Was the New Atheism Movement a Failed Crisis Cult

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'm not sure what you mean by "not happening"? Who said that?

Are you aware that when you do a search for "new atheism" without quotes, it is not just looking for that exact phrase in articles, but is also looking for related phrases and partial phrases. So basically anything online that says "atheism" or "atheist" or "Sam Harris" or "The God Delusion" or "disbelief in gods" will come up in the search results. It's not a search engine from the mid-90's; it can predict what you actually want to find even if they don't use those words. And there will also be tons of spam and totally off topic things in any search result, though.

In fact, if you drop the "new" and simply search for "atheism", those result numbers drop from 653,000 and 68.2 million to 420,000 and 8.9 million, respectively. Obviously the word "atheism" can't appear less frequently on the internet than "new atheism", so the search results for "new atheism" without quotes are probably also picking up a lot of results associated with the word "new" in some way that don't have much to do with atheism.

So you say it's odd that this is even a debate with a facepalm, but your post here had more to do with an issue with the correct use of search engines rather than anything about so-called new atheism itself.

For any term, there are a ton of spam sites. So you have thousands of actual articles and then thousands of copies.

I get 1,930,000 results for "rudolph the red nosed reindeer" in quotes. So Rudolph is apparently several times more popular on the internet than the entirety of so-called new atheism. :rudolph:

Yes, the term "New Atheism" has been coined and widely used by some in the last decade or so, post 9/11, after The End of Faith came out. But that's a term applied mostly from the outside rather than something they self-identify with. Atheism is not new. Even outspoken atheism is not new. New Atheism is an externally applied label for this new public generation of people that have criticized religion rather directly and have for the first time received quite a bit of public attention.

^This, exactly. :yes: :clap

Also, lol at the search engine stuff.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

So you mean the rise of Anti-theism or militant atheism rather than atheism in general. This bit is very misleading.

I said that in the OP. I was not criticizing atheism but a certain response by certain atheists in regards to 9/11. I was very clear. Did you read the OP?

I would never characterize atheism as a religion or a cult or even a movement. If I did that, that would be misleading. But I never did.

 

[Desert Snake]

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?

So. We can only answer from our perspective... and that might be limited...It certainly seems like the fervor and argumentation methods are 'crisis cultic' at times coming from the new atheists, but I hesitate to label it anything because I never felt the need to tell others their religion was false or wrong. Perhaps the "science" issue is more the crux of the argument where it transforms, into reality, into 'crisis' argumentation... If people feel that their basic rights are going to get trampled on because of others religious beliefs then it will become 'crisis cultic' of course, though at least in the u.s.a. I never felt that was necessary to take debate to that level.

 

[Willamena]

I'm sure she just means New Atheism as its commonly known.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I said that in the OP. I was not criticizing atheism but a certain response by certain atheists in regards to 9/11. I was very clear. Did you read the OP?

I would never characterize atheism as a religion or a cult or even a movement. If I did that, that would be misleading. But I never did.

I read it. But simply calling it "new atheism" does seem to imply specifically that the position of "atheism" in this new wave of social events is implicitly a reactionary anti-theistic movement. Though to correct myself I meant that the term "New Atheism" is misleading at best rather than your specific usage of it.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I read it. But simply calling it "new atheism" does seem to imply specifically that the position of "atheism" in this new wave of social events is implicitly a reactionary anti-theistic movement. Though to correct myself I meant that the term "New Atheism" is misleading at best rather than your specific usage of it.

Do I believe atheism is a reactionary movement? No. I don't view atheism as a movement. I think atheism is just simply not believing in deity. And that's it. Atheism is not a reaction against theism, it is simply not believing in deity.

Atheism won't die if theism were to perish. There will still be atheism.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm sure she just means New Atheism as its commonly known.

Which is something of a mirage, after all. "Atheists for atheism" is hardly a new thing. The novelty is in the eyes of the beholder.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Which is something of a mirage, after all. "Atheists for atheism" is hardly a new thing. The novelty is in the eyes of the beholder.

But Neo-Con Islamophobic atheism was a new thing.

 

[LuisDantas]

But Neo-Con Islamophobic atheism was a new thing.

So is purple green. The implications, substance and meaning are likewise comparable.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

So is purple green. The implications, substance and meaning are likewise comparable.

You should notice that I have been talking about this movement as if in the past tense. It was a reaction to a certain action.

If you read the OP you would have seen that I don't believe that new atheism = atheism.

 

[LuisDantas]

You should notice that I have been talking about this movement as if in the past tense. It was a reaction to a certain action.

If you read the OP you would have seen that I don't believe that new atheism = atheism.

I am saying that new atheism does not seem to exist at all, except as a trick of perception that I want to understand better.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I am saying that new atheism does not seem to exist at all, except as a trick of perception that I want to understand better.

Think of it as a media ploy or as propaganda.

 

[LuisDantas]

And therefore as not a real thing? That is sort of what I think, except that I'm not certain it was planned as such.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

And therefore as not a real thing? That is sort of what I think, except that I'm not certain it was planned as such.

I kind of think Harris and Hitchens were trying to push a Neo-Con agenda. Atheism was just set dressing.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Do I believe atheism is a reactionary movement? No. I don't view atheism as a movement. I think atheism is just simply not believing in deity. And that's it. Atheism is not a reaction against theism, it is simply not believing in deity.

Atheism won't die if theism were to perish. There will still be atheism.

Well said. I'm just by extension asking if this new anti-theistic movement is truly a reactionary (especially from 9/11) "cult" as was put in the op. This I didn't feel was very accurate.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

You're talking about atheism blending with morality and said that the lack of god is seen in their common ethics.

I'm not saying atheism has a set moral system, but that a certain group of people, specifically this group, can have a moral system based around atheism.

A theological concept doesn't necessarily have a set moral system, yet a moral system can be set around a theological concept.

First of all, "New Atheism" is not an entity that can be quoted. That's apparently a quote by reporter Simon Hooper for CNN about "New Atheism".

Second of all, is that discrimination? Can an idea be discriminated against? And especially as actual public atheists have described their views of how they handle each religious idea differently, like Islam vs Jainism in Harris' case?

Religion isn't only an idea, it often can become an action by applying specific roles and practices. A religious man can be discriminated against, an organization can be discriminated against, and a religion is an organization.

Also, I would say it is discrimination to not tolerate something merely because of what it is.

Please keep in mind I'm not talking about general atheism.

If I say, "[racism] should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises." does that mean I am discriminating?

Intolerance of intolerance is still intolerance; but whether or not it's ethical is another topic. Just as well, religion itself isn't intolerance so New Atheism wouldn't be intolerating intolerance, they'd simply be intolerant, though it can have properties which are intolerant against certain things.

At it's most basic, to "discriminate" means to observe a difference, like, "her sense of taste is so precise that she can discriminate between the tastes of different brands of ice cream". More specifically in a negative sense, it's common usage is to negatively mean to discriminate based on a category rather than individual merit. But if individual religious ideas are examined and critiqued, or if the methodology of believing and promoting things without decent evidence is examined and critiqued, what does that have to do with categorical discrimination?

Does New Atheism specify their bias as only towards "individual religious ideas"?

What do you mean when you say that "New Atheism literally admits"? New Atheism is not some entity, so how can it admit to things? Individual atheists can talk about things.

Individual atheists can talk about things. New Atheism is not some Borg Collective that speaks for itself. If you want to talk about a quote from a popular atheist, please quote it and provide context on where that quote came from.

It's a movement, therefore a community, how isn't it an entity or at least work like one?

Keep in mind New Atheism is not general atheism.

What if I believe Islam is a harmful set of beliefs? I've read the Qur'an, I've discussed Islam with Muslims, and I believe that the set of beliefs that comprises Islam, are generally harmful and not true.


It would be irrational for someone to say something odd like, "Muslims shouldn't put homosexuals to death, because Islam is bad". That would be a bad argument, and there aren't any public atheists saying such things. Claims are generally separate. If they say Islam is generally harmful, it's because of various things attributed to Islam in text or in practice.

But don't Neo-Atheists say "religion is bad"? That would be a heavy proponent of their ethical system.

It's more like, "From my view the Qur'an tends to be a rather violent, tribalistic, and untrue book, the claims of Islam generally aren't supported by evidence or reason, most Islamic countries have institutionalized intolerance against homosexuals and sometimes against non-Muslims, based on reports of gender equality Islamic countries almost without exception rank terribly as a group, Islam does have a history of violence all the way back to it's founder and up to the modern day with death threats, terrorist attacks, polled support for terrorism by the Muslim public in many countries, and polled support for instituting Sharia law in places like Britain by British Muslims, and therefore I believe Islam as a whole is a rather harmful set of beliefs from its core text all the way up to its actual practice."

Which I'm not saying is a bad thing to say, but it is saying X religion is bad and is expressed via atheism, it is atheism-based (indirectly) politics.

Actually no.

You're setting up a straw man and attacking that, rather than saying anything about detailed positions of actual "New Atheists". That's a semantics game. They don't merely oppose all religion simply because it's religion, and therefore their moral values would fall apart like Jenga. All of Harris' statements on ethics link to science or reason or other things. And it's not like Dawkins or Harris spend time criticizing Jainism (quite the opposite, actually.)

I quoted this earlier in this thread but here it is again. Prominent "New Atheist" Sam Harris doesn't even like the word atheist, doesn't think it's relevant, and it didn't even show up in his End of Faith book.

Then how can he be considered a New Atheist?

Morally judging God or religion would be an activity based on the lack of belief in God. Thus actively portraying virtues centered around atheism.

Those people classified as New Atheists generally hold a position that bad ideas, unevidenced ideas, harmful ideas, and things like that, should be criticized. That can include some sorts of religious ideas and can include some other things like, say, astrology. The general field of religion has often been a fairly unique area that it's not socially acceptable to criticize, which they disagree with.

I'm going to admit one thing though - I haven't looked too much into what the New Atheist Movement was completely about and now that I did I find that while they may be secular on some virtue ethics, there are still things within it that show activity based on atheism - antitheism is one of them. Dissing theism as an entirety has something to do with a moral judgement of the idea in itself, if it were for statistical reasons where theism has led to violence then it should be shunning the practices rather than theism.

 

[Revoltingest]

Now give me that old time atheism
Give me that old time atheism
Give me that old time atheism
And it's good enough for me

It was good enough for Stalin
It was good enough for Stalin
It was good enough for Stalin
And it is good enough for me.

Old timey atheism is about good wholesome disbelief, without rabid anti-theism.
Stalin appears to have been an anti-theist who rebelled against his training for the priesthood.
No true old time atheist would behave that way towards churches.

 

[Falvlun]

Without reading the thread, I've heard a lot about these "New Atheists". What are they? Am I one? How do I know? I think that's a problem with defining "new atheists" as a group, let alone a "cult". There really is no defined membership or criteria for such membership.

 

[Apex]

Without reading the thread, I've heard a lot about these "New Atheists". What are they? Am I one? How do I know? I think that's a problem with defining "new atheists" as a group, let alone a "cult". There really is no defined membership or criteria for such membership.

New Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Falvlun]

New Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks!

New Atheism is a social and political movement in favour of atheism and secularism promoted by a collection of modern atheist writers who have advocated the view that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises."[

I dunno. Seems like a stretch to consider it a new group; I'm sure there were always atheists out there that believed they shouldn't have to tolerate religion; I suspect many atheists at some point have felt components of the above. As for it being a cult, that would be completely out of the question. You really have to have a membership group to have that.

As for me, I do think that atheists should be free to criticize religion or to combat it when it curtails rights, but I think people should be free to be religious, nor do I think we can or should eradicate it.