9-11 and the Rise of New Atheism

[cbayer]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/staks-rosch/911-and-the-rise-of-new-a_b_5801652.html

Staks Rosch
Blogger, atheist, and Humanist

Posted: 09/11/2014 9:27 am EDT Updated: 09/11/2014 9:59 am EDT

Before September 11, 2001, many atheists had a very "live and let live" attitude toward religion. Many atheists obviously believed that religious beliefs were silly, but that they weren't hurting anyone. How dangerous could they be? But on 9/11, the world saw just how dangerous dogmatic faith-based ideas could be and as a result, many atheists realized that faith is not something that can be reasoned with.

Sadly it has taken this terrible act of terrorism to kick start the resurgence of atheism in our modern society and to motivate atheists to organize. No longer could people of reason sit on the sidelines and allow the ridiculous ideas of religion to corrupt our society without criticism. Atheists could no longer allow bad ideas and beliefs to get a pass in polite society without pointing out the obvious.

Many atheists woke up from their apathetic slumber on 9/11, only to see that our secular nation had become transformed with religious fundamentalism and America's own brand of religious extremism without us even noticing. Nearly half the country rejects the science of evolution in favor of Creationism. Stem cell medical research that promises to save countless lives has become controversial, and even though nearly all climate scientists agree that the Earth is experiencing massive climate change as a result of human action, the religious beliefs of fundamentalists has opened this up for debate within the media.

In 2004, Sam Harris' "The End of Faith" was published. In 2006, Richard Dawkins' book, "The God Delusion" and Daniel Dennett's book, "Breaking the Spell" were published. And in 2007, Christopher Hitchens weighed in with his book, "God Is Not Great." As a direct result of the 9/11 attacks, the so called "New Atheism" movement was born and atheists began to be more vocal about our lack of belief in mythical deities.

more at link

[JNelson6563]

1. Correct, atheists are no longer silent, to the great dismay of some.

It saddens me to see how some let this hatred of atheists beome a powerful obsession. It seems even the "joy" of a personal relationship with their god of choice is but a grain of sand on a beach of hatred. I find it all rather telling, don't you?

Julie

[cbayer]

2. Atheists have historically be maligned. If anything, I think there is a growing

understanding and acceptance, not an increase in hatred.

Those that foment hate against atheists often, if not always, foment the same hate against other believers that don't share their belief.

I don't see the "joy" part and am not sure what you are referring to.

I think there is some validity in this author's connection between the events of 9/11 and the rise of organized atheism. Anything that helps people organize to push back against religious extremism is good in my book.

But I think he completely misses the mark when he addresses liberal and progressive people of faith. These are the people that atheist/humanist groups need to coordinate their efforts with. Wishing for those believers to abandon their faith is a foolhardy path, imo.

[Promethean]

3. Reason many of us are against all religion

is that quite simply the crazies and the liberals are all reading from the same book. Both call it "the good book" and would say it is the word of almighty god or a moral guide. Even if literally everybody in the world decided tomorrow to start following a liberal version of christianity that rejects all the nastiness in the bible. With the prevailing attitude that the book is good and right eventually someone will read it over and decide to take some of the nastiness seriously. They would start preaching it and develop followers and thus repeat the problems all over again. There are no amount of redeeming factors about the bible that are worth the negative and plainly evil aspects. Those evil aspects will cause people to believe evil and destructive things over and over until we just reject the book entirely as a society.

[cbayer]

4. Being against all religion is not only a very arrogant but foolhardy.

Religion isn't going anywhere and having no religion is not necessarily a better position than having a religion.

Being able to distinguish between the "crazies" and the liberals really isn't that hard, but it does take more effort than lumping them all into the same pile.

The "book" is one item associated with certain religions. Once again, being able to see the good and discarding the bad isn't that difficult, but it does take more effort that simply rejecting the whole set of books.

There are many books of non-religious nature that are also problematic. You don't see enough redeeming value in the bible to embrace it. That's cool. You don't have to.

But do you really think we ought to let individuals decide what books are worth keeping around and which should be banned? Because that's what it sounds like to me.

Any country that would "reject a book entirely" because some people don't like it is not a place I want to live.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. An expert on arrogance and foolhardiness has spoken.

Normally a response that starts out calling a person arrogant and foolhardy should be ignored. However in this case a superior intellect and an authority on both foolhardiness and arrogance has dismissed your opinions.

The dismissal includes noting that both good and bad things can be found in the contradictory, absurd,deliberately obscure, patently false, often horrific, frequently mistranslated, and mostly irrelevant ancient texts. Pretty much the point being made and dismissed, but then goes on to note that the "good" can somehow readily determined. Oddly it seems that determining this good is done using agencies outside of the idiotic books themselves, so one has to ask what use are they, and clearly as the op demonstrates, the religious are in broad disagreement about what "the good" is, negating the assertion of it's being readily determined.

[trotsky]

6. Could you please explain which of the groups - "crazies" and liberals -

have interpreted the bible correctly? Please show your work.

[rug]

7. Ideologies that are reactive to particular circumstances are usually bound to those circumstances.

It is not a good starting point to make broader assertions.