Becoming that which you dislike

[Whitney]

After seeing quite a few comments I'd consider inappropriate coming from the admins of a popular humanist fb page...it got me thinking.  As labels such as "humanist" and "secular" become something people are less afraid to wear; what keeps it from becoming just as bad as some of the religions those same people claim to dislike?  Comments in question are things like stereotyping a whole class of people then acting like it's okay to do that.  Why are some people feeling the need to promote unrelated ideas under the banner of secularism and humanism when they should just let it be what it really is?

I find it a bit frustrating...especially since I try to help promote an understanding of atheist/humanist/secular that is pure rather than mixing politics and humor into it that I know not all other people who fall under that label would necessarily support just by their being an atheist/humanist/secular.

edit:  the post on the fb page that sparked me making this comment was taken down (along with 50+ comments) ...same happened with other questionable posts from the same page (there have been more that I didn't approve of that I later saw gone...but can't remember what they were specifically off hand) http://www.facebook.com/GSHMP The post had a picture of an obviously Muslim couple both holding guns and the caption was something like "valentines around the world"  I have removed the page from my "likes"

[hismikeness]

Sounds like the kind of post/email that belongs here. It's a museum of ridiculousness. And a couple of emails I've received from family members have appeared...

[Ali]

My thought is: being atheists certainly doesn't make us perfect or strip us from other prejudices.  Some atheists cling to theirs as well.  Doesn't mean that atheists are particularly bad or anything like that. 

[Tank]

I feel there is some evidence that atheists are going through the Tuckman's stages of group development "Teams - Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing" and are currently in the "Storming" stage.

[Genericguy]

Atheists are not an elite group of people. We are the same assholes and wonderful people that belong to all the religions and are therefor susceptible to all the same underlying issues that we find problematic within those religions. However, I think we have an advantage. As a species, we are smarter than we were when the major religions were in their "storming" stages. I think/hope we will pull through it in a better manner.

[Tank]

Atheists are not an elite group of people. We are the same assholes and wonderful people that belong to all the religions and are therefor susceptible to all the same underlying issues that we find problematic within those religions. However, I think we have an advantage. As a species, we are smarter than we were when the major religions were in their "storming" stages. I think/hope we will pull through it in a better manner.

It's actually debatable if we are smarter, better informed yes, smarted is debatable. The negative side of atheism is that the focus is a rebellion against lies. That's all well and good as long as there are liars to rail against. Once Institutionalised Superstition has been routed (if it ever is) what will replace it for the majority of the population. How are the people of Afghanistan going to cope without Islam if there is no idealogical replacement for it? Many (the majority) of people need a tribe to belong to. If that tribe is nationalistic then we could have a problem. Unless a Swedish model of benevelnt socialism is adopted world we'll be in deep shit.

[Buddy]

Atheists are not an elite group of people. We are the same assholes and wonderful people that belong to all the religions and are therefor susceptible to all the same underlying issues that we find problematic within those religions. However, I think we have an advantage. As a species, we are smarter than we were when the major religions were in their "storming" stages. I think/hope we will pull through it in a better manner.

It's actually debatable if we are smarter, better informed yes, smarted is debatable. The negative side of atheism is that the focus is a rebellion against lies. That's all well and good as long as there are liars to rail against. Once Institutionalised Superstition has been routed (if it ever is) what will replace it for the majority of the population. How are the people of Afghanistan going to cope without Islam if there is no idealogical replacement for it? Many (the majority) of people need a tribe to belong to. If that tribe is nationalistic then we could have a problem. Unless a Swedish model of benevelnt socialism is adopted world we'll be in deep shit.

Another thing is that some people seem to become atheist as a rebellion. Almost like a teenager not wanting to go to church with their parents, so they call themselves atheist. I've known a few people who do that, then later in life the switch right back to religion.

[The Magic Pudding]

I find it a bit frustrating...especially since I try to help promote an understanding of atheist/humanist/secular that is pure rather than mixing politics and humor into it that I know not all other people who fall under that label would necessarily support just by their being an atheist/humanist/secular.

You do help promote understanding, some come here angry and maybe they're tempered a bit.  Others who are disturbed by the incessantly angry dogmatic atheists find an oasis here.  Purity isn't a virtue I expect from people.

[Whitney]

I really don't expect atheist et all in general to be virtuous....it's the people who are putting themselves in positions of being a voice for other athesits etc and then use that platform indiscriminately that bother me. 

Take for instance our atheist image dump thread...lots of stuff in that is funny but I wouldn't post some of the more edgy ones in a manner that made it look like HAF was promoting it as something all atheists would find funny even if I personally found humor in them; like I wouldn't post some of them to our home page, fb, or twitter.  A good example of this is the jesus fucking christ image...funny, yet not appropriate to post in the name of an atheist organization as it sends the wrong message to those who we want to take us seriously.

When people who are trying to make themselves the voice of atheists et post or say things without thinking about how it makes us all look I feel that they just don't care.  With individuals I don't mind much what they say unless it's just so wrong that I'd say something no matter what wordlview they have.

[Tank]

Atheists are not an elite group of people. We are the same assholes and wonderful people that belong to all the religions and are therefor susceptible to all the same underlying issues that we find problematic within those religions. However, I think we have an advantage. As a species, we are smarter than we were when the major religions were in their "storming" stages. I think/hope we will pull through it in a better manner.

It's actually debatable if we are smarter, better informed yes, smarted is debatable. The negative side of atheism is that the focus is a rebellion against lies. That's all well and good as long as there are liars to rail against. Once Institutionalised Superstition has been routed (if it ever is) what will replace it for the majority of the population. How are the people of Afghanistan going to cope without Islam if there is no ideological replacement for it? Many (the majority) of people need a tribe to belong to. If that tribe is nationalistic then we could have a problem. Unless a Swedish model of benevolent socialism is adopted world we'll be in deep shit.

Another thing is that some people seem to become atheist as a rebellion. Almost like a teenager not wanting to go to church with their parents, so they call themselves atheist. I've known a few people who do that, then later in life the switch right back to religion.

I suppose that's to be expected as some teenagers just do anything and everything to annoy their parents.

[The Magic Pudding]

.

[Firebird]

If and when atheism becomes more popular and "trendy", I imagine you will see more and more people doing things like what you object to, partly to show that they belong to this trendy group. That's just human nature, especially with younger and more immature people.
It's also trickier with atheism because, by its nature, there's no "lead atheist", like the pope with the Catholic Church or the head of the Anglican church. So who's to say what acceptable behavior under its banner really is? Sure, you can have established writers like Harris and Dawkins lay down some ground rules, but that's only one well-known atheist's opinion.
If you're talking about something like Humanism, which is a "non-theistic religion", then perhaps it's easier to declare what is acceptable within that community, but only to a point

[MinnesotaMike]

On the page operator...

The page operator is actually an intelligent fellow, and he's using it as a place to broadcast opinion. I won't claim that it's the correct thing to do, but I don't know how I'd run a page like that after repeatedly being attacked (over Humanism of all things) by religious fanatics, so I won't judge his actions.


On the page members...

The people who are actively looking to be a part of a global movement are, unsurprisingly, pro-group mentality. What I don't quite understand is how it's unexpected of actively secular people to be against religion. Yes, it's both wrong and hypocritical of them to say "______ are ______," but there needs to be some tolerance for that. I'm sure I don't need to remind anyone here that tenants of certain religions involve some rather harsh treatment of outsiders. While it wouldn't be inaccurate to say that Islam or Christianity is anti-secular, it would be inaccurate to state that all Muslims and Christians are anti-secular. You can see where the linguistic mix ups may occur.


On us...

We should bear in mind that people don't always say what they mean. It's relatively easy to spot the militant, but it's even easier to assume it of those among the militant.

[Melmoth]

It's actually debatable if we are smarter, better informed yes, smarted is debatable.

Depends on their motives. Some people are atheists purely because of an absence of religious upbringing. I probably fall into that category, and wouldn't say I'm better-informed than Christians, generally.

Also, to claim that you're "better informed" presumes that you're able to reliably self-assess. I look around me and I see people (Christian, atheist etc.) who are unable to identify their own logical gaps, no matter how much you try to point them out. There's ample evidence that human psychology is flawed in that way, so, presumably, I'm no different. If I've arrived at my position because of any rational/intellectual blind spots then, by definition, I won't be able to see them - probably not even when they're shoved down my throat by someone who can.

it's the people who are putting themselves in positions of being a voice for other athesits etc and then use that platform indiscriminately that bother me.

This, without the stipulation. Anyone who claims to speak for a whole sub-culture is kidding themselves, in the same way that Christians are kidding themselves when they attribute their own opinions to God. If they can't speak on their own behalf, why should I let them speak on mine.

[En_Route]

On the whole atheists are likely to be more intellectually curious and questioning than theists,with a myriad of exceptions. That doesn't mean that they are more likely to be pleasant or benevolently-disposed towards humanity.