New Atheists?

[lukethethird]

Yeah, that must have been hard. But what does that actually have to do with New Atheists as New Atheists?

What is 'new' is the platform, as in social media, atheists can now be heard, I didn't even know atheism was a thing in the 60's.

 

[F1fan]

"New atheism" is just a lable applied to people who, over the last few decades, have decided to speak up and talk about their views on some of the harms that religions can do -- and most assuredly have done.

In that sense, although I've been an atheist as long as I've been consciously considering "God," I am something of a new atheist. I began really talking about my doubts about religion in the 1990's, and have been growing more certain that religion -- overall -- is a force for holding back the progress of human-kind towards being a species able to live together, sustainably, on the only home we can have, so far as we know, yet.

Were you on the AOL debate boards back in the 90's? I was. It was a great way to have some autonomy and express such unfavorable views like disbelief. Disbelief was before that time pretty much exclusive to academics, like Jonathan Miller who did a documentary about the history of disbelief for BBC. It's quite good and humble. This surely gave the groundwork for more recent atheists and the rise in acceptance of not being a believer.

 

[F1fan]

For those interested here is a link to the first of three episodes:

 

[F1fan]

My guess is because those who get their panties bunched up over them tend to be American.

Well REAL Americans believe in God, love their guns, and attack governments, British and American.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Atheists do not have any problem with theists till the theists start bragging before them about their God/son/prophet/messenger/manifestation/mahdi/saint. We understand that many of the theists are not capable or trained to understand today's science. They are not courageous enough to leave their crutches.

It seems to me that there is a certain kind of atheist who has made science their religion, and proclaimed it omnipotent and infallible. I would respectfully suggest that those who do this, have a somewhat confused notion of the function, purpose and limitations of both science and religion. Actual scientists tend not to be so dogmatic; not much can be achieved in any discipline, without an open minded approach to the journey of discovery.

 

[lukethethird]

It seems to me that there is a certain kind of atheist who has made science their religion, and proclaimed it omnipotent and infallible. I would respectfully suggest that those who do this, have a somewhat confused notion of the function, purpose and limitations of both science and religion. Actual scientists tend not to be so dogmatic; not much can be achieved in any discipline, without an open minded approach to the journey of discovery.

I think most people are aware of the limitations of science, it's theism that knows no limits, it simply has none, anything goes. I have never in my entire life known of an atheist who has ever made science their religion, it's the silliest of straw man arguments tossed about by theists that don't know any better.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I think most people are aware of the limitations of science, it's theism that knows no limits, it simply has none, anything goes. I have never in my entire life known of an atheist who has ever made science their religion, it's the silliest of straw man arguments tossed about by theists that don't know any better.

I disagree. This is old ground, and I have no wish to keep going over it, but we see exactly that sort of fundamentalist atheist-scientism on this forum daily. There are dozens of examples.

 

[Windwalker]

You think that people like Dawkins are "radical fundamentalists"?

I think of him as less as an atheist and more as an anti-theist. In the world of atheism, he is not a "thinker". He's a zealot. Contrast him with the likes of Sartre or Camus, and you'll get the point. He's great at debunking mythic-literal belief, but then he errors in thinking that is the extent of what religion is. He's out of his depth when it comes to that.

The theistic equivalent of Richard Dawkins isn't Pat Robertson; it's the slightly-liberal Anglican minister who, if people were going to fault him for anything, it would be for being too boring.

I read The God Delusion. It was like a freshman's term paper with an axe to grind. Sure, he understands Noah's Ark isn't real, but that's child's play. Not the grand revelation that makes him an authority on religion. So yes, he is like the flip-side of Pat Robertson, except in believing it's all literally true, he takes that point of view and shows it's not all literally true. Big deal. That's like a 5th grader picking on a 3rd grader.

If you don't believe me, grab a random sermon transcript from a moderate, liberal Christian denomination in praise of faith, then - without making the language any more emotionally charged - switch the wording so that it's speaking against faith instead of in favour of it. The result will likely be something more extreme than any speech that Dawkins ever gave.

You mean like this? In an address to the American Humanist Association in 1996,

"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, "mad cow" disease, and many others, but I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate."​

Or this:

I certainly wouldn’t wish to prohibit parents influencing their children. However, for the rest of the world, to label a child a Catholic child simply because its parents are Catholic, seems to me to be a form of child abuse. The child is too young to know.

[*Footnote: Isn't it ironic how that atheists like to say that little babies are atheists then, because that
ostensibly is the "default position"? Should we consider that a form of child abuse too, if that is an actual rational argument to make? Sauce for the goose...]
​

Or this:

I think the effect of all religious faith is negative... I think that faith teaches you to believe something without evidence, and that shuts your mind off... As a scientist and as an educator, I'm against the idea of faith -- the idea that you believe something simply because you believe it.
​

The above statement is incredibly ignorant of what religious faith is about, BTW. But are you catching the anti-religion, anti-theist bent here? This is distinctly different than traditional atheism.

But that's fine. Anti-theism has it's place in the conversation, just as it's mirror twin religious fundamentalism does. I just don't consider it rational at its heart, while it hides behind that brand label, just like religious fundamentalism hides behind the name God. Neither truly live up to the name.

Reza Aslan: Sam Harris and "New Atheists" aren't new, aren't even atheists

Richard Dawkins Is Wrong About Religion

 

[Father Heathen]

Well REAL Americans believe in God, love their guns, and attack governments, British and American.

Religious fundamentalism, patriotism, conspiracy theories, gun/military/cop fetishism, and even sports are conflated into this bizarre and aggressive agglomeration that considers itself the real America and everyone else an enemy in league with the devil.

 

[lukethethird]

I disagree. This is old ground, and I have no wish to keep going over it, but we see exactly that sort of fundamentalist atheist-scientism on this forum daily. There are dozens of examples.

Why do you even associate atheists with science? Religious belief may very well be the antithesis of inquiry, but it sure doesn't take a scientist to notice that. Atheists aren't atheists because of science, atheists are atheists because they don't believe theists and their stories. I have never been a scientist and no one has ever mistaken me for one, nor ever will, all I see is a bad attempt at bluffing, you claiming there is a certain kind of atheist who has made science their religion, and proclaimed it omnipotent and infallible, then going on to claim there are dozens of examples.

I challenge you to come up with an atheist on this forum that proclaimed that.

What is old ground is these sorts of useless proclamations.

 

[F1fan]

It seems to me that there is a certain kind of atheist who has made science their religion, and proclaimed it omnipotent and infallible.

This doesn't represent how educated people relate to the knowledge science reports. You might be revealing the weakness of how theists treat their concepts of god, as if the concept is omnipotent and infallible, which is a pretty hard thing for flawed sinners like you to conclude to any certainty, yes?

You could be mistaken in your religious belief, yes?

 

[F1fan]

Religious fundamentalism, patriotism, conspiracy theories, gun/military/cop fetishism, and even sports are conflated into this bizarre and aggressive agglomeration that considers itself the real America and everyone else an enemy in league with the devil.

These right wing crazies really need their own place to be, away from America proper. Let them lose in Cuba, maybe?

Escape From New York is starting to seem like a good policy proposition for American security.

 

[lukethethird]

This doesn't represent how educated people relate to the knowledge science reports. You might be revealing the weakness of how theists treat their concepts of god, as if the concept is omnipotent and infallible, which is a pretty hard thing for flawed sinners like you to conclude to any certainty, yes?

You could be mistaken in your religious belief, yes?

It appears one would have to hold god beliefs really firmly in order to be certain of knowing the truth, no room for mistakes. The believer must think it's the same for everyone, that beliefs must be held firmly, which is hardly the case.

 

[lukethethird]

New Atheists?
No, nothing new to see here, same old same old.

 

[F1fan]

It appears one would have to hold god beliefs really firmly in order to be certain of knowing the truth, no room for mistakes.

Right, look at the huge mistake of the fifth jihadist not getting on Flight 93, and the infidel passengers fought back against God's will.

The 9-11 Jihadists showed the pinnacle of faith in how firmly they held their beliefs in God's will, to the point it cost their lives. That's is pretty damn certain. The average believer isn't nearly that certain.

The believer must think it's the same for everyone, that beliefs must be held firmly, which is hardly the case.

It's a big task to kill all infidels and sinners. Who's got time for that when the kids have soccer practice every afternoon after work? Really, why can't God do his own work?

 

[ppp]

As powerful and influential as the US is, it's still in the world's interest for there not to be dumdums behind its wheel.

We are full ourselves. We are in decline and we are trying to rest on the laurels of our imagined past.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You mean like this? In an address to the American Humanist Association in 1996,

"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, "mad cow" disease, and many others, but I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate."​

Or this:

I certainly wouldn’t wish to prohibit parents influencing their children. However, for the rest of the world, to label a child a Catholic child simply because its parents are Catholic, seems to me to be a form of child abuse. The child is too young to know.

[*Footnote: Isn't it ironic how that atheists like to say that little babies are atheists then, because that
ostensibly is the "default position"? Should we consider that a form of child abuse too, if that is an actual rational argument to make? Sauce for the goose...]
​

Or this:

I think the effect of all religious faith is negative... I think that faith teaches you to believe something without evidence, and that shuts your mind off... As a scientist and as an educator, I'm against the idea of faith -- the idea that you believe something simply because you believe it.
​

The above statement is incredibly ignorant of what religious faith is about, BTW. But are you catching the anti-religion, anti-theist bent here? This is distinctly different than traditional atheism.

Yes, like that. Compare and contrast:

"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, "mad cow" disease, and many others, but I think a case can be made that a lack of faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate."

Feel free to go ahead and google whichever "moderate" denomination you like; I'm sure you'll see examples of sermons and articles about the importance of faith that are even more denigrating to the non-religious.

Here's one example from a random United Church (pretty much the most moderate, milquetoast Christian denomination in Canada):

As parents it is our job to do our best to ensure that those children are raised in the faith. In fact, I will go as far as to say that the single most important things we can do for our children is raise them to be Christians, to accept our faith for their own. It’s the only thing that we do for them that has eternal consequences.

Cottam United Church - Nine O’Clock in the Morning

I certainly wouldn’t wish to prohibit parents influencing their children. However, for the rest of the world, for Catholic parents not to raise their children in the Church, seems to me to be a form of child abuse. The child is too young to know.

This one is almost word-for-word out of my (Catholic) marriage preparation class. Nobody even flinched; it was just accepted as a priest saying the sort of thing that priests say.

... and it's echoed in that United Church sermon I quoted earlier.

I think the effect of all religious faith is positive... I think that faith gives you strength and allows you to do great things... As a scientist and as an educator, I'm in favour of the idea of faith -- the idea that you believe something simply because you believe it.

... echoes of "with faith, all things are possible."

See what I mean?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, like that. Compare and contrast:

"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, "mad cow" disease, and many others, but I think a case can be made that a lack of faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate."

Feel free to go ahead and google whichever "moderate" denomination you like; I'm sure you'll see examples of sermons and articles about the importance of faith that are even more denigrating to the non-religious.

Here's one example from a random United Church (pretty much the most moderate, milquetoast Christian denomination in Canada):


Cottam United Church - Nine O’Clock in the Morning

I certainly wouldn’t wish to prohibit parents influencing their children. However, for the rest of the world, for Catholic parents not to raise their children in the Church, seems to me to be a form of child abuse. The child is too young to know.

This one is almost word-for-word out of my (Catholic) marriage preparation class. Nobody even flinched; it was just accepted as a priest saying the sort of thing that priests say.

... and it's echoed in that United Church sermon I quoted earlier.

I think the effect of all religious faith is positive... I think that faith gives you strength and allows you to do great things... As a scientist and as an educator, I'm in favour of the idea of faith -- the idea that you believe something simply because you believe it.

... echoes of "with faith, all things are possible."

See what I mean?

So you have solved the problem of epistemological solipsism and we don't need methodological naturalism, as it is settled, that philosophical naturalism is a fact?

I mean, yes, people should learn to do critical thinking, but that is so for all humans.

 

[Windwalker]

Yes, like that. Compare and contrast:

"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, "mad cow" disease, and many others, but I think a case can be made that a lack of faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate."

You stipulated a moderate or liberal Christian church. That's nothing you'd hear there. That IS however what you would hear in a fundamentalist church. So the comparison stands, only for what I said.

Feel free to go ahead and google whichever "moderate" denomination you like; I'm sure you'll see examples of sermons and articles about the importance of faith that are even more denigrating to the non-religious.

As they say, 'where's your evidence'? While a moderate church may speak of the importance of faith, that in no way means they see a lack of faith, i.e, "atheists or atheism" as "comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate". That is the comparison. Dawkins says religion is that. And the only religionists I know that would speak of atheism like that are.... fundamentalists. They are the haters. Not the moderates.

Here's one example from a random United Church (pretty much the most moderate, milquetoast Christian denomination in Canada):


Cottam United Church - Nine O’Clock in the Morning

I just read through that whole sermon, and the only thing I saw in there about faith and kids was this, "As parents it is our job to do our best to ensure that those children are raised in the faith. In fact, I will go as far as to say that the single most important things we can do for our children is raise them to be Christians, to accept our faith for their own. It’s the only thing that we do for them that has eternal consequences."

Not so sure what's offensive about that? Don't all parents want to raise their children with the tools they have found works for them in their lives? I don't see an attack on outsiders here, like you do with Dawkins' anti-theism rhetoric.

Perhaps you saw something in there I missed? But FYI, that group sounds like an evangelical Pentecostal group. That is fundamentalist. I was in a Pentecostal group. They are fundamentalists. I know this. You need to find a liberal or progressive, or even moderate church. Evangelicals tend to not be that.

I certainly wouldn’t wish to prohibit parents influencing their children. However, for the rest of the world, for Catholic parents not to raise their children in the Church, seems to me to be a form of child abuse. The child is too young to know.

This one is almost word-for-word out of my (Catholic) marriage preparation class. Nobody even flinched; it was just accepted as a priest saying the sort of thing that priests say.

They actually said to not raise you child in the church is a form of child abuse? Wow. That's pretty harsh! Can you provide the exact quote for confirmation that was what was said? But if what they meant was it's irresponsible to not give your child good guidance through religious principles, well, isn't that kind of like saying, "It's a terrible disservice to your children to let them grow up like weeds and not give them proper structures, boundaries, and guidance. It's a form of neglect"?

I don't see that at all comparable to what Dawkins meant. Not in the least. He meant that to teach religion, is to poison their minds. That's just plain old ignorance and disdain of religion on his part.

... and it's echoed in that United Church sermon I quoted earlier.

I think the effect of all religious faith is positive... I think that faith gives you strength and allows you to do great things... As a scientist and as an educator, I'm in favour of the idea of faith -- the idea that you believe something simply because you believe it.

... echoes of "with faith, all things are possible."

See what I mean?

Well the key difference here, is one is speaking of positives, the other is tearing the other down. If you want an apples to apples comparison, the church you're citing from should say something negative against science and rationality, "I see the effects of science as negative... I think science destroys your life... I hate science, because it denies faith".

Now that is a comparison to make. However, it doesn't exist in your references. Can you find that in a moderate or liberal church (not right wing evangelical/fundamentalist churches).

 

[RestlessSoul]

This doesn't represent how educated people relate to the knowledge science reports. You might be revealing the weakness of how theists treat their concepts of god, as if the concept is omnipotent and infallible, which is a pretty hard thing for flawed sinners like you to conclude to any certainty, yes?

You could be mistaken in your religious belief, yes?

Yes, of course I could be wrong. The refusal to countenance the possibility of being wrong, the inability to give ground in an argument; these are among the hallmarks of the fundamentalist (and the narcissist). Are you really going to tell me you don’t see these traits exhibited by some of the atheist contributors to this forum? Of course, it’s possible that you just don’t read their posts,