A Bitter Rift Divides Atheists

[Apex]

I suppose we could always do it the way religions would traditionally do it: always call the current version "1.0". As new versions come out, retroactively label all the old ones "beta" versions. ;-)

That is a good one.

 

[Nepenthe]

Maybe not, but the first two paragraphs were so idiotic I couldn't be bothered to read the rest.

Has the author never heard of Ayn Rand? Is she supposed to be "New"? What about Stalin and Mao? Were they "New"? What about Bertrand Russell? If all these vocal, derisive anti-religionists were "New Atheists", when exactly did "New Atheism" diverge from "Old Atheism"? And who decided Bruce Sherman, an agnostic pretending to be an atheist in order to sell his book to gullible theists, gets to be a "Post-New-Atheist" movement all by himself?

Exactly. It's more of the same- Haggerty's article is similar to Sheiman's book in that it's not particularly insightful, it creates a strawman in that atheism is some cohesive group, and it's just another article in the current trend of inventing schisms where none really exist. It's like a few atheist authors hit the NY Times best seller list and all hell breaks loose.

 

[Sententia]

Exactly. It's more of the same- Haggerty's article is similar to Sheiman's book in that it's not particularly insightful, it creates a strawman in that atheism is some cohesive group, and it's just another article in the current trend of inventing schisms where none really exist. It's like a few atheist authors hit the NY Times best seller list and all hell breaks loose.

I'm sure all atheists will be hearing about this come Sunday. :yes:

 

[Alceste]

Exactly. It's more of the same- Haggerty's article is similar to Sheiman's book in that it's not particularly insightful, it creates a strawman in that atheism is some cohesive group, and it's just another article in the current trend of inventing schisms where none really exist. It's like a few atheist authors hit the NY Times best seller list and all hell breaks loose.

I just skimmed through Bertrand Russell's essay "Why I'm not a Christian". Unsurprisingly, he covers the whole territory from "belief in God is an irrational impulse based on fear of the unknown and emotional insecurity" to "religion is and always has been a terrible force for evil. It was invented by ignorant despots, and we ought to be rid of it once and for all." That line of thinking wasn't even particularly "new" in 1927. Why is it only "new" when Dawkins says it, or Hitchens?

Maybe because the Christians heard them say it this time around?

 

[rageoftyrael]

well, while i'm against religion in general, i'm not really against it completely. I'm against it for two reasons, off the top of my head. 1. i don't like the idea of people making decisions based off of a belief in a being for which they have no proof even exists. 2. i don't like the idea of people using a most likely made up being to spread fear and discontent so that they can rule.

However, there are religious organizations who help people on a regular basis. i don't condemn them. I still think they should get rid of the whole god thing, and just help people out in general, but whatever.

 

[dogsgod]

Diagoras "the New Atheist" of Melos, Greek poet, (5th cent. BCE).
Threw a wooden image of a god into a fire, remarking that the deity should perform another miracle and save itself. The uproar this caused in Athens prompted Diagoras to flee for his life. "Athens outlawed him and offered a reward for his capture dead or alive. He lived out his life in Spartan territory."

 

[themadhair]

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

Not seeing the 'new' in new atheism.

 

[Alceste]

Not seeing the 'new' in new atheism.

Yep - I'm thinking maybe the "new" in atheism is simply that it is openly and widely discussed. Instead of atheists being chased out of town by angry villagers with pitchforks, burned at the stake, tortured, subjected to house arrest, being ordered to take poison, having their children abducted by the state and forced into religious schools (OK, so those were animists, but still), atheists are writing best-sellers.

IMO, their books wouldn't have attracted any attention at all in the wider public if it weren't for the dominionist theocracy movement being so deeply worrying to such a wide variety of people. Mainstream folks are apparently starting to rethink the value of religion, and for good reason.

 

[Apex]

Seems I interpreted the article in a completely different way then most others here...

 

[logician]

Until a politician can openly claim to be an atheist, and either get elected, or at least not condemned as some kind of Commie etc., we will not have a truly religiously tolerant country.
We actually have gone backwards as far as religious tolerance since the country was founded.

 

[Apex]

Until a politician can openly claim to be an atheist, and either get elected, or at least not condemned as some kind of Commie etc., we will not have a truly religiously tolerant country.
We actually have gone backwards as far as religious tolerance since the country was founded.

And this deals with the OP how?

 

[dogsgod]

The OP will be dealt with after the rift is cleared up.

 

[Hitchey]

Seems I interpreted the article in a completely different way then most others here...

Atheists in general don't feel torn by a rising schism and I guess that speaks volumes. Theists perhaps wish atheists were experiencing a schism and may read more into this discussion among atheists than what atheists themselves are experiencing. I am in favour of the kid glove approach as I don't think being nasty accomplishes anything positive; that said, listening to Hitchens, for me, is pure entertainment.

The other thought I have is that you can't really have a schism when you don't have an organiziation and atheists don't seem to be united in different camps. There really aren't atheist camps, at least not that I am aware of. Christians have varying church alligances and congregations sometimes become divided over issues, but atheists have nothing that compares, thus schisms don't arise. At least that is how I view it.

 

[rojse]

Atheism 3.0, now you guys are turning into software.
Atheism 3.0 finds a little more room for religion - USATODAY.com

USA Today has just went on my list of uncredible news sites - no fact-checking, no attempt to understand the situation at hand (particularly the fact that there is no organised group of atheists), and using an article to hock a new book is nothing short of prostitution.

Thanks, Apex.

 

[Alceste]

Atheists in general don't feel torn by a rising schism and I guess that speaks volumes. Theists perhaps wish atheists were experiencing a schism and may read more into this discussion among atheists than what atheists themselves are experiencing. I am in favour of the kid glove approach as I don't think being nasty accomplishes anything positive; that said, listening to Hitchens, for me, is pure entertainment.

The other thought I have is that you can't really have a schism when you don't have an organiziation and atheists don't seem to be united in different camps. There really aren't atheist camps, at least not that I am aware of. Christians have varying church alligances and congregations sometimes become divided over issues, but atheists have nothing that compares, thus schisms don't arise. At least that is how I view it.

I think you're right - it's not like feminism, with its fairly distinct "waves" of changing ideology that have kept pace with social progress on feminist issues. Feminism can do this even though feminists aren't any more organized than atheists because feminism is a particular world view and philosophy, while atheism is not.

Any passing familiarity with history shows that the current range of atheist opinion (from virulent opposition to acceptance of religion) has always existed in pretty much its current form. If you reach back far enough in history (or laterally into Iran), you'll find atheists who were afraid for their lives and tone down their rhetoric accordingly, but I'm sure their secret thoughts cover the same general territory. Plus, I certainly don't think anyone except the most fanatical fundamentalists is pining for the good old days when heretics were slaughtered wholesale by religious people.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

. . .
Plus, I certainly don't think anyone except the most fanatical fundamentalists is pining for the good old days when heretics were slaughtered wholesale by religious people.

I wish I could share your cheery optimism.

I rather suspect there are religionists who are keeping their views quiet - for now - for much the same reasons you mention applied to atheists. They may not be hiding under every bed but there are more out there than your remark suggests.

 

[Hitchey]

... I certainly don't think anyone except the most fanatical fundamentalists is pining for the good old days when heretics were slaughtered wholesale by religious people.

At the Forum I last frequented before I was banned I chatted with a woman who believed all doctors who performed abortions and women who underwent the proceedure should be rounded up and executed. No one chastised her. There are some real extremists out there. I heard some things there that I would not have believed had I not heard it from the horse's mouth.

 

[rojse]

At the Forum I last frequented before I was banned I chatted with a woman who believed all doctors who performed abortions and women who underwent the proceedure should be rounded up and executed. No one chastised her. There are some real extremists out there. I heard some things there that I would not have believed had I not heard it from the horse's mouth.

You must be glad to be on a more tolerant forum, Hitchey.

It's not just theists, though - some of the stuff I have heard from atheists is almost as disagreeable to me as that.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

At the Forum I last frequented before I was banned I chatted with a woman who believed all doctors who performed abortions and women who underwent the proceedure should be rounded up and executed. No one chastised her. There are some real extremists out there. I heard some things there that I would not have believed had I not heard it from the horse's mouth.

Visit Hannity.com or RedfState.com or Americanthinker.com for more from the horse's mouth.

 

[strange_lupe]

If purely logical arguments about religion were possible that would be by far the preferable option.