https://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-arel/new-atheism-is-it-dead-or_b_5908744.html

"So I opened by saying I am a new atheist for a lack of a better term, but I conclude in saying we do have a better term, and that term is simply atheist. I am an atheist, just as many of you, and just as in every other community of people in the world, we will agree and disagree, and not be any less of an atheist because of it." Dan Arel on Twitter: www.twitter.com/danarel

So what was the point of the New Atheist Movement in the first place? What was wrong with plain old vanilla atheism?

Oh yeah, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jung Un.....

New Atheism ?
Atheism has been around longer than theism.
There is no "movement" except in your head.

" Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jung Un....." is this supposed to be some kind of guilt by association bullshit of yours again ?
Tell us about those murderers murdering in the name of Atheism.

Maybe you need a history lesson on theist murderers who murdered in the name of religion.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/11/2018 04:58PM by Dave the Atheist.

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> New Atheism ?
> Atheism has been around longer than theism.
> There is no "movement" except in your head.
>
> " Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jung Un....." is this
> supposed to be some kind of guilt by association
> bullshit of yours again ?
> Tell us about those murderers murdering in the
> name of Atheism.
>
> Maybe you need a history lesson on theist
> murderers who murdered in the name of religion.

"Attaching a label to something carries real liabilities, especially if the thing you are naming isn’t really a thing at all. And atheism, I would argue, is not a thing. It is not a philosophy, just as “non-racism” is not one. Atheism is not a worldview—and yet most people imagine it to be one and attack it as such. We who do not believe in God are collaborating in this misunderstanding by consenting to be named and by even naming ourselves." Sam Harris, The Problem with Atheism

"So too with the “greatest crimes of the 20th century” argument. How many times are we going to have to counter the charge that Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot represent the endgame of atheism? I’ve got news for you, this meme is not going away. I argued against it in The End of Faith, and it was immediately thrown back at me in reviews of the book as though I had never mentioned it. So I tackled it again in the afterword to the paperback edition of The End of Faith; but this had no effect whatsoever; so at the risk of boring everyone, I brought it up again in Letter to a Christian Nation; and Richard did the same in The God Delusion; and Christopher took a mighty swing at it in God is Not Great. I can assure you that this bogus argument will be with us for as long as people label themselves “atheists.” And it really convinces religious people. It convinces moderates and liberals. It even convinces the occasional atheist." Sam Harris, The Problem with Atheism

"endgame of atheism" ?
There is no "endgame of atheism", unlike the endgame of theism which is dishonesty and lies and death. You appear to be a prime example.

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "endgame of atheism" ?
> There is no "endgame of atheism", unlike the
> endgame of theism which is dishonesty and lies and
> death. You appear to be a prime example.

Oh I'm dishonest and you're the one who won't even admit the "New Atheist Movement"ever existed? Down the memory hole?

No wonder Atheists are the least trusted people in America with people like you representing them. lol

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/in-atheists-we-distrust/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/11/2018 06:10PM by koriwhore.

“snif” I know athewism is twue “snif”

There is a movement called "New Atheism", Dave, I suggest you look it up. There are a lot of "New" whatevers out there which are a subset of a wider thing - NuMetal, Neoclassicism, New Wave Rock etc... New Atheism - so called - is a more aggressive form of proactive atheism, which arose in the late 20th century.

I did not know Dave represented athiests. I did not vote for him.

Odd Hitler was not mentioned . Hitter was not an athiest.These dictators were athiest not by lack of proof of dirty but they simply did not want the competition for being a diety themselves.People do not trust athiests. So what . About one third of Americans actually believe the Earth is about 6000 years old .I do not give too much importance into what Americans think about much of anything.

Jimbo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Odd Hitler was not mentioned . Hitter was not an
> athiest.

Exactly.
He was more of a nihilist, who co-opted Neitzsche's concept of the Ubermensch to justify genocide.

> These dictators were athiest not by lack
> of proof of dirty but they simply did not want the
> competition for being a diety themselves.People do
> not trust athiests. So what . About one third of
> Americans actually believe the Earth is about 6000
> years old .I do not give too much importance into
> what Americans think about much of anything.

I don't either, but why identify yourself in terms you reject?
The atheist/theist divide is a false dichotomy, since theism is bogus why identify yourself in terms that are opposed to something imaginary? It's like once you realize Santa Claus is not real, identifying as an Anit-Santa Clausist.

But you are a self professed believer in God.

Of a particular defintion, but that's true or all believers.

And to some degree were are bound by the conventions of our language or there is no way to communicate

dogblogger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But you are a self professed believer in God.
>
> Of a particular defintion, but that's true or all
> believers.
>
> And to some degree were are bound by the
> conventions of our language or there is no way to
> communicate

There are as many definitions of the word God as there are individuals. There are 300 million Gods in the Hindu Pantheon alone. I personally prefer Sagan's definition. "The embodiment of the immutable laws that govern the Cosmos." Tao for short. Logos works too. So does God.

And that makes you a theist

Koriwhore is a pantheist. However he is dishonest because he is more than happy to label someone else while rejecting a label himself.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> There are as many definitions of the word God as
> there are individuals.

That isn't exactly true. And even if we allow everyone to view god in different ways We are still stuck with the overriding idea of god being something rather limited.

God is 1. A supreme being, or ultimate reality. 2. A supernatural being worthy of our worship, or that requires our worship. 3. An immensely powerful entity.

I've just summed it up, try and do better than that.

> There are 300 million Gods
> in the Hindu Pantheon alone.

You've brought that up a number of times but I'm not sure it means anything. Whether there are 33, 33 million, 330 million or one god represented in 330 million ways it doesn't really matter. The number and varieties of deities doesn't change what a deity is.

> I personally prefer
> Sagan's definition. "The embodiment of the
> immutable laws that govern the Cosmos."

That isn't his definition of god. And I hate this fake quote. Laws don't govern the cosmos they explain how it operates. The difference being massive.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Exactly.
> He was more of a nihilist, who co-opted
> Neitzsche's concept of the Ubermensch to justify
> genocide.

That's really quite convenient isn't it. To be able to isolate the single worldview that informed his actions allows you to do the same with every-other person. Of course Mao was awful because of atheism and Hitler was awful because of nihilism. It just make sense.

It is a true dichotomy. However, let's explore this. Your mentioning that someone who doesn't believe in Santa Claus would identify as an anti-Santa Clausist leads me to believe you think atheist means anti-theist. Which isn't at all the case. Atheist means lacking a belief or disbelieves in god, someone who doesn't believe in Santa Claus would simply not believe or lack belief in Santa Claus.

I can't help but guess that you are willful about your mischaracterizations.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/12/2018 05:16PM by jacob.

For the record, Hitler was *not* an atheist. He didn't end his life as a Christian, but he certainly believed he had some spiritual mission. Latterly, it appears he was into Occultism of some variety.

In private statements he was anti-church seeing it as Jewish influenced, but in public quite happy to interact with all Christians who would comply.

That and the OP Worships at the altar of the Higg's Bozo. Yeah, let's put a lot of credit in that world view.

"Oh yeah, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jung Un....."

Don't forget Jerry Lewis . . . .

And the Icescapades.

Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jung Un are all communist dictators. While communists are generally thought to be atheists (religion being the opiate of the masses,etc), there is no reason to think that atheists are all communist dictators or supporters of communist dictators.

Also, in modern day Russia's dictatorship, all the former communists are sitting in the front rows at their local Othodox Church. When it comes to politicians, they will follow the local religion (or lack thereof) depending on how it benefits them, not due to specific deeply held beliefs.

No. It has a sexism problem.

They’ll go back to the old recipe until #metoo blows over, then come out with a “new and improved” version. Religion has always been cola wars. Artificial flavor and empty calories. I can’t believe I drank that Mormon swill for all those years.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So what was the point of the New Atheist Movement
> in the first place?

It was a term the popular press invented to "label" certain people who decided to be vocal about atheism, rather than sit in the closet.

It was never a "movement."

> What was wrong with plain old
> vanilla atheism?

Nothing.

> Oh yeah, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jung Un.....

Nice straw-man. Interesting how you lump Korea's "new" leader in with "old" atheism. Somebody needs a history lesson...

But they're not "real" atheists, because they're bad atheists right?

Exposing Dawkins Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But they're not "real" atheists, because they're
> bad atheists right?

No, and I didn't say that.

Their actions were despicable. Horrible, disgusting.
Their actions also weren't "atheist."

There's nothing in atheism that endorses, promotes, orders, commands, or accepts their actions.

Their actions were the result of egomanical needs for power and control -- which is also not endorsed, promoted, ordered, commanded, or accepted in atheism.

Yes, they were atheists and they were disgusting people.
But they weren't disgusting people BECAUSE they were atheists.

Get over the idea that atheism is an ideology (it isn't).
Or that it induces people to behave a certain way (it doesn't).
Or that lacking belief in claimed god-things means a person has no morals (they can and do -- sometimes they don't. Just like religious people).

Then you'll get it.

"There is nothing in atheism"

Pretty much... but the problem begins when atheists wish others to become atheist. Some will do that in a reasonable way, by attempted persuasion and others more forcibly.

In the case of the dictators mentioned anti-religious campaigns were an endgame as they represented other loyalties and power structures to undermine them. Atheism is one of the main parts of orthodox Marxism as it sees it as an impediment to class struggle.

Dan Arel does not speak for Atheists. No Atheist speaks for another Atheist. There are no GNU Atheists...

Atheism has always been a simple answer to ONE question, "Do you believe a god exists?" That answer is "no" for an Atheist. That is it... Game over... Nothing more... Fini... end... over-and-out.

Steve Nailed it.

HH =)

"New Atheism" is a tendency within atheism, pioneered by various types like Richard Dawkins, and the gun nuts Penn & Teller.

Its hallmarks include aggressive anti-religious activity, celebrity endorsements and an alternation between literalism and soft targets. You're far more likely to hear them debate the faith healer in the bush than the theology professor.

It is quite similar to what it claims to fight.

So is Stephen Hawking head of the New Cosmology Movement?

And is George Foreman head of the New Grill Movement?

Seems like koriwhore always needs a movement.

I hereby volunteer to be the head of the new Chocolate movement.

Imagine the heated discussions here over Dark vs Milk! And, is White Chocolate really chocolate or does it lack belief?

I'm down with the new grill movement! What a great idea! I'm going to start a church where we worship the grill. We will all eat steak for our meetings.

Scratch the New Atheist movement and you'll find eugenics and all kinds of other supremacism underneath it.

If it got into power it would rapidly turn into a totalitarian movement.

It's learnt all its worst moves from religion, including miserabilism but it's still recruiting.

I don't buy this (new) atheism -> totalitarianism argument.

Atheism has nothing to do with totalitarianism or fascism.

There have been religious, quasi-religious,and atheist totalitarian governments in hisory.

Many Progressive Era Chistians supported eugenics.

Atheism does not lead to eugenics.

I've never heard of "atheist" recruiting.

Atheism is not a religious movement.

What you are saying doesn't make any sense.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/12/2018 05:05PM by anybody.

"I don't buy this (new) atheism -> totalitarianism argument."

New Atheism* would *lead to* totalitarianism. It is far more aggressive than certain other forms of atheism. And when they finally realize that not everyone can be persuaded by argument, they will try other means.

We already have people who go round saying religion is a serious mental illness and that raising children in it is a form of abuse. How does a system tend to deal with serious mental jllness or crime? Forcible treatment or incarceration. New Atheism is as big a potential threat to freedom in the long run as religious fundamentalists.

(* Note the "New" - like NuMetal this is a very specific grouping, and not one that takes in moderate atheists who generally don't bother people. New Atheism is an extremist movement with substantial funding and media savvy)

"Atheism has nothing to do with totalitarianism or fascism."

Tell that to Chairman Mao and Stalin, both of whom lead state atheist governments. Or to some of the elements in the French Revolution.

Atheism doesn't have to be totalitarian, but when it becomes a movement like New Atheism & seeks to expand its powerbase then it is heading that way.

"Many Progressive Era Chistians supported eugenics."

Yep, and guess what? They were wrong too. New Atheism has internalized many of the faults of religion.

"Atheism does not lead to eugenics."

It does not have to, but we're talking about the ugly New Atheism whose chief proponent has let slip that he does.

"I've never heard of "atheist" recruiting."

They attempt to do so all the time on this very board. Leaving Mormonism is one thing, trying to get other people to become atheists is another matter.

In my neck of the woods, atheists buy space on the side of buses to persuade others to join them.

"Atheism is not a religious movement."

Atheism in itself is a stance (and a much less logical one than agnosticism!).

That hasn't stopped many atheists or atheist movements such as New Atheism from behaving as such. There are a number of other such atheist groups which function in a quasi-religious manner such as Objectivism or Marxism.

Both Zen Buddhism (in some forms) and Scientology have been described as atheist as they feature no gods - but for the purposes of this discussion they are not that relevant.

Get out of the bunker and think.

Paranoia will destroy ya.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/13/2018 03:02PM by anybody.

"Get out of the bunker and think."

Thanks pal, I already am thinking, but I appreciate the advice.

Since we're talking about New Atheism (so called), it's perfectly legit to talk about its undercurrents, and the dangers of idolizing figures even when they are not religious. I think it's legitimate to call out mental health shaming as well.

p.s. I hope you actually read some of my response. The bunker remark suggests you didn't

The only thing that comes close to what you are talking about is the Sunday Assembly support movement for non-religious people who live in uber religious states -- but there's no "recruitment."

You sound just like the alt-right people who imagine "Antifa" to be some kind of bogeyman that is out to get them when in fact there is not -- but they need an enemy so they create one.

I am so angry. I just got the Atheist kit I sent away for and when I opened the box it was empty except for a note that said, "You're on your own, kid."

Yeah, but did Richard Dawkins write the note? Because, you know, he's in charge.

Richard Dawkins sees himself as the leader of *New* Atheism, and is a huge influence on many atheists, through books and TV.

He is certainly *the* biggie and deserves heavy scrutiny.

Moderate atheists frequently baulk at some of his statements. Many are beginning to get embarrassed by him. The fewer atheists follow him the better.

I notice you've named yourself after an Ayn Rand character. We could discuss her all day too, considering she has been accused of being a kind of non-religious cult leader. I recommend "The Passion of Ayn Rand" starring Helen Mirren and ?Peter Fonda? - based on the lurid early days of Objectivism. Also a rotten writer stylistically, but that's another story.

As balance I include a link to Rational Wiki on criticism of Dawkins, written by people who are not friendly to religion. A lot of atheists are beginning to see that he is a dangerous extremist:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins#Legitimate_criticisms_of_Dawkins

The website includes links to articles on New Atheism and its "Four Horsemen" including Hitchens (a fine writer with some extreme ideas of his own). Maybe this will help clear up what New Atheism is for some people.

Agreed. Dawkins has said a lot of questionable things. One of my atheist friend hates him and so do many more moderate atheists who are not fans in any way. In addition to his questionable views on women, religion, pedophilia, Muslims and so on,his knowledge of both religion and history is quite simplistic. I have similar issues with Harris and Hitchens.

Hitchens is actually a very good writer when he stays off certain subjects especially politics & religion.

Dawkins in his early days wrote quite good science books. Then he decided to go on a crusade (for wont of a better word).

What we really need is a society where people aren't forcing their views on each other. It doesn't matter if it's LDS bullying gays into being straight or certain types wanting the removal of all religious people from public life... neither is good.

We're supposed to live in democracies. My neighbor has the right to believe or not believe in most things (I'll draw the line at some stuff)... if they want to be a Scientologist, Miley Cyrus fan or a fake wrestling fan, that's up to them.

His views on the Iraq war made me wonder about his views on other things. I have had very little interest in finding out. His drunken behavior is also a turnoff. He may be right about some things, but as I said, I dont have much interest in following him. I have a huge pile of unread books I would prefer to read. I have read more of the other two and dont care for them for the reasons I stated. I havne read some of Dawkins' scientific writing and enjoyed them. He should stick to what he knows.

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Agreed. Dawkins has said a lot of questionable
> things. One of my atheist friend hates him and so
> do many more moderate atheists who are not fans in
> any way. In addition to his questionable views on
> women, religion, pedophilia, Muslims and so on,his
> knowledge of both religion and history is quite
> simplistic. I have similar issues with Harris and
> Hitchens.
Hitchens thought the War in Iraq was a great idea, despite the fact it was started under false pretenses. I've got a real problem with his brand of Jingoism.
Harris, I have yet to find anything to dislike about his point of view, as he eloquently described in his two best selling books and his lecture, The Problem With Atheism.
Dawkins I can't take seriously when it comes to religion, given the fact he presents himself as a strong atheist, yet admits in his book The God Delusion, that he believes in the "religion of Einstein" making him a pantheist, not an atheist. But he conflates the two, saying Pantheism is just sexed up atheism, which is nonsense. Einstein despised "professional atheists" like Dawkins.
I don't believe in the religion of Einstein He believed, "God does not play dice with the universe." I believe God (aka God Particle, minus tge particle, since it is a field) does play dice with the universe on a quantum level all the time. However the dice are loaded, on this side of the event horizon, to favor matter rather than anti-matter, otherwise, we wouldn't nattet, and neither would any matter.

I agree on Hitchens.That war was an extremely bad idea. Harris is an Islamophobe which is my main problem with him. He is also weak on history and tends to be simplistic about religion in general. I am no fan of any of them.

I thank Dog that I don't have to defend, or agree with, any other atheist, or belong to any movement, real or perceived, to be an atheist. I'm neither new, old, week or strong, atheistically.


I just have to be unconvinced regarding evidence for any god.