I’m a new atheist

[cleanhippie]

I think I now understand what’s “new” about “New Atheism”.

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of diatribes against “New Atheism” in the various print and Internet media. For the past few years, I’ve rallied against this epithet, mostly because in those articles I saw nothing that reflected myself nor my peers: I saw only caricatures and straw-men.

The complaint nominally centres about the fact that “New Atheism” isn’t as ‘serious’ as the classical atheism of our forebears: Locke, Hume, and the others that broke through the ‘sacred circle’ necessarily took religion as seriously as the theists themselves.

But after reading Christopher Hitchens’ recent article on Slate, Free Exercise of Religion? No, Thanks., I’ve come to realise something: those that make such complaints are not now primarily concerned that we don’t take their claims seriously, it’s that we’re no longer even pretending to take their claims seriously.

--snip--

We no longer show them the deference they assume is due their insubstantial ideologies, we’re no longer afraid, and that terrifies them. The worst thing for them is not being conspired against, persecution is sustenance; it’s being made irrelevant. If they want their ideas to have respect, they can earn it just like everyone else.

http://www.nullifidian.net/2011/03/30/im-a-new-atheist/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[robcon]

1. May God bless you in your new 'religion'

:sarcasm:

[orpupilofnature57]

2. Or " New Zeal "

[RC]

3. New atheist, old atheist, what's the difference?

Religion I can see because there are a Brazilian different versions because it is all superstition and belief. No real proof what so ever.
Atheists don't believe. Even the difference between atheist and agnostic is over blown by the religious in an effort to debunk the non-believers.
If the religious would keep their beliefs to themselves as do most non-believers, the world would be a much better place.

[backscatter712]

4. Atheism is atheism, but the New Atheism movement is about civil rights and open discourse.

We're not going to stand aside anymore and leave religion as the one subject of discourse that is immune to questioning, scientific inquiry and critical thinking.

And we're no longer going to stay quiet when the religious tell us to sit down and shut up.

Religion is no longer off-limits to criticism. That's what has the religious people so upset.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. BINGO!

[cleanhippie]

7. There are many, even here on DU, that consider that to be "radical" and even "militant".

I see it as just another attempt to vilify those of us that refuse to respect unfounded beliefs.

[LeftishBrit]

45. Well, I don't consider that 'unfounded beliefs' in religion deserve more or less respect than

'unfounded beliefs' in anything else.

As an atheist, I do not think there is evidence for a God or the power of prayer, etc. However, there are lots of beliefs and activities for which there isn't much evidence. I knock on wood for luck, even though I really know that is not based on any real-world knowledge or evidence. Other people throw salt over their shoulders, or consider that it brings luck to see a black cat. In other domains, many people have views which I think are not founded on evidence, which I cannot share: e.g. that if you think positively you can achieve all your goals, or that computer modelling can explain all human behaviour, or that telepathy is real, etc. If people are interested in debating these things, I am happy to debate. Otherwise I am happy to 'live and let live'. And the same generally goes for religion.

The difference is that people in general do not campaign to defeat liberal/left-wing politicians for not believing in throwing salt over their shoulders, or use the sight of a black cat as a justification for economic injustice, or invade the countries of those who don't knock on wood, or plant bombs on public transport in defence of telepathy, or consider me and those like me as dangerous to the world because we don't think that computer modelling can explain all behaviour. And some people do any or all of these things in the cause of a religion, or at any rate use religion to justify these actions. It is not all or even anything like a majority of religious people who do these things. But it is sufficient to be a concern.

I have no problem with people being religious, nor do I have any stronger negative feelings about religious beliefs than about any of the many other types of beliefs with which I disagree (in fact, I have much *more* negative feelings about anti-vaccination beliefs, for example). But I do have problems with the religious right, of all religions. The same goes for any ideology used in support of the right wing.

[TalkingDog]

8. I'm Agnostic, but I generally find the "New Atheists" to be as bad as the "Old Fundamentalists"

I think I'd do some research before fully affiliating myself with a group that tolerates bigots promoting all sorts of hateful actions toward people that would not be tolerated if the same were suggested about any other group of people.

I mean, I've been on chat boards where people promoted rounding up Christians and herding them off to internment camps, suggest sterilization, or taking their kids away so they can't pass on harmful and dysfunctional memes, or even killing them en masse. And with no indications that they were engaging in hyperbole or sarcasm.

Here is the person I would embrace as a measured role model. He has seen both sides of the debate. His mother was Phyllis Schaeffer, so he knows fundamentalism inside and out. And I was surprised to hear him voice the exact same concerns I have about the New Atheist Movement in this interview with Terri Gross on Fresh Air.

http://www.npr.org/2008/12/09/97998654/pro-life-and-in-favor-of-keeping-abortion-legal

As suggested, I got no dog in the fight. My issues with the New Atheists are pretty much my issues with the Old Fundamentalists.

If past behavior is any indication of future occurrence, I'd best go get my Asbestos Suit on. Excuse me, please.

[humblebum]

10. Some wise words. nt

[cleanhippie]

11. Can you kindly point to some of these "hateful actions toward people"?

[laconicsax]

13. Uh huh.

[TalkingDog]

32. I don't find Atheist annoying. I don't find Christians annoying. I find zelots and fundamentalists

scary.

NEW Atheist (generally)
Christian Fundamentalist (generally)

But thanks for xkcd reference... I'm a big fan.

[laconicsax]

34. It's interesting how you equate the two.

One group actively pushes to have their beliefs enshrined in law by banning abortion and same-sex marriage, advocates violence to those who disagree, and uses their enormous political clout to influence elections. The other writes books on why they don't believe in a god, advocate for inclusiveness, and participate in forum discussions.

But sure, why not? They're exactly the same.

[TalkingDog]

37. Indeed they are (alike). And that's what makes both sides so angry

http://skepchick.org/2011/07/the-privilege-delusion/

http://missraissa.com/?p=653

[Goblinmonger]

41. THOSE are your best examples?

The whole skepchick back-and-forth just shows that Dawkins is sexist (I don't think what he did rises to misogyny). Big whoop. That makes the "new atheists" as bad as fundamentalists?

And the second one is a pretty clear example of someone not getting the satire. Though I think it wasn't especially effective satire and was a little too pointed for the occasion, it is pretty clear that they are saying what they feel the blogger's religion thinks of women not the views of the person writing the mail. The "you are a life support system for your vagina" is actually a pretty good satirical jab at the RCC.

[NMMNG]

43. Oh, don't be stingy with Miss R

Why should we miss out on all she has to share?

Miss R loves unbelievers with that perverted form of Christian "love".

Turn away from evil and give your life to Jesus Christ. Let him be the author of your life. Jesus Christ left his glorious throne in heaven, came to earth to die on the cross for our sins. He was beaten, tortured, wrongfully accused and suffered a shameful death for our sake. He didn’t have to go through all of that but he did because he loved us that much. All you have to do is accept him as your personal Lord and savior and you will receive eternal life.

.....
Turn away from your wickedness. Depart from sexual immorality, fornication, adultery, drunkenness, lies, gossip, homosexuality, robbery, murder. Turn away from all things that are not pleasing to the eyes of our God. Do not let your pride keep you away from God. You have a great purpose and mission on earth. You have been called to do great exploits.

It’s never too late to do what’s right. If you have been living in sin and you want out it’s not too late. All you have to do is confess your sins and dedicate your life to Jesus Christ. Our God is a God who forgives and forgets. He said “your sins I will remember no more.” Don’t ever think that your sins are so bad that God can never forgive you. That is a lie of the devil.
....

Cuz only Christians are doing what's right, and non-believers are evil, immoral, fornicating, lying, drunken homosexuals.


Speaking of homosexuals, it's not bigotry to hate on them in Jesus' name, it's holiness.


Poor, persecuted Miss R. Why are the atheists and gays always hatin' on her? Surely it can't be because of all that fabulous love she keeps spreading around. :sarcasm:

Her problem, like so many others, is she thinks Free Speech means Consequence Free Speech. She also thinks that because she hides behind her chosen religious lifestyle that anything she says should be off limits for question or criticism. Anybody who dare call her out is a big meanie.

We don't refrain from challenging people's political positions, their social values or their taste in music. We need to stop giving them a free pass just because they deem a belief or opinion "religious".

[Jenny_92808]

50. Exactly!!!

After I was married at a young age...my inlaws had an intervention for me by the bishop and congregation. They sat me in a chair and surrounded me with many people. They told me that I must never see my family again because they were of the devil. My family all have never committed any crimes, and are good people. This happened because my parents and siblings refused to convert to their religion. Since then.....I have seen the light, so to speak. You know them by their works and their works were evil. Since then, my holier than thou ex-husband (who beat me) is under suspicion for killing his 5th wife (I was his 1st wife). He says that his wife accidentally fell down the stairs. The detective who talked to me asked me if my ex ever tried to strangle me...my answer was yes.

That family believes with all their hearts that they have the line on G-d and are above all others who are not of their ilk.

People who think this way are dangerous, imo.

[edhopper]

14. Talk about a strawman

"I mean, I've been on chat boards where people promoted rounding up Christians and herding them off to internment camps, suggest sterilization, or taking their kids away so they can't pass on harmful and dysfunctional memes, or even killing them en masse. And with no indications that they were engaging in hyperbole or sarcasm."

The old "someone said on a forum" argument.

Try to find in the writing of any of the current atheist, the ones people like humble rail against as fundies, who say anything of the sort.

Your premise is laughable.

[TalkingDog]

33. read the link in humblebum's post and tell me my premise is laughable.... I'll be waiting

right here... probably forever.

[cleanhippie]

36. It's laughable. "I don’t advocate or condone hatred of people." - Direct quote from his link.

Allow me to repeat that for you: "I don’t advocate or condone hatred of people."

You really should pay better attention to what humblebum posts, it usually directly contradicts what he says. Then again, he DID say, and I quote, "Where you see contradiction, I see confirmation."

Now you know, so what you do from here is on you. Good luck.

[TalkingDog]

38. If you read my original post (or you might try reading it again)

You'll note that I said on CHAT BOARDS. Anonymous CHAT BOARDS. Some very much like DU. ... which tends to censor those things.


I never accused any of the leaders of the New Atheist movement of being hateful or condescending to those they don't agree with. I'll just let them speak for themselves.

http://skepchick.org/2011/07/the-privilege-delusion/

[Rob H.]

15. "I've been on chat boards where people promoted...."

Links? Otherwise it's just a variant of Fox News' old "Some people are saying...."

[humblebum]

18. Well there's much out there to that effect and I cannot believe you

are so sheltered that you haven't seen it. Some atheists are very up front about it:
http://hatefulatheist.tumblr.com/

And then you've got some of the de facto leaders of the New Atheists, a couple of the Four Horsemen, such as Hitchens who has called for atheists to show "ridicule, hatred, and contempt" for religion, and Dawkins who recently said that atheists should "ridicule" believers at the World Atheist Convention in Ireland.

[cleanhippie]

19. Quote from the author of the webiste you linked: "I don’t advocate or condone hatred of people."

And lets reread just what you stated Hitchens said: "Hitchens who has called for atheists to show "ridicule, hatred, and contempt" for religion"



As soon as religion can stand on its own two legs and support the unfounded, un-based in reality claims it makes about supernatural things, then it will deserve more than .


Now go spew your nonsense elsewhere.

[humblebum]

21. So, you are backing Hitchens statement. Interesting.

I think you been skunked. When recognized leaders are calling for ridicule and hatred, it's pretty safe to assume that many of their followers comprise a bigoted movement. And it could be considered a hate movemnt.

[cleanhippie]

27. As soon as you can differentiate between people and religion, you can assume.

Until then, its just more of the same from you.

[humblebum]

31. That would be like separating people from their skin color in many respects.

And you are using it as an excuse. Bigotry is bigotry.

[cleanhippie]

39. Just because YOU are unable to do that, YOU are using it as an excuse.

Now it would seem you are trying to justify your own bigotry and hatred.

:rofl:

[humblebum]

44. Actually, peeling one's own skin off is very painful.

But, there is no reason people should change their beliefs if they are grounded in them and they should not feel intimidated, even when atheists are doing their duty by ridiculing the believer.

[cleanhippie]

47. Oh yes, for sure.

[LeftishBrit]

35. Here are some more remarks from Hitchens

"We allowed our patriotism to be turned into a joke, wise sexual restraint to be mocked as prudery, our families to be defamed as nests of violence, loathing, and abuse, our literature to be tossed aside as so much garbage, and our church turned into a department of the Social Security system."

"Our religion, such as it is, has abandoned the only territory where it could not be challenged — the saving of souls, and given up troubling our individual consciences. Instead, it has joined in the nationalization of the human conscience, so that a man's moral worth is now measured by the level of taxation he is willing to support, rather than by his faith or even his good works. Other tests — opposition to apartheid or General Pinochet — are valued more highly than personal adherence to the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount. An adulterer, with the correct view on Nelson Mandela, is preferable to a Mother Teresa who fails to criticize the currently unfashionable regimes of the world."

"We are forced to say that we think homosexuality is a good thing, that homosexual couples are equal in all ways to heterosexual married couples. Most emphatically, we are compelled to agree that homosexual couples are just as good at bringing up children as the children's own grandparents. Better, in fact.
Many people who believe nothing of the kind now know that their careers in politics, the media, the Armed Services, the police or schools will be ruined if they ever let their true opinions show. I am sure that many of them regularly lie about their views, to avoid such trouble. We cringe to the new Thought Police, like the subjects of some insane, sex-obsessed Stalinist state, compelled to wave our little rainbow flags as the 'Gay Pride' parade passes by. And that's another thing. We can't even call homosexuals 'homosexuals' any more. This neutral word is not considered enthusiastic enough. We have to say 'gay'. Which is exactly why I don't, apart from in inverted commas."

'Those who now complain about the planned pay-outs to IRA bombers killed by their own bombs should grasp that this kind of disgrace is what invariably follows craven surrender to evil. If you supported the Good Friday agreement, this is what you asked for. Don't whinge about it now.
You had your chance to oppose it when it might have mattered, and didn't take it. Worse, you sneered at people like me who tried to tell you. You deserve to have this money taken out of your taxes. I don't.'

'We (Britain) have bred a generation of concentration camp guards, and if as a society we later turn to mass murder, nobody will need to wonder much why and how it happened...It certainly helps to identify this country as a moral slum.'

'When they start calling you extremists, you will know you are getting somewhere.'

'Revolutionary feminism, which regards all men as predators and sees the married family as a sordid prison, has scared most politicians, most judges, most journalists, most civil servants – and most people – into accepting its nasty dogmas.'

'The middle classes (= upper middle classes in American usage) are not good because they are better off. They are better off because they are good. This is the fundamental truth that socialism has always hated.'

'Poverty? It’s just a lie the Left uses to destroy the middle class.'


Enough hatred, bigotry and ridicule to go round? But, oops, it's not THAT Hitchens. It's his brother, the ultra-religious PETER Hitchens.

I consider Peter's writings far more hateful and bigoted than Christopher's. I may possibly be biased due to my detestation for the right-wing in all its forms. But in any case, they are both given to aggressive hyperbolic sometimes bigoted writing. Maybe it's a family characteristic. Maybe it's a common British journalist characteristic (it is). But at any rate, given the nature of ultra-Christian Peter's writings, it is hardly a specifically atheist characteristic.

[humankarenball]

20. Did you read that blog you linked?

26th August 2011

Question with 14 notes

Anonymous asked: I was born and raised a Christian, but thankfully my mum and dad aren't that religious, they just to stick the religion they grew up with. They never pushed me or forced religion on me, and they allowed me to grow up and think for myself. Which is what I have done. I'm not christian anymore, I just don't believe in that shit. But I think you are a hypocrite. Religion causes hate between cultures. And yet you say you are hateful of all religion? You are condoning hate towards people. It's wrong.

I don’t advocate or condone hatred of people. Your accusation is incorrect and ill-founded. No need for me to explain further. Take the time to look beyond the title of my page and find out what I’m actually saying and actually about before casting incorrect disparaging judgements against me.

(0 Comments)

<snip>

I read through several pages and found absolutely no evidence to support the "promoted rounding up Christians and herding them off to internment camps, suggest sterilization, or taking their kids away so they can't pass on harmful and dysfunctional memes, or even killing them en masse." thing.

[LeftishBrit]

22. Umm...

neither this blogger nor Christopher Hitchens has recommended 'rounding up Christians and herding them off to internment camps, sterilization, or taking their kids away'. Even if some have recommended 'ridicule' it's hardly the same thing.

Being ridiculed is not pleasant, but it beats being sent to an internment camp any day of the week. Such things cannot be equated. And all groups get ridiculed sometimes. Not the nicest side of human nature, but it's hardly restricted to atheists ridiculing Christians!

[humblebum]

23. Where did I say that Hitchens recommended 'rounding up Christians and herding them off...?

I was merely giving a sampling of those that speak about hatred for religion or its adherents. There are all kinds of sites out there. To deny it is to display pure ignorance.

It not hard to find these things. They're plentiful on the web, e.g. "Who thinks all the Christians and Muslims should be rounded up so they can have their end-times battle? And not bother the rest of us with their bullsh*t. Maybe, just maybe when the smoke clears they'll figure out that neither one of them knows jack about God."
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060917145205AAwfVXX

"all religious types need reeducation to modernize their antiquated train of thought. Human life is a little more imortant than shallow personal beliefs and loyalties to dying religions."

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060917145205AAwfVXX

This stuff might sound rather funny, but if it was a racial group being mentioned, I'm sure it would be taken more seriously. These kinds of things have happened on a massive scale in the last century and still does today.

[edhopper]

24. There are some who claim to be atheist who...

blah, blah, blah..

But don't you atheist dare to compare real Christians with fundies.

[humblebum]

25. ??? nt

[edhopper]

26. Can't understand the analogy?

or is it too close to home?

[cleanhippie]

28. Oh, it understands just find. Its called willful ignorance.

[edhopper]

29. "it" understands?

Who are you, Wild Bill from Silence of the Lambs?
:D ;) :hi:

"It puts the lotion on it's skin..."

[cleanhippie]

30. Its the best I can do for that one.

[skepticscott]

40. All of the things you cited

ARE tolerated when suggested about homosexuals.

Whether you actually did see them expressed about Christians is questionable.

[Jenny_92808]

48. I couldn't disagree with you more...

You may find a minuscule number of lefty’s stating what you said, but on the right, the numbers are high that engage in that crap. You are suggesting it is equal. Wrong!

[customerserviceguy]

12. And it means an end to the blue laws that we still live under

If it's OK for me to buy a six-pack of beer at 3 PM on a Saturday, why isn't it OK to do that at 9 AM on a Sunday? Or even after 10 PM on Saturday? These laws don't just exist in the bible belt, the latter one I cite is the law in New Jersey.

[thereismore]

46. Here's another one! And I used to be a Christian. nt

[provis99]

6. you know, the odd thing is,

If I went around all day saying Satanism is crap, or witchcraft is crap, these christian religious freaks could care less. It's when I criticize their own particular version of religious crap that they suddenly get all snotty about atheists. When you share their own atheism towards Greek or Hindu gods, it's ok; when you are also atheist about their particular god, suddenly they are whining about how unfair you are.

[cleanhippie]

9. Yessiree, its pure, unadulterated hypocrisy at its finest.

[rug]

16. Who is the "they" he's talking about?

[Name removed]

17. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Deep13]

42. Pretty much. No sense...

...pretending to respect a set of ideas that you know to be wrong.

[Taverner]

49. Enjoy!

I was into the "New Atheist" thing for a while, because honestly, I felt betrayed, lied to and bamboozled.

Then I realized it wasn't their fault (those into religion)

It's a mind virus, you can't blame the contagion.