Are "New Atheists" Too Obsessed With Religion?

[gsa]

The problem I find is with this term New Atheism. It is not New Atheism in my opinion.

Firstly, Atheism describes a religious view and nothing more. What people do with it after that is their problem.

Secondly, people tend not to distinguish the difference between atheism and anti theism. If you are trying to deconvert people from religion then you are probably an anti theist.

Anti-theism

Most of these people consider "new atheists" those who not only don't believe, but don't have the good sense to keep their mouths shut and pretend that they do. With the advent of the Internet, lots of atheists have seen fit to openly arguing against religion. That's what the religious object to more than anything. Christianity is used to having a place at the head of the table where they had enough political and social power that they could stomp on anyone who didn't toe their religious line. They've lost that now. That's what they're really complaining about.

I tend to agree, they hate losing the argument and public affirmation of their beliefs as normative.

 

[Deidre]

I have mixed feelings with it all. I feel that so many 'vocal' atheists are as such, as a mere (and necessary) reaction to religion infiltrating its way into government, etc...but, atheists needs to be careful to not become ''preachy,'' the very thing they dislike about theists. My pennies worth.

 

[Cephus]

I have mixed feelings with it all. I feel that so many 'vocal' atheists are as such, as a mere (and necessary) reaction to religion infiltrating its way into government, etc...but, atheists needs to be careful to not become ''preachy,'' the very thing they dislike about theists. My pennies worth.

I don't dislike them being preachy, I dislike them being wrong and irrational. There's nothing wrong with "preaching" the truth, so long as you can demonstrate that it is the truth. After all, we hire teachers to "preach" to our children.

 

[Deidre]

I don't dislike them being preachy, I dislike them being wrong and irrational. There's nothing wrong with "preaching" the truth, so long as you can demonstrate that it is the truth. After all, we hire teachers to "preach" to our children.

That's true, but...by preachy I mean...in an evangelizing kind of way. I find that I'm logically an atheist lol but, my emotions have me desirous of faith. Missing it. People should be allowed that freely. I'm aware that a deity can't be proven, but...allow me my comfort in faith.

I think of the atheists I know/have known...they're remarkably humble. I'm not a fan of Dawkins, and it's not so much that he isn't humble. It's that he could take atheism down a path that creates the same tensions as have been created by theists. You can be ''right'' about something, but if your message is delivered wrong or arrogantly...you can lose your audience, is more of what I'm saying.

 

[Bunyip]

Most of these people consider "new atheists" those who not only don't believe, but don't have the good sense to keep their mouths shut and pretend that they do. With the advent of the Internet, lots of atheists have seen fit to openly arguing against religion. That's what the religious object to more than anything. Christianity is used to having a place at the head of the table where they had enough political and social power that they could stomp on anyone who didn't toe their religious line. They've lost that now. That's what they're really complaining about.

Exactly, atheists were not permitted to speak, or even to be openly atheist for most of the last 2000 years. Now 2000 years of prejudice is finally being addressed and any atheist who dares speak is 'militant', 'New Atheist' a bigot and so on. A century ago they treat 'uppity N______s' (rhymes with trigger) exactly the same way when African Americans first began to be free to speak.

Millions of Churches evangelising and preaching, but a handful of people start to talk back and they are uppity zealots.

I do love the way that nobody else seems to have noticed that New atheism was just a magazine article, not a philosophical position.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Considering New Atheists actively despise religion, they are obsessed with religion in the same way an exterminator is obsessed with insects.

 

[Bunyip]

Considering New Atheists actively despise religion, they are obsessed with religion in the same way an exterminator is obsessed with insects.

Dude, there are no 'New Atheists' it was just a magazine article. None of the men identified in that article by the way are obsessed with religion.

 

[LuisDantas]

Considering New Atheists actively despise religion, they are obsessed with religion in the same way an exterminator is obsessed with insects.

So is that the way to tell a "New" Atheist from the vanilla flavored variety?

 

[LuisDantas]

I have mixed feelings with it all. I feel that so many 'vocal' atheists are as such, as a mere (and necessary) reaction to religion infiltrating its way into government, etc...but, atheists needs to be careful to not become ''preachy,'' the very thing they dislike about theists. My pennies worth.

What is the problem with being preachy exactly?

 

[dgirl1986]

Considering New Atheists actively despise religion, they are obsessed with religion in the same way an exterminator is obsessed with insects.

To be fair the ones I know who focus a lot of christianity are the ones that live in the bible belt because of how they are treated there. Many are too scared to say the word atheist for fear they will lose their job and lose all friends. It happens.

 

[Bunyip]

So is that the way to tell a "New" Atheist from the vanilla flavored variety?

Not until somebody publishes an article called 'The Vanilla Atheists'. Then a global network of Vanilla atheists will form overnight to take over the world by quietly not believing stuff. .

 

[Deidre]

What is the problem with being preachy exactly?

If unsolicited...plenty.

 

[LuisDantas]

Not until somebody publishes an article called 'The Vanilla Atheists'. Then a global network of Vanilla atheists will form overnight to take over the world by quietly not believing stuff. .

Not quietly. By crowding the chocolate atheists away from the scene, if at all possible.

We will need a lot of articles, I can see.

 

[Cephus]

That's true, but...by preachy I mean...in an evangelizing kind of way. I find that I'm logically an atheist lol but, my emotions have me desirous of faith. Missing it. People should be allowed that freely. I'm aware that a deity can't be proven, but...allow me my comfort in faith.

I think of the atheists I know/have known...they're remarkably humble. I'm not a fan of Dawkins, and it's not so much that he isn't humble. It's that he could take atheism down a path that creates the same tensions as have been created by theists. You can be ''right'' about something, but if your message is delivered wrong or arrogantly...you can lose your audience, is more of what I'm saying.

You can't exactly stop people from believing whatever they want, we haven't developed effective mind control technology. The question isn't whether or not we should allow it, but whether or not we should respect it. I don't know that we should. People who believe things for wholly emotional reasons, without any rational component, really should not be encouraged to continue IMO. I find religion to be harmful, both for individuals and for society, I find nothing demonstrably positive that it can provide that we can't get better in other ways. People emotional desires don't impress me, but I have no ability, nor desire, to force them to stop. It doesn't mean I can't try to convince them to.

 

[LuisDantas]

If unsolicited...plenty.

Isn't it a bit like political controversies, though? In that at times one has to act at the same level one is being attacked?

 

[Deidre]

You can't exactly stop people from believing whatever they want, we haven't developed effective mind control technology. The question isn't whether or not we should allow it, but whether or not we should respect it. I don't know that we should. People who believe things for wholly emotional reasons, without any rational component, really should not be encouraged to continue IMO. I find religion to be harmful, both for individuals and for society, I find nothing demonstrably positive that it can provide that we can't get better in other ways. People emotional desires don't impress me, but I have no ability, nor desire, to force them to stop. It doesn't mean I can't try to convince them to.

Yea, you're right, and the thing is, when I was an atheist...or at least identified with atheism...I debated theists. But, where I was careful, was to not let my 'beliefs' tread upon their beliefs. The problem with religion, is that it rarely stays private. And having been indoctrinated into Christianity as a young child...I know that religion impedes critical thinking skills. Indoctrination breeds obedience. I've often been mystified by people who convert to the Abrahamic faiths during adulthood. Having grown up in it, I read the Qur'an now, and parts of it feel oh so familiar to me, from my days as a Christian. Religion can be very familiar and comforting to those who have grown up with it.

So. Question for you. How might you ''discourage'' someone to follow religion, when it's mainly based on emotion? I'm sincerely asking you this.

 

[Bunyip]

Not quietly. By crowding the chocolate atheists away from the scene, if at all possible.

We will need a lot of articles, I can see.

Just hope nobody writes an article identifying a few grey haired old Professors and calls it; 'The Apocalypse bringing baby eating atheists'.

Because they will probably believe that is an organisation bent on destruction also.

 

[Bunyip]

Yea, you're right, and the thing is, when I was an atheist...or at least identified with atheism...I debated theists. But, where I was careful, was to not let my 'beliefs' tread upon their beliefs. The problem with religion, is that it rarely stays private. And having been indoctrinated into Christianity as a young child...I know that religion impedes critical thinking skills. Indoctrination breeds obedience. I've often been mystified by people who convert to the Abrahamic faiths during adulthood. Having grown up in it, I read the Qur'an now, and parts of it feel oh so familiar to me, from my days as a Christian. Religion can be very familiar and comforting to those who have grown up with it.

So. Question for you. How might you ''discourage'' someone to follow religion, when it's mainly based on emotion? I'm sincerely asking you this.

In terms of the best way to discourage someone from following religion, the research shows that there is no more effective path to losing faith than reading the bible. I would say to Christians I wanted to discourage from religion (not that I would want to) that they should read the bible. It is the most common reason given for losing faith.

May I ask how many of these debates you had that were unsolicited, and how you forced a theist to debate you?

 

[LuisDantas]

Yea, you're right, and the thing is, when I was an atheist...or at least identified with atheism...I debated theists. But, where I was careful, was to not let my 'beliefs' tread upon their beliefs.

This is very interesting, Deidre. You are of course a remarkably respectful person, and has been so very consistently far as I can see.

But what is this about letting beliefs tread upon other people's beliefs? Somehow I suspect that is not exactly what you take care to avoid.

For one thing, beliefs themselves often do clash irreconciliably with those of other people. We might consider taking care with their expression to avoid conflict, but the beliefs themselves simply can't very well be kept compatible. Nor do I think anyone should attempt to restrain or force one's own beliefs simply to remain within the acceptance space of everyone else one interacts with. That would be a form of self-aggression, as I understand it.

Then again, is it even possible to choose your beliefs to such a degree? Let's say any random two people happen to include one who truly believes in, say, reincarnation and another that flat out finds it impossible. What do you recommend for them to do to avoid this treading upon you speak of?

The problem with religion, is that it rarely stays private.

Is that really a problem, though, Deidre? Of Religion, I mean?

Sharing one's religion can be, and often is, nothing short of sublime and blissful. It should be made with the utmost care not to pressure the recipient out of his confort zone, certainly. But it should not be avoided, It is flat out one of the best experiences a human being can go through, when done with enough heart and wisdom.

And having been indoctrinated into Christianity as a young child...I know that religion impedes critical thinking skills.

Oh, sweet Deidre. How can you say such a thing? That can certainly happen when religion is taught unwisely, by unskilled teachers. But you should not present it as an automatic thing, much as as a necessary part of religion itself.

If religion has such a trait, then it should be rid off. But by my understanding at least that is not an accurate understanding of what religion is and what it is supposed to be.

Indoctrination breeds obedience. I've often been mystified by people who convert to the Abrahamic faiths during adulthood. Having grown up in it, I read the Qur'an now, and parts of it feel oh so familiar to me, from my days as a Christian. Religion can be very familiar and comforting to those who have grown up with it.

So. Question for you. How might you ''discourage'' someone to follow religion, when it's mainly based on emotion? I'm sincerely asking you this.

I personally do not, but I suspect that it is because I make a sharp distinction between belief (belief in God most of all) and religion in my mind. I value religion a lot. I advise people to let go or at least unemphasize belief in God if at all possible. Those goals are complementary and mutually supportive IMO, and not at all opposed.

On occasion, I have actually accused specific Christians of being blasphemous in their beliefs, and I meant it - very passionately too. I am not ashamed of calling a belief miserable when I have to choose between doing so or hearing it and endossing it with my silence. People should learn to stand by their beliefs and to have the courage of defending or changing them as they see fit. No one should be afraid of learning to be a better religious person. No one should feel duty-bound to pretend to respect beliefs that they sincerely find deeply misguided and destructive. It takes some confrontation and questioning for trust to arise, and it takes trust to be consolidated for respect and love to be possible.

So, I do not have it as a goal to discourage people from following religion, not even when said religion happens to be one of those I truly despise such as Spiritism. I have no hope of being anywhere near that convincing or original.

However, neither do I make much if any effort to avoid situations which can lead me to question the religious wisdom of people I meet. For I have long accepted that avoiding making a judgement about their wisdom is rarely a benefit. It only leads to having to deal with both the uncertainties that stop me from trusting them and those that stop me from attempting to keep them away. That is fair neither to them nor to me.

Also, if it turns out that I can not truly respect their beliefs... isn't it ultimately better for them to be fully aware of that fact and therefore that much better prepared to take their distance, brace themselves for my reactions, or whatever?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Things like the Invisible Pink Unicorn and especially Pastafarianism make me agree with #1. And it does beg to be asked why care about god and religion so much when you don't believe in it? Why wear silly hats when you know it's nothing serious?
I also agree with #2 because science if fundamentally a human creation, and thus it will always suffer and fall short because it is limited to a human perspective. And it is not logical to base your believes on things you know very well may be disproven tomorrow. We claim to know the Big Bang created the universe, but we don't even know how big the universe is, what it looks like, or even if anything lies beyond. We are trying to figure the world outside of Plato's cave out when we are still chained the lower level.
Three is a very excellent point. Secular humanism is a fundamental principle of a liberal democracy, yet it is too often equated with atheism. This claim invalid, as many theists support a secular humanist state, sometimes even because they know it is in their best interests that the state be free of religion show that they may have the freedom of religion. Humanism is also a tenant of a liberal democracy, even if we're not yet very good at it, and it too is widely fundamental to many religions. You just don't hear about them because it isn't news, and some of them would rather have their rewards in Heaven.