Why Arrogant "New Atheists" Annoy Me

[icehorse]

I'll leave you to your tantrum and lack of reading comprehension. *clicks ignore*

As I write this post there have been 620 views on this thread. You think you've swayed many of those folks with your ad hominem attacks?

 

[Augustus]

I was referring to post #7 which read:

You don't see those as ad hom? (nice abbreviation btw, i'm gonna use that)

The poster didn't mention a single claim any of the "new atheists" made, he just attempted to besmirch them as people. Seems like textbook ad hom to me, no?

If L.I. was aiming to refute their arguments it would be ad hom, but he was talking about why he believes they deserve to be respected. There was reasoning behind this.

For example:

Dawkins has made a laughingstock of himself with his stupidity on social media making him look like someone's bigoted grandpa while he retweets neo-Nazis,

An insult isn't necessarily ad hom, it is only when you attack someones character in place of responding to their arguments.

"Dawkins is an idiot on social media so why should we trust him on evolution?"

 

[icehorse]

If L.I. was aiming to refute their arguments it would be ad hom, but he was talking about why he believes they deserve to be respected. There was reasoning behind this.

For example:

Dawkins has made a laughingstock of himself with his stupidity on social media making him look like someone's bigoted grandpa while he retweets neo-Nazis,

An insult isn't necessarily ad hom, it is only when you attack someones character in place of responding to their arguments.

"Dawkins is an idiot on social media so why should we trust him on evolution?"

What's respect got to do with it? Their ideas stand or fall on their own merit.

 

[Augustus]

What's respect got to do with it? Their ideas stand or fall on their own merit.

It wasn't about their ideas, but their prominence/status:

"I thought the "New Atheist" thing died out. It was really "a thing" a decade ago. I mostly see it criticized among atheists,"

So he was talking about how they are viewed, which means it wasn't ad hom. Whether or not you agree with his points is a different question, and it wasn't my argument

 

[Augustus]

Every camp has its share of non-thinkers, I don't think that furthers the conversation, do you?

Perhaps, unless the conversation is "why arrogant New Atheists annoy me"

 

[icehorse]

Perhaps, unless the conversation is "why arrogant New Atheists annoy me"

Which is clearly a rhetorical device. Cleaner would have been "why arrogance annoys me".

 

[tayla]

influenced by the New Atheist movement. The arrogance of many of them is laughable.

I prefer to believe they actually believe their views are true. Everyone is entitled to their views (unless they harm people). We each learn our views from someone. Over time we change our views. For example, these days, I prefer PhD's as my source of trustworthy information. (Of course they all disagree with each other.)

 

[Phantasman]

That's fine and all, but what do theists mean when they say "atheists don't know enough about religion"? I would suspect that most atheists know much more about Christianity than most Christians know about Hinduism, yet I suspect that most Christians think they know enough to not believe in Vishnu.

And there is the details. Christianity and Hinduism. Or Islam. Or Buddhism. Started by a man. Where men who are followers take it and run with it, presents a question. Do they follow men (or the man) or the spirit that identifies itself to the individual?

Do we follow a monarchy with a man who leads (Pope?) because he says he has authority of spirit, or do we seek the same spirit who gives authority of knowledge?

A man you follow can become blind (to the spirit). So do you continue to follow a man who became blind, or the spirit who is the authority?

Christians now identify themselves as Bible followers. Yet the Bible was conceived by the Roman Church in the 4th century, by men.

Marcion used 10 books. The Johannines wrote one book.(John). So who knows Christianity?

Christ said seek the truth and it would be revealed. A promise. But he also said that the Spirit would reveal it to you. Do we see a man (or men) with that knowledge?

The Spirit is the spirit. Knowledge of the spirit comes from spirit, not men. In Christianity a Christ (son of spirit) knows more than Moses. So why follow Moses?

The Gospel of Philip says:
Names given to the worldly are very deceptive, for they divert our thoughts from what is correct to what is incorrect. Thus one who hears the word "God" does not perceive what is correct, but perceives what is incorrect. So also with "the Father" and "the Son" and "the Holy Spirit" and "life" and "light" and "resurrection" and "the Church (Ekklesia)" and all the rest - people do not perceive what is correct but they perceive what is incorrect, unless they have come to know what is correct. The names which are heard are in the world [...] deceive. If they were in the Aeon (eternal realm), they would at no time be used as names in the world. Nor were they set among worldly things. They have an end in the Aeon.

Just because I see Aeon as realm divisions, or I see God as Father rather than Vishnu, means nothing. They are words used to cause physical division by a god of the physical. In spirit they may be found to be the same.

John:
38 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.
39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
40 For he that is not against us is on our part.

As John eluded to, "in thy name". Was the name "Jesus"? Or was it "spirit".

Jesus said he glorified the name of the Father in the end. So what is this name? There IS no physical name as Philip says. So names are misleading.

Gospel of Philip:
But truth brought names into existence in the world for our sakes, because it is not possible to learn it (truth) without these names. Truth is one single thing; it is many things and for our sakes to teach about this one thing in love through many things. The rulers (archons) wanted to deceive man, since they saw that he had a kinship with those that are truly good. They took the name of those that are good and gave it to those that are not good, so that through the names they might deceive him and bind them to those that are not good. And afterward, what a favor they do for them! They make them be removed from those that are not good and place them among those that are good. These things they knew, for they wanted to take the free man and make him a slave to them forever.

If you discover love from Vishnu, and I from the Father, we are together, not in names, but understanding above the names of this Aeon (realm). It is the product (unconditional love) of what we have achieved, not the name of who we hear.

I hope this let's you see what I see.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

@Mostly Harmless too, I didn't say anything funny in that post (unless you think pointing out problematic bigotry is something to laugh at?). You might want to look at this thread: Abuse of the "Funny" Rating

Do it again and I'll report you. I have more than enough genuine "likes" that I don't need trolls artificially inflating the number. Oh, and I still have you on ignore and that's not changing. You can still see the ratings people give even if they're on ignore, though.

 

[Mock Turtle]

@Mostly Harmless too, I didn't say anything funny in that post (unless you think pointing out problematic bigotry is something to laugh at?). You might want to look at this thread: Abuse of the "Funny" Rating

Do it again and I'll report you. I have more than enough genuine "likes" that I don't need trolls artificially inflating the number.

OK Pathetic comments of yours though.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Only because many of the religious tend to imbue things with such seriousness. Protection mechanism much?

I suppose it is easy to play that off, unless something seems serious to one...

Why do you suppose religions might imbue things with seriousness? Because some of the subjects they set out to treat are very serious.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I suppose it is easy to play that off, unless something seems serious to one...

Why do you suppose religions might imbue things with seriousness? Because some of the subjects they set out to treat are very serious.

I was referring to such things as blasphemy or apostasy etc., where in some countries the penalties are rather severe.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It wouldn't be too uncommon to far a New Atheist to express views like: "OMG you believe something which isn't true. You need to believe in delusional fairy tales because you can't face the truth. Do you even science bro?"

Many also repeat inane, specious memes like:

Dude - they're T-shirts. Do you also shout at bumper stickers for lack of nuance?

 

[Revoltingest]

It wouldn't be too uncommon to far a New Atheist to express views like: "OMG you believe something which isn't true. You need to believe in delusional fairy tales because you can't face the truth. Do you even science bro?"

Many also repeat inane, specious memes like:

I'm sure my religious friends will like this.....

Religion isn't necessary for good people to perpetrate evil.
An example is well intentioned atheists pursuing authoritarian communism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Out of curiosity: is this the sort of opinion that people are dismissing as an "arrogant" product of uneducated new atheism?

Religion is based primarily upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly as the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Out of curiosity: is this the sort of opinion that people are dismissing as an "arrogant" product of uneducated new atheism?

"Religion is based primarily upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly as the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things."

No, that's not arrogant. It's a legitimate position.

Arrogance is more like Christian exceptionalism - the idea that a Christian billboard is acceptable, but an atheistic one right beside it is an affront, or that a Christian should give the invocation at a government meeting, but if a humanist offers to do the same, he's told to leave.

Arrogance is making the national motto "In God We Trust."

Calling atheists arrogant is just a way of demeaning people fighting back against institutionalized bigotry. Atheists are also often called militant simply for speaking against religion. It's a common tactic. Blacks asserting themselves were called uppity, and women bossy.

Atheists have legitimate complaint against a centuries long program of the religious demeaning and marginalizing them if not torturing and killing them. They were depicted as too immoral to teach, coach, adopt, or serve on juries, and they remain essentially unelectable.

At last, they have a platform and a voice, and are acquiring a degree of legitimacy they've never before enjoyed, and they're letting the religious establishment know that they intend to fight back, which outrages it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, that's not arrogant. It's a legitimate position.

It's also not uneducated... or particularly "new."

It was a quote from the philosopher and Nobel laureate Bertrand Russell. The point I was going to make - once I got a few responses - was to point out that Russell's tone and conclusions both fit just fine with that of the "New Atheists." The same could be said of Robert Green Ingersoll (an agnostic, I know, but still an ardent critic of religion), T.H. Huxley, and many others.

I see a strong tendency for people to write off any criticism of religion as arrogant, uninformed, and somehow breaking with tradition. The reality is that criticism of religion is as old as religion is, and opponents of religion by and large put as much thought into their positions - if not moreso - than religious people do.

I think that the defenders of religion in this thread are playing a hypocritical game: they're complaining that "run-of-the-mill" atheists are only responding to the "run-of-the-mill" theists and not to the "great thinkers" of theology. Well, they ought to take a dose of their own medicine and examine the rich history of criticism of theism, which has more than its share of great thinkers, too.

 

[LuisDantas]

I can only assume that this is a trick of perception, just as "new atheism" itself.

Far as I can tell, there is really no such problem to address.

 

[Augustus]

Religion isn't necessary for good people to perpetrate evil.
An example is well intentioned atheists pursuing authoritarian communism.

Not just that either, many ideologies, love, fear, 'following orders', etc can have such an effect.

Many awful crimes are perpetrated by people who believe they are doing the right thing, which is why I find the quote so inane.

Religion is just one of wide range of things, and replacements for religious beliefs may be even worse as your example demonstrates.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Out of curiosity: is this the sort of opinion that people are dismissing as an "arrogant" product of uneducated new atheism?

Not arrogant, mostly ignorant and just wrong.