Neo-Atheism: Some observations

[logician]

9/11 had a far greater affect on theists than atheists, I don't know where this thread-starter is coming from.

 

[bossbozz]

Oh no, atheism has found a voice! And what an eloquent and convincing speaker Dawkins is! Personally I find fundamental Christians a bigger threat to the world than fundamental Muslims when they vote in people like Bush!

I think the hostility the OP has found on forums isn't restricted to discussions about religion, it can be found on any forum on any topic and certainly isn't a trait unique to atheism/neo-atheism.

Gone are the good old days when we could just all be labelled heretics and burned alive. That's the strange thing about religion, atheists are seen as a threat yet religion is historically responsible for persecuting, hurting and murdering both atheists and other religions right across the world in huge numbers!

 

[Riverwolf]

Gone are the good old days when we could just all be labelled heretics and burned alive. That's the strange thing about religion, atheists are seen as a threat yet religion is historically responsible for persecuting, hurting and murdering both atheists and other religions right across the world in huge numbers!

Very true... in the West.

Over in India, you had several atheistic religions living side-by-side with theistic religions. You had the Vedic-inspired Charvaka philosophy, you had Jainism, you had Buddhism. Daoism isn't really theistic (though not really atheistic, either), and Confucianism, as far as I can tell, doesn't place a whole lot of importance on theism.

So, yeah, on one side of the world, you had witch-burnings. On the other side, you didn't have anything of the sort.

 

[Falvlun]

Very true... in the West.

Over in India, you had several atheistic religions living side-by-side with theistic religions. You had the Vedic-inspired Charvaka philosophy, you had Jainism, you had Buddhism. Daoism isn't really theistic (though not really atheistic, either), and Confucianism, as far as I can tell, doesn't place a whole lot of importance on theism.

So, yeah, on one side of the world, you had witch-burnings. On the other side, you didn't have anything of the sort.

I wonder what went wrong in the West. When you think about it, it's truly astounding the differences of thinking between the East and West. What caused one group of people to go one way, and the other group to go in a completely opposite direction?

 

[Half Asleep]

I wonder what went wrong in the West. When you think about it, it's truly astounding the differences of thinking between the East and West. What caused one group of people to go one way, and the other group to go in a completely opposite direction?

The temperament of Eastern Religion is so radically different from Mid-Eastern and Western Religion that it's hard to draw these sort of parallels.

Zoroastrianism and Abramism (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Baha'i, etc.) have a very different take on God(s) and their relationship to mankind and the planet than, say, Hinduism.

 

[footprints]

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?

Can a person with an alternate belief pattern, fairly examine and evaluate any evidence which goes against the grain of their own personal beliefs? .... For most part no....The scientific statements to back this up, "People will find what they are looking for in any given situation," coupled with the scientific statement, "People will make themselves as comfortable as possible in any given situation," and concluded with the scientific statement, "Birds of a feather, flock together," to give themselves support as it pertains to their own personal belief patterns.

If the Bible (one example) isn't a tangible piece of evidence, I don't know what you conclude a piece of evidence is. Flying teapots perhaps?

There is evidence there, the simple fact is, many atheists reject it, many on instant denial.

So feel free to tell us why you hold the deity belief which you do?

 

[footprints]

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.

Dawkins et al, are extremists, they only speak to birds of their feather (preach to the already converted or partly converted). Many atheists turn their backs on Dawkins, and send letters to him pertaining to his extremism. However like a good extremist he turns this around and calls them apologetics or accuses them of being theists pretending to be atheists (reference the God Delusion).

Many atheists do have a fear of theism, some believe that if a religious person even talks to them, that they are trying to convert them. Others fear that if they let a religious person speak without contradicting them, that they will brainwash or manipulate everybody around them in some hocus pocus manner. I have even met some atheists who have a fear of billboards and signs out the front of churches, the power and magic they see in these I class as astounding. And what some think of evangelism on TV, well I would rather not go there.

9/11 didn't have any real focus on atheism, except perhaps for a tool for some atheists to say, "I told you so, this is what religion leads to," as they tried to manipulate and brainwash people with their own thinking. I think most reasonable people understand, 9/11 didn't have anything to do with religion, other than religion was the motivating tool used to get people to do the evil bidding. That 9/11 was payback, for all the innocent people killed, abused and manipulated by one countries quest for oil and domination.

There are many reasonable atheists in this world. Don't judge them all on radicals like Dawkins and Co.

 

[Tristesse]

Dawkins et al, are extremists, they only speak to birds of their feather (preach to the already converted or partly converted). Many atheists turn their backs on Dawkins, and send letters to him pertaining to his extremism. However like a good extremist he turns this around and calls them apologetics or accuses them of being theists pretending to be atheists (reference the God Delusion).

Many atheists do have a fear of theism, some believe that if a religious person even talks to them, that they are trying to convert them. Others fear that if they let a religious person speak without contradicting them, that they will brainwash or manipulate everybody around them in some hocus pocus manner. I have even met some atheists who have a fear of billboards and signs out the front of churches, the power and magic they see in these I class as astounding. And what some think of evangelism on TV, well I would rather not go there.

9/11 didn't have any real focus on atheism, except perhaps for a tool for some atheists to say, "I told you so, this is what religion leads to," as they tried to manipulate and brainwash people with their own thinking. I think most reasonable people understand, 9/11 didn't have anything to do with religion, other than religion was the motivating tool used to get people to do the evil bidding. That 9/11 was payback, for all the innocent people killed, abused and manipulated by one countries quest for oil and domination.

There are many reasonable atheists in this world. Don't judge them all on radicals like Dawkins and Co.

How is dawkins an extremist? He just uses words, it's not like he's flying planes into buildings.

9/11 had nothing to do with religion? really? What could suicide bombers or suicide attackers benefit from flying planes into sky scrapers? There's a "benefit" if they honestly believe that they're doing allah's will.

 

[Riverwolf]

How is dawkins an extremist? He just uses words, it's not like he's flying planes into buildings.

Extremism and terrorism aren't the same thing, though they sometimes go hand in hand.

Pat Robinson doesn't fly planes into buildings, but I don't think we'd disagree that he's an extremist.

 

[Perfect Circle]

Dawkins et al, are extremists, they only speak to birds of their feather (preach to the already converted or partly converted). Many atheists turn their backs on Dawkins, and send letters to him pertaining to his extremism. However like a good extremist he turns this around and calls them apologetics or accuses them of being theists pretending to be atheists (reference the God Delusion).

It's okay everybody... Footprints is here. The Dawkins bashing can get started.

Many atheists do have a fear of theism, some believe that if a religious person even talks to them, that they are trying to convert them. Others fear that if they let a religious person speak without contradicting them, that they will brainwash or manipulate everybody around them in some hocus pocus manner. I have even met some atheists who have a fear of billboards and signs out the front of churches, the power and magic they see in these I class as astounding. And what some think of evangelism on TV, well I would rather not go there.

And now we move on to hear-say and generalized statements...

9/11 didn't have any real focus on atheism, except perhaps for a tool for some atheists to say, "I told you so, this is what religion leads to," as they tried to manipulate and brainwash people with their own thinking. I think most reasonable people understand, 9/11 didn't have anything to do with religion, other than religion was the motivating tool used to get people to do the evil bidding. That 9/11 was payback, for all the innocent people killed, abused and manipulated by one countries quest for oil and domination.

Pressing forward, we find ourselves at the buzzwords.. (manipulation, brainwashing, evil)

There are many reasonable atheists in this world. Don't judge them all on radicals like Dawkins and Co.

And finally we conclude our tour back where we started... Dawkins bashing.

 

[Shia Islam]

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.

...
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.
..

Nice analysis.

 

[Yerda]

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.

People are certainly more vocal about atheism these days. That's good and bad.

I'm not an objective atheist. When people believe things, without reason, that might lead to them behave in a mental fashoin I get emotional too. I don't advocate the end of religion, but I don't think the world would be worse off if tomorrow every Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Hindi, etc, woke up and discovered that they didn't believe certain things about their religions. I believe things without justification sometimes (perhaps everything - I'm not epistemologically decided), but in the game of believing things only with good reason I must be lightyears ahead of a lot of these guys.

 

[Jose Fly]

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

So the change was more about presentation than content?

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

I'm not sure how much changed in atheism post-9/11. From what I saw, the more vocal atheists simply had something prominent to point to as an example of what religion can lead to.

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.

Even if any of that is so, how does that equate to not being objective? I never realized "objective" meant "devoid of emotion, has no agenda, and doesn't try to sway anyone". You seem to be equating "objective" with "robot".

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.

But many of the arguments presented under the banner of theism (e.g. creationism) are indeed garbage, bullocks, etc. Are atheists forbidden from pointing this out?

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.

You seem to be arguing that anything short of Spock-like demeanor is not objective.

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.

Let's grant that premise for the sake of argument. Let's say some atheists do see events like 9/11 and such, recognize their theistic roots, and conclude "I'm afraid that this will only get worse". And based on that, they increase the volume of their arguments against theism.

So what?

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)

So you agree with the basis for the atheists increasing the volume of their arguments.

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.

From what I've seen, the Abrahamic religions are focused on because they are the primary ones causing problems. I'm quite sure if Hindus had flown planes into the WTC, they would bear the brunt of the atheists' arguments.

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.

IOW, if you see a group of people driven by an ideology committing terrible violent acts and generally obstructing societal progress, you're arguing that it's unreasonable to attempt to put an end to that ideology?

 

[Randy the Atheist]

No....thats not why I don't believe in the fabricated superstition called gods.

Gods are man-made ideas that were invented extremely late in human history - first appearing in the Neolithic around 11,000 years ago and gradually spread from a tiny corner of the world that lay somewhere between the ancient cities of Ur and Nineveh.

Prior to the invention of gods, people long believed in various flavors of shamanism where a priest or "medicine man" would awaken sleeping spirits and call upon them to do good or evil deeds. Shamanism itself was preceded by an even older belief system called animism where every object including rocks and rivers were thought to contain a spiritual force.

The transformation from earth-bound spirits to sky gods followed the invention of agriculture. Agriculture required the precise charting of the sun and the stars in order to track the seasons. Large stone monuments appeared and curious points of light were discovered that crossed the constellations. These lights which are now known as planets became embodied in mystery and eventually into the realm of the divine.

Celestial gods were gradually replaced with supernatural personified beings after the Egytians and Greeks began immortalizing their kings, pharoahs and famous hero warriors. The idea of humans born as gods ultimately sparked the belief that ordinary men living on the fringes of society could also be gods as well - one individual in particular that continues to be celebrated to this day.

The progression of our religious beliefs demonstrate that gods are only provisional ideas - human ingenuities that have come and gone throughout our history - manufactured from previous concepts that faded from popularity as newer and bolder ideas emerged.

 

[DavidFirth]

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.

At least some of us do not share your view. Rational thinking can lead to a Creator as well as or perhaps better than atheism using logic alone.

 

[Randy the Atheist]

Also, there is no reason to scratch a difference between an Old Atheist and a "Neo-Atheist"

Old Atheist: gods are man-made superstitions

Neo Atheist: gods are STILL man-made superstitions

The reason why the religious right created a "Neo-Atheist" profile is so that they can berate the Atheists who are no longer afraid of exposing the various superstitions that mankind has invented. Basically, its a veiled attempt to censor us.

 

[LuisDantas]

Also, there is no reason to scratch a difference between an Old Atheist and a "Neo-Atheist"

Old Atheist: gods are man-made superstitions

Neo Atheist: gods are STILL man-made superstitions

The reason why the religious right created a "Neo-Atheist" profile is so that they can berate the Atheists who are no longer afraid of exposing the various superstitions that mankind has invented. Basically, its a veiled attempt to censor us.

This.

 

[Father Heathen]

At least some of us do not share your view. Rational thinking can lead to a Creator as well as or perhaps better than atheism using logic alone.

If you say so, but this thread has been dead for 7 years.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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.

I think it's part of the equation, but many argue that theism is based on fear also of course- I think there is a more fundamental separation between the two beliefs though.

That only one of these beliefs acknowledges itself as such. The other rejects any notion of belief, faith and claims inherent intellectual superiority, default truth. Of course this makes any other belief inherently inferior, and that's where all the hatred stems from I think. even justifying eradication of theism for some, as in atheist states like USSR, North Korea, Communist China.


I find even most atheists agree on Dawkins, he does for atheism what Al Gore does for Global warming, you almost wonder sometimes if they are planted by the other side!



“It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked

 

[DavidFirth]

If you say so, but this thread has been dead for 7 years.

Looks like somebody performed a little necromancy on it.