New Atheism(tm) is not a person. It is an idea.

In recent posts, someone (we'll call him Tal Bachman) has targeted 3/4 of the "horsemen" and tried to find anything that will stick. (I'm sure his guilt-by-association-hit-piece on Dennett is due any day now.) I think his goal is to win at all costs, because he keeps trying different modes of attack in hopes that one will work. A month ago, he tried to suggest that the "Selfish Gene" is a book on ethics (it's not).

Attacking individuals isn't going to convince me, because as I said at the beginning, New Atheism(tm) isn't a person. It is a movement, and it began with the publishing of "The End of Faith" which is a reaction to 9/11. After the book was published, New Atheism(tm) continued to grow in response to Dominionist movements in the US.

In "The End of Faith", the basic charge is that "being respectful" doesn't work as a response to religious radicals. It also suggests that religious moderates can sometimes turn a blind eye to their more extreme cousins. The problem of this empowering relationship between religious moderates and religious extremists is the heart of the matter. I think this is why the New Atheism is still needed.

Digging through Dawkins twitter feed to find dirt isn't going to make these issues go away.



Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 09/27/2014 09:40AM by archytas.

new Atheism ?

Another derogatory term coined by nitwit christers.

Oh honey, let me google that for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_atheism

Where's the "defence"?

The initial premises that spawned the movement are still valid and relevant today, and they transcend the tweets of a single person.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/26/2014 11:37PM by archytas.

archytas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The initial premises that spawned the movement are
> still valid and relevant today, and they transcend
> the tweets of a single person.


That's not a "defence", archytas.

From the title I thought you were going to provide the *reasons* why New Atheism is the antidote to "the initial premises that spawned the movement."

Conditions spawn movements, yes, but not all movements are adequate to changing the conditions. The fact that you concede that the "initial premises" are "still valid and relevant today" is not an argument *for* New Atheism, but it may very well be an argument *against* it.

I'm just trying to bring the ideas back to the foreground since a certain someone (who we'll refer to as Tal Bachman) is trying to critique the movement by critiquing people within the movement.

The ideas matter more, and unless those ideas are shown to be incorrect by you or someone else, I don't really see what your complaint is.

My complaint is that you didn't provide any defence for those ideas, which is what your title promises.


Could you help me with one of those ideas? It seems some RfM atheists insist that atheism is only a lack of belief, period. Is the qualifier "New" a way of distinguishing between atheism as a lack of belief and Atheism as a movement, a movement with "ideas" and "people"? Is that the difference?

If that *is* the difference, then how is it not a *political* movement? And if so, why is it not as such banned from this site?

Any clarification would be helpful. Thank you.

I believe that the following 2 ideas are correct: "being respectful" is not an adequate response to religious extremism, and religious moderates empower religious extremists.

The New Atheism(tm) embraces these two points in a way that the "play nice atheists" do not.

If the 2 ideas that I mentioned are correct, then that is a sufficient justification for the New Atheist(tm) movement. Someone needs to critique fundamentalism, and if the moderates aren't doing a good enough job, then it is up to the non-religious.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/27/2014 01:00AM by archytas.

Archyas, 7 edits later and still no defence, unless you believe a statement of believe is a defence.

Look, the the ideas of New Atheism need to be defended, for one they obviously haven't worked yet, especially with dealing with the "initial premise" that you claim spawned the movement.

And here's the problem: religion is NOT the motivation for the "initial premise". This had been well studied. I'd provide sources but that would be against board rules (and I get deleted enough as it is). Harris wildly began on the wrong foot. Mocking religion will not correct your "initial premise" because religion has nothing to do with the "initial premise". The "initial premise" is political.


What is needed, based on your own assertions about what New Atheism is, is a defence for why it should be allowed on this board. The "initial premise" was a *political* act. And the larger problems in the Middle East are *political* problems. This is clear to everyone in the world except for segments of the heavily propagandized to Brits and N. Americans. If New Atheism is a political movement in response to a political problem then I don't know how it doesn't violate board rules.

But I don't make or enforce those rules, and I'm just grateful to admin. For this space for conversation.

You haven't shown the basis of the movement to be incorrect or flawed.

Trying to say it's all just political isn't going to work on me. This isn't much better than Bachman's attempt to find embarrassing Tweets.

Once again, I'll restate the case. "Being respectful" is not an adequate response to religious extremism, and religious moderates empower religious extremists.

What are the flaws in the 2 ideas I've just mentioned?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/27/2014 09:53AM by archytas.

archytas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You haven't shown the basis of the movement to be
> incorrect or flawed (see the 2 main ideas I
> mentioned before).
>
> What are the flaws in the 2 ideas I've just
> mentioned?


C'mon buddy. It's not for me to disprove your claims, it's for you to *defend* them, as your title promises. Obviously what you claim hasn't worked yet.

And at least take a stab at answering the question I posed. Why are your politics allowed on this "no politics allowed" board.

If you can find no flaw, then that is my defense.

I think we're done here.

Or maybe Tal finds the new atheist movement too radical and intolerant for his taste. I do. I have no problem with atheists who are willing to live and let live,but I have a problem with the new atheist movement. So do my atheist friends.You can be an atheist and not like Dawkins,Harris, and Hitchens

Here is an example:
What is the proper response to a religious group (we'll call them Catholics) that spreads the idea that condoms cause AIDS?

Vocal criticism seems warranted here.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/27/2014 12:39AM by archytas.

Sure,criticize that,but don't mock religion in general,stereotype religion and religious people and blame religion for most of the evil in the world while ignoring the good in it.

Some ideas should be mocked (like the idea that condoms cause AIDS).

I'm sure you've mocked at least one absurd idea in your lifetime.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/27/2014 12:32AM by archytas.

Mock the idea,not all religion.

All religion is ridiculous. Why should religion be off limits when it comes to mocking? We mock everything else.

Exactly. That's the only new thing about "the new atheism." Willingness to call them out publicly on their delusory BS.

Why not mock the ridiculous? I'm sick to death of religious people pretending their silly ideas are above criticism or ridicule.

. . . coming to, and participating on, a board like this that mocks the hell out of Mormonism?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/27/2014 04:40AM by steve benson.

Exactly.

Sectarians have a long tradition of mocking each other.

I can't wait for bona dea to speak out against this.

archytas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It also suggests that religious moderates can sometimes turn a blind eye to their more extreme cousins. The problem of this empowering relationship between religious moderates and religious extremists is the heart of the matter.

It's not so much turning a blind eye as realizing that there's little you can do about the extremists. Moderates try to keep their distance and on occasion will speak out against extreme points of view. Religious leaders could do a lot to help out in this matter, but they seldom do.

I'm a malpracticetheist. If there is a God, it ought to be sued.

Believing in Zeus or Jesus doesn't make it real.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/27/2014 03:15AM by steve benson.

After all, God declared:

"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." (Genesis 1:26)

You need to get in touch with the Savior, buddy, and let the Lord deal with all those evil atheists who are trying to save the planet from all those crazy believers.

:)



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/27/2014 03:34AM by steve benson.

I guess that settles it. lol.

At least, they're lying low right now.

I have a feeling that they'll be back in the spotlight soon enough.

I agree. I will gleefully acknowledge fucktardery no matter who is guilty of it, but I haven't seen anyone here able
to lay a glove on the basic premise of the new (or old) atheist's that there is no god.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/27/2014 09:58AM by ladell.

I'm just an atheist. I'm not part of a club.

Other people can believe whatever they like, or be a part of whatever clubs they want to be part of. It's no skin off my nose.

At an office party on Thursday night, a Jewish man came up to me to wish me a happy Jewish new year. He said it in Hebrew, so I wasn't sure what it was, but then he said, "Happy New Year." I said, "Oh, same to you."

He said, "You're Jewish right?"

I said, "No. I'm actually nothing. I wasn't raised with religion." He said, "Oh, I just thought because of your name ..."

I guess there are some prominent Jewish folks in town with my last name, but as far as I know, my family has never been Jewish.

But I was happy that I now no longer even think of myself as an ex-Mormon. I'm just a non-Mormon. I'm just a gal who was raised without religion and my religious past didn't even come up in the conversation, for the first time.

It felt good. So, I'm just an theist. That's all. The journey to how I got here doesn't really matter to me now. Although I'll still continue to pursue truth, wherever I can find it. I highly doubt that it would, but if evidence turns up to show that I could be wrong, then it does. So what? I'll go with the flow.