The new Athiest Humanities downfall?

[mikkel_the_dane]

Oh dear, Tony, you struggle with atheism don't you.

I've not got time now but ... New Atheism was a term given by theists to describe the likes of Harris, Hitchens, etc and is not a term used by Atheists.
There are no leaders of Atheism, just some who can best express our thoughts.

I'll come back with more when I have time.

Stop doing that. That is in effect a lie, because neither you or those people speak for me as an atheist.
The only thing atheists have in common is the lack of/disbelief in gods.
Stop claim atheists are more than that and stop being tribal in effect.

 

[Colt]

Like ISIS, or the Taliban or the Westborough baptist churhc you mean? I have to say I find this kind of hyperbole both ridiculous and hilarious.



Atheists have only one thing in common, a lack of belief in any deity or deities, so what are these ideas? I might want to be on the look out.



I'm pretty sure it doesn't you know, and communism is an economic ideology that has nothing per se to do with atheism. I'm also certain that Professor Dawkins is not a communist. So you don't mind atheists as long as they are subjugated, and don't have any political influence. Personally I prefer to live in a free society, where everyone has the right to freedom of expression.

Atheist have more than disbelief in common, the OP is pointing out how Atheist are not content to coexist with religion, you want to eradicate it from society.

 

[joe1776]

Rather like this ;-)

View attachment 58662

There's nothing at all wrong with the attitude of atheists as expressed in your post. But it isn't representative of the opinions of militant atheism, IMO.

 

[Audie]

I had the pleasure to personally attend the talks of Dawkins, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett. I disagree with many things they have said, but I find their work stimulating rather than threatening.

Good. Id hope that more people would see
different pov that way.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Atheist have more than disbelief in common, the OP is pointing out how Atheist are not content to coexist with religion, you want to eradicate it from society.

No, I am as an atheist a friendly atheist and accept religion as a natural human behavior. Where I disagree in the end, is always ethics and that has nothing to do with religion or not.

 

[Audie]

It was not my idea.

I thought it an interesting article, that is all.

Why it was interesting was I see some of those steps are used in RF.

Regards Tony

As in, " couldnt have said better, myself"?

 

[Sheldon]

'Falsifiable' presumes one knows, or should know god well enough to do so.

No it doesn't, falsifiable does mean falsified.

To demand it as a criteria is therefor a form of gnosticism. Not agnosticism.

Who is demanding anything? If a claim is unfalsifiable I remain agnostic about it, but I also disbelieve it. This would apply to some god claims, but not all. Just as it would for Professor Dawkins.

But you're just blindly auto-defending and will ignore anything I post, so I won't bother responding to it.

Must we have this wounded pride, every time someone posts an opinion you don't like or share? If you don't want to respond then don't, it's clear the mere mention of atheism triggers you into these absurd proclamations about what atheists are, think and believe, as if they cannot determine this for themselves. Professor Dawkins was clearly not lying about being an atheist and an agnostic, it just doesn't fit your narrow view of what an atheist must be.

 

[Audie]

That's exactly what the op says they're doing, denying me religious experience.

So it hssnt happened to you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Who is demanding anything? If a claim is unfalsifiable I remain agnostic about it, but I also disbelieve it. This would apply to some god claims, but not all. Just as it would for Professor Dawkins.
...

Evidence is in a sense a normative demand as it demands a certain behaviour and declares other behavior in effect irrelevant. But that is cognitive and not objective in the end.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So it hssnt happened to you.

Well, the standard for some non-religious people is that religion is in effect meaningless to them, therefore it is meaningless as such and not just to them.

 

[Kfox]

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

Sounds like an attempt at an atheist religion to me. Such a non issue.

 

[F1fan]

Firstly what steps on the list can you remove.

I personally have not considered them all yet, but there a couple that jump out as being used on RF quite often.

The person that wrote the article seems to have done their research and is definitely had more education than I have.

Regards Tony

I don't see the whole approach genuine or in good faith. It's obviously a hit piece that is hiding behind the assumption that Bahi'a beliefs are true. As others have pointed out many of the points are not true, or inaccurate, or misrepresented. If a theist wants to defend their faith, which is already based on faith and belief which isn't factual, it had at LEAST be ethical, honest, and showing character. The article you posted is highly flawed, and suggests the writer is very insecure in whatever faith and belief he/she has. This has to reflect on you as well because surely you read it and bought the bad faith claims the author makes.

You often post about unity. But when I read this it tells us the author, and perhaps you, is full of grade A baloney when you advocate for unity. The deeper drive seems to be like any other tribe of religion, and that is to spread your type of faith, and all else is the enemy. Propaganda like this worked on a few other theists (who are eager to attack atheists, or atheism). It didn't work on rational theists or atheists.

If you are a theist and advocating for a religious message of unity, then you need to think through your true motives and intent. You need to operate within the framework and principles you keep talking about. Any deviation just shows hypocrisy and dishonesty. That is self-sabotage, and sabotage of your faith.

 

[Kooky]

Evidence is in a sense a normative demand as it demands a certain behaviour and declares other behavior in effect irrelevant. But that is cognitive and not objective in the end.

Is it actually a normative demand, though? If you tell me something then I'm free to believe it regardless of whether you supplied any evidence for it or not - and indeed, this is how normal conversations tend to go. The evidence is only required for formal truth claims made in a very specific formal context.

I can demand evidence for your claims, but you are under no obligation, normative or otherwise, to acquiesce to my demands, unless we are in a formal debate or an academic context with rules(explicit or implied) for that kind of thing.

 

[F1fan]

Well, the standard for some non-religious people is that religion is in effect meaningless to them, therefore it is meaningless as such and not just to them.

Meaning is a subjective behavior that is also tied to social cohesion. An individual can adopt a tribal framework of meaning and those ideas mean something crucial to that group of people. It helps the social function, much of it though subconscious motives and payoffs.

On the other hand one of these people can find a rock on a hike some day, and worship this rock 4 times a day for years. Eventually this ordinary rock will become very import to that individual, but to anyone else it is just an ordinary rock.

How humans invest their time and interest will reflect back on what they have meaning in, even if the acts and symbols mean nothing outside of their imagination. How many different gods are worshipped that have no basis in fact, only tradition?

 

[PureX]

Sounds like an attempt at an atheist religion to me. Such a non issue.

It's an issue for the exact same reason religious fundamentalism is an issue. We have people who are blindly and arrogantly appointing themselves the deciders of 'true reality' and are using that delusion to denigrate anyone who dares to contradict them.

As long as they have no power in society to impose their delusional self-righteousness on others they are just annoying. But should these atheist fundamentalists ever get any real power they will be just as dangerous as any religious fundamentalists. Because the danger is in their presumed absolute self-righteousness, and in the blinding ignorance they employ to maintain it. And in their willingness to sacrifice others to that cause.

 

[Altfish]

It sounds like you are saying that all atheists, deep down, think the same as the list in the OP

I wasn't meaning to. Atheists think many things. It was once said, "Getting atheists to agree is like trying to herd cats"

 

[Altfish]

Stop doing that. That is in effect a lie, because neither you or those people speak for me as an atheist.
The only thing atheists have in common is the lack of/disbelief in gods.
Stop claim atheists are more than that and stop being tribal in effect.

Humble apologies o'mighty one.
Chill out and happy new year

 

[ChristineM]

There's nothing at all wrong with the attitude of atheists as expressed in your post. But it isn't representative of the opinions of militant atheism, IMO.

I have never met a militant atheist, as far as i knew it was a title bestowed on those atheist who argue harder than religionists.

 

[PureX]

I wasn't meaning to. Atheists think many things. It was once said, "Getting atheists to agree is like trying to herd cats"

Same as with religion. And in both instances, some views are extreme and occasionally dangerous. Most theists understand this about theism. But do most atheists understand this about atheism?

It appears not.

 

[Sheldon]

Atheist have more than disbelief in common, the OP is pointing out how Atheist are not content to coexist with religion, you want to eradicate it from society.

You have no idea what I want, and how on earth would one eradicate a belief exactly? You're not making any sense.