Was the New Atheism Movement a Failed Crisis Cult

[CynthiaCypher]

For it to be a Cult doesn't it have to be an organization of some kind?

Not in the anthropological sense of the word. It can be a movement of some sort.

 

[Penumbra]

They blended a set of moral ethics with their atheism is what I meant. They take their concept which influences these morals, taking their apparent Strong Atheism to degrees which influences other beliefs and strong practices.

Wouldn't it be irrational to suggest that one's worldview shouldn't influence their ethics? And in what way are any of these people directly linking ethics to atheism anyway?

For example if Sam Harris says that female genital mutilation is unethical because there is no rational basis to do it and it's harmful to women, that makes him equal to a fundamentalist? And if so, what specific way does that ethical stance of his blend with his atheism?

 

[Penumbra]

I contend that certain religious scriptures contain texts that are far more violent, hateful, and intolerant than anything any of the "Four Horsemen" of New Atheism have ever said. If anyone disagrees with me, I want to see which quotes their disagreement stems from.

Sounds like a good proposal to me.

Here are some religious excerpts that any of the statements by popular atheists can be ethically compared to:

002.121Those to whom We have given the Book recite it with its true recital. They [are the ones who] believe in it. And whoever disbelieves in it - it is they who are the losers.

004.056 Those who reject our Signs, We shall soon cast into the Fire: as often as their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for fresh skins, that they may taste the penalty: for God is Exalted in Power, Wise.

005:051 O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as friends/allies. They are [in fact] friends/allies of one another. And whoever is a friend/ally to them among you - then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people.

009.073 O Prophet, fight against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them. And their refuge is Hell, and wretched is the destination.
009.074 They swear by Allah that they did not say [anything against the Prophet] while they had said the word of disbelief and disbelieved after their [pretense of] Islam and planned that which they were not to attain. And they were not resentful except [for the fact] that Allah and His Messenger had enriched them of His bounty. So if they repent, it is better for them; but if they turn away, Allah will punish them with a painful punishment in this world and the Hereafter. And there will not be for them on earth any protector or helper.

022.018 Seest thou not that to God bow down in worship all things that are in the heavens and on earth,- the sun, the moon, the stars; the hills, the trees, the animals; and a great number among mankind? But a great number are (also) such as are fit for Punishment: and such as God shall disgrace,- None can raise to honour: for God carries out all that He wills.
022.019 These two antagonists dispute with each other about their Lord: But those who deny (their Lord),- for them will be cut out a garment of Fire: over their heads will be poured out boiling water.
022.020 With it will be scalded what is within their bodies, as well as (their) skins.
022.021 In addition there will be maces of iron (to punish) them.
022.022 Every time they wish to get away therefrom, from anguish, they will be forced back therein, and (it will be said), "Taste ye the Penalty of Burning!"

033.064 Verily, Allah has cursed the disbelievers, and has prepared for them a flaming Fire (Hell).
033.065 Wherein they will abide for ever, and they will find neither a Wali (a protector) nor a helper.
033.066 On the Day when their faces will be turned over in the Fire, they will say: "Oh, would that we had obeyed Allah and obeyed the Messenger (Muhammad)."
033.067 And they will say: "Our Lord! Verily, we obeyed our chiefs and our great ones, and they misled us from the (Right) Way.
033.068 Our Lord! give them double torment and curse them with a mighty curse!"

040.070 Those who reject the Book and the (revelations) with which We sent our apostles: but soon shall they know,-
040.071 When the yokes (shall be) round their necks, and the chains; they shall be dragged along-
040.072 In the boiling fetid fluid: then in the Fire shall they be burned;
040.073 Then shall it be said to them: "Where are the (deities) to which ye gave part- worship-
040.074 "In derogation of God?" They will reply: "They have left us in the lurch: Nay, we invoked not, of old, anything (that had real existence)." Thus does God leave the Unbelievers to stray.
040.075 "That was because ye were wont to rejoice on the earth in things other than the Truth, and that ye were wont to be insolent.
040.076 "Enter ye the gates of Hell, to dwell therein: and evil is (this) abode of the arrogant!"

054.046 Nay, but the Hour is their appointed time (for their full recompense), and the Hour will be more grievous and more bitter.
054.047 Verily, the Mujrimun (polytheists, disbelievers, sinners, criminals, etc.) are in error (in this world) and will burn (in the Hell-fire in the Hereafter).
054.048 The Day they will be dragged in the Fire on their faces (it will be said to them): "Taste you the touch of Hell!"

 

[LuisDantas]

So what do you think? Could the New Atheist movement been some sort of crisis cult?

No. I assume you were just not paying attention to Atheism before 2001.

In any case, "New Atheism" is of questionable existence in the first place.

 

[IHaveTheGift]

ImmortalFlame already gave you an article about Dawkins for that:



And I gave two videos by Harris supporting specific ideas from religions or describing them with positive qualities.

Here's a third video where Harris criticizes Islam but then states that not every religion is bad across the board. He points out that Islam has no issue with stem cell research, for example.

[youtube]MaqPE2PmiT8[/youtube]

I asked for a video that dawkins put up showing support for religion, not things where he is put on the spot and brown noses those asking him questions.
Huge difference, where is him showing any support for religion outside of being asked about it?
When he uploads anything, there is zero support for religious people, only mockery and strawmanning.
SHOW ME ONE VIDEO THAT HE UPLOADED TO SHOW SUPPORT FOR RELIGIOUS PEOPLE, HOW HARD IS THAT?

sorry about not commenting on the sam harris videos.
I will now.
From what I can tell, its completely off topic to supporting religious people in general.
Buddhists don't even believe in Gods and if people consider them religious, might as well claim atheists are as well.
One cant just mix apples and oranges and call them pears, which is what Mr Harris does and is what you are trying to suggest as being relevant.

"He points out that Islam has no issue with stem cell research"
seriously, this is what you call supporting religious people?
Or is this just him pointing out that they support his "beliefs" on stem cell research?

 

[Debater Slayer]

No. I assume you were just not paying attention to Atheism before 2001.

In any case, "New Atheism" is of questionable existence in the first place.

In some parts of the world, any atheism is "New Atheism." It's just that some people are so used to being privileged and not having their opinions challenged that the concept of criticism of deeply held beliefs is pretty much alien to them.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Wouldn't it be irrational to suggest that one's worldview shouldn't influence their ethics? And in what way are any of these people directly linking ethics to atheism anyway?

Yes, it would be. I was simply explaining what I meant - that there is no difference; they are both fundamental and take concepts a little too religiously.

They are linked to atheism because that seems to be the basic influence of the movement.

The lack of God is seen in just about every one of their common ethics.

For example if Sam Harris says that female genital mutilation is unethical because there is no rational basis to do it and it's harmful to women, that makes him equal to a fundamentalist? And if so, what specific way does that ethical stance of his blend with his atheism?

Not at all.

If Sam Harris is to say that religious discrimination is not only ethically alright, but ethically obligated, it is obviously related to his lack of belief in God.

In this movement, the political opinions may not seem directly related to atheism, but considering that a majority of their other ethics are, what are the chances they are not? Maybe not exactly atheism, but the opposition of religion which means those political opinions are indirectly, but only second-hand, influenced by atheism.

 

[Penumbra]

I asked for a video that dawkins put up showing support for religion, not things where he is put on the spot and brown noses those asking him questions.
Huge difference, where is him showing any support for religion outside of being asked about it?
When he uploads anything, there is zero support for religious people, only mockery and strawmanning.
SHOW ME ONE VIDEO THAT HE UPLOADED TO SHOW SUPPORT FOR RELIGIOUS PEOPLE, HOW HARD IS THAT?

sorry about not commenting on the sam harris videos.
I will now.
From what I can tell, its completely off topic to supporting religious people in general.
Buddhists don't even believe in Gods and if people consider them religious, might as well claim atheists are as well.
One cant just mix apples and oranges and call them pears, which is what Mr Harris does and is what you are trying to suggest as being relevant.

"He points out that Islam has no issue with stem cell research"
seriously, this is what you call supporting religious people?
Or is this just him pointing out that they support his "beliefs" on stem cell research?

You asked for an atheist supporting a religious doctrine.

You were given:
-Dawkins saying he is grateful for Anglicanism, and calling it tolerant.
-Dawkins saying that he enjoys the Biblical books Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs for sheer literary pleasure.
-Dawkins being polite to religious people that he interviews.
-Harris calling Jainism a religion of peace and saying that the more extreme a Jain is, the more peaceful he is.
-Harris spending a combined set of years on Buddhist meditative retreats and talking about the benefits of meditation.
-Harris pointing out that Islam and stem cell research don't seem to have a problem, because in Islam it's often believed that the soul enters the body quite a while after conception.
-Here's another example: Harris has said good things about the Dalai Lama, such as pointing out that he spends a great deal of time literally contemplating the happiness and wellbeing of all living creatures.

But they don't count? Just brown-nosing, off-topic, or otherwise not what you were looking for? I think those videos and articles are direct answers to what you were asking for. There's not any way to get clearer than those examples. Sam Harris talking about the common Islamic doctrine on souls, embryos, and its relation to stem cell research, is as direct as you can possibly get, and so are his comments on Vipassana meditation.

I originally responded to your request:
"In fact, show me one video from any popular atheist that shows support for any religious doctrine at all."

But now it's:
"SHOW ME ONE VIDEO THAT HE UPLOADED TO SHOW SUPPORT FOR RELIGIOUS PEOPLE, HOW HARD IS THAT?"

Why would Dawkins specifically upload a video supporting religious people? He criticizes religious beliefs, because he believes they are wrong. He's polite to people he interviews, and he did say good things about Anglicanism and certain Biblical books in those articles.

Let's leave the caps lock key alone and keep the goal posts in one place.

 

[steeltoes]

Stawman and irrelevant to what I said

How so?

 

[IHaveTheGift]

In some parts of the world, any atheism is "New Atheism." It's just that some people are so used to being privileged and not having their opinions challenged that the concept of criticism of deeply held beliefs is pretty much alien to them.

Where does anyone have the right to criticize me for praying to a God come into play in this?
According to nearly all atheists and secular's, it is not the place of theists to tell them how to live their lives, correct?
Practice what you preach, if you will.

Basically its being presented like this:
If gays wish to marry or women wish to abort life, no one has any reason to tell them otherwise, but..."you pray to a God" ohhh let the criticisms begin....

So, I can kill life, but forbid me to pray to a God?

Off topic, ironically, from what I have seen, most people that support abortion also are against the death penalty.
Meaning...
We should be able to kill innocent life, but not the guilty, they get extra chances that a baby doesn't deserve.
Yet, if one accidentally wrecks their car into a pregnant woman on her way to abort life, and she dies, the person is charged with killing her and the unborn baby, even though the law claims the baby isnt life to begin with and lets her abort it...


Consistency is something beyond the atheist stance, in general.
Something I never seen big shot atheists admit to.

I know most Theists claim to have all the answers, if you will and are full of hypocrisy and double standards.
So are atheists, in general.

I can say one thing about myself, if I could, I would want everyone to just hug each other, and learn what love means.
There is no reason why we should throw away food and others are starving to death

 

[Debater Slayer]

Where does anyone have the right to criticize me for praying to a God come into play in this?
According to nearly all atheists and secular's, it is not the place of theists to tell them how to live their lives, correct?
Practice what you preach, if you will.

Basically its being presented like this:
If gays wish to marry or women wish to abort life, no one has any reason to tell them otherwise, but..."you pray to a God" ohhh let the criticisms begin....

So, I can kill life, but forbid me to pray to a God?

Off topic, ironically, from what I have seen, most people that support abortion also are against the death penalty.
Meaning...
We should be able to kill innocent life, but not the guilty, they get extra chances that a baby doesn't deserve.
Yet, if one accidentally wrecks their car into a pregnant woman on her way to abort life, and she dies, the person is charged with killing her and the unborn baby, even though the law claims the baby isnt life to begin with and lets her abort it...

That's an emotionally charged straw man.

First, I never said anything about criticizing people for praying to a god per se; my statement was more specific than that. I said, and I iterate, that certain religious scriptures contain texts that are far more hateful, violent, and intolerant than anything any of the "Fours Horsemen" of New Atheism have ever said. In the post you responded to, I also said that some people aren't used to the concept of having their opinions challenged at all, so, to them, any form of atheism or lack of belief in their religions is considered "New Atheism" and demonized as such.

Second, I won't get into a full-fledged debate about abortion here because that's an entirely different topic that can derail this thread if pursued in it, but zygotes don't become viable babies from the get-go. To say that a week-old zygote, for example, is equivalent to the life of a full-grown person is to either overvalue the former or undervalue the latter, in my view. Calling a zygote that doesn't even contain a hint of life yet "innocent life" seems more of an appeal to emotion than anything else.

Third, I don't know why you brought up same-sex marriage alongside abortion, which you apparently regard as equal to murder. Actually, I have a rough idea of the implications you intended to give by doing that, but for the sake of giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'll wait until you have further clarified what you meant to convey by doing that. I just hope my suspicions are wrong.

 

[IHaveTheGift]

That's an emotionally charged straw man.

First, I never said anything about criticizing people for praying at home; my statement was more specific than that. I said, and I iterate, that certain religious scriptures contain texts that are far more hateful, violent, and intolerant than anything any of the "Fours Horsemen" of New Atheism have ever said. In the post you responded to, I also said that some people aren't used to the concept of having their opinions challenged at all, so, to them, any form of atheism or lack of belief in their religions is considered "New Atheism" and demonized as such.

Second, I won't get into a full-fledged debate about abortion here because that's an entirely different topic that can derail this thread if pursued in it, but zygotes don't become viable babies from the get-go. To say that a week-old zygote, for example, is equivalent to the life of a full-grown person is to either overvalue the former or undervalue the latter, in my view. Calling a zygote that doesn't even contain a hint of life yet "innocent life" seems more of an appeal to emotion than anything else.

Third, I don't know why you brought up same-sex marriage alongside abortion, which you apparently regard as equal to murder. Actually, I have a rough idea of the implications you intended to give by doing that, but for the sake of giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'll wait until you have further clarified what you meant to convey by doing that. I just hope my suspicions are wrong.

My apologies, i did not mean this to be attacking you personally.
I just got caught up in emotion, I am sorry

not sure what you mean, but no, I give full respect to gays and them marrying too.
besides the point that they deserve to have love too, they might just adapt a child and show love to them as well, considering they can not have kids.
That, to me is a give me, they deserve equal rights

I have a mind that never stops thinking and again, i am sorry, i was not calling you out, I just got out of hand from your point that theists should be criticized.

Yes, those that fly planes into buildings and those that let their kids die a horrible death and not allow them meds, those that "hide" sick oh priests, those that twist Gods love, should be criticized and STOPPED, not Theists in general though
70-80% of the world believes in Gods and we are good people, most of us

 

[Penumbra]

Yes, it would be. I was simply explaining what I meant - that there is no difference; they are both fundamental and take concepts a little too religiously.

They are linked to atheism because that seems to be the basic influence of the movement.

The lack of God is seen in just about every one of their common ethics.

Please clarify then how Harris' stance on female genital mutilation comes from his atheism.

And here's a video where Harris most precisely outlines his views on ethics:
[youtube]Hj9oB4zpHww[/youtube]

You'll see that he references science, rather than atheism generally, for ethical stances and ethical views. For example he generally wouldn't say things like, "we shouldn't mutilate the clitoris of young girls because we're atheists", but will instead refer to actual reasons relating to harm, irrationality, etc.

Not at all.

If Sam Harris is to say that religious discrimination is not only ethically alright, but ethically obligated, it is obviously related to his lack of belief in God.

Why?

And what form of discrimination are you talking about here?

Harris believes that, for example in airport security lines, Arabic men and young and middle-aged men in general (which he explicitly included himself in), should be screened more often than various 5 year old girls and elderly Norwegian women. And his argument is that if we have a limited number of resources, that they should be mostly directed to high-risk groups, and that a combination of randomization and profiling is probably optimal for safety. Whether one disagrees or not, that's his view.

Notice that Harris doesn't particularly believe that Jain women should be screened regularly. They're theists too. If here were merely making discriminatory statements based on his atheism, then he should be in favor of screening all theists, right? But that's not his position, because instead what he's basing his airport security views on (agreed with or not), are things like past actions and probabilities of attacks, rather than simply "theism" as a category.

In this movement, the political opinions may not seem directly related to atheism, but considering that a majority of their other ethics are, what are the chances they are not? Maybe not exactly atheism, but the opposition of religion which means those political opinions are indirectly, but only second-hand, influenced by atheism.

So for example if a Muslim says that homosexuals should be killed because they are immoral to Allah, and I suggest that there's no evidence that homosexuality is bad, that unless they can evidence Allah it's not relevant, quite a bit of evidence that homosexuality is a healthy variation in human sexuality and not a choice anyway, and that it would make a lot more sense to love and be kind to our homosexual neighbors instead, that would be an example of me making an argument specifically based on my atheism?

Many theists would agree with me on those views of how to treat homosexuals, such as many Christians and some minority of Muslims including the two current Muslim US Congressmen. (One of them in particular is strongly in support of gay marriage and even sung about it on his guitar.) So clearly what me and them have in common is that we're using other references besides our views on various deities, on how to treat homosexuals, such as treating them equally and giving them respect, vs killing them, or something in between.

You're casting too broad of a net to suggest that because I or other atheists don't subscribe to highly specific worldviews of various theists, that we'd be basing our ethics on atheism, rather than on reason, evidence, practicality, etc which may include atheism simply because we don't factor gods highly into our account of how to behave. Many Christians, Muslims, and other religious people do specifically cite their scriptures and other religious things for their ethical views on things like how to treat homosexuals. Those are examples of actually blending ethics and religion. But until you see atheists saying basically, "because of atheism" we should treat homosexuals nicely or we should not cut female genitals or we should be vegetarians or whatever, then it's not a good comparison.

 

[Penumbra]

Basically its being presented like this:
If gays wish to marry or women wish to abort life, no one has any reason to tell them otherwise, but..."you pray to a God" ohhh let the criticisms begin....

Notice that gays being legally allowed to marry or not, is a position about actual legal restriction, and people's abilities to control their own reproduction and bodies or not is also a position about actual legal restriction.

Criticizing theism, however, is not a legal restriction. It in no way restricts theists from practicing theism. So that's a false comparison.

So, I can kill life, but forbid me to pray to a God?

Who forbids you to pray to your god?

Off topic, ironically, from what I have seen, most people that support abortion also are against the death penalty.
Meaning...
We should be able to kill innocent life, but not the guilty, they get extra chances that a baby doesn't deserve.
Yet, if one accidentally wrecks their car into a pregnant woman on her way to abort life, and she dies, the person is charged with killing her and the unborn baby, even though the law claims the baby isnt life to begin with and lets her abort it...


Consistency is something beyond the atheist stance, in general.
Something I never seen big shot atheists admit to.

I know most Theists claim to have all the answers, if you will and are full of hypocrisy and double standards.
So are atheists, in general.

I can say one thing about myself, if I could, I would want everyone to just hug each other, and learn what love means.
There is no reason why we should throw away food and others are starving to death

Most lawmakers in most countries are currently theists of some sort. In the US for example, they're mostly Christians.

So if you're talking about legality of abortion vs double-murder for killing a pregnant woman, and then blaming it on atheist inconsistency, that doesn't make any sense. Any laws of that sort were put in place by theists, actually. And I don't particularly think their theism had much to do with the irrationality of how those laws relate to one another. So I wouldn't even criticize theists as a group over the existence of those laws.

Basically that has nothing really to do with atheism or atheists at all.

 

[Debater Slayer]

My apologies, i did not mean this to be attacking you personally.
I just got caught up in emotion, I am sorry

not sure what you mean, but no, I give full respect to gays and them marrying too.
besides the point that they deserve to have love too, they might just adapt a child and show love to them as well, considering they can not have kids.
That, to me is a give me, they deserve equal rights

I have a mind that never stops thinking and again, i am sorry, i was not calling you out, I just got out of hand from your point that theists should be criticized.

Yes, those that fly planes into buildings and those that let their kids die a horrible death and not allow them meds, those that "hide" sick oh priests, those that twist Gods love, should be criticized and STOPPED, not Theists in general though
70-80% of the world believes in Gods and we are good people, most of us

No worries. I didn't take it personally.

I think that, in many or even most cases, religious belief is too nuanced for someone to make a blanket judgment about whether or not most religious people in any specific place are "good people." To a homosexual in certain parts of the world, they most likely wouldn't be peace-loving, moderate people. To many imams and priests, even fundamentalists would be pious followers of God. To a feminist in certain countries and/or regions, they would vary from being generally tolerant to being extremely hateful and chauvinistic.

So, I don't think all religious beliefs or their followers are like a black-and-white checkerboard where they're either "good" or not; there's a lot of grey in between and a lot of variation depending on which point of view you're looking from, as is the case with non-religious people and their views.

 

[IHaveTheGift]

Mutilation of the female sex organs is one completely screwed up sense of mentality.

Stuff like that makes me so sad that we even allow 3rd world countries to do this.
WHY?
We even let them marry off 9 year old girls into being raped and beaten.
WHY?

**** me

 

[Debater Slayer]

Harris believes that, for example in airport security lines, Arabic men and young and middle-aged men in general (which he explicitly included himself in), should be screened more often than various 5 year old girls and elderly Norwegian women. And his argument is that if we have a limited number of resources, that they should be mostly directed to high-risk groups, and that a combination of randomization and profiling is probably optimal for safety. Whether one disagrees or not, that's his view.

Do you agree or not with Harris's view that you outlined above? Just interested to know; not meaning to start a tangential debate.

 

[steeltoes]

Before everyone thinks I am calling atheism a religion, I am not. I am asking a specific movement that is identified with atheism...the New Atheism.

First a crisis cult is a term coined by anthropologist Weston La Barre, in his terminology a crisis cult is a group that is created in reaction to a perceived crisis. They spring up when people feel that the social norms are no longer working but absolutely failing, when a perceived threat is imminent or as a reaction to extreme incidences of violence. Much like the Ghost Dance cult movement that rose up during the 1890's in reaction complete collapse of Native American civilization and autonomy.

The New Atheism came into being after the events of 9/11, many within this movement have said that it was rising Muslim terrorism that sealed it for them and they felt that Islam in particular and religion in general was responsible for a majority of the worlds woes. Religion was not only to blame for violence but also blamed for keeping scientific progress at bay thus hindering humankind from advancing.

Like many crisis cults, 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.

All these things are indicative of a crisis cult.

So what do you think? Could the New Atheist movement been some sort of crisis cult?

No, there's no movement let alone a cult, and there's nothing new about atheists touring the lecture circuit for money and fame.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

In any case, "New Atheism" is of questionable existence in the first place.

In the sense that it was a media created phenomena and movement?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

No, there's no movement let alone a cult, and there's nothing new about atheists touring the lecture circuit for money and fame.

I am not talking about atheism.

I am talking about this:

New Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is a distinction.