A while ago, someone brought to my attention the existence of a certain cult called The Cult of Reason.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Reason

Remember, fellow atheists, that we cannot use the No True Scotsman Fallacy. These people were surely acting irrationally, but rationalism and reason are not exclusive to atheism to begin with. Thus, we would have to accept that these people were probably atheistic.

As for my take on the dangers of atheism relative to theism? I still believe that atheism is far less dangerous than theism. It must be noted that these were the times where even Enlightenment were used for the persecution of the people. Heck, if you are one of the people who thinks that deists are nice people, note that even deists created their own cult called the Cult of the Supreme Being. And yes, this cult also persecuted some Christians. In short, these were the times where those traditionally "non-evil" ideologies were "evil".

Anyways, I just would like my fellow atheists to know that people had died in the name of atheism. Richard Dawkins was wrong.

TheAznValedictorian wrote:Remember, fellow atheists, that we cannot use the No True Scotsman Fallacy.

No one's saying these people weren't atheist. The objection would be that they didn't kill "in the name of atheism", which is true.

Besides, a lot of [so-called] communist atheist states became personality cults, or fanatic ideologies, which does not jive well with atheism, which although many just define it narrowly as a lack of belief in god[s], [defacto] is rationally skeptic about all forms of woo: pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, and so on....at least many of us. Although I dare say that some folks have their idiosyncrasies as we are all human.

(coated with cyanide, brought to you by an atheist)

Wikipedia wrote:Devotion to the Cult of Reason became a defining attribute of the Hébertist faction, and was widely accepted among the general ranks of the sans-culottes. Numerous anti-clerical groups and events only loosely connected to the cult have come to be amalgamated with its name. The earliest atheistic public demonstrations ranged from "wild masquerades" redolent of earlier spring festivals to outright persecutions, including ransackings of churches and synagogues in which religious and royal images were defaced.

I wonder how this has anything to do with atheism, the lack of belief in god. One would think this would be an opposition (anti), take note the term revolutionary impact. How would one kill in the name of atheism, anyway?

TheAznValedictorian wrote: Remember, fellow atheists, that we cannot use the No True Scotsman Fallacy.

We can.

They were French.

Unless France is part of Scotland.

The Cult was anticlerical. You can have atheists that are indifferent to the clergy and atheists that are anticlerical. The Cult of Reason was primarily anticlerical and secondarily atheist as a side effect of their claim that there are no Gods.

Oh, dear, not this tiresome meme again ...

Since atheism in its rigorous formulation consists simply of refusing to accept uncritically blind supernaturalist assertions, it doesn't constitute a "doctrine" or an "ideology", indeed, it's the very antithesis of one. The people who set up the so-called "cult of reason" were enforcing conformity to a doctrine, and behaving true to form with respect to this behaviour.

hackenslash wrote:Read the article. Can't see where it says they killed anyone. The only deaths reported in the article were of the cult members themselves, executed by Robespierre. Am I missing something?

Interesting. An article that seems to utterly fail to support the fantastic claim of the OP's subject line.

<---- eaten in the name of atheism.

Varangian wrote:I think that the concepts "cult" and "atheism" are pretty incompatible...

How that?

Would you not call Scientology a cult? As far as I am aware, Scientologists don't believe in gods. This is just one example. Where should there not be atheist cults?

NineBerry wrote:

Varangian wrote:I think that the concepts "cult" and "atheism" are pretty incompatible...

How that?

Would you not call Scientology a cult? As far as I am aware, Scientologists don't believe in gods. This is just one example. Where should there not be atheist cults?

Scientology is an organisations which has doctrines and dogmas about an afterlife, human spirituality and morality as well as ceremonies and rituals pertaining to the beliefs thereof. That is what makes it a religious cult. Atheism has none of that.

Kazaman wrote:

NineBerry wrote:

Varangian wrote:I think that the concepts "cult" and "atheism" are pretty incompatible...

How that?

Would you not call Scientology a cult? As far as I am aware, Scientologists don't believe in gods. This is just one example. Where should there not be atheist cults?

Scientology is an organisations which has doctrines and dogmas about an afterlife, human spirituality and morality as well as ceremonies and rituals pertaining to the beliefs thereof. That is what makes it a religious cult. Atheism has none of that.

Atheism iself has none of that but some atheistic religions have it, therefore atheism is not incompatible with cultish behaviours.

rJD wrote:

Kazaman wrote:

NineBerry wrote:

How that?

Would you not call Scientology a cult? As far as I am aware, Scientologists don't believe in gods. This is just one example. Where should there not be atheist cults?

Scientology is an organisations which has doctrines and dogmas about an afterlife, human spirituality and morality as well as ceremonies and rituals pertaining to the beliefs thereof. That is what makes it a religious cult. Atheism has none of that.

Atheism iself has none of that but some atheistic religions have it, therefore atheism is not incompatible with cultish behaviours.

That atheism itself cannot be a cult is the point.

Uh. How clever. But theism itself cannot be a cult as well. You need a specific version of theism to make a cult. And you could also have a specific version of atheism that makes a cult.

If you define "atheism" as not more than the absence of a belief in gods, then there is nothing in it that prevents cults from existing.

Uh. How clever. But theism itself cannot be a cult as well. You need a specific version of theism to make a cult. And you could also have a specific version of atheism that makes a cult.

If you define "atheism" as not more than the absence of a belief in gods, then there is nothing in it that prevents cults from existing.

That's true; only organised religions are cults theistically, but they are cults surrounding the deities which qualify them as being theistic. Atheistic cults do not do what they do in the name of atheism. The cult of reason particularly did what it did in the name of, well, reason, not atheism. The communist personality cults surrounding Stalin, Mao and Kim Jung-Il did not do what they did in the name of atheism either, despite being atheistic in nature.

Eight Foot Manchild wrote:

TheAznValedictorian wrote:Remember, fellow atheists, that we cannot use the No True Scotsman Fallacy.

No one's saying these people weren't atheist. The objection would be that they didn't kill "in the name of atheism", which is true.

It's not only that the Cult contained some member that were atheists, it's the fact that some atheists in the cult actively wants to replace religion with atheism as a national ideology.
The French Revolution: a political history, 1789-1804, Volume 3 By François-Alphonse Aulard

Can't see where it says they killed anyone. The only deaths reported in the article were of the cult members themselves, executed by Robespierre. Am I missing something?

1. The wikipedia article was used only as a starting point. I could be wrong, but I'm sure that the deaths were mentioned in one of the references.
2. Even with just wikipedia, it did say that there were persecutions. I know that this does not mean that deaths and unlawful executions were involved, but it seems quite unlikely that there were no deaths in mass persecutions.

Interesting. An article that seems to utterly fail to support the fantastic claim of the OP's subject line.

Look at what I have stated above.
............................................
Other than that, point taken guys. Perhaps I should have phrased my thread in another way.