Was the New Atheism Movement a Failed Crisis Cult

[outhouse]

New atheism doesn't mean 'a new version of atheism' though, it means aggressively anti-theistic secular humanism.

Biased rhetoric.

It does not exist.

It was a label the media created from biased reporters who took offense and hyped up a few authors books

 

[Willamena]

Biased rhetoric.

It does not exist.

It was a label the media created from biased reporters who took offense and hyped up a few authors books

Prove it.

 

[outhouse]

Prove it.

I already did


I posted links and sourced it.


The media created the term, based on a few authors books. Its an imaginary title

 

[Augustus]

Atheism.

It's not an ideology though and certainly doesn't reflect my atheism.

This is not really the case. New Atheism is primarily a result of communication technology expansion. 9/11 gave focus, but the Internet made New Atheism a phenomenon. All that was new was the ability to reach a huge and interactive audience.

Not sure I agree. I see what you mean, and it is to some extent correct, but the 'new atheist' movement was really defined around the likes of Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, etc. and the term later applied to those who share their views.

Anyway, my original point was only that 'new atheism' is a meaningful term, in response to a claim that it is meaningless. Never said anything about it being a great choice, just that it's what someone used and is something people understand.

All of us here manage to understand what it means and can discuss it pretty accurately which pretty much proves my point.

 

[outhouse]

The “New Atheist” label for these critics of religion and religious belief emerged out of journalistic commentary on the contents and impacts of their books.

 

[outhouse]

It's not an ideology though and certainly doesn't reflect my atheism.

Its not a defined ideology, it a bunch of biased media that created the label. From critics of reality.

 

[Augustus]

The “New Atheist” label for these critics of religion and religious belief emerged out of journalistic commentary on the contents and impacts of their books.

Marvellous.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[outhouse]

Marvellous.

Thanks for proving my point.

No it does not.

It goes against your rhetoric

 

[Augustus]

No it does not.

It goes against your rhetoric

My 'rhetoric' was that new atheism as a term carries meaning. Your quote supports that to the hilt.

Strange that you understand what this 'meaningless' term refers to, and can provide quotes about people using the term with a clear meaning.

People don't like the term, fair enough; I'm not a great fan either. I know what it means though, as do many other people including yourself.

 

[columbus]

Marvellous.

Thanks for proving my point.

But people commonly mistake it for something it is not. Hence, the OP referring to it as a cult. Many people see it as a theological ideology, going as far as to refer to Dawkins as a prophet. Sometimes they appear to be speaking metaphorically, but not always. Some people just don't seem able to see it as the cultural thing it is. They want to see it as a cult or sect, which it is not.
Tom

 

[viole]

The term doesn't apply to atheists in general, just a particular ideology. It no more applies to atheists in general than Leninist does.

It is in common enough usage to be meaningful though, Google it and check for yourself.

Half of the terms for belief you see on here wouldn't mean much to many people, doesn't mean they don't exist.

New atheism = old atheism + freedom to speak out

Ciao

- viole

 

[SkepticThinker]

New atheism = old atheism + freedom to speak out

Ciao

- viole

This ^^^

 

[Augustus]

But people commonly mistake it for something it is not. Hence, the OP referring to it as a cult. Many people see it as a theological ideology, going as far as to refer to Dawkins as a prophet. Sometimes they appear to be speaking metaphorically, but not always. Some people just don't seem able to see it as the cultural thing it is. They want to see it as a cult or sect, which it is not.
Tom

True, and to be honest I haven't even read the OP. People mistake many ideologies for something they are not, that's just the way things are.

Originally, I just replied to a post that claimed the term was meaningless. That's all I was disagreeing with because many people clearly understand what it means.

Didn't really think it was a particularly controversial point.

Then I got similar people [not you] who argued endlessly that atheism is simply 'nothing', an absence of belief, now complaining about the use of term that clearly differentiates the anti-theistic ideology of 'new atheism' from atheism.

So before, atheism was an absence of belief and now "new atheism is just atheism" despite it clearly being more than an absence of belief.

People funny.

 

[LuisDantas]

Atheism is just an absence. But in strongly theistic cultures it will naturally associate with anti-theism to a slightly larger extent than otherwise.

I would still not advise reading too much into its improved visibility.

 

[prometheus11]

It's not an ideology though and certainly doesn't reflect my atheism.



Not sure I agree. I see what you mean, and it is to some extent correct, but the 'new atheist' movement was really defined around the likes of Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, etc. and the term later applied to those who share their views.

Anyway, my original point was only that 'new atheism' is a meaningful term, in response to a claim that it is meaningless. Never said anything about it being a great choice, just that it's what someone used and is something people understand.

All of us here manage to understand what it means and can discuss it pretty accurately which pretty much proves my point.

How would you describe your atheism? How would you define the term "atheism?"

 

[McBell]

New atheism = old atheism + freedom to speak out

Ciao

- viole

seems to me that "new atheist" is nothing more than a slur word used by oversensitive whiners for anti-theists (actual and perceived) who dare have the balls to speak up.

 

[Augustus]

Atheism is just an absence. But in strongly theistic cultures it will naturally associate with anti-theism to a slightly larger extent than otherwise.
.

So perhaps if you wished to describe an ideology of anti-theistic secular humanism, it would be prudent to describe it as other than simply 'atheism'.

Yet it is wrong to describe it with a word other than atheism.

Strange.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

A think the problem here is largely a lack of specific definitions, and as a result people seem to be communicating at cross-purposes.

I think a distinction has to be made between "new atheism" as defined as "the current on contemporary movement of atheism in general - inasmuch as atheism in general could be defined as a "movement"", and "New Atheism" which can be seen as a particular movement within atheism that holds a larger set of shared ideological principles largely established (or, at least, brought to wider attention) by Sam Harris in the early 2000's. The confusion of over the labelling is partly why I don't consider myself a "New Atheist", despite sharing quite a few of their ideological values. For the sake of this discussion, I believe it is Sam Harris' movement of "New Atheism" which is what is being addressed, and I see no major issue with discussing it in isolation as a distinct topic from general atheism. Of course, dismissing the movement as neither new or particularly meaningfully distinct from general atheism is still also a valid position.

 

[LuisDantas]

So perhaps if you wished to describe an ideology of anti-theistic secular humanism, it would be prudent to describe it as other than simply 'atheism'.

Yet it is wrong to describe it with a word other than atheism.

Strange.

Of course atheistic speakers will have some ideology of their own and there will be a strong incidence of anti-theistic features in many of them. They have, after all, felt the need to denounce theism.

Attempting to present them as significantly different from atheism in general, however, is misleading and should be avoided.

 

[LuisDantas]

A think the problem here is largely a lack of specific definitions, and as a result people seem to be communicating at cross-purposes.

I think a distinction has to be made between "new atheism" as defined as "the current on contemporary movement of atheism in general - inasmuch as atheism in general could be defined as a "movement"", and "New Atheism" which can be seen as a particular movement within atheism that holds a larger set of shared ideological principles largely established (or, at least, brought to wider attention) by Sam Harris in the early 2000's. The confusion of over the labelling is partly why I don't consider myself a "New Atheist", despite sharing quite a few of their ideological values. For the sake of this discussion, I believe it is Sam Harris' movement of "New Atheism" which is what is being addressed, and I see no major issue with discussing it in isolation as a distinct topic from general atheism. Of course, dismissing the movement as neither new or particularly meaningfully distinct from general atheism is still also a valid position.

I'm fairly certain that New Atheism is not a label Harris uses for himself. Nor Dawkins, nor Hitchens. Nor anyone, really.