Was the New Atheism Movement a Failed Crisis Cult

[Noa]

Interesting, do you have sources?

I was referring primarily to the 'Four Horsemen' moniker as well as Dawkins originally wanting 'Brights' to be a term. As far as I know, none of that lasted long. The popular fad that eventually stuck was antitheism.

 

[Milton Platt]

I was referring primarily to the 'Four Horsemen' moniker as well as Dawkins originally wanting 'Brights' to be a term. As far as I know, none of that lasted long. The popular fad that eventually stuck was antitheism.

Okay, I get that. I have been an atheist all my life but seldom concern myself with any sort of group or movement. For me it is simply a matter of not believing the claims of theist and religion in general. I did read Dawkins, Hitchens, et al and generally agree with them, but I had figured it out long before they wrote the books. The Brights thing seems silly to me, never bought into it, neither did most atheists so I guess that's why it died. Atheists aren't a group in the normal sense. The only commonality ia lack of belief in supernatural gods. You are free to have any other beliefs.

 

[Noa]

Okay, I get that. I have been an atheist all my life but seldom concern myself with any sort of group or movement. For me it is simply a matter of not believing the claims of theist and religion in general. I did read Dawkins, Hitchens, et al and generally agree with them, but I had figured it out long before they wrote the books. The Brights thing seems silly to me, never bought into it, neither did most atheists so I guess that's why it died. Atheists aren't a group in the normal sense. The only commonality ia lack of belief in supernatural gods. You are free to have any other beliefs.

Personally, I have generally found it unfortunate that a few speakers and authors of popular books become so popular. I tend to meet many people that never travel far beyond those popular books and so they tend to parrot the same arguments in the same way without ever developing much of a worldview of their own.

And that absolutely goes for people of other worldviews. I know Christians who do the exact same thing with famous pastors and so forth.

 

[Milton Platt]

Personally, I have generally found it unfortunate that a few speakers and authors of popular books become so popular. I tend to meet many people that never travel far beyond those popular books and so they tend to parrot the same arguments in the same way without ever developing much of a worldview of their own.

And that absolutely goes for people of other worldviews. I know Christians who do the exact same thing with famous pastors and so forth.

Well, that is true in a general sense. However if the argument is a proper counter to the claim, it is valid to use it. On the other side of the coin, I don't think there has been an original argument for theism in hundreds of years. Yhey just get repackaged.
As to the term worldview, atheism itself does not provide a worldview, although it does have a tendency to point you down certain paths of thinking, so I guess you could say it would be a part of someone's larger worldview. Since there is not a set of dogma one must hold to, getting atheists into a group can be a little like herding cats, as someone pointed out.

 

[Noa]

Well, that is true in a general sense. However if the argument is a proper counter to the claim, it is valid to use it. On the other side of the coin, I don't think there has been an original argument for theism in hundreds of years. Yhey just get repackaged.
As to the term worldview, atheism itself does not provide a worldview, although it does have a tendency to point you down certain paths of thinking, so I guess you could say it would be a part of someone's larger worldview. Since there is not a set of dogma one must hold to, getting atheists into a group can be a little like herding cats, as someone pointed out.

Agreed about the second part. Though I think the common tendency, though it may be a mistaken one, to group 'New Atheists' or 'antitheists' is due to the fellows like Dawkins and Hitchens that claim religion is inherently and actively harmful to society. In my opinion, a particular worldview has spawned out of that notion in recent years. Granted, it is very overblown in its coverage because it made the news so much for a brief period of time. But there does seem to be a particular strain of antitheism that could be described as a worldview though I will admit is is a bit amorphous. Perhaps it is better described as a particular form of humanism rather than a particular form of atheism.

As far as there not being original argument for theism, I would largely agree if you specifically mean an argument within apologetics that is designed to rhetorically win a debate with a nonbeliever. But there has been a great deal of development within theology itself.

 

[Lyndon]

Well, that is true in a general sense. However if the argument is a proper counter to the claim, it is valid to use it. On the other side of the coin, I don't think there has been an original argument for theism in hundreds of years. Yhey just get repackaged.
As to the term worldview, atheism itself does not provide a worldview, although it does have a tendency to point you down certain paths of thinking, so I guess you could say it would be a part of someone's larger worldview. Since there is not a set of dogma one must hold to, getting atheists into a group can be a little like herding cats, as someone pointed out.

Evidently you haven't been listening to any arguments by Theists on this very forum as I've heard a whole lot of new ideas about theism presented on this very forum that did not exist even a hundred years ago, it seems you are not here to learn about religion but to rather proselytize your own non religion with out learning from any opposing viewpoints, maybe you'd be happier on an all atheist forum.

 

[Noa]

Evidently you haven't been listening to any arguments by Theists on this very forum as I've heard a whole lot of new ideas about theism presented on this very forum that did not exist even a hundred years ago, it seems you are not here to learn about religion but to rather proselytize your own non religion with out learning from any opposing viewpoints, maybe you'd be happier on an all atheist forum.

I believe the person in question was specifically referring to apologetics rather than simply religious ideas. There have certainly been developments in theology and religious ideas, but in the sense of strict arguments meant to counter nonbelief? It does seem like there has been little developed. Just slightly repackaged with different terms.

 

[Lyndon]

There are no arguments to counter non belief, non belief is simply a choice you can or cannot make, I have no arguments to present to you to encourage you to believe, that's not my place, your beliefs are your business. On the other side, my beliefs are my business and you have no right to try and counter them either, at least if you are going to treat me with the same fairness I treat you.

 

[Noa]

There are no arguments to counter non belief, non belief is simply a choice you can or cannot make, I have no arguments to present to you to encourage you to believe, that's not my place, your beliefs are your business. On the other side, my beliefs are my business and you have no right to try and counter them either, at least if you are going to treat me with the same fairness I treat you.

I think you are largely agreeing with us. There have been many attempts over the centuries to provide arguments to counter non-belief. We are saying that nobody seems to ever come up with new ones.

 

[Lyndon]

No, I'm not really saying there aren't old and new arguments against non belief, but that rather I am not in the habit of using them, to me there are no arguments worth my using to vainly fight those with other viewpoints. I reserve my arguments for debating and arguing with fellow Theists. I'm not here to win converts to Theism, that has to come from the heart, and there is next to nothing I could possibly do to encourage conversion..

I do respect your comments Eseka, you don't seem to be one of those atheists obsessed with attacking everything about religion, I certainly do not go out of my way to attack atheism and ones right to disbelieve in God, I just get upset about insecure atheists that want to get all up in my face and tell me I don't have a right to believe in God as I do.

 

[Noa]

No, I'm not really saying there aren't old and new arguments against non belief, but that rather I am not in the habit of using them, to me there are no arguments worth my using to vainly fight those with other viewpoints. I reserve my arguments for debating and arguing with fellow Theists. I'm not here to win converts to Theism, that has to come from the heart, and there is next to nothing I could possibly do to encourage conversion..

I do respect your comments Eseka, you don't seem to be one of those atheists obsessed with attacking everything about religion, I certainly do not go out of my way to attack atheism and ones right to disbelieve in God, I just get upset about insecure atheists that want to get all up in my face and tell me I don't have a right to believe in God as I do.

I think I understand where you are coming from.

And yes, I am also one of those folks that is not out to convince people of my position. Generally speaking, how one acts should be the testament of our worldview. Not our rhetoric.

 

[Lyndon]

This is part and parcel why I find these so called leaders of "new atheism" to be so offensive, they do not believe in freedom of religion, and are extremely forceful in how they try to push their non belief on others.

 

[Noa]

This is part and parcel why I find these so called leaders of "new atheism" to be so offensive, they do not believe in freedom of religion, and are extremely forceful in how they try to push their non belief on others.

There is a fine line between supporting secularism within civil society and being perpetually on the offensive against religion. I agree that many cross over that line too often. Even when I was a theist I strongly supported the concept of secularism -- I have no problem with that regardless of where my personal religious beliefs or lack of beliefs happen to be. But that is a very different thing than claiming that all religion and spirituality are inherently harmful.

 

[Desert Snake]

I think you are largely agreeing with us. There have been many attempts over the centuries to provide arguments to counter non-belief. We are saying that nobody seems to ever come up with new ones.

This is sort of a moot point, imo. It's a type of ''argument from ignorance'', even though it doesn't seem like it, at first.

 

[Noa]

This is sort of a moot point, imo. It's a type of ''argument from ignorance'', even though it doesn't seem like it, at first.

For many of us it is indeed a moot point. For those actively involved in apologetics it is all rather important. But yes, I agree that in our day to day lives the invention of new arguments for a particular theism are not particularly relevant.

 

[Lyndon]

New arguments for and about Theism are very important for Theists, not atheists, and yes they do exist, because I've read about them on this forum.

 

[Desert Snake]

For many of us it is indeed a moot point. For those actively involved in apologetics it is all rather important. But yes, I agree that in our day to day lives the invention of new arguments for a particular theism are not particularly relevant.

Part of the problem, that I find with various atheist positions, is that they tend to be assuming a position of knowledge, and usually pretty specific or shallow as what the person thinks a ''deity'' is, etc. Atheism is to me largely a logic problem, as opposed to a belief problem. Ie, I don't think most atheists really understand their own arguments to the extent that they could be claiming atheism in the first place. There are some, imo, but these tend to take somewhat odd characteristics, almost like begging to question the position, or such.
atheism to me is a very difficult position to take, I certainly couldn't justify the position, personally, even if I wanted to.

 

[Noa]

New arguments for and about Theism are very important for Theists, not atheists, and yes they do exist, because I've read about them on this forum.

Hence why I was careful to be specific about the sort of arguments I was referring to. Specifically, those within the field of apologetics that attempt to come up with philosophical or ethical arguments for the existence of a god. As far as I know, it has been a fairly static field for quite some time with newer developments largely being slight variations on previous arguments. But perhaps I am mistaken.

 

[Lyndon]

Part of the problem, that I find with various atheist positions, is that they tend to be assuming a position of knowledge, and usually pretty specific or shallow as what the person thinks a ''deity'' is, etc. Atheism is to me largely a logic problem, as opposed to a belief problem. Ie, I don't think most atheists really understand their own arguments to the extent that they could be claiming atheism in the first place. There are some, imo, but these tend to take somewhat odd characteristics, almost like begging to question the position, or such.
atheism to me is a very difficult position to take, I certainly couldn't justify the position, personally, even if I wanted to.

This is a very good point, I too am struck by how shallow an interpretation of what God is some atheists argue against. Theism is a rich and very diversified field of beliefs, and the Old Testament Abrahamic view of the vindictive God is one of the worst examples among the very many interpretations that make up Theism out there. I often think, if an atheist actually understood my definition of God, they might not be atheists. For instance one of the best examples of the God I believe in is the Tao, in Lao Tzu's Tao te Ching. To me the Tao is God, and yet I hear vehement atheists telling me they believe in Taoism, and the Tao is not God. But in my opinion the Tao is God, and they being followers of Tao, are not, by my definition atheists at all. Same with a lot of Buddhists, I see the Buddhist Dhamma, and the heavenly Dhammakaya(heavenly body of law Truth) as being very close to my definition of God, and yet almost all these Buddhists, who are totally into following the Dhamma, all call themselves atheists, when in fact by my definition of God, Buddhism is a Theist and poly theist religion, and they are not atheists at all, at least by my definition of what God is. So you can see Theism is a huge spectrum of beliefs and not all definitions of God or the Theos are inconsistent with the sincere beliefs of even people that consider themselves Atheists. Atheists have the idea that they are atheist if they reject a particularly cliched and rigid interpretation of the Abrahamic God, When in fact its not God they are rejecting, but rather one small narrow minded and completely wrong interpretation of what God (is not)!! To truly be an atheist, you have to have disbelief in all form of Theism, not just a disbelief in a particularly narrow minded view of the Abrahamic God.

Come to think of it by many atheists definition of the God they don't believe in, I am an atheist because I don't believe the God they don't believe in exists either, its sort of like they make up a God, and then say he can't be real, because he isn't real, they just made him up. I don't believe in their God either.

And for example, by my definition Buddhism is primarily a Theist religion, and as big time "new atheist" Sam Harris has largely converted to Buddhism and actually goes around teaching Buddhism, for which many other Buddhists don't consider him quite qualified to teach, that would make Sam Harris a Theist as he is a follower of the Dhamma as revealed to and by the Buddha. funny world isn't it??

 

[Milton Platt]

Evidently you haven't been listening to any arguments by Theists on this very forum as I've heard a whole lot of new ideas about theism presented on this very forum that did not exist even a hundred years ago, it seems you are not here to learn about religion but to rather proselytize your own non religion with out learning from any opposing viewpoints, maybe you'd be happier on an all atheist forum.

Yes, I must have not seen them. Can you list one for me?