Is American Atheism Evolving Towards A Cult?

[Jason]

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... -cult.html

Yep, much better way of defining a cult. I've used it before.

[Santa_Claus]

I thought Americans were all Cults.

[Seth]

Just considering how, especially in the US, a interest in atheism serves to seperate you from the mainstream community.

My experience is limited to Australia. While this country is nominally and culturally a "christian country", I have never had the feeling of living in a separate, atheist camp, let alone cult, during the over four decades I lived here, and my impression is that neither does the vast majority of the Australian population.

Also, I think your choice of the word "cult" is unfortunate. Almost all the given definitions are entirely inapplicable, and the rest can only be partially made to fit the tenor of what you seem to be driving at. From the American Heritage Dictionary:

1.a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
b. The followers of such a religion or sect.
2. A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
3. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual.
4. A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.
5.a. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
b. The object of such devotion.
6. An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest.

It isn't a case of the majority of definitions fitting - who teaches people how to use dictionaries today? (honestly)

5.a and 6 could both easily be argued to fit certain segments of American atheists. I think it could be argued that there are groups of atheists, or more commonly anti-theists, who are 'evolving' toward, or already fit the cult status.

We had this argument many times on RD.net - Dawkins was supposed to be the cult leader and all of us were cult members. The argument always failed on the ground that the group was simply to large, too diversified, too individualistic for this to be the case - Dawkins did meet the criteria for being a cult leader, though some fools made pathetic attempts to argue against it. Nevertheless, I would argue that certain subsets of the larger group qualify, in themselves, as cults or pseudo-cults soon to fulfill cult status requirements. The problem I suspect many people have is that what the word 'cult' denotes in this particular application is at odds with its general connotation (think Jonestown) - thus it is used most commonly as a, sometimes (that is in some cases), technically correct slur. It is more a problem of language than a problem of atheism. One might similarly, and correctly, identify a fan club of any particular actor as a cult, the 'faddish' devotion to a particular music artist as a cult, the overbearing 'freedom or death' message so often put out by the American media and followed obsessively by many of the American public (How could you be against freedom??) - an obsessive devotion to and veneration of a principle if I ever saw one. In all these cases the affixation of 'cult' status would be technically correct as one or more denotation applies, however it carries with it the all together negative connotation of the word 'cult'.

In short, it's sophistry. A trick playing on the foibles of language to cast a negative light on something you wish to attack but cannot do so directly.

Or, it's a cult, which happens to be the case, and you're just trying to weasel out of the definition.

[Atheist-Lite]

Just considering how, especially in the US, a interest in atheism serves to seperate you from the mainstream community.

My experience is limited to Australia. While this country is nominally and culturally a "christian country", I have never had the feeling of living in a separate, atheist camp, let alone cult, during the over four decades I lived here, and my impression is that neither does the vast majority of the Australian population.

Also, I think your choice of the word "cult" is unfortunate. Almost all the given definitions are entirely inapplicable, and the rest can only be partially made to fit the tenor of what you seem to be driving at. From the American Heritage Dictionary:

1.a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
b. The followers of such a religion or sect.
2. A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
3. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual.
4. A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.
5.a. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
b. The object of such devotion.
6. An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest.

It isn't a case of the majority of definitions fitting - who teaches people how to use dictionaries today? (honestly)

5.a and 6 could both easily be argued to fit certain segments of American atheists. I think it could be argued that there are groups of atheists, or more commonly anti-theists, who are 'evolving' toward, or already fit the cult status.

We had this argument many times on RD.net - Dawkins was supposed to be the cult leader and all of us were cult members. The argument always failed on the ground that the group was simply to large, too diversified, too individualistic for this to be the case - Dawkins did meet the criteria for being a cult leader, though some fools made pathetic attempts to argue against it. Nevertheless, I would argue that certain subsets of the larger group qualify, in themselves, as cults or pseudo-cults soon to fulfill cult status requirements. The problem I suspect many people have is that what the word 'cult' denotes in this particular application is at odds with its general connotation (think Jonestown) - thus it is used most commonly as a, sometimes (that is in some cases), technically correct slur. It is more a problem of language than a problem of atheism. One might similarly, and correctly, identify a fan club of any particular actor as a cult, the 'faddish' devotion to a particular music artist as a cult, the overbearing 'freedom or death' message so often put out by the American media and followed obsessively by many of the American public (How could you be against freedom??) - an obsessive devotion to and veneration of a principle if I ever saw one. In all these cases the affixation of 'cult' status would be technically correct as one or more denotation applies, however it carries with it the all together negative connotation of the word 'cult'.

In short, it's sophistry. A trick playing on the foibles of language to cast a negative light on something you wish to attack but cannot do so directly.

Or, it's a cult, which happens to be the case, and you're just trying to weasel out of the definition.

Which is exactly what you'd expect from a cult member in denial.

[Jason]

Interesting. My post was carefully crafted to be interpretable dependent upon the reader's preestablished bias(es).

Seth, you reveal yourself more all the time.

Crumple, I don't know you from a hole in the ground.. but I'll be establishing a case file on you as well.

[Atheist-Lite]

Interesting. My post was carefully crafted to be interpretable dependent upon the reader's preestablished bias(es).

Seth, you reveal yourself more all the time.

Crumple, I don't know you from a hole in the ground.. but I'll be establishing a case file on you as well.

I've a sister like you.

[Svartalf]

Given the number of Americans who claim to follow jesus but are actually following very culty ways when not in actual cults, I'd say that the tiny minority of atheists who derive into cultlike hatred of religion can safely be discounted as the inevitable % of wackos in any group.

[Atheist-Lite]

Given the number of Americans who claim to follow jesus but are actually following very culty ways when not in actual cults, I'd say that the tiny minority of atheists who derive into cultlike hatred of religion can safely be discounted as the inevitable % of wackos in any group.

If it makes you happy?

[Jason]

Interesting. My post was carefully crafted to be interpretable dependent upon the reader's preestablished bias(es).

Seth, you reveal yourself more all the time.

Crumple, I don't know you from a hole in the ground.. but I'll be establishing a case file on you as well.

I've a sister like you.

You don't say.. Do you have her number?


For a fullblown narcissist like myself, that'd be the next best thing to making love to my identical twin.

[Svartalf]

I personally know a caze, he even remained faithful to dawk after the debacle... but since the crazy chretins outnumber that bunch a million to one... my appraisal seems fairly correct

[Jason]

I personally know a caze, he even remained faithful to dawk after the debacle... but since the crazy chretins outnumber that bunch a million to one... my appraisal seems fairly correct

Request for definition of terms and statement of general meaning:

Caze - ?

Chretins - ?

your appraisal - ?


Translation: What the fuck?

[Svartalf]

caze = mistype for case
chretin = christian with beliefs strong enough that they impair intellectual abilities
my appraisal = that the culty element among atheists is statistically identical with the inevitable number of wackos in any group and does not constitute a trend.

what the fuck? If you're a lady, I'd be happy to demonstrate.

[Jason]

caze = mistype for case
chretin = christian with beliefs strong enough that they impair intellectual abilities
my appraisal = that the culty element among atheists is statistically identical with the inevitable number of wackos in any group and does not constitute a trend.

Ah. Well, at least not an anomaly, statistically speaking, amongst groups devoted to a single ideal. You have, however, committed a grievous error that would be readily exploited in a live debate with any theist worth his holy water - you've intrinsically admitted (or consented, if it was a point of contention in the argument [and it often is in these situations]) that atheism is a 'group'. From there it is a short leap for your theist counterpart to argue that as a 'group' you share certain commonalities, commonalities which could, arguably, be construed as 'cultish' or 'religious', depending upon the predilection of your opponent (I've seen both argued often enough). Luckily, clever theists are rare and you'd probably slip through the cracks - otherwise he (or she) would have you on the rack (as it were) once again.

what the fuck? If you're a lady, I'd be happy to demonstrate.

I'm afraid I'm not. I have a penis, last time I checked (5 seconds ago). Is this "faire table rase du passé" in France?

Let's fuck and start over?

[Svartalf]

Objections received.


Granted atheists are definitely not a "group" in the sense that their commonality (lack of belief in the divine) comes in all shapes and with an assortment of motives and justifications that precludes honest lumping of them together. OP is therefore mendacious and moot

/thread.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Objections received.


Granted atheists are definitely not a "group" in the sense that their commonality (lack of belief in the divine) comes in all shapes and with an assortment of motives and justifications that precludes honest lumping of them together. OP is therefore mendacious and moot

/thread.

So, the meetings are canceled? We can let the sacrificial candidates go? What about all this kool-aid?