The new Athiest Humanities downfall?

[Augustus]

That's to make the list even more laughable?

You genuinely think they have a good track record on such things?

 

[PureX]

My Uncle is an agnostic, of the 'don't know, don't care' variety. For the most part, he thinks religion is a waste of time/effort.

However, he rolls his eyes at branches of Atheism such as this and says "Can't they see they've gone and made a damn religion of it?"

Ironic.

Exactly! It's becoming the same cultist obsession with self-righteousness for some atheists as religious fundamentalism has become for some theists

 

[Altfish]

I found this interesting.

"The ‘new atheism’ is the name given to contemporary atheism as spear-headed by the work of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett.

The new atheism has twelve characteristics that define its nature:

(1) A commitment to explicit, strong or dogmatic atheism as the only rational
choice for modern, independent, free thinking individuals. The new atheists reject
agnosticism as too weak a response to the dangers of religion.
(2) A categorical rejection of any and all super-sensible beings and realities and a
corresponding commitment to ontological (metaphysical) materialism in explaining all phenomena;
(3) A militant agenda and tone which opposes not just of religion itself but even the tolerance of any religious beliefs in others; this agenda and tone is driven by the belief that religion per se is pathological in nature;
(4) A strident, aggressive, provocative and insulting way of expressing themselves and
indulgence in all kinds of polemical and rhetorical shenanigans;
(5) Commitment to the ability of science to answer all human questions by means of the scientific method with its criteria of measurability, repeatability, predictability,
falsifiability; quantifiability;
(6) A belief that faith is inherently an enemy of reason and science and no reconciliation
between them is possible. Religion is inherently irrational. They are naturally in a
perpetual conflict that must end with the victory of one or the other. Faith is defined
as “belief without evidence.” They adhere to the conflict model of the relationship
between religion/faith and reason;
(7) A belief that religion is part of our past but not of our future, i.e. part of our evolutionary heritage that we must learn to overcome;
(8) An insistence of reading scriptures literally (in order to condemn religion) and a
consistent rejection of centuries of non-literal theological interpretations of the
relevant scriptures;
(9) An insistence that humankind has an innate and reliable moral sense or intuition that does not require the guidance of religion; morality is not inherently connected to or based on religion and our morals have less to do with religion than we tend to think.
(10) Presentism: judging past ages by the standards of today, which is, in effect, a failure to recognise progressive revelation. (also the logical error of anachronism);
(11) Their belief that religious faith is either a mental illness or a criminal offense
comparable to child-molesting or an anti-social act that ‘dumbs down’ society as a
whole;
(12) Their rejection of the freedom to be religious; because religion is so damaging
religion is not a legitimate choice in society."

Spoiler: Source

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...cQFnoECAYQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2oB623Tqdht2YN3zoQRQ6K

Edit - A Link that is not a PDF The New Atheism

This may become mankind's greatest challenge, is it the height of materialism, the downfall of the human race as described in prophecy?

How do you see it?

Personally I can leave them to their thoughts, but since some here come up with these replies in their posts on religious threads, I thought it worth discussing.

Regards Tony

Oh dear, Tony, you struggle with atheism don't you.

I've not got time now but ... New Atheism was a term given by theists to describe the likes of Harris, Hitchens, etc and is not a term used by Atheists.
There are no leaders of Atheism, just some who can best express our thoughts.

I'll come back with more when I have time.

 

[PureX]

Although it is true that some atheists can be dogmatic in their antipathy against God or religion, this list goes farther than pretty much any I've ever met. I would bet that even the "Four Horsemen" wouldn't go as far as some of these points claim, such as the idea that agnosticism is "too weak" or that we should abolish freedom of religion.

Actually, I am finding that in spite of their often proclaimed agnosticism, many atheists are extremely gnostic in that they assume that if God existed, they would be able to know it via some inevitable, discernible (by them), "evidence". And in fact they constantly site the lack of such evidence as their reasoning for presuming that no gods exist (also NOT agnosticism). And they persist in this no matter how many times or ways it is explaining to them that the lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack. Also, they venerate "objective evidence" above all else, and completely ignore the fact that everyone is subjectively choosing what they label "evidence", as well as subjectively determining how much of this "evidence" is required to rise to the level of proof (for them). They unilaterally ignore the subjective nature of everyone else's thought process, while presuming their own subjective choices regarding evidence and proof are "objective" and are therefor unassailable. Another very clear example of gnosticism in the extreme.

 

[ChristineM]

I found this interesting.

"The ‘new atheism’ is the name given to contemporary atheism as spear-headed by the work of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett.

The new atheism has twelve characteristics that define its nature:

(1) A commitment to explicit, strong or dogmatic atheism as the only rational
choice for modern, independent, free thinking individuals. The new atheists reject
agnosticism as too weak a response to the dangers of religion.
(2) A categorical rejection of any and all super-sensible beings and realities and a
corresponding commitment to ontological (metaphysical) materialism in explaining all phenomena;
(3) A militant agenda and tone which opposes not just of religion itself but even the tolerance of any religious beliefs in others; this agenda and tone is driven by the belief that religion per se is pathological in nature;
(4) A strident, aggressive, provocative and insulting way of expressing themselves and
indulgence in all kinds of polemical and rhetorical shenanigans;
(5) Commitment to the ability of science to answer all human questions by means of the scientific method with its criteria of measurability, repeatability, predictability,
falsifiability; quantifiability;
(6) A belief that faith is inherently an enemy of reason and science and no reconciliation
between them is possible. Religion is inherently irrational. They are naturally in a
perpetual conflict that must end with the victory of one or the other. Faith is defined
as “belief without evidence.” They adhere to the conflict model of the relationship
between religion/faith and reason;
(7) A belief that religion is part of our past but not of our future, i.e. part of our evolutionary heritage that we must learn to overcome;
(8) An insistence of reading scriptures literally (in order to condemn religion) and a
consistent rejection of centuries of non-literal theological interpretations of the
relevant scriptures;
(9) An insistence that humankind has an innate and reliable moral sense or intuition that does not require the guidance of religion; morality is not inherently connected to or based on religion and our morals have less to do with religion than we tend to think.
(10) Presentism: judging past ages by the standards of today, which is, in effect, a failure to recognise progressive revelation. (also the logical error of anachronism);
(11) Their belief that religious faith is either a mental illness or a criminal offense
comparable to child-molesting or an anti-social act that ‘dumbs down’ society as a
whole;
(12) Their rejection of the freedom to be religious; because religion is so damaging
religion is not a legitimate choice in society."

Spoiler: Source

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...cQFnoECAYQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2oB623Tqdht2YN3zoQRQ6K

Edit - A Link that is not a PDF The New Atheism

This may become mankind's greatest challenge, is it the height of materialism, the downfall of the human race as described in prophecy?

How do you see it?

Personally I can leave them to their thoughts, but since some here come up with these replies in their posts on religious threads, I thought it worth discussing.

Regards Tony

Oh how novel. Another atheist bashing thread based on the thoughts of a minority religion with delusions of grandure.

I will repeat, again

Atheism : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Nothing more, nothing less. Anything added do that is down to individual misrepresentation


And your list reads like that of a fundamentalist religions daily chores.

 

[viole]

I found this interesting.

"The ‘new atheism’ is the name given to contemporary atheism as spear-headed by the work of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett.

The new atheism has twelve characteristics that define its nature:

(1) A commitment to explicit, strong or dogmatic atheism as the only rational
choice for modern, independent, free thinking individuals. The new atheists reject
agnosticism as too weak a response to the dangers of religion.
(2) A categorical rejection of any and all super-sensible beings and realities and a
corresponding commitment to ontological (metaphysical) materialism in explaining all phenomena;
(3) A militant agenda and tone which opposes not just of religion itself but even the tolerance of any religious beliefs in others; this agenda and tone is driven by the belief that religion per se is pathological in nature;
(4) A strident, aggressive, provocative and insulting way of expressing themselves and
indulgence in all kinds of polemical and rhetorical shenanigans;
(5) Commitment to the ability of science to answer all human questions by means of the scientific method with its criteria of measurability, repeatability, predictability,
falsifiability; quantifiability;
(6) A belief that faith is inherently an enemy of reason and science and no reconciliation
between them is possible. Religion is inherently irrational. They are naturally in a
perpetual conflict that must end with the victory of one or the other. Faith is defined
as “belief without evidence.” They adhere to the conflict model of the relationship
between religion/faith and reason;
(7) A belief that religion is part of our past but not of our future, i.e. part of our evolutionary heritage that we must learn to overcome;
(8) An insistence of reading scriptures literally (in order to condemn religion) and a
consistent rejection of centuries of non-literal theological interpretations of the
relevant scriptures;
(9) An insistence that humankind has an innate and reliable moral sense or intuition that does not require the guidance of religion; morality is not inherently connected to or based on religion and our morals have less to do with religion than we tend to think.
(10) Presentism: judging past ages by the standards of today, which is, in effect, a failure to recognise progressive revelation. (also the logical error of anachronism);
(11) Their belief that religious faith is either a mental illness or a criminal offense
comparable to child-molesting or an anti-social act that ‘dumbs down’ society as a
whole;
(12) Their rejection of the freedom to be religious; because religion is so damaging
religion is not a legitimate choice in society."

Spoiler: Source

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...cQFnoECAYQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2oB623Tqdht2YN3zoQRQ6K

Edit - A Link that is not a PDF The New Atheism

This may become mankind's greatest challenge, is it the height of materialism, the downfall of the human race as described in prophecy?

How do you see it?

Personally I can leave them to their thoughts, but since some here come up with these replies in their posts on religious threads, I thought it worth discussing.

Regards Tony

Who does believe those prophecies?

However, I think that new Athiesm is more like Spelling Downfall.

Ciao

- viole

 

[oldbadger]

You went for the slam dunk, your a winner just for doing that.

Hopefully I will get back and respond to your points.

Regards Tony

That's what I like and enjoy about debates betwixt you and I.
I think we can both bounce rather than break, during these.

 

[oldbadger]

That's to make the list even more laughable?

Well, it's fun........... what would I do at morning coffee if all threads were normal?
Tell you the truth, I actually liked a couple of the points.

I like watching Dawky on telly....... wearing a dog collar and stuff like that.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Who has pushed " new atheism" on you?
Or tried to make you not be yourself?

You sure this has happened?

That's exactly what the op says they're doing, denying me religious experience.

 

[exchemist]

More atheist bashing, obviously. I mean, why did you stop there?

It's not atheist-bashing, actually. It is a critique of one, particular, evangelical, atheist movement led by Dawkins and co.

Dawkins and co seem to be the fundies of the atheist world, devoting a lot of effort to attacking religion, and exporting their ideas that religion is ridiculous and damaging extensively via the media. I think @JustGeorge 's uncle is spot-on when he observes that they've made a religion of it!

I have no problem with atheism in general, or with the physicalism the New Atheists espouse. It seems a perfectly reasonable point of view to take. The principal problem I see with New Atheism is that it attacks religion without seeming to understand what religion really is about. Thus it spends most of its time vigorously attacking a caricature. The focus on demolishing biblical literalism (what, again?), which is just a naive c.19th invention of a handful of Protestant sects, is a case in point. More generally, it seems to make the error of thinking religion is about giving an account of the physical world, rather than understanding that it is first and foremost a guide for living one's life.

And, since the New Atheism spends its time attacking religion, it can hardly object that religion may attack it in return.

 

[Kooky]

This may become mankind's greatest challenge, is it the height of materialism, the downfall of the human race as described in prophecy?

You have to be a bit more specific than that.
Whose prophecy are we talking about, and what does it say?

 

[oldbadger]

On the other side, have you heard of Ingersoll atheism? I spent a lot of time at religious gatherings with one, who was firm in her disbelief, but loved the beauty in religious rituals and learning from people different from herself.

Now if @TransmutingSoul hadn't sported this thread I might never have heard about Robert Ingersoll and his famous lectures of the 19th century. Thank you JustGeorge.

Look at this:-
In a lecture entitled "The Great Infidels", he attacked the doctrine of Hell: "All the meanness, all the revenge, all the selfishness, all the cruelty, all the hatred, all the infamy of which the heart of man is capable, grew blossomed, and bore fruit in this one word – Hell."

......... ain't that something?

 

[oldbadger]

It's not atheist-bashing, actually. It is a critique of one, particular, evangelical, atheist movement led by Dawkins and co..

Absolutely!
Just for fun, imagine how Dawky would react if there is a God, and who takes him after death for a 'What Next' interview!

 

[osgart]

Militant atheism is a real thing. I don't know about the criteria you mentioned. It's not my kind of atheism.

It's like a fundamentalist anti religious extremist pursuit.

I think some of militant atheism is reflected on RF.

My atheism is different. I actually have a strong desire to find a real God. My conviction is something I cannot help but see; there's probably no God.

However I'm strongly spiritual minded, and have devout religiosity. I don't see much of value in Abrahamic religions such as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Some of those stories have value, but most of it is mythological, and dogmatic gobbledygook. I was raised with the poisons of religion, and had to fight my way out of it.

As an atheist, I'm down to my last straw with there being a God. If there is a God, the only way to know God is personally without the shackles of past religion. Perhaps God would be more into truth realization, moreso than being worshipped all the time. Perhaps God is into personal responsibility moreso than obedient faith for some kind of transformation. Perhaps God isn't omniscient.

When I talk to religious folks I'm more interested in the meaning they get out of their religion. I stick to the truth seeking aspect of it. I am friendly toward Abrahamic people, not so friendly to the religions though.

 

[danieldemol]

It's not atheist-bashing, actually. It is a critique of one, particular, evangelical, atheist movement led by Dawkins and co.

But is it an accurate critique of that movement with respect to points (3), (11) and (12)?

That's what I wish to know, the author of the OP doesn't seem to know.

 

[RestlessSoul]

In defence of Christopher Hitchens, the guy’s tongue was always in his cheek. It’s not his fault he accumulated a legion of acolytes deaf to irony and nuance, who took everything he wrote as seriously as if it were Gospel.

Victor Hugo once said that The KJ Bible made England, but that England made Shakespeare. Well, England made Hitchens too, and irony is as close to the heart of England, as rain and mist.

 

[ChristineM]

The ‘new atheism’ is the name given to contemporary atheism as spear-headed by the work of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett.

An asside, Dawkins is not an atheist but by his own words."I can not be sure that God does not exist." Is more an agnostic.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Which one's on the list do you see have not been used on RF.

Regards Tony

At one time or another most things have been used to attack or support religions on these and other forums.
However, what is new to this OP is suggesting that there is such a thing as "New Atheism" and that it has a Coherent agenda and ethos.

This gives it a legitimacy it has not earned and does nor deserve.

 

[exchemist]

But is it an accurate critique of that movement with respect to points (3), (11) and (12)?

That's what I wish to know, the author of the OP doesn't seem to know.

I have heard Dawkins claiming that religion is pathological, yes*. Though he has become less strident in recent years, it is true - it may be that he has softened a bit, either through some insight he may have gained from his debates with people like Rowan Williams or because he has realised how counterproductive such extreme claims are in practice. He won't want to go down in history as another scientist who went wacko in his declining years, like Linus Pauling.

As to whether the New Atheists would actually propose to deny people the freedom to follow a religion, I agree that me had me stroking my chin. I have not heard that, certainly.

*I can't find a quote, offhand, to support this, but I did find this NYT review of Dawkins' book "Beyond Belief", in which he is said to describe religion as a pernicious delusion: Beyond Belief (Published 2006)

 

[firedragon]

Militant atheism is a real thing.

If I am not mistaken, the old term for a political establishment of this nature was "militant godless" during the bolshevik period in Russia. They even ran anti religious museums. The had anti religious posters, and when a church was closed, sometimes priests murdered, and ransacked, they would display things they took from these churches also in these so called museums.