. It's too bad that uncivil discourse is so common in anonymous (or at least personal) conversation.

Even if someone did slap a label on it all it would do is allow me to feel less guilty for having some ideological association with people I find offensive. But that's life--you can't just cut yourself off from people you don't like. And you don't need to "defend" your tribe. Ideas are a marketplace and we're all part of a bigger group than any label or single ideology can ever express. People who wanna sling molotovs don't get it.

I think it's less that we're ditching one Dogma for the next, but that we're ditching an organized Dogma for the anarchy of mob rule in thought police form. These kinds of people that we're talking about aren't FOR anything, they're just AGAINST other people. That's a militia mindset.

Borgholio wrote: Athiesm is no different than other forms of faith. There are reasonable people who actually have a brain and who are at least somewhat respectful of opposing viewpoints, and then there are assholes.

True. It has the potential to be as much a form of faith as theism. Atheism has something to say about god or gods, no more or less. Anything less and an atheist who wants to can still have plenty to say about anything supernatural if they really wanted to.

The whole "atheist community/atheism movement" has always been baffling to me. My own opinions fit rather neatly into the category of atheism, but I see no reason why this would make me part of a community. Generally, communities are united by a common goal or idea, and atheism, to me, is neither. It's a category for a set of opinions.

Meanwhile, it seems that the multiple branches -or even sects- of the "atheist community" possess the trappings of faith and religion, organized around a concept that is mutually exclusive to both.

To me, atheism is like theism. It's a categorical fact about a person's state of being. An atheist doesn't follow any religions. A theist follows at least some sort of faith. I've never been able to see why people can read so much into so little detail. It's almost like racism, sexism, and other forms of tribalism: there's this us vs them mindset, and it takes a small categorical difference and turns it into an entire world of often biased assumptions.

I've frequently noted that the only thing I share in common with most other atheists is the lack of belief in supernatural gods. I've also noted that the 'community,' such as it is, is marked by a pronounced animosity towards all other religions. This extends both online and offline (I've been rather more involved in the local atheist community lately, so I've gotten to see what's going on.)

The only two reasons I can think of for that are either insecurity and resentment from being seen as a fundamentally untrustworthy minority (Americans regard atheists with about the same warmth and trust as they do evil brown terrorist people Muslims, and trust them about as much as they do rapists, murderists, and other assorted evil-ists); or the need to loudly remind other people that they're atheists, because they've spent their entire lives bathed in a society permeated with religious themes and overtones, so they constantly wrestle with some little kernel of guilt as a result.

Covenant wrote:--but when I look up videos for people who used to post cool science stuff and now it's ranting about feminists destroying atheism I just throw up my hands.

Bwuh? I missed that particular weirdness - not that I seek out atheist postings by reason of them being atheist. Not that I want to spend time viewing these things either, so in a nutshell, how could feminists destroy atheism?

It might be a American-Europe thing. In Europe, especially in more western places, being an atheist isn't a big deal. In America it sounds to me that they are different.

Bwuh? I missed that particular weirdness - not that I seek out atheist postings by reason of them being atheist. Not that I want to spend time viewing these things either, so in a nutshell, how could feminists destroy atheism?

Because self-entitled males who happen to be atheists thinking that if they "let in" atheist feminists, they will allow Atheism to stop being the Free Rational Movement and subvert it to their female-supremacy ideas?

I'm just guessing though.

There are atheists who are normal, intelligent people. This in my experience is the vast majority.

And then there are the sort of atheists which would happily blow up churches to destroy religion, which makes them pretty much the Taliban.

basically you got your "normal" atheists who go about their lives without that much noise as in the end being atheist doesn't define them but is just a part of what they are, these also most likely will keep on using phrases like "oh my god" (or gosh if they're american), "goddamnit" or "bless you" dispite not beliving in a divinity simply as those phrases are part of the culture they were raised in. These make up most of the atheist you're likely to meet but ironically, you'll probably won't notice it unless you go out of your way to look for it.


Then you got your so-called "true" atheist who go out of their way to attack religion, telling everyone they're atheist, not using any phrases that have even hint of a religious meaning and generally being intolerant jerks, in essence these are the atheist equilevant of "bible humping" fundamentalists. while a small subset they're generally the loudest so when the general public thinks of atheist they generally think of theses guys.

Zixinus wrote:It might be a American-Europe thing. In Europe, especially in more western places, being an atheist isn't a big deal. In America it sounds to me that they are different.

I agree. This seems to be an American or an online problem. We rarely get annoyingly vocal atheist communities or overly vocal religious groups over here.
Perhaps it´s just the usual reddit/facebook crap that´s best to be left ignored.

Facebook sucks, not 'atheists suck'. On Facebook, almost everything is twice as annoying as IRL.

Stas Bush wrote:Facebook sucks, not 'atheists suck'. On Facebook, almost everything is twice as annoying as IRL.

Such as when Obama designated half of the San Gabriel mountains as a National Monument (hurray, I live near there!), and the GOP trolls came out to talk about how the evil government is taking over land so they can charge us fees for its use? I've found that on Facebook, any piece of news...no matter how constructive or positive, turns political in 3 - 6 replies guaranteed.

People should regard Facebook and similar nonsense like they regard tabloids and trash TV. It´s entertainment for the educational precariat.

Covenant wrote:But no, there's no term. Someone can be an atheist and any other combination of things. In the aforementioned fight there was a lot of slinging back and forth between liberal and conservative skeptics, which is odd, since that's a political/ideological divide I didn't expect to see.

(snip stuff)

Even if someone did slap a label on it all it would do is allow me to feel less guilty for having some ideological association with people I find offensive. But that's life--you can't just cut yourself off from people you don't like. And you don't need to "defend" your tribe. Ideas are a marketplace and we're all part of a bigger group than any label or single ideology can ever express. People who wanna sling molotovs don't get it.

I think it's less that we're ditching one Dogma for the next, but that we're ditching an organized Dogma for the anarchy of mob rule in thought police form. These kinds of people that we're talking about aren't FOR anything, they're just AGAINST other people. That's a militia mindset.

A lot of the confusion is that the same word is used to describe two entirely different things. On the one hand, atheist is nothing more than a word used to describe someone who is not within the set containing all people who believe in one or more deities. In this context, it is only used to signify that the person it describes lacks that belief. On the other hand, atheist is also used to describe an identity, one predicated on its opposition to people who believe in one or more deities. This touches upon your last point, because in that context atheism is not a lack of belief but a rejection of belief.

Trying to use different labels to describe those different kinda of atheism is not necessarily bad (though using intentionally demeaning terms to do it is, I admit, counterproductive), since it would, at the very least, reduce confusion. It's not so much about "defending" a tribe, as much as differentiating people who are members of a tribe from people who are not.

I guess what I feel I am seeing (and unfortunately my interactions are mostly online because I don't feel like getting in fist fights constantly in real life) is that atheism is just becoming something different to believe in than religion and not a way of thinking which it should be and which Cov hit pretty well.

Thanks for the feedback guys.

Havok wrote:
Is there a group or term that separates atheists that can actually think for them selves as opposed to those that just get high enough over the intelligence bar to not believe in "God" and are just exchanging one set of dogmatic catchphrases for another?

I call the second group Hipsters to differentiate.

No, hipsters usually go to some alternative religion. Atheism is too well known and mainstream.

Buddhatheism?