You can't really gatekeep something where both the majority and most of the foundation was built on this exact type of behavior and belief.
This is what atheism is, anything else is the deviation from the norm. And you can't gatekeep from that position any more than you can be a "one of the good one" liberals who think feminism and BLM and all that is good if we just "remove the crazy ones."
I wouldn't say those behaviours are foundational to atheism, atheism's foundations are pretty simple and not really enough alone to form any unified identity around.
Rather those behaviours being associated with atheism are the more the result of successful coopting and gatekeeping many years ago of the atheist-as-an-identity, such that other people who have no sincere religious beliefs and would technically be atheists shy away from the label because they want no part of that group's bullshit.
That's why agnostic became a thing, even though saying "I maybe believe in a god" is like saying you have no idea what's going on in your own head. People just wanted a way to say "I don't believe in God, but I'm not a pretentious cunt about it".
atheism's foundations are pretty simple and not really enough alone to form any unified identity around.
They say the same thing about Antifa and BLM too.
Rather those behaviours being associated with atheism are the more the result of successful coopting and gatekeeping many years ago of the atheist-as-an-identity
That's what every feminist, Liberal, Leftist and every other group we criticize says when called out too.
Atheism doesn't get to be an exception just because people here are personally part of the group.
The thing is, not all but most people need some kind of "identity" or sense of belonging. If you remove one of the strongest sources of cultural identity people have (religion) you're going to need to replace it with something else. Hence atheism becoming an identity (or psuedo-religion) is a natural consequence of the philosophy, especially if atheists socialize together.
That's why agnostic became a thing, even though saying "I maybe believe in a god" is like saying you have no idea what's going on in your own head.
This is ridiculous. Atheism is specifically rejection. Agnostic is the only sane default position if you have no specific belief in a deity. It didn't "become a thing". You don't have to have an opinion on everything. The fact that everyone feels like they have to have an opinion on everything is one of the sicknesses of the day. Someone answering "Do you think there's a god?" with "🤷♂️" doesn't mean they're confused or not sure what they believe. It's simply not in our realm of knowing.
You can't not know if you believe in something, either you do or you don't. Belief isn't just some opinion you have, it's a mental state, and the options are a binary yes/no.
You can be unwilling to talk about it or not believe but have no problem with other people believing because you're not that invested in it. That's what made people suddenly flock to agnostic a few years after atheism became synonymous with also being an asshole to people who do believe. I.E. "I don't believe, but I'm not a pretentious cunt about it"
And yes people need an identity. But atheism in a literal sense has nothing to base an identity on, it's a negative, it's the lack of belief in a supernatural god, you can't base an identity on an empty space. That's why atheism as a primary identity label wasn't about not believing, it was about being an antagonist to those who do believe. The two aren't intrinsically linked but the ones who chose to make their identity about it were all the latter because it gave them an actual unifying purpose, the former just didn't care and made their identity about being a NASCAR fan or their career, something tangible.
Frankly the biggest loss of people's foundational identities in the last few generations hasn't even been religion, that had already waned considerably and been replaced with nationalism and patriotism as the dominant identity of the majority, with the United States being one of the few western entities where religion and patriotism became more of an equitable symbiosis rather than replacement. But since WW2 national identities have been on death row, and not even the cold war or a war on terror managed the reverse that verdict. When that happened with only globalist consumption and weird commie brainwashing being offered as alternatives was the real start of the breakdown.
The issue atheists on the right (which until quite recently I would have considered myself) have to contend with is something like 80% of atheists consider themselves "far left" or "progressive" in their politics, with most of the remaining 20% considering themselves "center left". Right-wing atheists, though they do exist (eg. JF. Gariepy), are essentially a rounding error.
Which means that any atheist gatekeeping which might occur would almost certainly work against the right.
Then I'm confused as to what sort of "gatekeeping" you're doing as an extreme minority in a group. The concept isn't "owned" by the left, but all the socio-political power is.
You can't really gatekeep something where both the majority and most of the foundation was built on this exact type of behavior and belief.
This is what atheism is, anything else is the deviation from the norm. And you can't gatekeep from that position any more than you can be a "one of the good one" liberals who think feminism and BLM and all that is good if we just "remove the crazy ones."
I wouldn't say those behaviours are foundational to atheism, atheism's foundations are pretty simple and not really enough alone to form any unified identity around.
Rather those behaviours being associated with atheism are the more the result of successful coopting and gatekeeping many years ago of the atheist-as-an-identity, such that other people who have no sincere religious beliefs and would technically be atheists shy away from the label because they want no part of that group's bullshit.
That's why agnostic became a thing, even though saying "I maybe believe in a god" is like saying you have no idea what's going on in your own head. People just wanted a way to say "I don't believe in God, but I'm not a pretentious cunt about it".
They say the same thing about Antifa and BLM too.
That's what every feminist, Liberal, Leftist and every other group we criticize says when called out too.
Atheism doesn't get to be an exception just because people here are personally part of the group.
The thing is, not all but most people need some kind of "identity" or sense of belonging. If you remove one of the strongest sources of cultural identity people have (religion) you're going to need to replace it with something else. Hence atheism becoming an identity (or psuedo-religion) is a natural consequence of the philosophy, especially if atheists socialize together.
This is ridiculous. Atheism is specifically rejection. Agnostic is the only sane default position if you have no specific belief in a deity. It didn't "become a thing". You don't have to have an opinion on everything. The fact that everyone feels like they have to have an opinion on everything is one of the sicknesses of the day. Someone answering "Do you think there's a god?" with "🤷♂️" doesn't mean they're confused or not sure what they believe. It's simply not in our realm of knowing.
You can't not know if you believe in something, either you do or you don't. Belief isn't just some opinion you have, it's a mental state, and the options are a binary yes/no.
You can be unwilling to talk about it or not believe but have no problem with other people believing because you're not that invested in it. That's what made people suddenly flock to agnostic a few years after atheism became synonymous with also being an asshole to people who do believe. I.E. "I don't believe, but I'm not a pretentious cunt about it"
And yes people need an identity. But atheism in a literal sense has nothing to base an identity on, it's a negative, it's the lack of belief in a supernatural god, you can't base an identity on an empty space. That's why atheism as a primary identity label wasn't about not believing, it was about being an antagonist to those who do believe. The two aren't intrinsically linked but the ones who chose to make their identity about it were all the latter because it gave them an actual unifying purpose, the former just didn't care and made their identity about being a NASCAR fan or their career, something tangible.
Frankly the biggest loss of people's foundational identities in the last few generations hasn't even been religion, that had already waned considerably and been replaced with nationalism and patriotism as the dominant identity of the majority, with the United States being one of the few western entities where religion and patriotism became more of an equitable symbiosis rather than replacement. But since WW2 national identities have been on death row, and not even the cold war or a war on terror managed the reverse that verdict. When that happened with only globalist consumption and weird commie brainwashing being offered as alternatives was the real start of the breakdown.
The issue atheists on the right (which until quite recently I would have considered myself) have to contend with is something like 80% of atheists consider themselves "far left" or "progressive" in their politics, with most of the remaining 20% considering themselves "center left". Right-wing atheists, though they do exist (eg. JF. Gariepy), are essentially a rounding error.
Which means that any atheist gatekeeping which might occur would almost certainly work against the right.
Then I'm confused as to what sort of "gatekeeping" you're doing as an extreme minority in a group. The concept isn't "owned" by the left, but all the socio-political power is.