Was the New Atheism Movement a Failed Crisis Cult

[s13ep]

Clearly not failed if they make up equal numbers in this thread.

 

[paarsurrey]

I've been an atheist for 65 years. Does that make me an old atheist or a new atheist?

The old Atheists were only atheists by argument, the New-Atheists:

• must be anti-Theist and
• should have animosity with the revealed religion,
• and they must deride and ridicule the revealed religion and its believers.

Now one could become judgemental for oneself if one qualifies to be an old Atheist or a New-Atheist.

Regards

 

[Milton Platt]

The old Atheists were only atheists by argument, the New-Atheists:

• must be anti-Theist and
• should have animosity with the revealed religion,
• and they must deride and ridicule the revealed religion and its believers.

Now one could become judgemental for oneself if one qualifies to be an old Atheist or a New-Atheist.

Regards

I don't think anyone has done a broad study using the particular requirements stated, but they must be a very small minority of atheists if all of the requirements are necessary to be included within this category.

Could you not then also make up a group of religious believers who exhibit the same characteristic behavior towards atheism and call them "New Theists"?

 

[s13ep]

I don't think anyone has done a broad study using the particular requirements stated, but they must be a very small minority of atheists if all of the requirements are necessary to be included within this category.

Could you not then also make up a group of religious believers who exhibit the same characteristic behavior towards atheism and call them "New Theists"?

I just call them all evil, but they are allowed to have a say in the matter, "Evil doesn't exist".

 

[Milton Platt]

I just call them all evil, but they are allowed to have a say in the matter, "Evil doesn't exist".

How does not believing in something make you evil?

 

[s13ep]

How does not believing in something make you evil?

I know what evil means, I know wisdom, and thus, am expert enough to make that judgement! And we're talking about New Atheism, directly, anointing their irrational, nonsensical and perverse behaviour toward our potentially intellectual children, as well as ourselves, but the former comes first in my eyes.

I'm Atheist myself, but am by no means a New Atheist...

 

[Milton Platt]

I know what evil means, I know wisdom, and thus, am expert enough to make that judgement! And we're talking about New Atheism, directly, anointing their irrational, nonsensical and perverse behaviour toward our potentially intellectual children, as well as ourselves, but the former comes first in my eyes.

I'm Atheist myself, but am by no means a New Atheist...

Can you elaborate without the hyperbole? Why would they make you feel threatened?

 

[s13ep]

Can you elaborate without the hyperbole? Why would they make you feel threatened?

This isn't an answer to the content in my post, it's an uneducated jump to my health, this is why I feel as if children, and myself, are threatened.

 

[Milton Platt]

This isn't an answer to the content in my post, it's an uneducated jump to my health, this is why I feel as if children, and myself, are threatened.

It is an appropriate question. What is the threat to you or your family by an atheist voicing his opinion about religion?

 

[s13ep]

It is an appropriate question. What is the threat to you or your family by an atheist voicing his opinion about religion?

Your questions are never appropriate, yet you say that they are, this is another reason why. Responding to you is pointless! You are irresponsive, and following you, so will our children be, but in the worst case sense...

 

[Milton Platt]

Your questions are never appropriate, yet you say that they are, this is another reason why. Responding to you is pointless! You are irresponsive, and following you, so will our children be, but in the worst case sense...

You indicated that there was some sort of threat to you and your family and I was asking what the threat was. How it it irrational to want to understand what you are afraid of?

 

[s13ep]

You indicated that there was some sort of threat to you and your family and I was asking what the threat was. How it it irrational to want to understand what you are afraid of?

I said our, being our species!

 

[paarsurrey]

It surely is as was the old one.
Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

The old Atheists were only atheists by argument, the New-Atheists:

• must be anti-Theist and
• should have animosity with the revealed religion,
• and they must deride and ridicule the revealed religion and its believers.

Now one could become judgemental for oneself if one qualifies to be an old Atheist or a New-Atheist.

Regards

Oh, no. Atheism is just atheism. It is just a bit more open these days, when our lives are not so much at risk.

 

[Milton Platt]

Oh, no. Atheism is just atheism. It is just a bit more open these days, when our lives are not so much at risk.

That definition would mean there were "new"atheists in 1732. I submit. As my proof "Superstition in All Ages" by Jean Meslier. It was printed post-humously because he feared the Christian authorities.

It can be found as a Kindle book or from places like abebooks.com in print form.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not according to Hitchens and Harris, they admitted that they wrote their books in response to 9/11.

Which book did Hitchens claim to write in response to 9/11?

 

[Augustus]

Oh, no. Atheism is just atheism.

Don't you agree that new atheism is different to atheism? You can dislike the phrase but it is now a part of language with specific meaning; it is something distinct from atheism.

'New atheism' describes an ideology; atheism describes your attitude towards the existence of god.

New atheism is not just atheism

 

[LuisDantas]

Don't you agree that new atheism is different to atheism?

No, I do not. It is a bit amusing to see people suggest that it is.

I have little idea of what people mean by "New Atheism". It sounds more than a bit like wishful thinking.

Atheism is just much too simple to become "new".

You can dislike the phrase but it is now a part of language with specific meaning; it is something distinct from atheism.

In which ways?

'New atheism' describes an ideology; atheism describes your attitude towards the existence of god.

New atheism is not just atheism

That is simply not true by any reasonable criteria, far as I know.

 

[outhouse]

I have little idea of what people mean by "New Atheism". It sounds more than a bit like wishful thinking.

That is it in a nutshell, and we all know how some of the religious need to feel victimized

Have you ever heard of the new atheist headquarters? Or a leader? its the whole "Four Horsemen" rhetoric.

Tom Flynn contends that what has been called "New Atheism" is neither a movement nor new, and that what was new was the publication of atheist material by big-name publishers, read by millions, and appearing on best-seller lists.

 

[Augustus]

No, I do not. It is a bit amusing to see people suggest that it is.

I have little idea of what people mean by "New Atheism". It sounds more than a bit like wishful thinking.

Atheism is just much too simple to become "new".

New atheism is a name given to a particular ideology espoused by the likes of Dawkins and Harris that is basically a strongly anti-theistic form of secular humanism.

It could have been called chob or mosscat, but the term used was new atheism. It is a compound noun, not simply atheism with a modifying adjective.

That is simply not true by any reasonable criteria, far as I know.

The reasonable criteria are the grammar and usage of the English language.

A compound noun does not necessarily have the same meaning as its individual constituents suggest (greenhouse, ladybird, etc).