Whataboutism, and a straw man since I made no claims about that, how is that relevant to your trolling above?
cult
noun
1.a system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object.
So that wording is fairly obviously a dishonest attempt to bait atheists.
Bigoted
adjective
- obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
That’s just too much irony right there.
None of this evidences a deity, or changes the dictionary definition of atheism, which remains the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities.
You most assuredly ARE critiquing me as I am considered to be atheist.
To iterate what you seemingly ignored in a previous post, I direct my comments about what you say to you. You, on the other hand, have decided to lump all people who are identified as atheist into a single group and apply descriptions to it. That is the very definition of bigotry.
4 Likes
This post is directed at everyone who might read it.
I’ve assumed so far that the guidelines for forum conduct applies equally to all participants regardless of their particular alignment with respect to atheism.
So if the atheist is permitted to use epithets like “mythology fanboy” and “superstition” and “cartoon magic man” and “ignorant” and “fuckwits” and “cretinous” and “religion is all about fear” and so on when referring to theism/theists then surely the theist too can employ similar epithets that reflect their views on the atheism movement?
How is an atheist saying to me “your confused bullshit” and " One dip-fuck dumbshit comment after another" and “creationists are so completely unimaginative” and "
Atheism isn’t a movement, and what particularly are you objecting to in describing (where appropriate) specific theistic claims as “excessively credulous belief in and reverence for the supernatural,” (superstition) or as “a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events,” (myth), or “the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.” (magic)?
The other remarks require context, and then I imagine the people who made them can answer. The context of your remarks above were a sweeping and false derogation of atheism as a “a bigoted and intolerant cult” and it did not address @CyberLN post at all.
I suppose I could do that. However, I won’t. Do “they go far beyond the definition of atheism adopted by people in this forum”? I don’t know how you are measuring that distance. And I certainly don’t speak for anyone but myself. We are not a many-legged creature with one brain.
1 Like
This is how you respond to a poster you have told you won’t respond to without responding to them. 
Even if they did, this is not how dictionary definitions are compiled and maintained. Who used those and when, would of course provide some context, but no context of their use would alter the dictionary definition of atheism, NB Only one of those made the claim @Sherlock-Holmes is insisting is a belief inherent in atheism, are all atheists obliged to share that slogan then, or any other?
Beyond the lack of belief in any deity or deities, no two atheists need agree on anything. Since atheism has no doctrine or dogma.
Precisely, atheism is one thing, the lack or absence of theistic belief, individual atheists can believe or disbelieve whatever they want beyond that.
I think my sense of irony may have been overused of late. 
I’m guessing this will go unanswered though:
No more so than someone critiquing theism is critiquing me - as I am considered a theist. But I don’t take criticisms of theism or religion personally.
A set is not the same as the members that comprise it. Critiquing atheism or theism inevitably leads to generalizations about the individual members so how this is news I can’t imagine.
No, this is a dictionary definition of bigotry:
I know there’s a perception that atheism - the popular social movement it has become - is somehow above criticisms of intolerance and cultism and bigotry, as if the sanitized definition “holds no belief in a deity” somehow guarantees their absence.
The tone across many if not all threads in the forum, the slogans on the merchandise and the facebook presence all show contempt for anyone who might believe God exists that is “prejudice against people on the basis of their membership of a particular group”.
Talk about irony !
In which case the same must be said of theism and theists yet those t-shirts do exactly that.
Modern atheism has embraced a host of beliefs, many of these are clearly and unapologetically emblazoned across t-shirts being sold here. The claim might be “holds no belief in God” but the reality is how the movement behaves, what it does collectively, how it’s adherents speak about others in public.
What the catholic church espouses is not borne out in practice and what atheism espouses also is not borne out in practice.
You are creating a monster that empowers the darker side of human nature no different deep down to many of the theist organizations you disparage on those t-shirts.
It wasn’t a response to Sheldon.
it’s hard to know what to say to that…but thanks for making me laugh anyway.
Yet you keep describing the actions and claims of some atheists as atheism, despite your erro being explained repeatedly. The fact is that there is no set of atheism, it is not a collective, anymore than people who don’t believe in mermaids are a group, or collective. Were the influence of religions not so pervasive, my atheism would be no more significant than my lack of belief in Santa Claus.
All anyone need do is click the link in the top RH corner of your post to see that’s not true, it didn;t address any of my post though, but then than rather typifies your evasion throughout this discourse.
It’s not a popular social movement, it’s not any kind of movement, it is the lack of belief in any deity or deities. It is no more a popular movement than not believing in unicorns is. generally the outspoken declarations are fostered by a frustration at the behaviour and arrogance of religions and the religious.
From the definition of atheism yes, not as individuals, you seem determined to pretend that atheism and atheist are the same thing, but only when it suits your own prejudices against both. IN what way has atheism harmed anyone here, I mean in any practical sense?
Wrong again, if there is contempt it is for the pernicious behaviour of some religions and their adherents, and in debate for the endlessly poorly reasoned and irrational arguments and beliefs they peddle, what’s wrong with any of that anyway? You seem to be annoyed that atheists are allowed to express their disbelief, even here in an ostensibly atheist debate forum.
Yes ironic indeed.
Nope, modern atheists have though, you really don’t seem to be able to understand that atheism and atheist are not the same thing?
There is no movement, I am an individual who lacks belief in any deity or deities. Atheism has no dogma or doctrine, unlike religion no atheist organisation tries to tell me what to think or believe.
Here they share ideas and debate, but no one is obliged to adhere to any doctrine or dogma, you are projecting.
Atheism doesn’t have adherents, since it isn’t a claim or belief.
adherent
noun
- someone who supports a particular party, person, or set of ideas.
Atheism
noun
- disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Atheism doesn’t espouse anything, it is the lack or absence of belief in any deity, nothing more, only atheists can go beyond that, not atheism.
This is just hilarious, but all that is on display here is your irrational fear and prejudice against anyone who doesn’t share your superstitious beliefs, and dares to have the temerity to say so publicly, albeit in an atheist forum where you need never ever read any of it if you don’t want to.
@CyberLN has explained she is not responsible for those t shirts. It’s bizarre you claimed you were here to challenge ideas and dogma, and yet you’re attacking atheists for doing just that, and dishonestly projecting that onto atheism.
Bumpity bump…
isnt that an assumption?
2 Likes
Is atheism a movement? Sheldon posted a thousand words arguing “no” so lets check the facts:
The Evolution of Atheism: The Politics of a Modern Movement.
Growing criticism by atheists of the New Atheism movement
Why There Is An Atheist Movement
The World’s Newest Major Religion: No Religion
Finally:
There we are, it seems entirely reasonable to regard atheism as a movement, it’s hardly disputed too. Of course if mentioning this is the atheist equivalent of blasphemy then fine, delete my post, ban me from the site or even burn me at the stake - after all that’s what other religions do when their bigotry gets exposed.
Just because one or two atheists believe atheism is not a movement doesn’t mean all of you have to.
No.
Now about the claims you just reeled off:
I dispute it, what beliefs, ideas, or aims, do I have to share to belong this imaginary movement?
Yaaayyyy! You got something right, and the reason we don’t have to agree is because atheism is not a movement. Here’s a clue to your error in reasoning, since I am feeling generous. There can be atheistic movements, just as there can be atheistic sports teams, or atheistic religions, but atheism is not a movement, a religion or a sports team.
Language is not really your forte I feel.
Oh dear…
Could be, I assumed atheists weren’t allowed to assume though. I’ll ponder the metaphysical and scholastic implications of this shortly. Once I pour my brew and get into my swimming pool for the afternoon.
Gotta go, stay out of trouble.
Bumpity bump???