When the net's wisdom of crowds turns into an online lynch mob : Freethought

But the value of the periodical ran out, for me, upon continued reading. There is a strong contingent of atheists who are fundamentalist about it (obviously not Protestant, but not quite freethinkers, either). These people would say ridiculous and naive things and were quite active and their mistaken ideas lauded.

It's sad to see atheism being treated like a religion, and freethought newsletters rife with dogma. I would say it's not nearly as bad as I make it out to be (Pilebsa knows I can be a delicate flower), and of course it's 1,000³ times worse on the other side, within actual religions, but there you are.

† With less than half of USAmerican's attending church frequently, we might say there are many more "practicing atheists" than we'll ever know. Interesting, Canadians report attending church much less. The USA is very dark, though, with most people identifying with a religion.

In any case, of course there are going to be plenty of actual atheists who have yet to figure out how to practice freethought.

Sorry if this was all tangential.

[–]Pilebsa 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

There is a strong contingent of atheists who are fundamentalist about it

Fundamentalist, (n); Fundamentalism refers to a belief in a strict adherence to a set of basic principles.

What basic principals are atheists adhereing to? Where is the "atheist bible?"

I think what you are objecting to is the fact that someone may have passionate views about something, and you find that intimidating and in conflict with your normally apathetic character.

But just because you generally don't feel strongly enough to take a stand and fight for what you believe, doesn't mean you should belittle others who do, and suggest they're "fundamentalist". There is no such thing as a fundamentalist atheist. It's a strawman. Ask 100 atheists why they do what they do, and you'll probably get 100 different answers. None of which will center around any particular scripture, dogma, or doctrine.

Yet, those of us who do speak out, especially if we do so undiplomatically, are called "militant" or "douchebags" or some other ad hominem. Almost always by others who don't understand the issue and have no idea what it feels like to be passionate about something that extends beyond their own personal bubble.

If you ask me why I am an outspoken Freethinker, I can give you a long series of explanations that reflect a well-thought out ideology that is based on logic, reason, experience, history and many other things I've assimilated. I can't speak for anybody else but myself and I wouldn't consider myself part of any cadre of people who follow a specific plan. If it weren't for the Internet, we wouldn't even realize that there were a lot of us out here, because we don't have weekly meetings and rituals and holidays. We just feel strongly about an issue for various reasons.

So yea, when some of us associate with each other, we revile in it. It's not a "lynch mob". An atheist publication is likely to publish articles that center around common things atheists fixate on, the most obvious of which is a general cynacism or contempt for organized religion and its hypocrisy. Why is that so surprising? It doesn't mean there's an army of us planning to burn down a bunch of churches. Chill. Atheists are independent thinkers - Dawkins may be revered by many but not as an icon like religious people worship historical avatars... just as an example of someone who can speak out publicly and still maintain social respect and standing, which is extremely hard for atheists in modern society.

[–]cyantist 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

What basic principals are atheists adhereing to? Where is the "atheist bible?"

Just as fundamentalism originally described a narrow movement within Protestantism, the broadening of the term allows it now to describe pejoratively principled individuals or movements narrowly within any greater sphere. Atheism is not without organization, but it is not an institution in any regard, and is just a category at one level while labeling many subcultures on others.

So you're right that "fundamental atheism" is an oxymoron.. still I think individuals can be fundamentalist in their thinking or relating, but that's an extension of the term in modern usage. This broadening up of 'fundamentalist' has it meaning something more like "adherence to base subcultural beliefs".

In any case, your point is well taken. I misspoke: when I said "strong contingent" I simply meant "vocal minority", and when I said fundamentalism I simply meant individuals who are strongly dogmatic about caricatures of real science and freethought.

And I think we should admit there are a great many people who are part of atheism subcultures and who are not much in the way of thinkers, let alone freethinkers. These people may have the wrong ideas about a lot of things. And then they write about it like everyone around agrees with them. And sometimes we all do, it's just that they riddled the main content with inadequacies.

I'm not speaking against passionate people (I am one!) or about those who concentrate on celebrating casting off the veil of religion (I am one!). I appreciate you for being outspoken, and while you've heard me argue against reviling others, you should have then also heard me praise constructive sociality.

Nobody who knows me would call me apathetic, and I'm tempted to think that's just you taking a jab.

I don't find contempt for the dogmas of organized religion surprising or objectionable in any way. I'm not above cynicism, and I speak out daily against hypocrisy.

I'm also not worked up, so when you say 'Chill' it kind of makes me chuckle a little.. you've got the wrong idea about me, and to be fair it's because I represent myself poorly sometimes.

Thanks for taking the time to provide more of the picture.

Now that I think about it (and have been brought to task) I just got tired of people writing incorrect things about evolution and other science in ostentatiousness.

People who misrepresent. I'd hate to be a hypocrite and have done the same... but perhaps I just did

-_-

[–]ReddEdIt 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

permalink

[–]khafra 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[–]Perfidion 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login