My Problem with the New Atheist Movement and why it could be better

[AProgressiveThinker]

Everyone, watch my new video on New Atheism, strong anti-theism and Jaclyn Glenn! ~APT

[zeemike]

1. Your points were well made.

And you are right about the political angle of the "new atheism" if that is what they call it now.
And I think it is deliberately confrontational to piss off people, and If I am right you will see a lot more of this as we approach the next election...they will call themselves Democrats and do stunts to piss off as many Christians as they can...and confirm the right wing meme that the democrats hate Christians.

Oh and BTW, welcome to DU....I like to see young people post here.

[AtheistCrusader]

3. I don't hate christians.

But I do hate the core tenets of Christianity, from the very base proposition of scapegoating, on up to core dogma that exists in the old testament, upon which even the new testament relies.

[zeemike]

5. Well that is evident from your name.

But people always say that....I don't hate but...
But it is understandable because hate is not a pretty word and no one wants to be it.
But what have you got against the scapegoat?...he is the one that got to live.

[AtheistCrusader]

6. He did? Where is he?

Scapegoating is morally repugnant. It unfairly injures the 'goat' and makes the people unloading their 'sins' no better.

I have never understood why people would willingly accept a deal on such a proposition.

"Rebellion? I'm sorry you call it that," said Ivan earnestly. "One can hardly live in rebellion, and I want to live. Tell me yourself, I challenge you -- answer. Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature -- that little child beating its breast with its fist, for instance -- and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to bet the architect on those conditions? Tell me, and tell the truth."

If I could be cajoled into believing, I still would not accept the proposition. I would, as Dostoyevsky's Ivan character, 'seek to return the price of the ticket'. (Given Dostoyevsky was a Christian, that book was an ever-still more amazing body of work, of honest introspection.)

[zeemike]

7. Out in the wilderness I guess.

I was referring to the biblical scapegoat...he was one of two goats given to the priest of the temple...one was sacrificed and the scapegoat was sent out into the wilderness free from men.
Perhaps he died out there but he died a free goat.
We borrowed that word to mean something else altogather.diferent...as we often do.

But I would never cajole you or anyone into believeing...what you believe is where you are in your journey in life...and those that don't believe are at least half way there.

[AtheistCrusader]

9. Agree WRT to the wilderness.

If the biblical character of Jesus suddenly showed up and started preaching like he did in the bible, the conservatives would crucify him again.

But yes, I was using the very modern context of the word, not the story in Leviticus.


I don't understand the meaning of that last sentence, and I would like to. Can you elaborate?

[zeemike]

11. Hell yes they would kill him.

What he said was a threat to them just as it was to the Pharisees.

In my POV life is a journy...and it mirrors our own growth from child to adolescent to teenager to adult...children will believe what they are told without question...as they grow and learn they start to question...and as adults we start to understand, and once we understand we become enlightened.
And no one gets to enlivenment but that they go through questioning.

[longship]

2. Sorry. Cannot go down that path with you.

I will kick and DURec your thread, though, because I support your right to get your opinion out there, even if I disagree.

If gods do not exist, those who believe they do are, by definition, deluded. What else would you call it? Calling a belief in gods as delusional may be true if there are no gods.

The bad that the atheists cite about theism is almost always in context with theism overstepping their bounds, when they tread into secular matters like science, government, law making, etc. If history has proven one thing above all it is that when religion intrudes into these areas it is a toxic mix.

You call yourself a secularist and you post on a partisan Democratic forum? You should be smart enough to see what religion is doing to the Republican Party in this country and what they do when they have the reins of power. This is what happens when religion grabs a hold of power. Almost always!

None of the atheists I know, and even none of the big name atheists whose books I have read, believe that religion will ever go away, or that atheists could wipe out theism. The way I express my opinion is to recommend Daniel Dennett's book Breaking the Spell: Religion as a NaturalPhenomenon. If you read that you will be well grounded in what the New Atheists are really saying, instead of what people say they are saying.

You seem young. That's good! Myself, I am an old fart. I'd like to encourage you to repost this thread in the Religion forum. I am sure it will bring a lively discussion from all sides.

[bjobotts]

14. Indoctrination to religion before a child develops critical thinking skills is child molesting fear

It's not the religion it is those who insist and indoctrinate people to it to the point of it becomes socially unacceptable not to have one and involve it in all that is done.
"When the last King is strangled with the entrails of the last priest there will be peace and freedom&quot may have messed that quote up but you get the point)

Religion: being told by others what you are, where you come from and where you will go and what you must do to get there by people who have never been and are only telling you what they were told by someone else.

Why should God "do" anything or "need" anything...He's God. He's complete and did not forget to do anything. 2 fish swimming in the ocean when another fish swims up and says "Ok...where's all this water you guys keep telling me about...how it both contains and sustains us huh...huh...I don't see anything...where is it. See, it doesn't exist does it? It certainly doesn't do anything does it. Idiots"-Jbacon@2013

[caledesi]

16. Good post! Interesting. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

4. You just called them "Extremely religious ignorant people"... Good job.

You just did what you were railing against.

Ten points to Gryffindor!

[Eko]

8. I would say

that the biggest threat to science would be religion, and when it comes to the science of global warming then religion is a main part of why we don't take global warming seriously. That is a threat to the human existence. If all that is true then how can a rational person not be against religion in general or even militaristic towards religion?.

[cprise]

10. I had a similar set of objections when I was your age

You think 'new atheists' and/or 'strong atheists' have what amounts to an attitude problem.

That may be true to a certain extent, but its the ideological positions that are at the heart of movements such as this. If the movement keeps the bad attitudes of certain individuals from affecting their cannon of ideas, then the problem pretty much remains one of individual attitudes. i.e. there are bad apples in the bunch who go too far, call people names, etc. No group or category of humans will ever be immune to this, and taking a correct position about ideologies like religion does not automatically make someone a good/responsible person (the bad apples need to be reminded of this).

OTOH, making fun of religion itself is just part and parcel of being a non-believer (though I think most atheists prefer to watch a comedian do so than attempt it themselves).

--

My beef with the new breed of atheists is that some of them are trying to recast it as some kind of positive world view. But atheism is only an answer to a single question; It is just a single point and doesn't say much about any person who ascribes to it. These new atheists use the "atheist" label for themselves, expecting us to read a set of values into that identity.

Without realizing it, they are essentially trying to channel secular humanism by assuming that atheism fills the need for a positive world view and assigning some of humanism's strengths to atheism. That is idiotic philistinism, like hanging Christmas tree ornaments on a flagpole. It doesn't work well, IMO.

These people should buck up, read some philosophy and history, and just call themselves humanists.

But that is unlikely to happen any time soon. Here's why... In America, the atheist movement has a constant influx of unprincipled non-believers. These people walked away from religion because they don't want to deal with rules and expectations in their social lives, and religion is full of social rules. They also don't want the work of using religion as sham to hide a selfish life. These people will never accept secular humanism, even if the set of rules that are usually ascribed to it are much smaller and more rational.

Most of them lean toward hedonism and/or Ayn Rand-inspired materialism. Some want to be religion-free "until they settle down".

These default atheists form the comfortably secular background of the new atheist's social scene. So switching to a label like 'humanist' to convey a set of explicit values is like announcing you're using cod liver oil to bathe from now on. Maybe not that bad, but the reactions of the default atheists won't be positive.

This is where the 'new atheist' social dynamic fails the most, IMO. They're afraid to identify with or promote a definite philosophy of life (much less preach to the choir about it), so they hang on to that 'atheist' label while implying there are positive values attached to it. This leaves them with not much to say apart from their usual criticisms of religion.

As a humanist myself, I don't think that 'atheist' is a good banner under which to identify with a community of like-minded people.

[bjobotts]

15. These gods are dangerous and must battle them where you find them

I didn't need religion to be a moral person but had to battle it over tolerance and acceptance and freedom. I believe atheists just don't believe in the gods being sold them. Most lead to ignorance and prejudice in a unified form of self justification and condescending elitism with a church on every corner screaming we want your children. That is your community of like minded people...maybe tolerant and helpful or intolerant, judgmental and condemning because they are delusional believing in supernatural myths and bronze age morality. It's still a fantasy no matter how many like minded people get to together to celebrate it ( and get sued twice and losing like Republic, MO. for pushing it off on non believers)

[Festivito]

12. Good thinking, however, beware, some of these promoters can be paid operatives.

They are not really attempting to promote atheism as much as they are trying to demote the Christian voting block away from the Democratic party. They can get pay by being a part of one of the dozens of small think tanks or other payment schemes.

Not that Jaclyn is a part of that. I think she is just mad about having encountered too many self-proclaimed Christians overly concerned with something, perhaps masturbation. It can make people mad. Mad in the sense that they lose their senses.

Please do not follow based on what you perceive others are doing as no one, not yourself, not myself, will ever judge another perfectly. Instead, please, read what is etched into the flesh of your own heart. And, get a new microphone.

Although, I really do like the idea that I heard you say of yourself, that you are: AggressiveThinker.

Much luck, life and love to you.

[bjobotts]

13. After all, if you were God couldn't you come up with a better plan than this

Never heard of a God I could believe in but I only use 10% of my brain...maybe if I used 100% I wouldn't be so "God-tarded" . I might discover that all that is is God cause I wouldn't need a God to do anything that wasn't already done...if I could use 100% of my brain that is...maybe in 90 more centuries huh.-Jbacon@2013.