I realize that most cults are ones with a religious slant, but as myself and others have experienced, it seems some militant New Atheists, such as the Atheist Foundation of Australia can fit most of the definitions of a modern cult. As this blogger points out, here and here, these folks have taken a hard-line stance against religious people including harassment, dangerous group think and hive mind symptoms and directly support certain of their "leaders" who have advocated violence against religious people. There forums are here, [www.atheistfoundation.org.au] .

Online activities include thing such as inviting religious people in to "debate" with them, but then these folks are immediately sequestered into a segregated forum, where they are picked on, harassed, berated and then asked to see "the way to reason." This is an invitation to become a "member" of their group, and given certain privileges and rights, which are nothing more than code words for rewards for coming into the fold. This is not different than say how Scientology works.

They share stories of "religious" people they know in real life, and what they have done to "work on" them, including real life tactics such as verbal abuse, confrontations and requests for debates, where they can belittle them.

They have a set of "rules" which they call Woltzy's rules and treat ironically enough, as if they must follow them almost like scripture. Some of these rules include things like Understand we are not just picking on your religion, we are picking on all of them. When it comes to superstitions, each of us is an equal-opportunity destroyer. It may seem almost benign on the surface, as many other religious cults appear on the surface, but once you dig a bit deeper there is a definite push to belittle, beret, attempt to convert, initiation into membership and a push to repeat this cycle again.

Has anyone else experienced anything else like this? As a moderate Christian that lives in Perth, this greatly bothers me, as they even had a convention last year entitled "The Rise of Atheism." This isn't just anger towards religious institutions, this is a systematic set of principles to convert, confront and brainwash.

You use the word "militant"? Does that mean they are stockpiling weapons like a militia, or just that they are blunt in their message?

Of course its possible that any group of people can start following a local leader, no matter the belief or non-belief, and create problems.

But those who have gone to various skeptic and atheist meetings, usually find its a fairly tame affair, and that frankly no one can "lead" that group of people. Its been called "herding cats".

But some local atheist groups have gotten more public and aggressive and loud, with the rise of religious fundamentalism. Some are also taking out provocative ads to create controversy and stir the pot.

There is an infinite difference between an Angry Atheist or some new atheist movements that have become more vocal, and something like Scientology.
first off, Scientology is very FRIENDLY when they first meet you, they invite you in, and try to befriend you, it only turns ugly once they have their fingers into you, but even then its done in a way that many people stay in the group for years.

Where is the financial exploitation of the members? The courses for 10K?
Granted, some people in atheist groups can be arrogant jerks, but that is a different matter.

Maybe someone from Australia will see this and address it.

I was surprised to see Qanan's post here.

I am a moderator on the Atheist Foundation of Australia's forums I do not recall a poster using the name “Qanan” or similar on our forums: http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums is the address, not as stated in the OP. This might not be the only factual error in the original post: I hope to supply information which will enable readers to make up their own minds.

The AFA itself is NOT the same as the AFA Forums, for a start. Many AFA members do not use the forums at all, and many forum users are not AFA members: it would be wrong to mistake the forums for the AFA, or vice versa.

We might return soon to the matters of the forum, with which Qanan had so much difficulty, but let's examine the Atheist Foundation of Australia itself for a moment.

The AFA's “About Us” page contains a brief history of the foundation, and lists its aims:

To encourage and to provide a means of expression for informed free-thought on philosophical and social issues.

Quote
AFA Aims
To safeguard the rights of all non-religious people.

To serve as a focal point for the fellowship of non-religious people.

To offer reliable information in place of superstition and to offer the methodology of reason in place of faith so as to enable people to take responsibility for the full development of their potential as human beings.

To promote atheism.

Now as to where the OP got the notion that either the AFA or its members “directly support certain of their "leaders" who have advocated violence against religious people”, I cannot tell. Perhaps he/she could show where the idea came from, or withdraw the accusation. I personally abhor violence, and as far as I am aware the AFA's executive are of similar opinion. (And "Leaders"? seriously - The Anticult is certainly on the money with the cat-herding metaphor!)

As far as the charges Qanan levels against the forum, I will plead guilty to allowing unsupportable claims and ideas to be strenuously tested. The AFA's roots in the Rationalist Association of South Australia (the RA of SA became the AFA in 1970) are borne out in the AFA philosophy, which

Quote
Atheist Foundation Of Australia - Philosophy
... recognises scientific method as the only rational means toward understanding reality. To question and critically examine all ideas, testing them in the light of experiment, leads to the discovery of facts

New members to the forum are given notice of the vigorous testing their ideas may receive. The first reply to a user's initial post reads:

Quote
AFA Automated Welcome Message
Hello, (name of person)

This is an automatic message that all new users receive.

We like people, and we like facts too!

We're friendly but we're skeptical, and if somebody calls for proof, it's not an accusation. Only the strong ideas thrive here: we try to respect people. (We do not tolerate personal abuse.)

If you're an AFA member and need your membership status recognised in forum access, please send a Private Message to Admin, including the name on your AFA membership.

You may already have visited these other handy places:
* New Member Information
* Welcome from AFA president
* For those interested in learning, I recommend the Atheism Resource Thread maintained by Fearless.
* And a quick look at our reserved spot for belief-based discussion, Fantasy Island, includes Wolty's List, a sort-of "things we've seen before" for those of faith.

If you've got questions, please ask. Moderators have red name tags, but many of our friendly people may have the answers you need.

Enjoy the forums. We hope to see plenty from you in discussions.

Have fun.

It may be that Qanan does not discriminate between an idea he/she holds dear and his/her own person. I would need to know what name Qanan used on AFA Forums to comment further on the individual case.

As far as the general accusations go:

The debate forum is not compulsory: indeed its use is not encouraged. Only three debates have taken place:
“Digitalos” v “TheDoer” (neither of them is an AFA member, by the way) - October 2009,
“LionIRC” v “Davo” – June 2010, and
Troy Geri v “Loki” - October 2010.

As far as I can ascertain, each of the three believers (first name in each pairing) came to the forums to put their point of view across and convince atheists to change.

That brings me to the matter of Fantasy Island. I can comment on the AFA Forums' belief discussion area with some authority, as I am one of those who argued for a place where people of faith (in many alternative ideas, not just religions, BTW: we include homeopathy and UFOs, as well as some atheists with notions they promote but cannot support) can contribute.

The “Fantasy Island” is there to include the voices of those who would otherwise be silenced. (Compare some Christian forums, where agreement with the dominant creed is a condition of use.)

Some posters are able to read the entire public forums, but only allowed to post in Fantasy Island. This is a moderator decision and does not depend on one's statement of belief.

Regular users have an expectation that the rationalist/skeptic flavour of our mainstream discussions will be preserved. Once a discussion or a poster cross the line into unsupported claims, a thread or profile may be transferred to the appropriate area.

I've said my piece, and rather than have you take it at face value, I would invite examination of the AFA or the forums by any party interested in making up their own mind.

Qanan may have gotten a few things mixed up: I would certainly hope he/she does not have such a dislike of atheism that he/she would deliberately distort matters.

I may be contacted via Black@pikkiwoki.com if needed.

Admins: Please remove this thread. I was mistaken, and took things I saw too literally. They are most definitely not a cult, and I apologize for wasting the time of this forum.

Thanks!

The thread will not be removed.

But your clarification and apology are noted.

Good update to this thread.
Its a good reference looking at the different ways of looking into these issues.

Of course, there is no reason why any group of people claiming to be "atheist" or anything else, could not set themselves up, and form a destructive cultish group. One could name several current and past.

But this was a good clarification from the Oz Atheists, and people can do their research, their own critical analysis, and be able to tell the difference between various groups of people. Most organized atheists are pretty moderate, but of course some are quite aggressive, and some are arrogant, but again, that is different from a cultish sect. You have to look also for the exploitation of members, etc.


It seems the Oz Atheists are operating out of quite a moderate atheist critical thinking position.
In fact using the methods they seem to be using, is basically the exact technical opposite of a "cult", and are the same methods used by many on these forums to sort through the morass of cultish groups!

I agree Antivcult, and you are right, it is important to see the difference between actual harmful cults, and other groups and organization who may just appear to be aggressive or who just strongly disagree with others.