Are "New Atheists" Too Obsessed With Religion?

[Deidre]

I presumed nothing Dierdre, I only referred to what you said and to published research. What assumption are you attributing to me? I'm not sparring with you, I have always been very polite and supportive in previous posts to you - why are you acting like I have attacked you? This is just a discussion. Why take offence on a debate forum just because I asked you a question politely?

Hmmm ok.
It doesn't come across that way to me, but no worries. I'm only able to share from my own experiences.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I voted "Other", because I don't think the concept of New Atheism is justified or useful.

Yes, it seems like pejorative term conjured up by theists, a straw-man.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Again, these are not the ones I was refering to, and the blog even states that what you and Luis are referring to is understandable.
I am talking about those, who even though they declare themselves to have no believe in god, act like they have one. Some of them spend inordinate amounts of time discussing it, some of them are just as sure of their believes as theists, and some even go out of their way to put on a colander on their head for their drivers license picture. I am not, repeating, I AM NOT talking about atheists who debate religion because of where they live (such as an atheist in Texas, who, by the very nature of location, will probably spend a lot of time discuss/debating/defending his position), but, rather, those atheists who approach atheism like it is a religion.

I understand that it can look like I ignored your last response, but I didn't...check the time stamps on your reply and mine. We were both writing our posts at the same time, so I hadn't seen your clarification. Your position/argument makes more sense to me now.

In some ways, we're in total agreement. Atheism doesn't actually mean much at all by itself. So you may have anti-theists, or hardcore materialists, or whatever else, and this can begin to dominate the ways in which people think, for better or for worse. But atheism itself simply doesn't mean that. It's as accurate as saying theists believe in God and Heaven. Sure, some do, but the term 'theist' is a much larger umbrella than that.

The writer of the article appears to have given up on the term 'atheist' because they feel it has been appropriated by certain types of atheists, and is now associated commonly with types of behaviour or views which don't match their own. I'd agree to a point, but I don't disown the term 'atheist'. Instead I'd prefer to argue for what atheist actually means, and how it cannot be treated as a type of belief in the way 'Christian' can be. There is no atheist dogma, there is no common thread tying atheists together.

That is NOT the same as saying there aren't certain beliefs which are largely/commonly composed of atheists. Anti-theism...materialism...etc. But not all atheists fall into these categories, just as not all theists are Abrahamaic.

As for Pastafarians...meh...I could care less, to be honest.
Either they are trying to make a point by mirroring the stupidity of some laws with particular allowances for religion (which is a secular, rather than atheist argument) or they have become weird parodies of themselves.

A simpler and more extreme example are some of the more extreme atheist communist regimes occasionally thrown up as anti-atheism arguments. There is no common doctrine that I hold with them, any more than a Buddhist and a Jew would hold common doctrine. They were extreme, hate-filled and negative, and adopted plenty of religious practises, often becoming cultish in their worship of the state. Hence my argument that what atheists should be focused on is secularism...not anti-theism. A theist can be either ally or opponent in that fight. Focusing on anti-religion appears to me the wrong fight entirely to me. But atheist doesn't mean anti-religion, no matter how some present it, nor does it mean scientism, or materialism. Those are positive ideologies above and beyond atheism, and conflating them is mistaken. I'd rather point out the mistake than accept it.

 

[Gerald Kelleher]

A simpler and more extreme example are some of the more extreme atheist communist regimes occasionally thrown up as anti-atheism arguments. There is no common doctrine that I hold with them.....

But you see, the tendency of the old commies was to use a platform of 'science' to counter what they saw as a competing ideology controlling humanity via the Christian Churches. Considering that recent Christianity had descended into a moral dictatorship of sorts from which it is thankfully just emerging in fits and starts, it is no wonder the unbelievers took exception to denominational Christianity while ignoring Christ.

"You must work until "religion" is synonymous with "insanity."" You must work until the officials of city, county and state governments will not think twice before they pounce upon religious groups as public enemies."

THE SOVIET ART OF BRAINWASHING - part 2

For a Christian like me it is not living a life so as to avoid hell or playing out the ancient traditions like a puppet show but the strife between harmony and invention that runs through all spiritual people. Trying to legislate a perfect society by secularism doesn't work even though it is getting more like that in Western societies as time goes on. As a Catholic I go to Church each week and feel the comfort of a community that is dwindling and getting older but what a wonderful experience to be part of a community while still living as an individual.

The empiricist community likes to project itself as the light of reason against the superstition of religion but that is a mere historical accident created by the Churches themselves in deciding to jettison its astronomical heritage which in turned filtered down into terrestrial sciences.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How would one describe New Atheism? I guess a kind of overlapping set of prominent atheists and nontheists who promote closely related ideas, coupled with the outlets they promote them in and the like-minded people who have an interest in them. It is, of course, rather amorphous but in practice, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and the late Christopher Hitchens, their arguments and their enthusiasts.

Heh... when we compare Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens to the likes of Ingersoll and Russell, it seems that the "New Atheists" are a fair bit gentler than the "Old Agnostics".

 

[Moni_Gail]

Same as gsaseeker, I equate New Atheist with anti-theist. And this is precisely why I voted no. I'm not an anti-theist. I understand theists, to a certain degree.

When I first got back to university I sought out the GSO (gender and sexual orientation) and an SSA. I didn't stick with the SSA long. They had so many opportunities to make a difference around the campus, but instead, it turned out to be nothing more than a circle jerk of religion bashing. Myself, I'd rather focus my attention for something rather than being defined as against something.

I did notice, amongst a few friends, that during their personal evolution towards atheism that an anger emerged. I don't, of course, believe that this is due to an emptiness where a god or gods have been cut out, but more a reaction to feeling lied to for so long. Add to that, they are generally butting up against their family and friends, causing defensiveness and antagonism. Now, I just recommend Frans De Waal's The Bonobo and the Atheist: In Search of Humanism Among the Primates. I also try to keep in mind that I may be the first "out" non-believer that people get to know and therefore feel a responsibility to comport myself in a respectful and kind manner.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Hence my argument that what atheists should be focused on is secularism...not anti-theism.

Yes, that's a good point. Though maybe the boundaries are easily blurred here?

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes, that's a good point. Though maybe the boundaries are easily blurred here?

I think they are. Anti-theism isn't half as traumatic (nor should it ever be) as many people seem to expect it to be for whatever reason that evades me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There's atheist "churches" popping up these days, even.

It may help if you think of these as "social gatherings where non-believers can get a break from being incessantly bothered about religion."

In many parts of the world, religious annoyance really gets to that level.

 

[HonestJoe]

I understand where the author is coming from but suggest he's bought in to a lie which doesn't need such analysis.

"New Atheism" is a weapon for attacking people, allowing anyone expressing an opinion of non-belief together, much in the same was all Muslims get associated with terrorism, all blacks with violent crime or all Christians with homophobia. By acknowledging that the term has any kind of valid meaning only serves to feed the problem.

 

[Willamena]

Yes, it seems like pejorative term conjured up by theists, a straw-man.

Close. The term was coined by computer programmer Gary Wolf in an article in Wired magazine.

Wired 14.11: The Church of the Non-Believers

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Close. The term was coined by computer programmer Gary Wolf in an article in Wired magazine.

To me it has the sense of giving the enemy a name. But I do wonder why theists are so sensitive about such challenges.
If they were really confident in their faith then why would they even care?

 

[LuisDantas]

It really looks like a fancy nickname that was never meant to be taken seriously or to last. It is patently obvious that it does not have reason to last.

 

[Willamena]

To me it has the sense of giving the enemy a name. But I do wonder why theists are so sensitive about such challenges.
If they were really confident in their faith then why would they even care?

To which challenges do you refer? The intellectual superiority? Or the heartless disrespect?

Dawkins has been talking this way for years, and his best comebacks are decades old. For instance, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a variant of the tiny orbiting teapot used by Bertrand Russell for similar rhetorical duty back in 1952. Dawkins is perfectly aware that atheism is an ancient doctrine and that little of what he has to say is likely to change the terms of this stereotyped debate. But he continues to go at it. His true interlocutors are not the Christians he confronts directly but the wavering nonbelievers or quasi believers among his listeners – people like me, potential New Atheists who might be inspired by his example.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

To which challenges do you refer? The intellectual superiority? Or the heartless disrespect?

Are you saying that atheists are intellectually superior?

And why should anyone respect a belief they think is nonsensical?

 

[LuisDantas]

I wonder how come atheists are so summarily denied rights that are hardly ever questioned when it is theists who use them.

Questioning of religious dogma is done by everyone. It is hardly an atheists exclusivity. The only difference is that we do not hide behind dogmas of our own.

 

[Cephus]

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

Sure, the "New" atheist doesn't sit in the corner and keep their mouth shut.

 

[Cephus]

You are the one who is ignoring the fact that there are many atheists who get very religiously involved with atheism.

There are some and they are pointing out the utter absurdity that the religious can wear head garb obscuring their face, etc. because they believe in an imaginary friend in the sky. None of these people actually have any beliefs in the things they portray on their licenses. The whole point is for society to reconsider what they allow the religious to get away with in the name of religion.

 

[LuisDantas]

You are the one who is ignoring the fact that there are many atheists who get very religiously involved with atheism.

I have discussed that event in other threads. What is the big deal?

 

[LuisDantas]

Sure, the "New" atheist doesn't sit in the corner and keep their mouth shut.

The scoundrels. Next thing you know they will want people to support their beliefs, or even to stop expecting others to pretend to agree with them!