Typical atheists vs. Online atheists

[lewisnotmiller]

I wonder how different this is from any other group.

I wonder too, although I think it's possible. The reason being that atheists typically spend less time talking about atheism or even God than they do religion (in my ham-fisted estimation).

There's an element of reactionism in many discussions driven by atheists. Of course reactionaries exist in all groups, but by its lack of positive statements I think atheism can be more susceptible to this than other groups.

If I'm not completely talking out of my hat, this could lead to some polarisation between atheists who are basically apatheists, versus those with a strong view on religion. Almost all atheists on line likely fall into the latter category.

Offline I'm certainly aware of some very invested religious folk with no interest in online religious communities at all.

The lack of commonly agreed and frequented offline atheist communities is also a difference at some level.

 

[Father Heathen]

What struck me about the article was that it seemed to apply mainly to atheists in the USA. In the UK, Christians are more likely to keep quiet about their faith than atheists, as they tend to be seen as odd by the average person.

The other thing was the idea that atheists are less to be trusted than believers because they don't have a moral system to control them. I never heard that in the UK. Actually, I'm not sure that people there tend to label non-believers as "atheist". You are either a Christian (or whatever) or a "normal person".

Christians in the U.S. tend to have a very insular and sheltered worldview.

 

[Erebus]

Are atheists who are online different from the typical atheist? Are the most vocal really representative of the group?

Interesting article. Going by my personal experience, I have noticed a difference between online atheists and offline atheists among my own social group.

The majority of the people I spend time with are either atheists or roughly fall into the spiritual not religious category. For the most part, they're just not all that interested in religion. Those who are more willing to discuss it don't have much of an emotional investment in it. I actually got my copy of The God Delusion from an offline atheist who saw it as little more than a prolonged rant that he had no interest in finishing.

So they're nothing like the New Atheist stereotype... except for one.

The online atheist I know personally is so hostile to religion and theism that it veers into outright bigotry. He'll post rants on Facebook about how stupid believers are, he shares all those cringeworthy atheist comics/memes and generally makes it clear that he views himself as superior to the sheeple.

There are a couple of things about him that I find fascinating. Firstly, his actual knowledge of religion and theism is shallow and honestly a little juvenile. He's very much a proponent of the view that Christianity is bad and therefore religion is bad. Secondly, since most people around him are largely apathetic to religion, he's really just screaming into the void.

If somebody's online interactions with atheists were mostly restricted to people like him and they didn't know many/any offline atheists, I could easily see somebody taking a dim view of atheists as a whole.

(Quick note here that RF is a whole different game to Facebook as members are expected to hold themselves to a much higher standard).

Also as others have mentioned, the offline/online dichotomy applies to far more than just atheists. Football immediately springs to mind here (that's football football not handegg football) as I know plenty of people enjoy watching it but most of them don't talk about it online. Those who do can be pretty tribal about it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Christians in the U.S. tend to have a very insular and sheltered worldview.

All 200+ million of them? How did you go about discovering this tendency?

I'm a 77 year old Jew, born in Arizona, living in the Midwest, and with significant roots in both the South and Southern California, and I see no basis for making such a generalization. I do, however, see persistent problems stemming from stereotypes, particularly stereotypes "informed" by one's judgment of the loudest component of an extremely heterogenous faith community.

 

[Father Heathen]

All 200+ million of them? How did you go about discovering this tendency?

I'm a 77 year old Jew, born in Arizona, living in the Midwest, and with significant roots in both the South and Southern California, and I see no basis for making such a generalization. I do, however, see persistent problems stemming from stereotypes, particularly stereotypes "informed" by one's judgment of the loudest component of an extremely heterogenous faith community.

No, of course not all of them. I should have specified the fundamental, evangelical, dominionist, etc. types and the nominal ones that support the aforementioned.

You know, the Trumpy ones.

 

[Augustus]

Are atheists who are online different from the typical atheist? Are the most vocal really representative of the group?

I guess the correct distinction is those who take their atheism as a marker of identity, and those who just happen to be atheists without giving t a great deal of thought beyond that.

Once something becomes a marker of tribal identity, it often destroys open-mindedness, genuine, curiosity, critical thinking, etc. so you would expect to see differences on average.

The article notes:

• Atheists are cliquishly supportive of other atheists, but intolerant of Christians and Muslims;
• They talk a big game about open-mindedness and eschewing gut intuitions, but fail to walk the walk when actual performance is measured
• They’re not especially tolerant or careful or sincere or empathic, but they are callous and manipulative and impulsive.

The top two are certainly true on RF. 'Online atheists' tend to have uncritically swallowed a load of anti-theistic myths regarding the history of religion, but because they form a circle of mutual support around these errors they can go on ignoring the evidence. Their stated commitment to "rational scepticism" goes out the window on any such issue.

Not sure about the 3rd point, it definitely not as clear cut anyway.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

No, of course not all of them. I should have specified the fundamental, evangelical, dominionist, etc. types and the nominal ones that support the aforementioned.

You know, the Trumpy ones.

So what you really meant was that the very insular and sheltered Trump supporting American Christians are very insular and sheltered. FWIW, I couldn't agree more.

 

[Ella S.]

The internet can serve as a bastion for outcasts. It gives voices to those who would otherwise be silenced by their own communities.

It's also rather uncommon for people to seek out discussions on controversial topics like religion and go this far outside of their cultural bubbles. Most people live and die with the same (non-)religion.

I doubt that very many of the posters on RF are representative of their respective worldviews.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The internet can serve as a bastion for outcasts. It gives voices to those who would otherwise be silenced by their own communities.

It's also rather uncommon for people to seek out discussions on controversial topics like religion and go this far outside of their cultural bubbles. Most people live and die with the same (non-)religion.

I doubt that very many of the posters on RF are representative of their respective worldviews.

Overall I agree.
I wouldn't consider myself 'typical' of much, yet I suspect most of society would see me as much more representative of many than the majority of RF folk are.

(To be clear, that's not a judgement. Being representative of many is not particularly good, not particularly accurate, but I daresay that's where the perception of me would sit)