• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A Bitter Rift Divides Atheists

Apex

Somewhere Around Nothing
I Came across this article over at npr that describes the current rift among the "New" and "Old " atheists. What does everyone think about it? Is there a rift developing among the atheists who prefer ridicule over discussion and the atheists who still think it is possible to respect religious beliefs?

A Bitter Rift Divides Atheists : NPR

Last month, atheists marked Blasphemy Day at gatherings around the world, and celebrated the freedom to denigrate and insult religion.
Some offered to trade pornography for Bibles. Others de-baptized people with hair dryers. And in Washington, D.C., an art exhibit opened that shows, among other paintings, one entitled Divine Wine, where Jesus, on the cross, has blood flowing from his wound into a wine bottle.
Another, Jesus Paints His Nails, shows an effeminate Jesus after the crucifixion, applying polish to the nails that attach his hands to the cross.
"I wouldn't want this on my wall," says Stuart Jordan, an atheist who advises the evidence-based group Center for Inquiry on policy issues. The Center for Inquiry hosted the art show.
Jordan says the exhibit created a firestorm from offended believers, and he can understand why. But, he says, the controversy over this exhibit goes way beyond Blasphemy Day. It's about the future of the atheist movement — and whether to adopt the "new atheist" approach — a more aggressive, often belittling posture toward religious believers.
Some call it a schism.
"It's really a national debate among people with a secular orientation about how far do we want to go in promoting a secular society through emphasizing the 'new atheism,' " Jordan says. "And some are very much for it, and some are opposed to it on the grounds that they feel this is largely a religious country, and if it's pushed the wrong way, this is going to insult many of the religious people who should be shown respect even if we don't agree with them on all issues."
Jordan believes the new approach will backfire.
A Schism?
Jordan is a volunteer at the center and therefore could speak his mind. But interviews for this story with others associated with the Washington, D.C., office were canceled — a curious development for a group that promotes free speech.
Ronald Lindsay, who heads the Center for Inquiry, based in Amherst, N.Y., says he didn't know why the interviews were cancelled. As for the art exhibit and other Blasphemy Day events the group promoted:
"What we wanted were thoughtful, incisive and concise critiques of religion," he says. "We were not trying to insult believers."
But others are perfectly happy to. New atheists like Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins and journalist Christopher Hitchens are selling millions of books and drawing people by the thousands to their call for an uncompromising atheism.
For example, Hitchens, a columnist for Vanity Fair and author of the book God Is Not Great, told a capacity crowd at the University of Toronto, "I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt, and I claim that right." His words were greeted with hoots of approval.
Religion is "sinister, dangerous and ridiculous," Hitchens tells NPR, because it can prompt people to fly airplanes into buildings, and it promotes ignorance. Hitchens sees no reason to sugarcoat his position.
"If I said to a Protestant or Quaker or Muslim, 'Hey, at least I respect your belief,' I would be telling a lie," Hitchens says.
Asked why he feels compelled to be so blunt, he responds: "I believe it's more honest, more brave, more courageous simply to state your own position."
The more outrageous the message the better, says PZ Myers, who writes an influential blog that calls, among other things, for the end of religion. On Blasphemy Day, Myers drove a rusty nail through a consecrated Communion wafer and posted a photo on his Web site.
"People got very angry," he recalls. "I don't know why. I mean, it's just a cracker, right?"
Myers, who teaches biology at the University of Minnesota, Morris, says he received about 15,000 hate e-mails. He says one reason he favors the provocative approach is that it works, especially for the next generation of atheists.
"Edgy is what young people like," Myers says. "They want to cut through the nonsense right away and want to get to the point. They want to hear the story fast, they want it to be exciting, and they want it to be fun. And I'm sorry, the old school of atheism is really, really boring."
The Old School
Paul Kurtz founded the Center for Inquiry three decades ago to offer a positive alternative to religion. He has built alliances with religious groups over issues such as climate change and opposing creationism in the public schools. Kurtz says he was ousted in a "palace coup" last year — and he worries the new atheists will set the movement back.
"I consider them atheist fundamentalists," he says. "They're anti-religious, and they're mean-spirited, unfortunately. Now, they're very good atheists and very dedicated people who do not believe in God. But you have this aggressive and militant phase of atheism, and that does more damage than good."
He hopes this new approach will fizzle.
"Merely to critically attack religious beliefs is not sufficient. It leaves a vacuum. What are you for? We know what you're against, but what do you want to defend?"
The new atheists counter that they believe in reason, science and freedom from religious myth. And, as Lindsay, who replaced Kurtz, puts it: "We take the high road, the low road, country roads, interstates, highways, byways, — whatever it takes to reach people."
 

Nepenthe

Tu Stultus Es
Barbara Bradley Hagerty is NPR's religion correspondent and has written some really disappointing nonsense in the past. This article is yet another example of what happens when someone with an economics degree writes about religion and science. It seems the media's intent is on casting atheism as some "New" vs. "Old" or as some kind of creed. P.Z. Myers sets the record straight: And she sounded so nice on the phone : Pharyngula

The story Barbara Bradley Hagerty cobbled together from interviews with atheists is now up. It's called "A Bitter Rift Divides Atheists", and it's very strange. Her emphasis is on the differences within the atheist community, and she makes it sound like atheism is about to blow apart into a collection of warring sects, just like religion, and offers scornful quotes about how the New Atheism offers nothing.

That's not the message I gave when she interviewed me, but maybe she got it from the others. Or maybe it's what she wanted to hear.

I told her a number of things. I said that atheism doesn't have a central dogma or doctrine, so of course we have a variety of different views under the catch-all category of atheism; and that is a strength of our ideas, that we can freely argue among ourselves. I also explained that we need a variety of approaches to appeal to a wide range of people, and that my personal belief was that we should encourage a thousand flowers of godlessness to bloom, all different.

As to the charge that atheism is a purely negative philosophy, I also said that wasn't so: that it's a rejection of old dogmas and superstitions, sure, but that it's built on the positive value of rationalism and materialism, and scientific thinking. We adopt moral values from humanistic ideas that are centered on stuff that actually exists, like other human beings, rather than imaginary commands from an invisible man in the sky.

She also asked about Paul Kurtz, who does sound rather bitter in the sound bites used in the interview. I think Kurtz is a smart guy, and he has made and is making significant contributions to atheism, and I told Hagerty that I respected him…but that he's only part of the atheist mosaic, not the totality of it. And the same goes for people like Dawkins and Hitchens and Harris and Dennett.

None of that mattered, I guess. She had the goal of making a story that put atheism in a bad light, so she picked a version that made us look like schismatics on the verge of a Thirty Years War. If there'd been some kind of alien unity among us, she probably would have made a story about our intent to crown Richard Dawkins pope. Oh, well. She's wrong.
 

Apex

Somewhere Around Nothing

MSizer

MSizer
Whether a person is rude or kind, realistic or not, I don't think this has anything to do with creed (or lack of). It's exactly like the old "there are nice religious people and not nice religious people" blah blah blah. We're all individuals.
 

Nepenthe

Tu Stultus Es
Atheists have never been united in any way shape or form; they've held widely divergent views when it comes to religion, politics and everything else really. Any perceived rift is simply the rift that's always been there when people are linked solely by their non-theism while being separated by a vast array of political, social, economic, etc. beliefs. I suspect theists see this disparity of ideas as a negative, while atheists see the variety and ecclectic nature of their views as a positive.
 

MSizer

MSizer
Atheists have never been united in any way shape or form; they've held widely divergent views when it comes to religion, politics and everything else really. Any perceived rift is simply the rift that's always been there when people are linked solely by their non-theism while being separated by a vast array of political, social, economic, etc. beliefs. I suspect theists see this disparity of ideas as a negative, while atheists see the variety and ecclectic nature of their views as a positive.

Yes, the church of the flying speghetti monster is already divided. We leave each other in the trenches all of the time. I mean hell, if I were in a trench with Nepenthe, and he were injured, i'd use him as a bullet shield in my run for the hills. That's just the way atheists are. No offence Nepenthe, I'd fully expect you to do the same to me. 8^)
 

Nepenthe

Tu Stultus Es
Yes, the church of the flying speghetti monster is already divided. We leave each other in the trenches all of the time. I mean hell, if I were in a trench with Nepenthe, and he were injured, i'd use him as a bullet shield in my run for the hills. That's just the way atheists are. No offence Nepenthe, I'd fully expect you to do the same to me. 8^)
I'd eat your pancreas first and then burn the rest of your remains in honour of Lord Dawkins and his sacred minion Daniel Dennett may His hallowed name reverberate through the ages.
:bow:
 

OmarKhayyam

Well-Known Member
The idea that atheist are out to "convert" (or perhaps de-convert?) believers is silly. Such a thing is NOT possible. NOTHING no argument no evidence no authority will EVER change the true believers mind. Ever.

What we might do is influence those not presently infected with this nonsense to be somewhat more reticent in buying into these mythologies.

And thereby slowly - VERY slowly - eliminate them from human consciousness.:D
 

AlsoAnima

Friend
The idea that atheist are out to "convert" (or perhaps de-convert?) believers is silly. Such a thing is NOT possible. NOTHING no argument no evidence no authority will EVER change the true believers mind. Ever.
I know a few atheist who will tell you different.

What we might do is influence those not presently infected with this nonsense to be somewhat more reticent in buying into these mythologies.
And thereby slowly - VERY slowly - eliminate them from human consciousness.:D
Sounds like a psychological holy war. Ironic, or just funny?


Unrelated:
By the way, you only need to put the blue tag in your post once. You did it five times
 

OmarKhayyam

Well-Known Member
"Sounds like a psychological holy war. Ironic, or just funny?"


Neither. Nothing "holy" about it but very serious.
 

dogsgod

Well-Known Member
Old atheists, and they know who they are, are pussies. :slap:

There, I just added to the rift.
 
Last edited:

rageoftyrael

Veritas
hey, i'm like half and half. i WANT to just walk up to religious people and smack them upside the head, but i won't cause i follow the golden rule. aka, i want people to respect me enough not to attack my beliefs, so i try not to attack their beliefs. now, here in religiousforums, i'll attack beliefs, but that's kind of the point, isn't it?
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
I think different atheists take different perspectives, approaches and emphases, and that's fine. Some want to co-exist, some are out to destroy religion, and everything in between. There is no atheist doctrine, no one's in charge, and there's no single atheist movement. And that's all fine.

As for me, I'm about in the middle between the two.

I think the author is trying to shoe-horn atheism into a religious division model, which doesn't fit very well.
 

gnomon

Well-Known Member
now, here in religiousforums, i'll attack beliefs, but that's kind of the point, isn't it?

No.

I'm typing this reminder because two letters and a period do not comprise enough characters to submit a reply.

edit: Guess I should have used a smilie to round it off. Or even it off.

edit, again::band:
There's my smilie.

edit, yet again: What was the question?
 
Last edited:

Alceste

Vagabond
I think it's a very silly premise. A "schism" in a non-group? I don't even know any atheists (apart from my brother) outside this forum. It isn't as if it's some kind of philosophy or world view people could even be divided on. It's simply a world view that does not include god-belief. Apart from that, it could mean anything at all. I could believe in Santa Claus and I'd still be an atheist as long as I didn't believe in God.

I don't think you can point to threads from one atheist to other atheists in general saying "stop being a jerk" and say "Look! Schism!" We were never "united" to begin with, and for every such thread you see from atheist to atheist there is another saying "stop being a jerk" from people of one faith (or none) to another, or to everybody.

We certainly haven't cornered the market on whingeing and moaning at each other.
 
Top