New Atheists?

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, I've noticed.

But it is really rubbish in the objective sense to you, because you are not really subjective, because you are objective in all your cognition and everybody else as different for cognition are not. That is where it ends for these debates.
I do get that. That is okay. I have tested do it differently than you and that I do it differently than you, works for me. And I accept that you do it differently.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Now report me or don't. .. I too have a crutch. Now what?

I never do that. I have done that perhaps only once or twice in my long association with RF (some 14 years or so). Actually, I like your posts very much. Try to leave it if you have a crutch. With a little courage, you can do it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I never do that. I have done that perhaps only once or twice in my long association with RF (some 14 years or so). Actually, I like your posts very much. Try to leave it if you have a crutch. With a little courage, you can do it.

You don't understand that the crutch is not an actually crutch. It is a metaphor for coping as a human. In your tradition as per science, we all do it, if you moved beyond natural science and look at the soft sciences. That is the joke. But the difference is that I get it is on us all. Where as you in effect think you are special. You are not that kind of special, you are just special for your version of the crutch and not special because you don't have a crutch. All high enough cognitively functioning humans have a crutch.

 

[KWED]

I see a lot of people, usually theists, Bring up the New Atheist. They often try to apply the label to me, and get me to defend random things that they claim New Atheism is about. I deconverted back in the early '80s, so I don't know. Are there actually New Atheists? Are you one?

"New Atheism" is just a term to describe high-profile, committed atheists with good arguments.
There seems to be this idea amongst some religionists that atheists should be neither seen nor heard, and if they are they are somehow "militant" or "strident" and other pejoratives, and their arguments somehow dismissible simply on those grounds.
Baffles me.

 

[KWED]

The word “new”, when used as a prefix to an old idea, organisation or institution, is often employed as a marketing strategy. So perhaps a “New Atheist” is in fact an old atheist, with a book to sell.

But it is usually a term used as a pejorative by religionists rather than a label used by atheists to describe themselves.
So no, it isn't.

 

[KWED]

Can't be that vocal, I've never heard of them.

"New" Testament. Just an old god with a book to sell.

 

[KWED]

Yeah, well, you haven't paid attention to when I "overstep" and question the personal belief system of a given atheist besides being an atheist. I mean, all we do as atheists is not to collect stamps. We never claim evidence, rationality, humanism or do morality/ethics. All we do, when we answer something, is to say - We don't collect stamps.

So again, you do only use evidence and rationality for all your beliefs? I can't remember, if you are one of them.

I have seen atheists taking the ****, but not getting angry or rudely defensive.

 

[KWED]

When people don't qualify the term atheism when talking about certain atheists with specific opinions, atheists complain.

Really? I've never seen that. I suspect you may be over-generalising (or possibly mistaken).
How would one even "qualify" atheism other than in terms of certainty?

 

[KWED]

Atheism isn't a big deal in the UK, it seems to be a massive deal for some people in the US. Maybe a result of hang-ups from the cold war, and the former Soviet Union being ostensible an atheist state.

Indeed. Apparently in US politics being an atheist is a bigger vote loser than almost anything else.
Just look at Trump. The GOP and the knuckle draggers in red states have supported him through a litany of criminal and immoral behaviour - but if he proclaimed that he is an atheist they would drop him like a hot turd.

 

[KWED]

I was responding to the OP. But I realize that you are still unaware that you have a doctrine that you promote.

"In seeking to replace religion with secularism and faith with science, the New Atheists have, perhaps inadvertently, launched a movement with far too many similarities to the ones they so radically oppose. Indeed, while we typically associate fundamentalism with religiously zealotry, in so far as the term connotes an attempt to “impose a single truth on the plural world” – to use the definition of noted philosopher Jonathan Sacks – then there is little doubt that a similar fundamentalist mind-set has overcome many adherents of this latest iteration of anti-theism."

Ah, you mean "A specific movement with an agenda may have a doctrine, and the members of that movement may be atheists", not "Atheism has a doctrine".
Atheism does not have a doctrine. If you believe it has, perhaps you can present it, along with the texts where this doctrine is laid out.

Hope this helped.

 

[RestlessSoul]

"New" Testament. Just an old god with a *book to sell.

*collection of books. But yeah, similar principle. A rebranding exercise

 

[Augustus]

Really? I've never seen that. I suspect you may be over-generalising (or possibly mistaken).
How would one even "qualify" atheism other than in terms of certainty?

Typo, should say atheists.

 

[KWED]

Typo, should say atheists.

Which word needs to be replaced by "atheists"?
"When people don't qualify the term atheism when talking about certain atheists with specific opinions, atheists complain."
And how does that change the context?

 

[Colt]

Ah, you mean "A specific movement with an agenda may have a doctrine, and the members of that movement may be atheists", not "Atheism has a doctrine".
Atheism does not have a doctrine. If you believe it has, perhaps you can present it, along with the texts where this doctrine is laid out.

Hope this helped.

There's alcohol and then there's alcoholism. There are atheists and then there is atheism, the promotion of godless ideals among theists. Any atheist who joins religious forms in an attempt to undermine religion, heckle believers and promote the doctrine of Atheism is promoting a form of religion. It's a kind of oral tradition that doesn't have to be written down by a particular atheist.

 

[Mock Turtle]

There's alcohol and then there's alcoholism. There are atheists and then there is atheism, the promotion of godless ideals among theists. Any atheist who joins religious forms in an attempt to undermine religion, heckle believers and promote the doctrine of Atheism is promoting a form of religion. It's a kind of oral tradition that doesn't have to be written down by a particular atheist.

What should an atheist who joins a religious forum view his/her role as?

 

[Colt]

What should an atheist who joins a religious forum view his/her role as?

As per the OP I'm discussing the religious zeal of atheists on religious forums. We are both welcome guests on the forum. I can't speak to a particular role. Aren't there atheist forums where atheists can disbelieve and make fun of religious people?

 

[KWED]

There's alcohol and then there's alcoholism. There are atheists and then there is atheism, the promotion of godless ideals among theists. Any atheist who joins religious forms in an attempt to undermine religion, heckle believers and promote the doctrine of Atheism is promoting a form of religion. It's a kind of oral tradition that doesn't have to be written down by a particular atheist.

Again, you seem confused. Atheism is simply the position taken by an atheist.
Some atheists actively challenge theists' beliefs. Other atheists may never tell anyone of their atheism.
Hope this helps.

 

[KWED]

As per the OP I'm discussing the religious zeal of atheists on religious forums. We are both welcome guests on the forum. I can't speak to a particular role. Aren't there atheist forums where atheists can disbelieve and make fun of religious people?

Yet more confusion!
Some atheists on here may have an anti-religious zeal.
Or are you using "religious" in the sense of "regularly, with dedication", as in "Bob is religious about his weekend crack and hooker binges"?

 

[Augustus]

Which word needs to be replaced by "atheists"?
"When people don't qualify the term atheism when talking about certain atheists with specific opinions, atheists complain."
And how does that change the context?

Atheism to atheists.

"When people don't qualify the term atheists when talking about certain atheists with specific opinions, atheists complain."

Relating to generalisations about certain kinds of atheist.

Atheists commonly have a poor understanding of religious history.

"New Atheists" commonly have a poor understanding of religious history

etc.

 

[KWED]

Atheism to atheists.

"When people don't qualify the term atheists when talking about certain atheists with specific opinions, atheists complain."

Relating to generalisations about certain kinds of atheist.

Atheists commonly have a poor understanding of religious history.

"New Atheists" commonly have a poor understanding of religious history

etc.

No idea what you are trying to say here. Both those statements are unjustified generalisations.