The new Athiest Humanities downfall?

[TransmutingSoul]

I found this interesting.

"The ‘new atheism’ is the name given to contemporary atheism as spear-headed by the work of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett.

The new atheism has twelve characteristics that define its nature:

(1) A commitment to explicit, strong or dogmatic atheism as the only rational
choice for modern, independent, free thinking individuals. The new atheists reject
agnosticism as too weak a response to the dangers of religion.
(2) A categorical rejection of any and all super-sensible beings and realities and a
corresponding commitment to ontological (metaphysical) materialism in explaining all phenomena;
(3) A militant agenda and tone which opposes not just of religion itself but even the tolerance of any religious beliefs in others; this agenda and tone is driven by the belief that religion per se is pathological in nature;
(4) A strident, aggressive, provocative and insulting way of expressing themselves and
indulgence in all kinds of polemical and rhetorical shenanigans;
(5) Commitment to the ability of science to answer all human questions by means of the scientific method with its criteria of measurability, repeatability, predictability,
falsifiability; quantifiability;
(6) A belief that faith is inherently an enemy of reason and science and no reconciliation
between them is possible. Religion is inherently irrational. They are naturally in a
perpetual conflict that must end with the victory of one or the other. Faith is defined
as “belief without evidence.” They adhere to the conflict model of the relationship
between religion/faith and reason;
(7) A belief that religion is part of our past but not of our future, i.e. part of our evolutionary heritage that we must learn to overcome;
(8) An insistence of reading scriptures literally (in order to condemn religion) and a
consistent rejection of centuries of non-literal theological interpretations of the
relevant scriptures;
(9) An insistence that humankind has an innate and reliable moral sense or intuition that does not require the guidance of religion; morality is not inherently connected to or based on religion and our morals have less to do with religion than we tend to think.
(10) Presentism: judging past ages by the standards of today, which is, in effect, a failure to recognise progressive revelation. (also the logical error of anachronism);
(11) Their belief that religious faith is either a mental illness or a criminal offense
comparable to child-molesting or an anti-social act that ‘dumbs down’ society as a
whole;
(12) Their rejection of the freedom to be religious; because religion is so damaging
religion is not a legitimate choice in society."

Spoiler: Source

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...cQFnoECAYQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2oB623Tqdht2YN3zoQRQ6K

Edit - A Link that is not a PDF The New Atheism

This may become mankind's greatest challenge, is it the height of materialism, the downfall of the human race as described in prophecy?

How do you see it?

Personally I can leave them to their thoughts, but since some here come up with these replies in their posts on religious threads, I thought it worth discussing.

Regards Tony

 

[lukethethird]

Why not 13 to make it appear sinister?

 

[lukethethird]

Personally I can leave them to their thoughts, but since some here come up with these replies in their posts on religious threads, I thought it worth discussing.

Regards Tony

What do you find worth discussing?

 

[robocop (actually)]

I found this interesting.

"The ‘new atheism’ is the name given to contemporary atheism as spear-headed by the work of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett.

The new atheism has twelve characteristics that define its nature:

(1) A commitment to explicit, strong or dogmatic atheism as the only rational
choice for modern, independent, free thinking individuals. The new atheists reject
agnosticism as too weak a response to the dangers of religion.
(2) A categorical rejection of any and all super-sensible beings and realities and a
corresponding commitment to ontological (metaphysical) materialism in explaining all phenomena;
(3) A militant agenda and tone which opposes not just of religion itself but even the tolerance of any religious beliefs in others; this agenda and tone is driven by the belief that religion per se is pathological in nature;
(4) A strident, aggressive, provocative and insulting way of expressing themselves and
indulgence in all kinds of polemical and rhetorical shenanigans;
(5) Commitment to the ability of science to answer all human questions by means of the scientific method with its criteria of measurability, repeatability, predictability,
falsifiability; quantifiability;
(6) A belief that faith is inherently an enemy of reason and science and no reconciliation
between them is possible. Religion is inherently irrational. They are naturally in a
perpetual conflict that must end with the victory of one or the other. Faith is defined
as “belief without evidence.” They adhere to the conflict model of the relationship
between religion/faith and reason;
(7) A belief that religion is part of our past but not of our future, i.e. part of our evolutionary heritage that we must learn to overcome;
(8) An insistence of reading scriptures literally (in order to condemn religion) and a
consistent rejection of centuries of non-literal theological interpretations of the
relevant scriptures;
(9) An insistence that humankind has an innate and reliable moral sense or intuition that does not require the guidance of religion; morality is not inherently connected to or based on religion and our morals have less to do with religion than we tend to think.
(10) Presentism: judging past ages by the standards of today, which is, in effect, a failure to recognise progressive revelation. (also the logical error of anachronism);
(11) Their belief that religious faith is either a mental illness or a criminal offense
comparable to child-molesting or an anti-social act that ‘dumbs down’ society as a
whole;
(12) Their rejection of the freedom to be religious; because religion is so damaging
religion is not a legitimate choice in society."

Spoiler: Source

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...cQFnoECAYQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2oB623Tqdht2YN3zoQRQ6K

This may become mankind's greatest challenge, is it the height of materialism, the downfall of the human race as described in prophecy?

How do you see it?

Personally I can leave them to their thoughts, but since some here come up with these replies in their posts on religious threads, I thought it worth discussing.

Regards Tony

I'm speechless I don't like this movement.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Why not 13 to make it appear sinister?

What would be your # 13 that describes the new Athiest?

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I'm speechless I don't like this movement.

Sounds bad indeed, it would be scary for sure.

I found it interesting as a couple of the points mentioned do indeed appear in replies regularly on RF.

Regards Tony

 

[lukethethird]

What would be your # 13 that describes the new Athiest?

Regards Tony

More atheist bashing, obviously. I mean, why did you stop there?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

What do you find worth discussing?

The mindset behind anyone of the 12 points noted above.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

More atheist bashing, obviously. I mean, why did you stop there?

I just read the paper I took it from, it is not my list. Matter of fact I would not have even thought of a list, but apparently someone has.

The list does describe what one sees on many OP replies. That is what makes it interesting.

Are people starting a new Athiest movement without really understanding where their thoughts might lead them to?

Regards Tony

 

[JustGeorge]

I found this interesting.

"The ‘new atheism’ is the name given to contemporary atheism as spear-headed by the work of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett.

The new atheism has twelve characteristics that define its nature:

(1) A commitment to explicit, strong or dogmatic atheism as the only rational
choice for modern, independent, free thinking individuals. The new atheists reject
agnosticism as too weak a response to the dangers of religion.
(2) A categorical rejection of any and all super-sensible beings and realities and a
corresponding commitment to ontological (metaphysical) materialism in explaining all phenomena;
(3) A militant agenda and tone which opposes not just of religion itself but even the tolerance of any religious beliefs in others; this agenda and tone is driven by the belief that religion per se is pathological in nature;
(4) A strident, aggressive, provocative and insulting way of expressing themselves and
indulgence in all kinds of polemical and rhetorical shenanigans;
(5) Commitment to the ability of science to answer all human questions by means of the scientific method with its criteria of measurability, repeatability, predictability,
falsifiability; quantifiability;
(6) A belief that faith is inherently an enemy of reason and science and no reconciliation
between them is possible. Religion is inherently irrational. They are naturally in a
perpetual conflict that must end with the victory of one or the other. Faith is defined
as “belief without evidence.” They adhere to the conflict model of the relationship
between religion/faith and reason;
(7) A belief that religion is part of our past but not of our future, i.e. part of our evolutionary heritage that we must learn to overcome;
(8) An insistence of reading scriptures literally (in order to condemn religion) and a
consistent rejection of centuries of non-literal theological interpretations of the
relevant scriptures;
(9) An insistence that humankind has an innate and reliable moral sense or intuition that does not require the guidance of religion; morality is not inherently connected to or based on religion and our morals have less to do with religion than we tend to think.
(10) Presentism: judging past ages by the standards of today, which is, in effect, a failure to recognise progressive revelation. (also the logical error of anachronism);
(11) Their belief that religious faith is either a mental illness or a criminal offense
comparable to child-molesting or an anti-social act that ‘dumbs down’ society as a
whole;
(12) Their rejection of the freedom to be religious; because religion is so damaging
religion is not a legitimate choice in society."

Spoiler: Source

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...cQFnoECAYQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2oB623Tqdht2YN3zoQRQ6K

Edit - A Link that is not a PDF The New Atheism

This may become mankind's greatest challenge, is it the height of materialism, the downfall of the human race as described in prophecy?

How do you see it?

Personally I can leave them to their thoughts, but since some here come up with these replies in their posts on religious threads, I thought it worth discussing.

Regards Tony

My Uncle is an agnostic, of the 'don't know, don't care' variety. For the most part, he thinks religion is a waste of time/effort.

However, he rolls his eyes at branches of Atheism such as this and says "Can't they see they've gone and made a damn religion of it?"

Ironic.

 

[George-ananda]

I voted: No but I will explain more.

It's militant scientism and materialism that I argue against all the time on this forum. People complain that 'scientism' and 'materialism' are negative pejorative words but these New Atheists I would say embrace and own the words.

They cannot cause humanity's downfall. Only the rest of us can cause our own.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I found this interesting.

Just looking at the opening pages I found that the author Ian Kluge completely missed the point of Nietzsche's words "God is dead" and construed them as a boastful claim that God did not exist or had been killed when in fact he meant something else.

God is dead - Wikipedia says "Nietzsche used the phrase to express his idea that the Enlightenment had eliminated the possibility of the existence of God." and Nietzche was not celebrating but was bemoaning or complaining that the Enlightenment had excluded God. It had made the mistake of presuming God to be unimportant. So in this Nietzsche is on the side of believing in God, but it is not convenient to Kluge's argument who then just ignores the actual intent of Nietzsche and probably has never read his work. Quote mining.

Following in that vane of gold, Kluge likely is overstating the situation of neo atheism, too. He makes this long list of claims that they are boisterous, strutting and arrogant. It seems an exaggeration. Maybe he's playing fast and loose with his accusations and is not doing the research as to what people actually mean.

He writes "What is new in the new atheists is their...their rejection of the freedom to be religious;" but I don't see any references to support this claim. Who is rejecting the freedom to be religious? The Chinese government? He doesn't make this clear.

 

[Audie]

I found this interesting.

"The ‘new atheism’ is the name given to contemporary atheism as spear-headed by the work of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett.

The new atheism has twelve characteristics that define its nature:

(1) A commitment to explicit, strong or dogmatic atheism as the only rational
choice for modern, independent, free thinking individuals. The new atheists reject
agnosticism as too weak a response to the dangers of religion.
(2) A categorical rejection of any and all super-sensible beings and realities and a
corresponding commitment to ontological (metaphysical) materialism in explaining all phenomena;
(3) A militant agenda and tone which opposes not just of religion itself but even the tolerance of any religious beliefs in others; this agenda and tone is driven by the belief that religion per se is pathological in nature;
(4) A strident, aggressive, provocative and insulting way of expressing themselves and
indulgence in all kinds of polemical and rhetorical shenanigans;
(5) Commitment to the ability of science to answer all human questions by means of the scientific method with its criteria of measurability, repeatability, predictability,
falsifiability; quantifiability;
(6) A belief that faith is inherently an enemy of reason and science and no reconciliation
between them is possible. Religion is inherently irrational. They are naturally in a
perpetual conflict that must end with the victory of one or the other. Faith is defined
as “belief without evidence.” They adhere to the conflict model of the relationship
between religion/faith and reason;
(7) A belief that religion is part of our past but not of our future, i.e. part of our evolutionary heritage that we must learn to overcome;
(8) An insistence of reading scriptures literally (in order to condemn religion) and a
consistent rejection of centuries of non-literal theological interpretations of the
relevant scriptures;
(9) An insistence that humankind has an innate and reliable moral sense or intuition that does not require the guidance of religion; morality is not inherently connected to or based on religion and our morals have less to do with religion than we tend to think.
(10) Presentism: judging past ages by the standards of today, which is, in effect, a failure to recognise progressive revelation. (also the logical error of anachronism);
(11) Their belief that religious faith is either a mental illness or a criminal offense
comparable to child-molesting or an anti-social act that ‘dumbs down’ society as a
whole;
(12) Their rejection of the freedom to be religious; because religion is so damaging
religion is not a legitimate choice in society."

Spoiler: Source

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...cQFnoECAYQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2oB623Tqdht2YN3zoQRQ6K

This may become mankind's greatest challenge, is it the height of materialism, the downfall of the human race as described in prophecy?

How do you see it?

Personally I can leave them to their thoughts, but since some here come up with these replies in their posts on religious threads, I thought it worth discussing.

Regards Tony

Might be fun to come up with a counterpsrt list
of what militant theists do.
Why dont you do it, just in case you
are fair minded.

I never ran across a militant atheist, let alone one
suffering the hyperbole of dogmatism.

I just dont believe in god. Probably like me 99
plus percent f atheists dont know or care what a dawkins says or your 13 points.

As for some things said in here such as that
evolution is false because( fill in any of the silly ressons), I will sometimes see how far past the
limits of reason or even sanity they are willing to go.

As for what is a menace- nothing quite like the
American disease of anti intellectualism that runs so deep in fundamentalism.

You guys keep it up!
Over here people are not at all sentimental
about your regressive anti science organizations.

They will run right over you. Watch for it.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

My Uncle is an agnostic, of the 'don't know, don't care' variety. For the most part, he thinks religion is a waste of time/effort.

However, he rolls his eyes at branches of Atheism such as this and says "Can't they see they've gone and made a damn religion of it?"

Ironic.

Well I would agree with him, as the article does quote the books that would suggest they have formed a doctrine of belief.

Regards Tony

 

[Left Coast]

I found this interesting.

"The ‘new atheism’ is the name given to contemporary atheism as spear-headed by the work of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett.

The new atheism has twelve characteristics that define its nature:

(1) A commitment to explicit, strong or dogmatic atheism as the only rational
choice for modern, independent, free thinking individuals. The new atheists reject
agnosticism as too weak a response to the dangers of religion.
(2) A categorical rejection of any and all super-sensible beings and realities and a
corresponding commitment to ontological (metaphysical) materialism in explaining all phenomena;
(3) A militant agenda and tone which opposes not just of religion itself but even the tolerance of any religious beliefs in others; this agenda and tone is driven by the belief that religion per se is pathological in nature;
(4) A strident, aggressive, provocative and insulting way of expressing themselves and
indulgence in all kinds of polemical and rhetorical shenanigans;
(5) Commitment to the ability of science to answer all human questions by means of the scientific method with its criteria of measurability, repeatability, predictability,
falsifiability; quantifiability;
(6) A belief that faith is inherently an enemy of reason and science and no reconciliation
between them is possible. Religion is inherently irrational. They are naturally in a
perpetual conflict that must end with the victory of one or the other. Faith is defined
as “belief without evidence.” They adhere to the conflict model of the relationship
between religion/faith and reason;
(7) A belief that religion is part of our past but not of our future, i.e. part of our evolutionary heritage that we must learn to overcome;
(8) An insistence of reading scriptures literally (in order to condemn religion) and a
consistent rejection of centuries of non-literal theological interpretations of the
relevant scriptures;
(9) An insistence that humankind has an innate and reliable moral sense or intuition that does not require the guidance of religion; morality is not inherently connected to or based on religion and our morals have less to do with religion than we tend to think.
(10) Presentism: judging past ages by the standards of today, which is, in effect, a failure to recognise progressive revelation. (also the logical error of anachronism);
(11) Their belief that religious faith is either a mental illness or a criminal offense
comparable to child-molesting or an anti-social act that ‘dumbs down’ society as a
whole;
(12) Their rejection of the freedom to be religious; because religion is so damaging
religion is not a legitimate choice in society."

Spoiler: Source

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...cQFnoECAYQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2oB623Tqdht2YN3zoQRQ6K

Edit - A Link that is not a PDF The New Atheism

This may become mankind's greatest challenge, is it the height of materialism, the downfall of the human race as described in prophecy?

How do you see it?

Personally I can leave them to their thoughts, but since some here come up with these replies in their posts on religious threads, I thought it worth discussing.

Regards Tony

Although it is true that some atheists can be dogmatic in their antipathy against God or religion, this list goes farther than pretty much any I've ever met. I would bet that even the "Four Horsemen" wouldn't go as far as some of these points claim, such as the idea that agnosticism is "too weak" or that we should abolish freedom of religion.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I voted: No but I will explain more.

It's militant scientism and materialism that I argue against all the time on this forum. People complain that 'scientism' and 'materialism' are negative pejorative words but these New Atheists I would say embrace and own the words.

They cannot cause humanity's downfall. Only the rest of us can cause our own.

Yes indeed, it is only our own selves that can embrace humanity as a whole.

I see faith, science and materialism can all work, a balance is needed though.

There is no harm in faith, science and materialism when it is used for the good of all peoples.

When they are used for the wrong reasons, they are all dangerous to humanity.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Just looking at the opening pages I found that the author Ian Kluge completely missed the point of Nietzsche's words "God is dead" and construed them as a boastful claim that God did not exist or had been killed when in fact he meant something else.

God is dead - Wikipedia says "Nietzsche used the phrase to express his idea that the Enlightenment had eliminated the possibility of the existence of God." and Nietzche was not celebrating but was bemoaning or complaining that the Enlightenment had excluded God. It had made the mistake of presuming God to be unimportant. So in this Nietzsche is on the side of believing in God, but it is not convenient to Kluge's argument who then just ignores the actual intent of Nietzsche and probably has never read his work. Quote mining.

Following in that vane of gold, Kluge likely is overstating the situation of neo atheism, too. He makes this long list of claims that they are boisterous, strutting and arrogant. It seems an exaggeration. Maybe he's playing fast and loose with his accusations and is not doing the research as to what people actually mean.

He writes "What is new in the new atheists is their...their rejection of the freedom to be religious;" but I don't see any references to support this claim. Who is rejecting the freedom to be religious? The Chinese government? He doesn't make this clear.

Thank you that is good to know. That is why all views need to be balanced in discussions with other points of view.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Might be fun to come up with a counterpsrt list
of what militant theists do.
Why dont you do it, just in case you
are fair minded.

To me there is no doubt a list could be done as many faiths in the past have a lot to answer for.

In fact the Baha'i Writings says if religion becomes the cause of disunity, then we are better off without religion.

The key would be that no other movement makes the same mistakes.

I see a unity in diversity needs to be built on virtues, so that may be a good list, what says you?

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I never ran across a militant atheist, let alone one
suffering the hyperbole of dogmatism.

I see a lot of replies on RF that are reflected in the list above.

I think that does not help the athiest cause at all.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Although it is true that some atheists can be dogmatic in their antipathy against God or religion, this list goes farther than pretty much any I've ever met. I would bet that even the "Four Horsemen" wouldn't go as far as some of these points claim, such as the idea that agnosticism is "too weak" or that we should abolish freedom of religion.

I wonder if the Author read the sources he quoted and subsequently made the list? It could be also influenced by personal perspectives.

Not sure I could find the interest to read the sources to know!

Regards Tony