Was the New Atheism Movement a Failed Crisis Cult

[CynthiaCypher]

So this would be 0 for...3? 4? It's hard to keep track of all these sensationalist drama-llama threads of yours.

How is this drama?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

How is this drama?

Believing atheism to be a religious cult is certainly an...interesting take.

And considering you have snagged no one by it, seems par for the course.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Believing atheism to be a religious cult is certainly an...interesting take.

And considering you have snagged no one by it, seems par for the course.

Well that goes to show that you did not read the OP. Just goes to show that you are merely reacting to something you are ignorant of.

I never said atheism is a religious cult. I don't think you know what a crisis cult is. It is an anthropological term not a religious one. Bolshevism could be called a crisis cult.

Now run along, learn what a crisis cult is before you falsely accuse people. I made it clear that I do not believe atheism is a religion. As far as I am concern, atheism is really a movement but the New Atheism is a movement.

New Atheism =/= atheism.

 

[IHaveTheGift]

I have met a lot of atheists who disagree with their billboard and public monument "causes". There has even been a few threads on here about them, some atheists agree and some disagree. It's actually kind of stereotypical for atheists to disagree with each other. It has been said getting atheists to organize is like trying to herd cats.

?
I asked for those that disagree with what he represents to add in their opinions.
would love to hear about it.

as far as herding cats, as a Theist, I know full well that we all disagree on everything but at the same time, I don't see atheism as the better option, if you will.
In the end, I cant handle being blamed for all the worlds problems as we are made out to be, so I attack back and can not help that, it is human nature to defend oneself.

In short, I hear the word "atheism" and I get sick to my stomach for what it represents, what it is becoming.
I dont personally hate atheists, but I cant help but notice the whole (anti)theism and the mockery and wish I never experienced it on the web.
I feel that someday, we wont even be "allowed" to be ourselves and will be pushed into denying ourselves, as gays once were.
Odd that is happening huh?
Gays seem to have more rights than a Bible thumper to just be themselves huh?

 

[Penumbra]

who cares, haven't met an atheist yet that disagrees with their "causes"
And I spend 24/7 on the web.
Dont even know a atheist in real life that disagrees with them.

If you are atheist and do disagree with David Silverman, would love to hear about it :sarcastic

I have met a lot of atheists who disagree with their billboard and public monument "causes". There has even been a few threads on here about them, some atheists agree and some disagree. It's actually kind of stereotypical for atheists to disagree with each other. It has been said getting atheists to organize is like trying to herd cats.

I'm not a theist, and I disagree with many of "American Atheists" causes. Especially the billboard and public monument ones.

Now you've met one, IHaveTheGift! My name's Lyn.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

At this point you're just trolling. You said that you would work on your prejudices about atheists. You don't seem inclined to do so.

 

[freethinker44]

And? What of it? He is being an instructor in the '80's? Oh what a shock!

He did not become a household name with until he published The God Delusion.

Why do people always say this?

Not just an instructor, an outspoken opponent against creationism since The Blind Watchmaker was published in the mid-80s.

He's had best selling books since the 70s and even coined the word "meme" in his first book. The Blind Watchmaker spawned a television series, which he hosted, in the 80s similar to the show Nova or Cosmos. He was more well known outside of the US but he definitely wasn't a nobody until the God Delusion. He was like the English version of Bill Nye.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

At this point you're just trolling. You said that you would work on your prejudices about atheists. You don't seem inclined to do so.

This has nothing to do with atheist as a whole. Did you even read the OP...probably not. Now who is the troll again?

 

[Penumbra]

"I began writing this book on September 12, 2001. Many friends read and commented on a long essay that I produced in those first weeks of collective grief and stupefaction, and that text became the basis for this book." Sam Harris on The End of Faith

He admits that his book The End of Faith, the inaugural text of the New Atheist movement admits that he wrote it in reaction to a crisis.

You want me to quote whole books?

What are you responding to? Did I say Harris' book didn't come after 9/11?

When I said, "Anyway you didn't quote any references from so-called New Atheists about any of the claims you made about them." I wasn't referring to an easily googlable timeline of when these latest books were written. That's obvious.

I was referring to the lack of sources for wild claims like these:

"the New Atheism demonizies and scapegoats the Other, feels persecuted, feels they alone have the truth and the only right way to live and believe and they offer an utopian vision of the future."

The whole metanarrative constructed in such books as the New Atheist have written is quite simple:

Religion blows things up, religion is bad.

Science helps people, science is good.

Religion stops science from helping people, religion is bad, science is good!

Religion divides people, religion bad.

Religion keeps people dumb, science teaches people to be smart, religion bad, science is smart.

Atheism is smart because atheism don't like religion, atheism is good, religion is bad.

You see this narrative in works of Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins. It pretty much looks like demonizing to me, anytime you externalize evil, you are demonizing.

But it just isn't the demonizing or the scapegoating that make it a crisis cult, it was a crisis cult because it was in reaction to a crisis.

That's a simplistic and inaccurate description of it.

Harris for example has talked about how some religious ideas are far more benign than others, like Buddhism vs. Islam. He's also called on moderate Muslims to voice their opinions on the extremist ones. This "religion = bad" idea is a shallow understanding of his collection of works and talks. He has personally gone on multi-month Buddhist retreats to do nothing but meditate for 18 hours a day, and talks about them as positive experiences.

Among his main points are that religion should not be immune to criticism, that it shouldn't hold a higher position than other things in public or private discussions, and that it's irrational to have a smart person that rigorously requires evidence for practical things but then accepts a religion without good evidence on faith.

He has even said that people shouldn't define themselves as or identify themselves as atheists. That this automatically turns them into a special interest group rather than the norm. Instead he suggests people naturally should be critical of unevidenced ideas, requiring strong evidence for strong claims, and that among the various areas that this would apply to, religion is one of them:

While it is an honor to find myself continually assailed with Dan [Dennett], Richard [Dawkins], and Christopher [Hitchens] as though we were a single person with four heads, this whole notion of the “new atheists” or “militant atheists” has been used to keep our criticism of religion at arm’s length, and has allowed people to dismiss our arguments without meeting the burden of actually answering them. And while our books have gotten a fair amount of notice, I think this whole conversation about the conflict between faith and reason, and religion and science, has been, and will continue to be, successfully marginalized under the banner of atheism.

So, let me make my somewhat seditious proposal explicit: We should not call ourselves “atheists.” We should not call ourselves “secularists.” We should not call ourselves “humanists,” or “secular humanists,” or “naturalists,” or “skeptics,” or “anti-theists,” or “rationalists,” or “freethinkers,” or “brights.” We should not call ourselves anything. We should go under the radar—for the rest of our lives. And while there, we should be decent, responsible people who destroy bad ideas wherever we find them.

Source.

The words "atheist" and "atheism" literally don't even appear in the The End of Faith.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Why do people always say this?

Not just an instructor, an outspoken opponent against creationism since The Blind Watchmaker was published in the mid-80s. The video I posted was

He's had best selling books since the 70s and even coined the word "meme" in his first book. The Blind Watchmaker spawned a television series, which he hosted, in the 80s similar to the show Nova or Cosmos. He was more well known outside of the US but he definitely wasn't a nobody until the God Delusion. He was like the English version of Bill Nye.

I am not saying he wasn't famous until after 2001, but I am saying he definitely wasn't the celebrity atheist he is now until after the events of 9/11, after he published The God Delusion he became a celebrity and he become more outspoken. In fact he didn't even have much of a web presence until after 2006, the year he published that book.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

This has nothing to do with atheist as a whole. Did you even read the OP...probably not. Now who is the troll again?

So this guy was a "New Atheist", too?

Jean Meslier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Irreligious people pop up every so often throughout history that speak out against religion and theism. It's nothing new. It's just become less dangerous to do so in the West due to the revolutions inspired by the Enlightenment.

 

[IHaveTheGift]

I'm not a theist, and I disagree with many of "American Atheists" causes. Especially the billboard and public monument ones.

Now you've met one, IHaveTheGift! My name's Lyn.

Thanks for the reply.
applaud.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Dawkins has postulated that religion is the "Root of Evil".

That is demonizing.

Flat out false. Dawkins once presented a documentary titled "Root of all Evil?", but is quick to point out that the title is not remotely representative of his views and was used as the insistence of the channel producing the documentary. The title of the series was later changed to "The God Delusion". He has stated that the notion of anything being "the root of all evil" is ridiculous. He has never stated (or "postulated") that religion is the root of all evil.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

What are you responding to? Did I say Harris' book didn't come after 9/11?

When I said, "Anyway you didn't quote any references from so-called New Atheists about any of the claims you made about them." I wasn't referring to an easily googlable timeline of when these latest books were written. That's obvious.

I was referring to the lack of sources for wild claims like these:

"the New Atheism demonizies and scapegoats the Other, feels persecuted, feels they alone have the truth and the only right way to live and believe and they offer an utopian vision of the future."

That's a simplistic and inaccurate description of it.

Harris for example has talked about how some religious ideas are far more benign than others, like Buddhism vs. Islam. He's also called on moderate Muslims to voice their opinions on the extremist ones. This "religion = bad" idea is a shallow understanding of his collection of works and talks. He has personally gone on multi-month Buddhist retreats to do nothing but meditate for 18 hours a day, and talks about them as positive experiences.

He still demonized Islam, in The End of Faith he makes it seem that Islam is the very worse of a very bad bunch. That Islam is a clear and present danger. That it is Islam that is jeopardizing peace and safety. While Harris does prefer some woo over other forms of woo, he still demonizes the woo he doesn't like.

To portray Islam as some sort of danger is still demonization.

 

[IHaveTheGift]

we all know that dawkins book, the God delusion, made him famous, lets not kid ourselves.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

So this guy was a "New Atheist", too?

Jean Meslier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Irreligious people pop up every so often throughout history that speak out against religion and theism. It's nothing new. It's just become less dangerous to do so in the West due to the revolutions inspired by the Enlightenment.

I am not talking about atheism. I am talking about a movement. If I were to make a thread on the Nazi, would I be criticizing all Germans?

You are not getting it. Read the OP before you post please.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Flat out false. Dawkins once presented a documentary titled "Root of all Evil?", but is quick to point out that the title is not remotely representative of his views and was used as the insistence of the channel producing the documentary. The title of the series was later changed to "The God Delusion". He has stated that the notion of anything being "the root of all evil" is ridiculous. He has never stated (or "postulated") that religion is the root of all evil.

And what does he do in that documentary? Goes about showing us how irrational and evil religion can be. He tries to pin human evil on religion.

 

[IHaveTheGift]

Flat out false. Dawkins once presented a documentary titled "Root of all Evil?", but is quick to point out that the title is not remotely representative of his views and was used as the insistence of the channel producing the documentary. The title of the series was later changed to "The God Delusion". He has stated that the notion of anything being "the root of all evil" is ridiculous. He has never stated (or "postulated") that religion is the root of all evil.

I call bull.
In every single debate and video uploaded on the web that Dawkins does, he clearly blames religion on the root of all evil and the problems with the world.

Link me to one time that dawkins says anything good about religious people in a video of its own.
thanks

In fact, show me one video from any popular atheist that shows support for any religious doctrine at all.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

And what does he do in that documentary? Goes about showing us how irrational and evil religion can be. He tries to pin human evil on religion.

Well, considering that you go around attributing things to him that he never said, I doubt very much that you've bothered to watch the documentary.

I'm not going to let you brush over the fact that you just stated something that was ignorant and false. Will you admit to your mistake or no?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Well, considering that you go around attributing things to him that he never said, I doubt very much that you've bothered to watch the documentary.

I'm not going to let you brush over the fact that you just stated something that was ignorant and false. Will you admit to your mistake or no?

No I won't because he has in fact demonized religious belief.