Thoughts On The New Atheism

[Hamilton Porter]

The atheism of Bertrand Russell, Nietzsche, etc. was confined to intellectual circles. The New Atheism is attempting to push it on the masses, mostly to college graduates. The most scathing critiques of New Atheist books have come from atheists themselves, who believe their arguments are naiive, overly simplistic, straw men, and throw atheists into disrepute. But that's the point, right? You want commoners to embrace atheism, so you use buzzwords, ride the wave of current events like 9-11 and the Catholic priest scandal. A lot of boneheads are parroting their simplistic arguments on the internet, so the strategy is working.

 

[AddamS]

'The most scathing critiques of Christianity have come from Christians themselves, who believe their arguments are naiive, overly simplistic, straw men, and throw Christians into disrepute. But that's the point, right? You want commoners to embrace Christianity, so you use buzzwords, ride the wave of current events like 9-11 and the Catholic priest scandal. A lot of boneheads are parroting their simplistic arguments on the internet, so the strategy is working.'

 

Unofrtunately, the masses are generally too stupid to investigate anything beyond buzzwords and bumper-stickers.

 

This applies to all lifestyles. Deist or otherwise.

[Hamilton Porter]

'The most scathing critiques of Christianity have come from Christians themselves, who believe their arguments are naiive, overly simplistic, straw men, and throw Christians into disrepute. But that's the point, right? You want commoners to embrace Christianity, so you use buzzwords, ride the wave of current events like 9-11 and the Catholic priest scandal. A lot of boneheads are parroting their simplistic arguments on the internet, so the strategy is working.'

 

Unofrtunately, the masses are generally too stupid to investigate anything beyond buzzwords and bumper-stickers.

 

This applies to all lifestyles. Deist or otherwise.

 

Your argument would work if you could point out to some Christian analogue of the New Atheism.

[The Nehor]

Your argument would work if you could point out to some Christian analogue of the New Atheism.

Televangelists.

[AddamS]

Televangelists.

There you go....

I'd say "New-age Christians", "Non-denominational Christians", etc...

 

[Hamilton Porter]

Televangelists.

So followers of the new atheism are analogous to the ones who fill the coffers of televangelists. Gotcha.

[The Nehor]

So followers of the new atheism are analogous to the ones who fill the coffers of televangelists. Gotcha.

Yeah, if they buy books by Dawkins.

Edited December 5, 2013 by The Nehor

[Ahab]

There you go....

I'd say "New-age Christians", "Non-denominational Christians", etc...

 

I'd say it like this:

 

'The most scathing critiques of [some sects in Christianity] have come from Christians in other sects, who believe the arguments of some sects in Christianity are naiive, overly simplistic, straw men, and throw other Christians generally into disrepute. But that's the point, right? You want commoners to embrace your sect in Christianity, so you use buzzwords, ride the wave of current events like 9-11 and the Catholic priest scandal. A lot of boneheads are parroting their simplistic arguments on the internet, so the strategy is working.'

 

Unofrtunately, the masses are generally too stupid to investigate anything beyond buzzwords and bumper-stickers.

 

Like those against Mormon Christians.

[AddamS]

So followers of the new atheism are analogous to the ones who fill the coffers of televangelists. Gotcha.

 

Sort of.

I'm saying that most people either lack the ability or attention to dig into anything besides football or reality TV. So instead of really understanding a heavily-nuanced subject they are content with simplistic views that fit their day to day needs.

Atheism, Religion, Politics, etc... Most people take an approach that makes them feel informed but is generally fairly surface-level.

[Hamilton Porter]

Sort of.

I'm saying that most people either lack the ability or attention to dig into anything besides football or reality TV. So instead of really understanding a heavily-nuanced subject they are content with simplistic views that fit their day to day needs.

Atheism, Religion, Politics, etc... Most people take an approach that makes them feel informed but is generally fairly surface-level.

 

Yeah, atheism in the past generally did not encompass these kinds of people but not the New Atheism does. That was my point.

[Hamilton Porter]

Yeah, if they buy books by Dawkins.

 

I borrowed Blind Watchmaker from the library. Though technically, that's not a New Atheist book cuz it was written before he lost it.

[halconero]

One of the interesting things regarding New Atheism is the denial that they form a religious group. Writhing the study of religion in academia they are very much regarded as a religion.

The idea that religion is simply the belief in "supernatural beings" and a cultural "survival" of an earlier age (as Tylor would put it) is highly Eurocentric, outdated, and based on a specific Judeo-Christian history and context.

I'll have to look it up in my text book, but most religious scholars posit that a religion is a set of institutions, teachings, and communities that seeks to define the nature of reality, social interactions within and outside the group, norms and mores, and goals.

New Atheism definitely fits in this mold. It has it's saints, texts, sacral language, and view on reality.

[Hamilton Porter]

One of the interesting things regarding New Atheism is the denial that they form a religious group. Writhing the study of religion in academia they are very much regarded as a religion.

The idea that religion is simply the belief in "supernatural beings" and a cultural "survival" of an earlier age (as Tylor would put it) is highly Eurocentric, outdated, and based on a specific Judeo-Christian history and context.

I'll have to look it up in my text book, but most religious scholars posit that a religion is a set of institutions, teachings, and communities that seeks to define the nature of reality, social interactions within and outside the group, norms and mores, and goals.

New Atheism definitely fits in this mold. It has it's saints, texts, sacral language, and view on reality.

 

Yeah, they are all white males.

[EllenMaksoud]

'The most scathing critiques of Christianity have come from Christians themselves, who believe their arguments are naiive, overly simplistic, straw men, and throw Christians into disrepute. But that's the point, right? You want commoners to embrace Christianity, so you use buzzwords, ride the wave of current events like 9-11 and the Catholic priest scandal. A lot of boneheads are parroting their simplistic arguments on the internet, so the strategy is working.'

 

Unofrtunately, the masses are generally too stupid to investigate anything beyond buzzwords and bumper-stickers.

 

This applies to all lifestyles. Deist or otherwise.

The biggest "Mistake" I made when I was a Christian in the years 1974-2003 was I studied the Bible and naively expected believers to do what it said. Sure, we don't do a lot of what the OT talked about. I would not wish to be sold by my father, nor put in a tent far from camp part of the month. In the NT however, Jesus the Christ talked about loving one another, being kind to each other, and loving Heavenly Father. Being really judgmental of others, largely due to my own frailties, it was easy to see much of Christianity as a bunch of slobs, and nasty ones too. It really began to get bad when I listened to John Hagee ( a TV evangelist) say that all Muslims were going to hell. Later, he came down with a scathing condemnation of gays, drunks, street folk.  Having been raised with a hateful, angry man, I realized that he and those like him were no better than my stepfather. The angry, yelling men on TV and sometimes the pulpit at home felt icky.

 

Then I sinned and they threw me out.

 

So, I knew that I loved God, but the rest of it just seemed phony and that is when I discovered Islam. Being guilty, and worthless, the coverings in a way hid my sin. (Some may see something really deep here, but its not) The praying on the floor, helped with the guilt and rejection also. If you can get the idea of the angry Jihadi out of your head, it will help.

 

When I met the Mormon Sisters, at first I thought they were crazy.  Of course, still seeking to know God, I listened. After 7 years as a Muslim, it was easy to see that Muslims have their own issues to deal with, but don't hold a candle to radical fundamentalist Christians.

 

So, you know the rest of the story. Those crazy Mormons kept at me until, I accepted their love and devotion. I have not seen angry, pulpit pounding, yelling Mormons. Maybe this is the restored church.

[AndyDnom]

What is the new atheist movement? i've never heard of it

[EllenMaksoud]

Yeah, if they buy books by Dawkins.

If you read Chapter 5 of "The God Delusion", it is pretty easy to figure Dawkins out. He has unresolved Father issues.

[theplains]

After 7 years as a Muslim, it was easy to see that Muslims have their own issues to deal with,

 

What do you mean?

 

Thanks,

Jim

[cinepro]

The atheism of Bertrand Russell, Nietzsche, etc. was confined to intellectual circles. The New Atheism is attempting to push it on the masses, mostly to college graduates. The most scathing critiques of New Atheist books have come from atheists themselves, who believe their arguments are naiive, overly simplistic, straw men, and throw atheists into disrepute. But that's the point, right? You want commoners to embrace atheism, so you use buzzwords, ride the wave of current events like 9-11 and the Catholic priest scandal. A lot of boneheads are parroting their simplistic arguments on the internet, so the strategy is working.

 

As a theist, I'm wary of criticizing atheism because I tend to accept atheism as simply the lack of belief in God.  And to me, I don't see the point in criticizing someone for not believing something when, frankly, the evidence is so subjective and the arguments so circular and weak.  

 

I choose to accept the subjective evidence as supportive of the existence of God, and find enough substance in the strongest of the arguments.  But I certainly don't blame someone else for not accepting it.  

 

Also, if an atheist feels he needs to use "overly simplistic, straw men" in trying to explain their disbelief, I suspect it's only because they don't realize they don't have to.  So I'm thankful for it, just as I'm thankful for the anti-mormons who resort to lies and deception.  Because once they realize they don't have to, that's when the real trouble starts.

[EllenMaksoud]

What do you mean?

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

What do you mean?

 

Thanks,

Jim

Well, IMHO they have the curse of Hagar working against them. Then of course there is a huge obstacle in Western understanding of Middle Eastern culture. It is hugely difficult to translate classical Arabic to English.  What I gathered from Qur'anic instruction from a Muslim point of view is that Muhammad PBUH made no small effort to understand, to know God, who they would call Allah SWT. According to Muslims, Muhamman PBUH was a moderate man who came into contact with many Jewish traders, and Christian traders. He talked extensively with them, seeking God, and a better way for his people who were were constantly fighting tribal wars. He was driven, and I know that there are men today that are still driven.

 

So, I think that like Christianity going Apostate after the crucifiction of Jesus Christ, Islam perhaps did the same thing shortly after Rasoolallah died. So then came the matter of succession. Just like the Mormons, there was an issue after Joseph Smith died. We all know the story of how one side thought there should be blood succession and the other thought not. The same thing happened in Islam and today we have the Sunni and the Shia. You can look up the interesting story easily. Through the ages the Sunni/ Shia conflict has gotten bloody at times and some of my Muslim friends think that is what is driving the Syrian war.

 

So, from my point of view, the continuation of Muslims killing Muslims shows me that Islam is not the best religion but a fallen relic of what Allah SWT wanted Muhammad PBUH to create.

 

Another issue with Muslim culture is that Western women who do not speak Arabic have it hard. Eventually, they froze me out. 2/3 of Western women who convert to Islam later reconvert to Christianity or are so discouraged that they no longer are involved in religion.

 

It would be interesting to get the perspective of someone who knows Muslim culture from an academic point of view.

Edited December 8, 2013 by EllenMaksoud

[theplains]

What I gathered from Qur'anic instruction from a Muslim point of view is that Muhammad PBUH made no small effort to understand, to know God, who they would call Allah SWT.

 

According to the Quran, he taught against the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.

Did Muhammad really fail to know God or was he just deceived by Satan all his life or

both?

 

Thanks,

Jim

[EllenMaksoud]

According to the Quran, he taught against the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.

Did Muhammad really fail to know God or was he just deceived by Satan all his life or

both?

 

Thanks,

Jim

The story is actually in the book of Barnabas. It is not canonical but since I have no respect for those who did the canonization ... So, one of the questions I will ask Jesus the Christ when I meet him is which story is true.  The way the Shia  (In my opinion the scholars of Islam) tell the story is that on the day of the Crucifixion Allah SWT (God) deceived the mob into thinking that Judas was Jesus and crucified him. Jesus was taken up by Allah SWT. Since I do not feel the Shia story or the Western story will stand up in a court of law, I am comfortable letting Heavenly Father handle it.

 

None of the above is important to me, because Jesus Christ gave us our direction until he returns. It is to love God and love one another.

[AndyDnom]

the catholic priest scandal is not a buzzword. its a terrible thing that was enabled to happen through and because of the structure of organized religion, and the power that we give to religious authorities.

[Brian 2.0]

I'll have to look it up in my text book, but most religious scholars posit that a religion is a set of institutions, teachings, and communities that seeks to define the nature of reality, social interactions within and outside the group, norms and mores, and goals.

So is science and anthropology a religion by this definition?

[changed]

So is science and anthropology a religion by this definition?

Let's not confuse being a scientist with being an atheist - they are two different things, being an atheist does not mean you are a scientist, and being a scientst does not mean you are an atheist. 

[Brian 2.0]

Let's not confuse being a scientist with being an atheist - they are two different things, being an atheist does not mean you are a scientist, and being a scientst does not mean you are an atheist.

Totally agree. I'm not trying to place them together, them I'm pointing out that halconero's definition of religion makes anthropology a religion, so it not a very good definition to use to define atheism as a religion.