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.
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?
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.