Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Coming in cold, the Op - well, who cares what Christians say about atheism. They know nothing about it and don't want to know. They were wrong with 'New atheism' (which is just old atheism that refused to keep quiet) and are wrong that New (or old) atheism is dead, or there is any New, new atheism. I don't even think its' ignorance, it is propaganda, and what a situation with a religion claiming the High Moral ground resorting to the dirty tricks of political propaganda. But the New New Christianity is now all about political propaganda. As Critical Drinker says "Believe That!".
But we seem to have got onto the decline of religion. It's probably too soon (if ever) for rival religions to band together (last time was to counter the Shout of Doubt after the Tsunami) to stand against the threat of the atheists (cooled down after the last panic following the Pe review).
I imagine with even more politicisation of religion, they are going to be less tolerant of wrong believers than ever.
I am always bemused by the continued support of Catholics for that religion. You'd think with the dirty washing of the Vatican, hung out to dry, they'd have had enough, but they just carry on with faith. Maybe a 'Where else are we to go? We know you have the secrets of Life' situation. Mind, it was the scandal in Ireland that definitely started a move to shift Catholicism from a position of influence in Ireland. No wonder they now have the world No 1 Rugby team.
"Now thou hast turned thy face from the shills and liars of that fake religion, my children, thou mayest thrash the Springboks."
Linking this to New Atheism, the "in-your-face-ness" of Christianity over the last ten years or so is exactly what the New Atheists were telling us the Christians were back in the 2000s.
There are a lot of "liberal Christians" who come off as milquetoast, with the whole "God is love" thing, and are generally more polite, etc., but gloss over the more violent/hateful side of religion.
In real life, I meet very, very few understanding, accepting Christians. Most are not tolerant of anyone with different beliefs. Many of those are downright combative with others.
My best friend growing up was either gay or bisexual - there were rumors of his being gay for years. He grew up in a Lutheran congregation that was actually fairly tolerant for this area, but even then, the evangelical kids always gave him the "fire and brimstone" sermon treatment. He ended up with a lot of mental health issues that ended up leading to suicide, and I blame religion, or at least the predominant local understanding of it, for pushing him along this bad road.
My grandmother died in July. The preacher at the funeral wasn't giving a mild sermon of comfort or joy in Christ, something like that, but was full on with the "prince of the power of the air coming from the heavens to deceive mankind" and other crazy imagery that was more akin to a movie plot than a funeral. It was insane. He was deriding homosexuals when three out of the four female grandchildren are in same-sex relationships.
I see a Christianity in America that is mostly brutal toward those who don't agree with its goals. Many states have become more front and center with their outright advocacy of Christian beliefs and worldviews. Christians always love to state how oppressed they are, but they haven't enjoyed as much cultural power an influence in at least the last couple of decades that they do now.
Christopher Hitchens would be mortified with how things have deteriorated since evenhis death.
Linking this to New Atheism, the "in-your-face-ness" of Christianity over the last ten years or so is exactly what the New Atheists were telling us the Christians were back in the 2000s.
There are a lot of "liberal Christians" who come off as milquetoast, with the whole "God is love" thing, and are generally more polite, etc., but gloss over the more violent/hateful side of religion.
In real life, I meet very, very few understanding, accepting Christians. Most are not tolerant of anyone with different beliefs. Many of those are downright combative with others.
My best friend growing up was either gay or bisexual - there were rumors of his being gay for years. He grew up in a Lutheran congregation that was actually fairly tolerant for this area, but even then, the evangelical kids always gave him the "fire and brimstone" sermon treatment. He ended up with a lot of mental health issues that ended up leading to suicide, and I blame religion, or at least the predominant local understanding of it, for pushing him along this bad road.
My grandmother died in July. The preacher at the funeral wasn't giving a mild sermon of comfort or joy in Christ, something like that, but was full on with the "prince of the power of the air coming from the heavens to deceive mankind" and other crazy imagery that was more akin to a movie plot than a funeral. It was insane. He was deriding homosexuals when three out of the four female grandchildren are in same-sex relationships.
I see a Christianity in America that is mostly brutal toward those who don't agree with its goals. Many states have become more front and center with their outright advocacy of Christian beliefs and worldviews. Christians always love to state how oppressed they are, but they haven't enjoyed as much cultural power an influence in at least the last couple of decades that they do now.
Christopher Hitchens would be mortified with how things have deteriorated since evenhis death.
I son't want to get this closed by making it political, but this goes back a long way. The Tea Party was when Creationism met Republicanism, and that is still what we have. It looks bad, but I see a lot of tunnels and a lot of light at the end of them.
I son't want to get this closed by making it political, but this goes back a long way. The Tea Party was when Creationism met Republicanism, and that is still what we have. It looks bad, but I see a lot of tunnels and a lot of light at the end of them.
Well politics and religion DO intersect. It's impossible to fully discuss one without the other.
I VERY distinctly remember fundamentalists consistently being opposed to political entanglements prior to the 1980s. At some point (Moral Majority was probably the catalyst, but it was certainly a major expression of it), there was a sea change there, and politics went from being semi-taboo and potentially a manifestation of the dreaded "social gospel", to being a Christian duty. I think in part it was the fundamentalists sensing their increasing irrelevance to the rest of society and trying to force some sort of quasi-theocracy on everyone else in response.
Since the era you mention, they just extended all that and took it to its "logical" conclusion. It's a huge change from 1980 to the present day where Christians are completely willing to look the other way in supporting any number of politicians who were openly serial adulterers, inveterate liars or outright thieves, and the few fundies who expressed even mild angst about it were quickly ostracized. It is like someone took the fundamentalist conscience (such as it was) and transplanted it with something I cannot even recognize.
Beyond that I'll say no more. But when we talk about the pros and cons of religion in the US at least it is the elephant in the room whether we can openly discuss it or not.
Sam Harris, while he's been my favorite for a long time, he baffles me these days with how focused he seems to be on all the spirituality and mindfulness and meditation type stuff. He's forever one of my all time heroes (along with Hitchens) as far as all the epic, logical, rational brutal take downs of religion, and all the just great, well thought out positions he reasons on everything- I agree with his politics, too. He's the best, clearest intellectual thinker and communicator of our time, IMO. But, then he kind of loses me with all of the "expand your mind and consciousness"... almost with a 'new age' vibe to it. Probably just my ignorance and just personal taste, but, it's just strange to me that something sort of like a mysticism vibe is coming so much from him, of all people, the most fierce, brutal intellectual opponent there is of religion and irrationality.
Dennett is the quiet, soft spoken, least known one of the 4. I need to read more of his work. I know he defends more of a compatibilism with regards to free will, in contrast with Harris' arguments in complete opposition to the notion of free will.
Dawkins, always liked him in general, love the way he explains science, and he's the foremost authority on evolution and Darwinism (probably more than even Darwin), but he can be a little annoying with his take on atheism. Somehow preachy type of annoying, I don't know how to explain it. Arrogant in a non charming way. Opposes religion even more than Hitchens did, who was more of a man of the world and appreciating culture. Which is weird, because Dawkins is not even a hard atheist like Hitchens and others. He just has a basic default position type of soft atheism, citing lack of evidence, "there's probably no god" type of atheist. Just seems contrasting with how much of a stuck record he is with hating religion. But I love that guy too.
Hitchens was... well, there will never be another Hitchens. Just the best. His great speeches on religion, politics, everything. All coupled with that funny wit and lovable personality.
If we're going to have a new generation of prominent and vocal atheists and all that, leading the charge for the cause, they're going to have be really smart, really learned people, to even compare with those guys, especially Harris and Hitch.
Who are some of the promising young prospects on the scene?
Well politics and religion DO intersect. It's impossible to fully discuss one without the other.
I VERY distinctly remember fundamentalists consistently being opposed to political entanglements prior to the 1980s. At some point (Moral Majority was probably the catalyst, but it was certainly a major expression of it), there was a sea change there, and politics went from being semi-taboo and potentially a manifestation of the dreaded "social gospel", to being a Christian duty. I think in part it was the fundamentalists sensing their increasing irrelevance to the rest of society and trying to force some sort of quasi-theocracy on everyone else in response.
Since the era you mention, they just extended all that and took it to its "logical" conclusion. It's a huge change from 1980 to the present day where Christians are completely willing to look the other way in supporting any number of politicians who were openly serial adulterers, inveterate liars or outright thieves, and the few fundies who expressed even mild angst about it were quickly ostracized. It is like someone took the fundamentalist conscience (such as it was) and transplanted it with something I cannot even recognize.
Beyond that I'll say no more. But when we talk about the pros and cons of religion in the US at least it is the elephant in the room whether we can openly discuss it or not.
regarding bold above, i disagree.
i find that statement to be inaccurate. yes there are some people who are unable to discuss religion without dragging politics into it. but there are plenty of people, lots and lots and lots of people, who can and do discuss religion without ever making it about politics. there are plenty of people deeply involved in living their lives without ever giving a thought to politics.
even here on the forum, the expectation is to discuss religion without dragging politics into it.
think about it. there is a reason for that.
Sam Harris, while he's been my favorite for a long time, he baffles me these days with how focused he seems to be on all the spirituality and mindfulness and meditation type stuff. He's forever one of my all time heroes (along with Hitchens) as far as all the epic, logical, rational brutal take downs of religion, and all the just great, well thought out positions he reasons on everything- I agree with his politics, too. He's the best, clearest intellectual thinker and communicator of our time, IMO. But, then he kind of loses me with all of the "expand your mind and consciousness"... almost with a 'new age' vibe to it. Probably just my ignorance and just personal taste, but, it's just strange to me that something sort of like a mysticism vibe is coming so much from him, of all people, the most fierce, brutal intellectual opponent there is of religion and irrationality.
Dennett is the quiet, soft spoken, least known one of the 4. I need to read more of his work. I know he defends more of a compatibilism with regards to free will, in contrast with Harris' arguments in complete opposition to the notion of free will.
Dawkins, always liked him in general, love the way he explains science, and he's the foremost authority on evolution and Darwinism (probably more than even Darwin), but he can be a little annoying with his take on atheism. Somehow preachy type of annoying, I don't know how to explain it. Arrogant in a non charming way. Opposes religion even more than Hitchens did, who was more of a man of the world and appreciating culture. Which is weird, because Dawkins is not even a hard atheist like Hitchens and others. He just has a basic default position type of soft atheism, citing lack of evidence, "there's probably no god" type of atheist. Just seems contrasting with how much of a stuck record he is with hating religion. But I love that guy too.
Hitchens was... well, there will never be another Hitchens. Just the best. His great speeches on religion, politics, everything. All coupled with that funny wit and lovable personality.
If we're going to have a new generation of prominent and vocal atheists and all that, leading the charge for the cause, they're going to have be really smart, really learned people, to even compare with those guys, especially Harris and Hitch.
Who are some of the promising young prospects on the scene?
Harris has always been attracted to/intrigued by 'mystical' experiences, from my understanding. I remember reading that he didn't finish his undergraduate philosophy degree at Stanford until he was in his mid-thirties because he spent years in Asia communing with yogis and lamas and the like. Forgive me if I'm slightly off on the details, but that is my basic recollection. Then he got his PhD in neuroscience due largely to his interest in altered states of consciousness. I've read five of his books (The End of Faith, Letter to A Christian Nation, The Moral Landscape, Lying, and Free Will) and would have to consider him my favorite of the 'four horsemen' despite some of the political stances he's taken over the years
Returning to the very first sentence of your post, I'm kinda with you there. The only book of his that I began reading but did not finish was 'Waking Up', which claimed to be a guide to 'spirituality without religion'. I read about 40 pages of that one and found that the book was doing absolutely nothing for me. Maybe I'll revisit it at some point, but...I find it a bit pointless to even speak in terms of 'spirituality' when one doesn't believe in spirit, even if one's usage is entirely metaphorical. I could never quite get past that initial hangup
Last edited by Matt Marcinkiewicz; 09-30-2023 at 11:12 AM..
Harris has always been attracted to/intrigued by 'mystical' experiences, from my understanding. I remember reading that he didn't finish his undergraduate philosophy degree at Stanford until he was in his mid-thirties because he spent years in Asia communing with yogis and lamas and the like. Forgive me if I'm slightly off on the details, but that is my basic recollection. Then he got his PhD in neuroscience due largely to his interest in altered states of consciousness. I've read five of his books (The End of Faith, Letter to A Christian Nation, The Moral Landscape, Lying, and Free Will) and would have to consider him my favorite of the 'four horsemen' despite some of the political stances he's taken over the years
Returning to the very first sentence of your post, I'm kinda with you there. The only book of his that I began reading but did not finish was 'Waking Up', which claimed to be a guide to 'spirituality without religion'. I read about 40 pages of that one and found that the book was doing absolutely nothing for me. Maybe I'll revisit it at some point, but...I find it a bit pointless to even speak in terms of 'spirituality' when one doesn't believe in spirit, even if one's usage is entirely metaphorical. I could never quite get past that initial hangup
I am a big fan of Harris for this. One of the points he made is that religion owns these transcendental experiences presently. Secular people need these words too so we need to pair up what religious people are taking about with language that fits in a religious or non religious context.
If anyone has a good word for spirit I'd be interested in it. Currently I just refer to it as my core.
I am a big fan of Harris for this. One of the points he made is that religion owns these transcendental experiences presently. Secular people need these words too so we need to pair up what religious people are taking about with language that fits in a religious or non religious context.
If anyone has a good word for spirit I'd be interested in it. Currently I just refer to it as my core.
Perhaps predictably, I picked up 'Waking Up' five minutes after I finished writing my last post to give it another shot. This time around, I'm probably just going to power through my skepticism of Sam's project in that book and read it cover-to-cover. I'm already enjoying it more this time around (I remember being quite bored by it previously)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
