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."
More theistic atheophobia. Yet another thread to bemoan the wicked atheist. Yes, the secular humanist rejects faith and religion, and many consider organized, politicized religion a pox to be subdued.
But you lost me at point [1], where the author immediately reveals that he is uninterested in what atheists actually say about themselves and their beliefs. Most call themselves agnostic atheists. As soon as I see that mistake - one can be atheist or agnostic, but not both - I understand that the source doesn't understand his subject and isn't interested in being correct.
Number [4] also belies the source's bigotry. How is your source any less strident, aggressive, provocative or insulting than anything it criticizes?
Progressive revelation [10]? The only revelation humanity receives comes from the application of reason to evidence and conscience. As science and rational ethics drag the religions into modernity by teaching them such things as that monarchy and slavery are bad, and that the universe is billions of years old and evolved from a seed, theists are forced to call their scriptures anything but what they are - the best but wrong guesses of ancient people as to how they and their world got there taught as history. When called on this, they say, "You take the words too literally."
This oozes of a double standard. Somehow, rejecting faith-based thought is oppressive, but the theist's rejection of strict empiricism is not seen as the same thing in reverse. Disagreement with theists is depicted as intolerance and described as attack, but disagreement back as with, "You're thinking is too narrow, too evidence-based," that somehow is holy.
Who's rejecting freedom of religion [12]? Secularists inspired by Enlightenment values enshrined it in the US Constitution. Theists executed one another for the wrong beliefs. Theists hung witches until it was illegal?
The complaint is basically that secular humanists have a voice today through the best-selling authors named above and the Internet. Here, people like me are able to respond to these types of defamatory depictions of atheists that they have been subjected to since people began writing down words describing how horrible unbelievers are, but which until recently, there was no recourse to. But now they have a voice, a platform, and the theists aren't liking what they are hearing. They aren't used to being disagreed with. They're used to holding the bully pulpit to rail against unbelievers, who were once voiceless and powerless to respond. But that's changed, and like the changing racial demographics in some countries, the majority feels threatened, which manifests as bigotry, whether against other races, ethnicities, or worldviews like secular humanism.
- "The problem with being privileged your whole life is that because you have had that privilege for so long, equality starts to look like oppression." - Mark Caddo
Isn't my response and responses like it the real objection? How dare these atheist upstarts push back? The unstated assumption is that the theist is a good person promoting goodness, and that therefore, those who reject or oppose this are evil. As I said, that theme dominates Christian dogma. Unbelievers are all fools, corrupt, and none do good. Do not yoke yourself to them. They are like an infection, fools who think themselves wise, slated for destruction and eternal torture for being in open defiance of a good God. You know the script.
And so, theists begin thread after thread aggressively bemoaning the aggressive atheist, condemning his "materialistic" worldview because he doesn't accept faith-based worldviews or the claims generated by them, never seeing the double standard of this symmetric situation being treated asymmetrically.
Isn't this kind of thing reason enough for any theist to be an anti-theist and support the evaporation of organized religion? Don't we have a right and obligation to do whatever is possible to eradicate that from the world? Don't I have the duty to answer a post like yours with one like this? Don't you have a duty to think about things and decide what is constructive discussion and what is just more bigoted, uninformed marginalization and demonization of atheists? Is this behavior consistent with your religious principles?
