Neo-Atheism: Some observations

[petrus4]

In looking at the Neo-Atheism of Dawkins and Harris, I'm forced to admit that I liked the earlier version a lot more.

Atheism has always tried to sell itself as being objective; but the thing is that in reading people like Huxley, (as one example) I felt that it was a lot easier to truthfully say that that was the case.

Atheism used to be about assisting people to learn to think truly rationally; there was a guide to constructing a rationalist argument on the internet-infidels site, that I found genuinely valuable. There were appeals to Aristotelian logic; there was an expose that maybe Mother Theresa wasn't all she was cracked up to be.

These were all useful, valuable things, and they were all delivered in a calm, measured, rational, relatively humble manner.

Then came 9/11, and apparently you became as deeply infected with the virus of fear, as everyone else.

Dawkins represents Atheism having grievously lost its' way. He is a demagogue, who doesn't have an objective bone in his body. He is emotional, he has an agenda, and he openly admits that his desire and intent is to convert people to his own way of thinking. Virtually none of the rest of you can lay any honest claim to objectivity, either. I've seen Atheists online engage in name calling and ad hominem of all kinds; referring to theism as "garbage," "bollocks," etc.

Calmly making a reasoned argument as to why you consider something false, might be considered objective. Hurling invectives, from a clear perspective of aggression, or otherwise rampant emotionalism, is not.

Here's the central premise that I'm going to offer you, Atheists. I've honestly come to believe, that the primary motivation of most of you (and Dawkins and Harris themselves) is not rationalism at all, but fear. Fear of Islamic radicalism, and to a lesser extent, Christian fundamentalism. Fear also, of the idea that, if any form of divinity exists at all, then somehow it must inevitably mean that sovereignty over your life is not your own, but will belong to said being instead.

Whether or not God exists, as such, really doesn't have much to do with it at all. You view militant Islam as being dangerous, (which yes, it genuinely can be) and fundamentalist Christians as being obnoxious, (which again, yes, they can be, although honestly not that much more than you yourselves, in my own recent experience) and so you believe, that the single most positive thing that can be done for society, is for Semitic monotheism (moreso than other religions) to be removed from human memory.

Hence, when you really look at it, whether acorporeal beings exist or not, really isn't the central issue, here. The central issue is the fact that there's a specific group of human beings who you consider to be sociologically dangerous, and you therefore want to see their attendant ideology destroyed, because you think that society will become safer, and less violent, if that occurs.

Maybe there are some of you still left, who genuinely did ascribe to the more sane version of Atheism that existed before 9/11, but if there are, I never hear from you these days. I suspect that most of those individuals have probably leapt on Dawkins' bandwagon as well.

 

[Father Heathen]

I don't think atheism in and of itself should be promoted or proselytized, but I think people should be encouraged to think objectively, analytically, critically and rationally, which would naturally lead to atheism on its own.

 

[BucephalusBB]

hmm.. can't really see what 9/11 has to do with my disbelief in God..

 

[petrus4]

hmm.. can't really see what 9/11 has to do with my disbelief in God..

Like I said, there are probably some around where that isn't the case; but I was talking more about the line that I've been hearing recently of, "We have to erradicate Islam, because if we don't, the Muslims are going to kill us all."

 

[BucephalusBB]

Like I said, there are probably some around where that isn't the case; but I was talking more about the line that I've been hearing recently of, "We have to erradicate Islam, because if we don't, the Muslims are going to kill us all."

I understand, but I could be christian and say exactly the same. This just has nothing to do with atheism.. What you are proposing here is that atheists lie about being one.

 

[Riverwolf]

I don't think atheism in and of itself should be promoted or proselytized, but I think people should be encouraged to think objectively, analytically, critically and rationally, which would naturally lead to atheism on its own.

Not necessarily. I do those things, but I'm not an atheist.

Though they could certainly help lead away from religious literalism. :yes:

 

[Father Heathen]

Like I said, there are probably some around where that isn't the case; but I was talking more about the line that I've been hearing recently of, "We have to erradicate Islam, because if we don't, the Muslims are going to kill us all."

It's not so much Islam in particular but religious fundamentalism in general, which is a actual threat to peoples security, rights and liberty. Tolerance should never be extended when it's not reciprocated.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I think he may be referring to Dawkins statements about 9/11...

Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful!

Basically showing many of the dangers associated with religion emphasized by the 9/11 attacks.
However, the emphases on reason, humanism and healthy skepticism is still a major factor among freethinking atheists, agnostics, deists, and others who do not suffer from dogmatic faith.

 

[Riverwolf]

Like I said, there are probably some around where that isn't the case; but I was talking more about the line that I've been hearing recently of, "We have to erradicate Islam, because if we don't, the Muslims are going to kill us all."

That's a common way to think for many people, before and after 9/11, theist or atheist, religious or not.

Heck, such thinking is what got America involved in Vietnam: "We have to eradicate Communists, because if we don't, those Commies will kill us all!"

 

[tumbleweed41]

That's a common way to think for many people, before and after 9/11, theist or atheist, religious or not.

Heck, such thinking is what got America involved in Vietnam: "We have to eradicate Communists, because if we don't, those Commies will kill us all!"

Yup,
"There is nothing new under the sun"

 

[ImmortalFlame]

In looking at the Neo-Atheism of Dawkins and Harris, I'm forced to admit that I liked the earlier version a lot more.

Atheism has always tried to sell itself as being objective; but the thing is that in reading people like Huxley, (as one example) I felt that it was a lot easier to truthfully say that that was the case.

Atheism used to be about assisting people to learn to think truly rationally; there was a guide to constructing a rationalist argument on the internet-infidels site, that I found genuinely valuable. There were appeals to Aristotelian logic; there was an expose that maybe Mother Theresa wasn't all she was cracked up to be.

These were all useful, valuable things, and they were all delivered in a calm, measured, rational, relatively humble manner.

Then came 9/11, and apparently you became as deeply infected with the virus of fear, as everyone else.

Dawkins represents Atheism having grievously lost its' way. He is a demagogue, who doesn't have an objective bone in his body. He is emotional, he has an agenda, and he openly admits that his desire and intent is to convert people to his own way of thinking. Virtually none of the rest of you can lay any honest claim to objectivity, either. I've seen Atheists online engage in name calling and ad hominem of all kinds; referring to theism as "garbage," "bollocks," etc.

Calmly making a reasoned argument as to why you consider something false, might be considered objective. Hurling invectives, from a clear perspective of aggression, or otherwise rampant emotionalism, is not.

Firstly, have you read any of Dawkins books? Are there any specific claims or statements made by Dawkins that you disagree with?

I used to dislike Dawkins for all the same reasons you did, until I actually started listening to his arguments and found them quite convincing. I see no reason why I should not be open with fact that I think a world with less religious people - or, at the very least, less devoutly religious people - would be a more rational world. Dawkins is not a preacher or an emotional speaker, he's just honest. It's a kind of honesty as an atheist that I lacked until I read him, and now that I'm much more outspoken about my opinions on religion I feel I have learned a lot more about both atheism and theism.

I'm not a huge fan of atheists using ad hominems, and I agree with you it tends to dilute the validity of their supposedly rational position, but in my experience such events are only as common as anybody else using ad hominems on the internet. On the whole, the atheists I have met online have been perfectly rational, reasonable people - along with the majority of theists and spiritualists. I fail to see how this is strictly a problem with atheism.

Here's the central premise that I'm going to offer you, Atheists. I've honestly come to believe, that the primary motivation of most of you (and Dawkins and Harris themselves) is not rationalism at all, but fear. Fear of Islamic radicalism, and to a lesser extent, Christian fundamentalism.

Of course we fear those things; they result in terrorist attacks, nationalism, homophobia, bigotry, ignorance and the retardation of science. A fear of those things is perfectly justified.

However, I would argue that anger has as much to do with it as fear does.

Fear also, of the idea that, if any form of divinity exists at all, then somehow it must inevitably mean that sovereignty over your life is not your own, but will belong to said being instead.

Now this is where you step over the line for me and start sounding a little too much like the "you don't believe in God just because you don't want to take responsibility for your actions" fundamentalists I encounter online all too often.

No, an atheist does not fear God any more than you fear the gremlins under your bed.

Whether or not God exists, as such, really doesn't have much to do with it at all. You view militant Islam as being dangerous, (which yes, it genuinely can be) and fundamentalist Christians as being obnoxious, (which again, yes, they can be, although honestly not that much more than you yourselves, in my own recent experience) and so you believe, that the single most positive thing that can be done for society, is for Semitic monotheism (moreso than other religions) to be removed from human memory.

Hence, when you really look at it, whether acorporeal beings exist or not, really isn't the central issue, here. The central issue is the fact that there's a specific group of human beings who you consider to be sociologically dangerous, and you therefore want to see their attendant ideology destroyed, because you think that society will become safer, and less violent, if that occurs.

Nope, that's not it at all - nor is that an opinion I encounter often, if ever, online.

We do not want religion to be entirely removed from human society, and we certainly do not want religion removed from human history. Such a thing would be patently ridiculous. All we argue is for a more rational world in which religious beliefs do not obtain exemption from rationalization purely on the basis of belief alone. A world where religious institutions are held in no higher esteem than any other philosophical or artistic institution, and where children are not raised and indoctrinated into a belief system purely on the basis of them being born into a society that wants them to believe it. Most atheists that I encounter do not want an entirely atheistic world - just a world of secular rationality, where people have the capacity to make logical decisions in their lives without fear of being persecuted by others purely on the basis of beliefs.

Maybe there are some of you still left, who genuinely did ascribe to the more sane version of Atheism that existed before 9/11, but if there are, I never hear from you these days. I suspect that most of those individuals have probably leapt on Dawkins' bandwagon as well.

I suspect that you honestly haven't looked very far.

 

[Wandered Off]

Atheism is only a lack of belief in deities and no more. Things like "selling itself" or promoting rational thought are not necessary components. This very simplicity allows infinite variations among atheists, to the point that meaningfully grouping them is difficult. The OP comes down to an observation that there are a lot of vocal jerks who are also atheists, which I think you will find in any group. To me, it's a positive sign that society has progressed to the point that people feel free to openly express atheism without fear of being persecuted. Now that they do, they will.

It's a bit unique. What other identifiable groups are based on what we don't believe? If it weren't for theism, atheists would be as novel a distinction as "aunicornists." I suspect you will find nearly infinite variation among aunicornists as well, but without widespread unicornism, there is nothing to react to, calmly or otherwise.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Most atheists I know, have been atheists since before 9/11 - and no atheists I know who have become atheists since then, have ever mentioned 9/11 as a reason for becoming an atheist. There certainly does seem to be an increasing amount of irrational fear around atheism, but it's coming from religious people, not atheists.

 

[Father Heathen]

The only reason atheists seem to have came out of the woodwork post 9/11 is because afterwards it became important for more of them to break their silence and speak out. Not just because of the violence of Islamic fundamentalism, but also because of the political meddling of Christian fundamentalism that also became more fevered after 9/11.

 

[Amill]

Hence, when you really look at it, whether acorporeal beings exist or not, really isn't the central issue, here. The central issue is the fact that there's a specific group of human beings who you consider to be sociologically dangerous, and you therefore want to see their attendant ideology destroyed, because you think that society will become safer, and less violent, if that occurs.

You can't blame people for having that opinion...can you? If you think their opinion is wrong or that they should think differently, influence them enough to do so. Provide reasons why they shouldn't care if ideologies promote violence or prevent scientific progress, or at least convince them to only care about the extremists themselves and not the religious notions that incited their actions. Their opinions about theists, like yours about atheists, are the result of experiences, and can be influenced by future experiences. Pointing out the fact that some atheists want people to shed their religious beliefs does nothing.

I actually think you could compare this situation to gun control. The question being asked is whether or not we should punish the abusers, or if we should remove guns completely. A "neo-atheist" in this scenario would wish for all guns to be removed. Can you blame them for that opinion? I don't personally share the same opinions about the removal of religion, but I still see their logic.

There are theists who want everybody to share their beliefs and there are theists who don't care. There are atheists who want people to drop religion and there are atheists who don't care. I'm sure it's been that way for a while.

 

[Riverwolf]

There are theists who want everybody to share their beliefs and there are theists who don't care. There are atheists who want people to drop religion and there are atheists who don't care. I'm sure it's been that way for a while.

And it will remain that way, IMO.

However, let's not forget that some theists may think that the more militant atheists would try resorting to violence to stamp out religion altogether, or at least make it practically impossible to worship in set places like churches and temples. So, even though theists represent a majority, many of us are still at least a bit worried we'll lose our right to believe as we choose.

When someone seriously speaks of religion as just bigoted nonsense that leads to nothing but stagnation, that is actually quite scary, especially when they start talking about "saving people from religion;" that, to me, isn't any different than when the early Church wanted to "save the pagans from hell."

 

[Skeptisch]

Atheism has always tried to sell itself as being objective...

Yes, most of us still like to think we are objective. For us there is no scientific evidence for a supernatural God. But we are of course open to any kind of evidence for the contrary. We will fairly examine and evaluate this evidence.

So feel free to tell us why you are not an atheist?

 

[Falvlun]

This OP sorta surprised me. I have never heard anyone claim to become an atheist because of fear for what the religious people might do. I have heard it used as one of the perks of atheism-- less religious nut jobs-- but certainly not a reason in and of itself to become an atheist.

 

[painted wolf]

In looking at the Neo-Atheism of Dawkins and Harris, I'm forced to admit that I liked the earlier version a lot more.

Quiet and swept under the rug?

Now that they are getting mouthy and actually in the spotlight you don't like them anymore?

wa:do

ps. most atheists were that way before 9/11... including Dawkins.

 

[johnhanks]

Atheism used to be about assisting people to learn to think truly rationally; there was a guide to constructing a rationalist argument on the internet-infidels site, that I found genuinely valuable. There were appeals to Aristotelian logic; there was an expose that maybe Mother Theresa wasn't all she was cracked up to be.

Agnes Bohaxhiu certainly wasn't all she was cracked up to be: but that observation is wholly independent of any belief in supernatural beings, and could be made as well by a theist as by an atheist - if, of course, the theist were of an objective mind.

Then came 9/11, and apparently you became as deeply infected with the virus of fear, as everyone else.

Good grief. Do you always deal in wild generalisations?

I've seen Atheists online engage in name calling and ad hominem of all kinds; referring to theism as "garbage," "bollocks," etc.

Wearisome though it may be, it has to be said: I have seen self-professed christians indulge in similar abuse of atheists and atheism. Neither side has a monopoly on ad hominem argument.

Here's the central premise that I'm going to offer you, Atheists. I've honestly come to believe, that the primary motivation of most of you (and Dawkins and Harris themselves) is not rationalism at all, but fear. Fear of Islamic radicalism, and to a lesser extent, Christian fundamentalism. Fear also, of the idea that, if any form of divinity exists at all, then somehow it must inevitably mean that sovereignty over your life is not your own, but will belong to said being instead.

Yes, I've seen this one quite often: 'atheists are motivated by the fear that if they admit god exists they will have to admit they're not the highest thing in existence', etc etc; it's a familiar refrain, and it holds as little water now as it always did. Persuading yourself that something doesn't exist in order to feel better about yourself is frankly impossible - unless you're going to insist that all atheists' minds are in a constant turmoil of denial. I can't speak for all atheists, obviously, but for myself I can say I gave up belief in gods many years ago, long before 9/11 or Dawkins' rise to fame, for reasons that had nothing to do with fear or personal preference about how I'd like the world to be; and I don't believe that younger generations of atheists than I have come to that lack of belief by significantly different routes.