Was the New Atheism Movement a Failed Crisis Cult

[CynthiaCypher]

And to clarify since some of you have not understood the term "crisis cult"

A crisis cult does not necessarily mean a religious movement. It can be a political or social movement that moves along cultic lines.

 

[IHaveTheGift]

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

Paraphrasing Dawkins:
"some of us give up childish beliefs such as santa claus when we become adults and also give up fanatic and fairy tails of Gods as well and we should all mock those (with content) that still believe in delusional and made up Gods and these people have no place in our governments"

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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 problem with the world.

Total nonsense. He has publically stated that this is absolutely not what he believes, and not once in any debate or book he has been involved in has he ever claimed that religion is the primary cause of evil in the world. You're spewing uninformed nonsense.

Link me to one time that dawkins says anything good about religious people.
thanks

I forget the title, but I remember once watching a documentary in which he talks quite beautifully about the poetry and language used in the Bible. I've looked for a clip of it (he's riding in a hot air balloon in the scene), but I can't find it anywhere.

But, in any case, does he have to qualify his criticisms with the odd compliment before he can avoid being accused of being some kind of hateful monster? I've never seen CynthiaCypher say anything nice about atheists either, but I don't see why that alone should indicate that she thinks atheists are the root of all evil.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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

If you cannot admit to making a knowingly inaccurate statement about someone, then you are dishonest and not worth debating with.

Paraphrasing Dawkins:
"some of us give up childish beliefs such as santa claus when we become adults and also give up fanatic and fairy tails of Gods as well and we should all mock those (with content) that still believe in delusional and made up Gods and these people have no place in our governments"

I cannot find the entirety of this quote anywhere. Can you provide a source?

 

[IHaveTheGift]

Total nonsense. He has publically stated that this is absolutely not what he believes, and not once in any debate or book he has been involved in has he ever claimed that religion is the primary cause of evil in the world. You're spewing uninformed nonsense.


I forget the title, but I remember once watching a documentary in which he talks quite beautifully about the poetry and language used in the Bible. I've looked for a clip of it (he's riding in a hot air balloon in the scene), but I can't find it anywhere.

But, in any case, does he have to qualify his criticisms with the odd compliment before he can avoid being accused of being some kind of hateful monster? I've never seen CynthiaCypher say anything nice about atheists either, but I don't see why that alone should indicate that she thinks atheists are the root of all evil.

So, you have no evidence to support his "love" for religion?

I can provide tons and tons of videos of him saying the complete opposite, do you really need to see them?

[youtube]rRd-jlV82BI[/youtube]

He really comes down on religious people in this so called "science only" discussion

[youtube]YUe0_4rdj0U[/youtube]


[youtube]_SOgvnspf00[/youtube]

 

[Debater Slayer]

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?

Give me quotes from at least five different "New Atheists" that say what you claim they say in the highlighted part, and then we'll proceed from there.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So, you have no evidence to support his "love" for religion?

Of course not - because he doesn't love religion. I know for a fact that has spoken positively about religion, but I simply cannot find the documentary.

I can provide tons and tons of videos of him saying the complete opposite, do you really need to see them?

Instead of being rude and patronizing, why not try responding to the arguments I made? Or, better yet, try looking for something yourself. I'll continue to look as well.

 

[Penumbra]

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.

Is to criticize, to demonize? Are you just adding moral charge to the words?

Is it wrong to suggest that some religions are worse for human happiness than others, or less reasonable than others? In fact, regarding what you were talking about how "New Atheists" demonize religion, wouldn't it be better for them to be as specific as possible? To criticize exactly the ideas that they feel need criticizing, rather than all of them equally? Wouldn't the latter be irrational, rather than the former? Intellectual honesty would mean accepting that, I think.

For example, Harris has contrasted Islam to Jainism in terms of what they preach, what the core beliefs are, what actions by the members have actually been, and how they both relate to safety and happiness and peace and all that. As he puts it, Jainism is about as close to a religion of peace as can be, while Islam is anything but that.

I do agree with him about Islam regarding the religion itself, in most cases. I do think it's one of the most harmful religions and one of the ones least conducive to happiness and peace and reason.

Here's a Pew Research report on the views of Muslims in some of the most populated Muslim-majority countries. For example, in that set of surveys to multiple countries, 84% of Muslim Egyptians and 76% of Muslim Pakistanis support the death penalty for those that leave Islam. It varies from country from high to low.

Also the countries that make homosexual acts illegal and punishable by imprisonment or up to death, are basically all either in Africa or are Islamic countries.

In many countries according to that report, the people that believe suicide bombings are never okay, are in minority.

The Qur'an itself contains rather violent and tribalistic statements, and unlike most other religions, is accepted as the unalterable word-for-word final statement from god directly.

To claim that all religions are the same in terms of impact, or to say that it is inherently "demonizing" to suggest that some religions have a worse impact on humanity than others in terms of freedom, happiness, reason, and other things, makes no sense imo.

 

[Sunstone]

Is to criticize, to demonize? Are you just adding moral charge to the words?

Is it wrong to suggest that some religions are worse for human happiness than others, or less reasonable than others? In fact, regarding what you were talking about how "New Atheists" demonize religion, wouldn't it be better for them to be as specific as possible? To criticize exactly the ideas that they feel need criticizing, rather than all of them equally? Wouldn't the latter be irrational, rather than the former? Intellectual honesty would mean accepting that, I think.

For example, Harris has contrasted Islam to Jainism in terms of what they preach, what the core beliefs are, what actions by the members have actually been, and how they both relate to safety and happiness and peace and all that. As he puts it, Jainism is about as close to a religion of peace as can be, while Islam is anything but that.

I do agree with him about Islam regarding the religion itself, in most cases. I do think it's one of the most harmful religions and one of the ones least conducive to happiness and peace and reason.

Here's a Pew Research report on the views of Muslims in some of the most populated Muslim-majority countries. For example, in that set of surveys to multiple countries, 84% of Muslim Egyptians and 76% of Muslim Pakistanis support the death penalty for those that leave Islam. It varies from country from high to low.

Also the countries that make homosexual acts illegal and punishable by imprisonment or up to death, are basically all either in Africa or are Islamic countries.

In many countries according to that report, the people that believe suicide bombings are never okay, are in minority.

The Qur'an itself contains rather violent and tribalistic statements, and unlike most other religions, is accepted as the unalterable word-for-word final statement from god directly.

To claim that all religions are the same in terms of impact, or to say that it is inherently "demonizing" to suggest that some religions have a worse impact on humanity than others in terms of freedom, happiness, reason, and other things, makes no sense imo.

Damnit, Penumbra! Will you quit stating facts? That is sooo demonizing!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Ah, here's a couple of little somethings.

In his new book, Dawkins relates for the first time the full story of his schoolboy break-out as an atheist. In the chapel at Oundle, he helped lead a small insurgency of boys who refused to kneel. The school’s headmaster was in Oxford on the day that the young Dawkins took his university entrance exam and drove him back. During this lift, Dawkins writes, the headmaster ‘discreetly raised the subject of my rebellion against Christianity. It was a revelation,’ he says, ‘to talk to a decent, humane, intelligent Christian, embodying Anglicanism at its tolerant best.’
I ask him about this. ‘I’m kind of grateful to the Anglican tradition,’ he admits, ‘for its benign tolerance. I sort of suspect that many who profess Anglicanism probably don’t believe any of it at all in any case but vaguely enjoy, as I do… I suppose I’m a cultural Anglican and I see evensong in a country church through much the same eyes as I see a village cricket match on the village green. I have a certain love for it.’ Would he ever go into a church? ‘Well yes, maybe I would.’
SOURCE: Richard Dawkins interview: 'I have a certain love for the Anglican tradition' » The Spectator

What books might we be surprised to find on your shelves?
Depending on how naïvely literalistic you are, you might be surprised to find the Bible. The King James Version, of course, and not so much on my shelves as continually off my shelves, because I open it so often: sometimes to quote it, sometimes for sheer literary pleasure — especially Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs.
SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/books/review/richard-dawkins-by-the-book.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

[IHaveTheGift]

Of course not - because he doesn't love religion. I know for a fact that has spoken positively about religion, but I simply cannot find the documentary.

Instead of being rude and patronizing, why not try responding to the arguments I made? Or, better yet, try looking for something yourself. I'll continue to look as well.

I am sorry for coming off rudely, in my defense the only time I have ever seen him talk "good" about religious people is when put on the spot and he has to give them "kind words"

I want just one video of him talking good about religious people, one video where he shows respect to them, ok?
Not where he is put on the spot and has to, show me where he said nice stuff about religious people on his own, without being put on the spot.

[youtube]SPlqjziNFdA[/youtube]

[youtube]pMigkP5BELc[/youtube]

[youtube]z1N1bGH1gb8[/youtube]

 

[Penumbra]

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

What are you defining as support here?

As in, agreeing that a metaphysical claim is true? Or praising a religion in some other way?

I believe it was in this video somewhere that Harris said that if any religion is the religion of peace, it's Jainism, and that the more extremist a Jain is, the less you have to worry about him (an example which he contrasted with some other religions):
[youtube]mnssYJFSNfc[/youtube]

Here Harris references how he has traveled to Asian countries to study meditation and has gone on Buddhist meditative retreats for up to 3 months at a time. He's a major proponent of meditation, very experienced with it, and recently published a book on it:
[youtube]t8U5J_LV3UI[/youtube]

In fact much of his criticism of Abrahamic religions involves no only criticizing their lack of evidence but also comparing them negatively to Dharmic religions in terms of how their core ethics.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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?

For it to be a Cult doesn't it have to be an organization of some kind? I don't know what you mean specifically by "new atheists". Can there be someone who is newly an atheist but isn't a "new atheist"? Or someone who has been an theist for a long time that is now considered a "new atheist"? Is it just lolzDawkinsRULEZ HITCHSLAP followers on youtube and reddit?

The American Atheists is an organization that has a pretty good record.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I am sorry for coming off rudely, in my defense the only time I have ever seen him talk "good" about religious people is when put on the spot and he has to give them "kind words"

I want just one video of him talking good about religious people, one video where he shows respect to them, ok?

Not where he is put on the spot and has to, show me where he said nice stuff about religious people on his own, without being put on the spot.

In my experience, just about every interview he has ever done with a religious individual (which is something that actually makes up the vast majority of his documentaries), he is tremendously respectful to that individual.

Where is this supposed disrespect in this interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ0WinCWtLs

 

[IHaveTheGift]

In my experience, just about every interview he has ever done with a religious individual (which is something that actually makes up the vast majority of his documentaries), he is tremendously respectful to that individual.

Where is this supposed disrespect in this interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ0WinCWtLs

i guess you are missing the point I am making, I never asked for his ability to show "respect"

Again, give me one video that he made showing any support for religion.
Just one. k?

he is a pure hypocrite to have discussions with religious people and then go back to saying this;
Pick one, any one. the choice is yours.....

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=richard+dawkins+mock+them+

Off topic:
one of dawkins biggest strawman against religion.
Might as well say "science gives us lightbulbs, we no longer need the sun"
[youtube]oKlouLGwQUw[/youtube]

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Are you describing the New Atheist Movement or the world's religious fundamentalists?

Not too much of a difference. The former takes atheism religiously.

 

[Penumbra]

Again, give me one video that he made showing any support for religion.
Just one. k?

ImmortalFlame already gave you an article about Dawkins for that:

Ah, here's a couple of little somethings.

In his new book, Dawkins relates for the first time the full story of his schoolboy break-out as an atheist. In the chapel at Oundle, he helped lead a small insurgency of boys who refused to kneel. The school’s headmaster was in Oxford on the day that the young Dawkins took his university entrance exam and drove him back. During this lift, Dawkins writes, the headmaster ‘discreetly raised the subject of my rebellion against Christianity. It was a revelation,’ he says, ‘to talk to a decent, humane, intelligent Christian, embodying Anglicanism at its tolerant best.’
I ask him about this. ‘I’m kind of grateful to the Anglican tradition,’ he admits, ‘for its benign tolerance. I sort of suspect that many who profess Anglicanism probably don’t believe any of it at all in any case but vaguely enjoy, as I do… I suppose I’m a cultural Anglican and I see evensong in a country church through much the same eyes as I see a village cricket match on the village green. I have a certain love for it.’ Would he ever go into a church? ‘Well yes, maybe I would.’
SOURCE: Richard Dawkins interview: 'I have a certain love for the Anglican tradition' » The Spectator

What books might we be surprised to find on your shelves?
Depending on how naïvely literalistic you are, you might be surprised to find the Bible. The King James Version, of course, and not so much on my shelves as continually off my shelves, because I open it so often: sometimes to quote it, sometimes for sheer literary pleasure — especially Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs.
SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/books/review/richard-dawkins-by-the-book.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

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]

 

[Penumbra]

Not too much of a difference. The former takes atheism religiously.

Can you clarify what you mean when you describe someone as taking a concept religiously?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Can you clarify what you mean when someone takes a concept religiously?

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.

 

[Debater Slayer]

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.