The new Athiest Humanities downfall?

[TransmutingSoul]

But is it an accurate critique of that movement with respect to points (3), (11) and (12)?

That's what I wish to know, the author of the OP doesn't seem to know.

The author of the OP had not heard of this before.

All new to me. It was of interest, as one does see replies that tick aspects of that list.

I have had militant tone replies on a couple of occasions. Which indicates to me it could scale up to action.

Regards Tony

 

[Nimos]

Okay, you have your beliefs and I have mine and yes, I am an atheist.
Here is some science.
Princeton - News - Brain imaging study sheds light on moral decision-making

I don't think we disagree. But I do think you have misunderstanding of what critical thinking is. Critical thinking doesn't mean an analytic cold evidence based emotional free way of thinking and I assume you didn't watch the video I linked?

It about being able and aware of when such thing is the case and what to watch out for when approaching an argument. Such as whether an argument is emotional based for instance and whether that is valid or not.

In the video for instance, an example is given about going for a run, and a person might use the excuse that they can't go run because they are afraid of being robbed. Critical thinking is to approach such situation by for instance looking at how much crime have actually been reported in the area etc. and whether that give a reasonable excuse or whether one should see it as a bad excuse.

Moral decision making whether it is emotional or not, still require you to be able to correctly approach whatever argument that might lead you to take one moral position over another. Critical thinking is not a replacement for anything, its a method used for decision making and evaluating arguments to help one avoid making wrong or bad decisions.

In the article you posted they used the trolley and the push people example, for you to decide what to do in each of these situations and determine what you believe is the moral right thing to do, critical thinking can help you reach that decision by carefully going through for and against arguments. But it doesn't guarantee that you are in fact doing what is morally right or wrong. That is a completely different question.

 

[Sheldon]

osgart said: ↑
Militant atheism is a real thing.

That is a great post. Thank you for those thoughts.

Regards Tony

So which of the new atheists has violently promoted atheism? Otherwise the only other descriptor is confrontational, and then you're just left with argumentative.

Those uppity atheists, and their relentlessly rational debate. They'll be building churches next and gathering in there to threaten all non atheists with an eternity of torture, some of them might decide to usurp their (non) deity's sovereignty of course, and kill a few right now.

Oh wait, I'm describing militant theists? All Dawkins and co have done is write some books offering a point of view, and maybe attend a few lectures?

Pitchforks...

 

[TransmutingSoul]

"The new atheism has twelve characteristics that define its nature." Well, let's see if we can draw some parallels with religion.

(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.

Religion, on the other hand, does not depend on any rationality at all, but solely the "revelation of the divine" as pronounced by some few very human beings who claim for themselves access to such devine knowledge which, for reasons unstated, are unavailable to the rest of us.

(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;

Religion, on the other hand, very often simply assumes "super-sensible beings and realities" without the tiniest shred of evidence. Evidence, in almost every other sphere of inquiry, is considered generally a good thing, but not so much for deciding what the "ultimate reality" is, which is hardly a rational stance. (It would be hard to find the religious person who would believe that a murderer should go free if he produced a book of unknown provenance that proclaimed him innocent, I think.)

(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;

A short study of history would seem to show a certain militant stance from much of religion around the world. Wars of religion have certainly done much damage. And to a degree, we would say that excising bits of children's bodies (circumcision), insistence on certain hair cuts (tonsure), or the wearing of special clothing to denote one''s belonging to this belief or that can be seen as quite pathological.

(4) A strident, aggressive, provocative and insulting way of expressing themselves and indulgence in all kinds of polemical and rhetorical shenanigans;

Try reading any Christian or Islamic apologist, and see if there is not a strident, aggressive, provocative and insulting way of expression -- and especially indulgence in all kinds of polemical and rhetorical shenanigans. I refer you especially to William Lane Craig and Dr. Hatem al-Haj.

But let me also point out that atheists can usually point to real-world evidence for the claims that they make, while the religious must of necessity point to nothing other than "revelation of the divine" as mentioned in point 1. Revelation, of course, by self-proclaimed possessors of sacred knowledge.

(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;

This is a false claim. Atheists are generally well-aware that science cannot answer any and all human questions. But rather than hold to a lot of ancient, arcane "knowledge," we assume that questions unanswerable by science can be answered by acceptance of the dignity of each individual human being, and individual liberty consonant with social and planetary responsibility.

(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;

But faith IS inherently an enemy of reason when it makes claims that are simply untrue. It is evident in the claims of "answered prayers" (which number in the dozens, while prayers themselves number in the hundreds of billions) that religions are trying to make the claims that prayers are answered -- when the evidence makes it abundantly clear that they are not, that there is no help coming to save us from ourselves.

(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;

Yet, it would appear that this is happening. The percentage of religious adherents around the world compared to the general population has been in steady decline for a long time. In U.S., Decline of Christianity Continues at Rapid Pace

(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;

Is reading scripture literally so much worse than reading it "creatively," so as to get it to say what you wish it to say? Can we say that the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, for example -- which resulted in so much misery and death throughout Europe, and was caused by differences of "opinion" on what the words in scripture acutally meant -- was a good thing?

(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.

And this insistence is, in essence quite true -- but it is limited by an inherent tribalism. But this tribalism is evident even in most religious scripture which generally insists on dividing the world into "us" and "them," and declaring "them" to be enemies. The Bible is rife with that, as is the Qur'an. The non-religious person would no more think of excommunicating or burning to death another person because they hold a contrary belief, and yet religions have in general been quite keen on that sort of thing. In fact, it would seem sometimes that religion is capable of suppressing that "innate and reliable moral sense of intuition" that we do possess. Think of all those altars in Central and South America where living humans had their hearts torn from the bodies in full view of the approving faithful.

(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);

And just what is "progressive revelation," and how is it know to be properly sourced to the divine, rather than to imagination of an individual? It is not known, is the correct answer, merely assumed to be true. I put it to you that if God is eternal and unchanging, as the vast majority of religious believe, then "progressive revelation" simply doesn't follow. Rules of dress, ritual, alimentation and so forth don't change unless either God or humans change. Pork and shrimp are either good eats or they're not, and hiding women behind yards of cloth is either proper or not -- unless such things are merely human preferences, here one day, gone the next.

(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;

What does your own religion (Baha'i) say about homosexuality? What does the Catholic Church say about homosexuality? What does Islam say about homosexuality. And yet, what is KNOWN (as opposed to BELIEVED) is that homosexuality is a completely naturally occurring orientation, as unalterable (without drastic measures) as height. But because people a long time ago didn't know that, people of today are enjoined to ignore it, for no other reason than religion. And that is, to put it mildly, anti-social.

(12) Their rejection of the freedom to be religious; because religion is so damaging religion is not a legitimate choice in society."

Religion is hardly "freedom." The very name itself implies "binding oneself" (religare). And in any case, religion is most often inculcated into young, impressionable minds before the age of reason and rational choice. Have the newborn baby of a Christian woman adopted into a Muslim family, or the Muslim child adopted by a Southern Baptist family, and I guarantee you they will grow up into their adopted faith, not their birth faith, while all of their physical characteristics will reflect their birth, not their adoption.

So both sides have a lot to answer for.

Where to from here?

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Rather like this ;-)

View attachment 58662

#6

Regards Tony

 

[John D. Brey]

Reflection is wonderful thing

I came into the world with nothing, and was disheartened to learn I can take none of it will me when I leave.



John

 

[danieldemol]

The author of the OP had not heard of this before.

All new to me. It was of interest, as one does see replies that tick aspects of that list.

I have had militant tone replies on a couple of occasions. Which indicates to me it could scale up to action.

Regards Tony

I understand there are occasionally militant posters on RF (who tend to quickly become banned), however none of the four men you mention in the OP are regular posters on RF that I'm aware of.

So may I take it that you are confessing no knowledge of any link between the four men your OP singled out and points (3), (11) and (12)?

If so I can at least commend you on admitting an error, after all we are all humans capable of making mistakes here.

In my opinion.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So both sides have a lot to answer for.

Where to from here?

Regards Tony

First step? Everybody stop proselytizing.

Look, you started this thread, and titled it "The new Athiest Humanities downfall?" Outside of the misspelling of "atheist" and "humanity's," this is clearly provocative. You posted thoughts by another Baha'i, who clearly has antipathy towards people who don't believe in God, using just 4 actual human beings to essentially tar all of the rest with that brush.

I have posted threads on RF in the past, where I discuss what I believe -- but if you go back and look through them, you'll find posts like "Why I am an atheist," and "What Evangelical Humanist Does not Believe." Look at those titles -- I'm talking about me, not anybody else. I'm discussing my view of the world, not telling anybody else what their view should be.

I have endeavoured, in all the years that I've been posting here, and in forums before this, to focus on what I can know (I do know me, trust me on this, I've had a lot of experience of the subject). You will never find a thread posted by me titled "Is Theism Humanity's Downfall," or "Why (pick your religion) is Wrong." I've never written those.

I've told everybody who cared to read why I think it is wrong to take a sharp knife to your son's (and more so, your daughter's) genitalia. I've been candid about why I dislike abortion, but why, in the end, I cannot interfere in a woman's right to make such a choice for herself.

I've pointed out, in many posts, how easily our human brains can mistake what we think we've experienced -- and with solid evidence from neuroscience -- but never once said "that's what's causing all religious experience."



At the end of the day, no human beings will ever come to agreement on an argument in which they both take "positions," or "strike attitudes." We'll only ever get there when we learn to say "this is what I think (and why)," and then ASK "what do you think (and why)?"

We are human, we are people, and people's feelings are real. If you try to deny me my feelings, I will fight back, and if I try to deny you your feelings, you will too -- we've seen it, right here (on both sides, I don't claim innocence on that).

The only way for humans to really discuss matters of this kind is to speak honestly FOR YOURSELF AND NOBODY ELSE, and then remember that you have one mouth and two ears -- and maybe there's a reason for that -- to listen more than you speak.

 

[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

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

Someone told me that this represents only about 1% of current atheists.

 

[John D. Brey]

Irony? It's hilarious that every single one of these accusations of rudeness ends in a petty insult.

A Dick might give Richard's petty the checkered flag on racy thought?

A rather laboured piece of circular reasoning,

Only an Englishman could get his tongue around that spelling of labored.

. . . indulging yet more petty ad hominem,

Hominem spelled backwards is "evil" in Pig Latin.

. . . none of which is as egregious as the superfluous word "and" at the start of that sentence. A real own goal, if you're going to make sweeping insults about other people's intellect.

It was both a solipsistic "and," that believed none of the other words in the sentence existed, and also the editorial "and." In this sense I suppose it could be called a salutary solipsistic superfluous son of Belial.



John

 

[Colt]

Uh, uh! Not so. It is life continuing itself.

It’s almost like life continuing itself was planed by a mind?

 

[Sheldon]

The new atheism has twelve characteristics that define its nature:

According to who? From your spoiler link...

The New Atheism – A Bahá’í Perspective

From your second link:

The New Atheism: A Bahá'í Perspective

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

Way to assume your religion speaks for mankind, that's not arrogant at all.

How do you see it?

Risible biased BS, since you ask. Whenever I hear Professor Dawkins name mentioned I am always a little surprised to find out there must be two of them.

 

[We Never Know]

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

This new atheism started with the "four horsemen". However I didn't see the 12 steps you listed. However those four put out many other things including several books.

You can read more here...

New Atheism - Wikipedia

 

[Sheldon]

A Dick might give Richard's petty the checkered flag on racy thought?



Only an Englishman could get his tongue around that spelling of labored.



Hominem spelled backwards is "evil" in Pig Latin.



It was both a solipsistic "and," that believed none of the other words in the sentence existed, and also the editorial "and." In this sense I suppose it could be called a salutary solipsistic superfluous son of Belial.



John

FWIW, I'm not an Englishman. If you care to address what I said, then I'll give your response some thought.

 

[Sheldon]

It’s almost like life continuing itself was planed by a mind?

No it isn't, that's pure unevidenced assumption. Evolution is an insentient process.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It’s almost like life continuing itself was planed by a mind?

Since I do not know how life originated on earth, I cannot make any statement about that.

But I point out to you something within your post itself that you probably don't even notice, and it is this: that while you think it is impossible that "life" could exist without a "mind," at the same time you assume that a "mind" could exist without --- well, anything actually.

And you give no reason for such a supposition.

 

[Nakosis]

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

The New Atheist seem a bit of a strawman.
Kind of easy to create this idea of what a new atheist is then tear it down with having a conversation with an actual atheist.

Atheist aren't really all that sinister.

 

[We Never Know]

The New Atheist seem a bit of a strawman.
Kind of easy to create this idea of what a new atheist is then tear it down with having a conversation with an actual atheist.

Atheist aren't really all that sinister.

Neither are christians.... But some atheists and some christians are.

 

[Vinayaka]

The New Atheist seem a bit of a strawman.
Kind of easy to create this idea of what a new atheist is then tear it down with having a conversation with an actual atheist.

Atheist aren't really all that sinister.

I can't believe the level of sinisterism assigned to people for merely having an alternate POV. Evil, nasty, inhumane, cruel, vindictive, unholy, deranged, demented, soulless, mean ... those darn atheists! (Why I found your comment funny, and rated it so.)

And this from people who claim to respect humanity.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I post this with no apology: this is one of the very best religious debates that I have ever heard. The topic is "The Catholic Church is a Force for Good in the World" and features. on the pro side are Archbishop of Nigeria John Onaiyekan and British commentator Ann Whiddecomb (British politician and author) and on the anti side, Christopher Hitchens and actor, activist and polymath, Stephen Fry.

I have to say, Stephen Fry's presentation at 48 minutes in is one of the most compelling things that I have ever heard. The man is brilliant.