New Atheists?

[Augustus]

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

QED

 

[BilliardsBall]

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?

I thought New Atheists primarily use lines of argumentation from recent works by Hitchens and Dawkins, etc.

For example, I've seen atheists move from the indefensible "good and evil are unreal abstractions" to the annoying "we're more good than the religious people".

 

[Colt]

I thought New Atheists primarily use lines of argumentation from recent works by Hitchens and Dawkins, etc.

For example, I've seen atheists move from the indefensible "good and evil are unreal abstractions" to the annoying "we're more good than the religious people".

At the end of the day nonconformists are all alike. Nonconformist activists are religious about their nonconformity.

 

[Mock Turtle]

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?

I'm sure there are, and forums where people endlessly debate/discuss the intricacies of their religious beliefs without ever encountering anything approaching a different view to make them think otherwise, but we are lucky in having a forum that is much more tolerant, and hence we can be what we are. Possibly the atheist fun/ridicule makes up for the religious distaste or worse towards them.

 

[Colt]

I'm sure there are, and forums where people endlessly debate/discuss the intricacies of their religious beliefs without ever encountering anything approaching a different view to make them think otherwise, but we are lucky in having a forum that is much more tolerant, and hence we can be what we are. Possibly the atheist fun/ridicule makes up for the religious distaste or worse towards them.

"Endlessly debating" religion IS the encountering of different views about theistic religion.

The topic is Atheist promoting atheism with a kind of religious zeal.

 

[Mock Turtle]

"Endlessly debating" religion IS the encountering of different views about theistic religion.

The topic is Atheist promoting atheism with a kind of religious zeal.

Anything wrong with this last then, or do religions get special treatment?

 

[ppp]

I thought New Atheists primarily use lines of argumentation from recent works by Hitchens and Dawkins, etc.

For example, I've seen atheists move from the indefensible "good and evil are unreal abstractions" to the annoying "we're more good than the religious people".

Good and evil are abstractions. I don't know what the 'unreal' is supposed to be. We are certainly no gooder or eviler than religious people. We are general better than the depicted gods of religious people. But then so are the religious people.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. and look at the soft sciences. That is the joke. .. 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.

What soft science and what hard science? There is only one kind of science. Is it a joke? If it is a joke, I don't get it. I do not consider myself any special by any measure. I am one of the 8 billion humans and trillions upon trillions of life forms, and octillions of octillions of living and non-living entities. This is what my belief (Advaita Hinduism) teaches me. We do not differentiate between any two things. All that exists in the universe is one entity (physical energy aka Brahman).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What soft science and what hard science? There is only one kind of science. Is it a joke? If it is a joke, I don't get it. I do not consider myself any special by any measure. I am one of the 8 billion humans and trillions upon trillions of life forms, and octillions of octillions of living and non-living entities. This is what my belief (Advaita Hinduism) teaches me. We do not differentiate between any two things. All that exists in the universe is one entity (physical energy aka Brahman).

In my culture there are 7 kinds of science. Now google hard science vs soft science.

 

[Audie]

Good and evil are abstractions. I don't know what the 'unreal' is supposed to be. We are certainly no gooder or eviler than religious people. We are general better than the depicted gods of religious people. But then so are the religious people.

Dunno about more good but atheists are
underrepresented in prisons.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

Yes, I was. Seems like a lifetime ago.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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.

Science is not omnipotent and science is not infallible, but science is the best information available today. Religion is unverified personal belief. My belief (Advaita Hinduism) and science are the same. I am not concerned with what other people believe. I know most Indian scientists are thoroughly theistic. It is the effect of culture. That is their choice and not mine.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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

I have just had an exchange with an atheist, who treat it like a fact, that religion is a crutch.

 

[Sheldon]

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,

Or he reads them, but doesn't share you're interpretation of them. Not admitting one is in error is not the same as being unable to accept one might be in error, just as not giving ground to "flawed and irrational" arguments is not indicative that one is being dogmatic, or incapable of admitting one can be wrong.

Personally I have only ever seen religious apologists and theists claim to have access to immutable truth. Atheism of course is simply the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, so since it makes no claims, and has no doctrine or dogma, it is neither right nor wrong, it is simply the default position, I was born an atheist, and have been taught about religions, but not found their claims at all compelling. Atheists can of course be wrong, but it's a misnomer to assert atheism can be wrong.

When atheists become vocal in their criticisms of religious ideas and the worst behaviour of their adherents, theists tend to attack those atheists, or label atheism as extremism, just as we see here with prominent new atheists.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Dunno about more good but atheists are
underrepresented in prisons.

Yeah, the old dance of correlation versus causation.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Or he reads them, but doesn't share you're interpretation of them. Not admitting one is in error is not the same as being unable to accept one might be in error, just as not giving ground to "flawed and irrational" arguments is not indicative that one is being dogmatic, or incapable of admitting one can be wrong.

Personally I have only ever seen religious apologists and theists claim to have access to immutable truth. Atheism of course is simply the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, so since it makes no claims, and has no doctrine or dogma, it is neither right nor wrong, it is simply the default position, I was born an atheist, and have been taught about religions, but not found their claims at all compelling. Atheists can of course be wrong, but it's a misnomer to assert atheism can be wrong.

When atheists become vocal in their criticisms of religious ideas and the worst behaviour of their adherents, theists tend to attack those atheists, or label atheism as extremism, just as we see here with prominent new atheists.

Yes, it is a fact the the everyday world is physical and not else, right? Lets start there.

 

[ppp]

Dunno about more good but atheists are
underrepresented in prisons.

I know. But the tiny numbers don't make me statistically comfortable with claiming a correlation.

 

[Sheldon]

Your challenge reminds me of the probably apocryphal story of Admiral Nelson holding a telescope to his glass eye. Of course you see no atheists making a religion of science; you’d have to be looking for it, to see it.

Well to be fair since you have claimed it is ubiquitous here, maybe 6 examples of such posts might convince me, that I've somehow inexplicably missed this all pervasive trend among atheists?

I might be less sceptical of the claim of course, had I myself not been falsely labelled as promoting scientism, more than once. Just as when theists tried to tell me my atheism is a belief no deity exists. Acknowledging science is bar far and away the most successful method(s) we have for understanding reality, is not scientism, and disbelieving in any deity or deities is not a belief.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

Very few people who actually study science (or know at least something about it) make any such claims at all. We know the limitations. We know that reason, and sometimes just compassion, have to provide a lot of answers that science cannot speak to.

What we do NOT fall back on is magical thinking -- praying for miracles where none are to be had.

And "the journey of discovers" makes no discovery at all when it proclaims "God did it." That's a total dead end.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

I wonder why people who say over and over again that, "There are dozens of examples," never actually provide any.