Was the New Atheism Movement a Failed Crisis Cult

[Augustus]

Has anyone ever described himself as a "new atheist" except perhaps in jest or a statement of irony?

Yes.

For example, Victor Stenger's book 'The New Atheism'.

If you read some of it (try Google books), you'll find he agrees with me about the definition and history of New Atheism.

A sample review:

"One of the most forlorn ways of defending religion is to misconstrue, distort, or ignore the best arguments put forward against it. Unfortunately, this spirit of obscurantism now animates even secular critics of the 'new atheism.' Victor Stenger dispels the resultant blizzard of lies and half-truths with great skill in this timely and accessible book. We are all in his debt." --Sam Harris is the author of the New York Times best sellers, The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation

Seeing as I have now provided the article which coined the phrase, numerous peer reviewed sources, and examples of New Atheists themselves using the term, including Sam Harris, can we agree that:

a) New Atheism is a meaningful phrase
b) it is neutral

Or am I still spreading 'venom' and 'conspiracy theories'?

 

[prometheus11]

Yes.

For example, Victor Stenger's book 'The New Atheism'.

If you read some of it (try Google books), you'll find he agrees with me about the definition and history of New Atheism.

A sample review:

"One of the most forlorn ways of defending religion is to misconstrue, distort, or ignore the best arguments put forward against it. Unfortunately, this spirit of obscurantism now animates even secular critics of the 'new atheism.' Victor Stenger dispels the resultant blizzard of lies and half-truths with great skill in this timely and accessible book. We are all in his debt." --Sam Harris is the author of the New York Times best sellers, The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation

Seeing as I have now provided the article which coined the phrase, numerous peer reviewed sources, and examples of New Atheists themselves using the term, including Sam Harris, can we agree that:

a) New Atheism is a meaningful phrase
b) it is neutral

Or am I still spreading 'venom' and 'conspiracy theories'?

Can you provide the quotation where a person refers to himself as a "new atheist" in that book? It certainly doesn't occur in the quotation you provide in your post, yet you claim to be answering that question and showing a person who has called himself a new atheist.

 

[Augustus]

Can you provide the quotation where a person refers to himself as a "new atheist" in that book? It certainly doesn't occur in the quotation you provide in your post, yet you claim to be answering that question and showing a person who has called himself a new atheist.

"With endorsements by Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, my book fit right in with the new atheist literature"

"In this book I review and expand on the principles on New Atheism"

"Perhaps the most unique position of New Atheism is that faith shouldn't be given... respect.

etc.

See for yourself on Google books.

 

[prometheus11]

Can you provide the quotation where a person refers to himself as a "new atheist" in that book? It certainly doesn't occur in the quotation you provide in your post, yet you claim to be answering that question and showing a person who has called himself a new atheist.

So, no quotations from the book that prove your claim?

 

[Augustus]

Can you provide the quotation where a person refers to himself as a "new atheist" in that book? It certainly doesn't occur in the quotation you provide in your post, yet you claim to be answering that question and showing a person who has called himself a new atheist.

So, no quotations from the book that prove your claim?

Jesus wept. Pedantry is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

Someone who describes their ideology as New Atheism is a New Atheist. Someone who describes their book as 'new atheist literature' is a New Atheist.

Is this clear enough?

"The new atheists write from a scientific perspective. Dawkins and I are science PhD's... Harris... Dennett..."

This is exactly my point about certain type of atheist (a certain type of New Atheist to be more precise) that is as oversensitive, closed minded, as hostile to evidence that goes against their preconceived opinions and as irrational as a religious fundamentalist.

The irony makes it pretty funny really

Anyway, if that isn't enough evidence to show that a) New Atheism is a meaningful term and b) it is a neutral term, then nothing will be. No real value in continuing the discussion.

 

[prometheus11]

Jesus wept. Pedantry is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

Someone who describes their ideology as New Atheism is a New Atheist. Someone who describes their book as 'new atheist literature' is a New Atheist.

Is this clear enough?

"The new atheists write from a scientific perspective. Dawkins and I are science PhD's... Harris... Dennett..."

This is exactly my point about certain type of atheist (a certain type of New Atheist to be more precise) that is as oversensitive, closed minded, as hostile to evidence that goes against their preconceived opinions and as irrational as a religious fundamentalist.

The irony makes it pretty funny really

Anyway, if that isn't enough evidence to show that a) New Atheism is a meaningful term and b) it is a neutral term, then nothing will be. No real value in continuing the discussion.

lol

You claim to be able to show a person who uses the term to describe himself.

You claim it occurs in a particular book.

You can't show an instance of what you claim.

You pretend you've proved what you claimed.

Jesus shot himself in the head with a twelve gauge.

 

[outhouse]

Can you provide the quotation where a person refers to himself as a "new atheist" in that book? It certainly doesn't occur in the quotation you provide in your post, yet you claim to be answering that question and showing a person who has called himself a new atheist.

He does. But again, one atheist author trying o make a buck does not mean the title is used outside apologetic circles.

Its like anyone who is standing up for reason and logic over primitive mythology many people cannot let go of, is now a new atheist.

 

[Augustus]

He does.

At least you noticed it

He does. But again, one atheist author trying o make a buck does not mean the title is used outside apologetic circles.

Its like anyone who is standing up for reason and logic over primitive mythology many people cannot let go of, is now a new atheist.

As for 'outside apologetic circles':

One prominent New Atheist author whose book 'The New Atheism' just so happened to be endorsed by both by Dawkins and Harris (who used the term in his endorsement) and has been dubbed the '5th horseman'... https://richarddawkins.net/2014/09/victor-stenger-atheisms-fifth-horseman-dies-at-79/

And the numerous peer reviewed academic journal articles I cited...

And the atheist who popularised the term...

There are countless other examples out there too that can be found very easily. So, using 'reason and logic'...

Now if a religious person ignored that much evidence when debating with atheists, I wonder what various people here's responses would be...

 

[icehorse]

Well wouldn't that be a utopian vision? Why did some New Atheist go about trying to realize their vision of a future without religion, where reason and rationality reigns over emotion and superstition, where we have a morality based on logic and reason, where science and technology is allowed is progress undeterred by backwards institutions like the Church.

I just practically summarized Sam Harris' End of Faith there.

I think there's some conflation here. I've never heard any of the 4 horsemen (famous new atheists), rail against emotion. In fact, if you pay attention, they tend to speak highly of awe, beauty, art, music, literature, appreciation of the cosmos, and so on. And further, if you read Daniel Kahneman (nobel prize winning scientist), he concludes that we're all continuously guilty of bias. So to characterize new atheists as being somehow unemotional robots is to severely mis-characterize them.

 

[Sapiens]

The problem that I have with the term "New Atheist" is that I have always been an atheist and my life stretches back to long before the coining of the term and my views have been consistent and constant (giving consideration to some level of sophistication that changes with age and experience). My parents hold the same views, my grandparent did too and, as best I can remember, my great-grandparents did too. We are many generations of atheists and academics. To make the term "new atheist" of any meaning to me you'd have to extend the concept of "new" back to about the civil war and I don't think that washes.