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.
I would like to ask what is New Atheism all about? What are its aims? What is its level of tolerance towards others that are not aligned with it? Does it seek to remove all religion or coexist? Go.
I would like to ask what is New Atheism all about? What are its aims? What is its level of tolerance towards others that are not aligned with it? Does it seek to remove all religion or coexist? Go.
I can only give my Take on it. It is essentially just the same as old atheism - a disbelief in any god - claim. Which it always was. The only difference is now we have a Voice. We had voices in the past. Russell was a notable atheist speaker- he had a voice that others didn't because he had exposure.
It was I think the Internet that made the difference. for the first time ordinary people started talking and atheists - who had been isolated because people kept quiet about it - realised that Others were out there. There were a lot of Christian websites started and the Fundamentalist/ creationists were right there. They were evangelists after all. So the reaction was atheist websites popping up. Farrell Till and Cliff Walker were the ones I used while i was doing 'Atheist apprentice-ship' in the 80's.
I don't need to rehearse how high profile atheist spokesbods gained attention - Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and Dennett. Nor do i need address the Theist tendency to Interpret 'New' atheism in terms of a religion, because when you examine it, the argument is illogical and what the heck, anyway, if religion is so good?
Rather I'd address the immediate efforts to shut atheism up. And the 'You are so Wude ' package (incorporating 'aggressive atheism is hurting the atheist cause) was a favourite. We distrust these ploys because, if they aren't Sheep in Wolf's clothing trying to destroy atheism from the inside, they are religious doubters who still have a residual affection for religion. or those who have been indoctrinated with a hatred for anything 'Liburl'.
It is true that when a religious believer (who probably tended to the Right because that's what Christianity seems to preach) can no longer resist the doubts and questions and the usual Excuses won't wash anymore, deconverts, very often with God vanishing, the validity of Christian socio -political dogmas vanishes and the logical view of what's ok often leads to Liberal views on a lot of things.
Now as to the view on religion. The view on astrology is a good analogy. It isn't banned, regularly targeted or its believers carted off to gulags. It can print, publish and polemicise. It can hold meetings, have members and even make money at it.
It has no power. It is not a requirement for election and you do not teach it in school (1). It is not banned, though it is not Protected from arguments against it by Rationalists like James Randi. Why should it be? There are various kinds of astrology but they do not lead to conflicts as they have no power and the Worldview is that the social world runs without any need for this, That or the other kind of astrology and doesn't need to.
This is what religions can expect in a humanist global society. It can even be of value. It inspires art and music like nothing else. Not even Lurrve. It can discover useful things like meditation, which atheism would be unlikely to discover. But atheism at least sees that meditation is the same in many religions and there is no nonsense about one being Right and the other Wrong.
Atheist rational Humanism grill and bar (free parking) offers a level playing field with equal rights for those of religion and those not. And a pizza bar, beer fountain and strippers (2) in the atheist afterlife.
(1) It probably was the thing that got Michael Behe's credibility chopped off at the knees at the Dover I/D trial when he was asked whether 'teaching the controversy' (teaching Creationism alongside evolution) also meant that astrology ought to be taught alongside astronomy and he had to say yes, or he would have debunked his own case.
(2) whether female and male is the subject of a Holywar we'll have to have to have after we win.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-01-2019 at 07:35 PM..
I would like to ask what is New Atheism all about? What are its aims? What is its level of tolerance towards others that are not aligned with it? Does it seek to remove all religion or coexist? Go.
Here’s how one of them describes his motivation...
“it is the campaign against Organized religion, specifically in America and specifically Christianity”
“ the reason we are here is because the Big Lie of Christianity has been perpetuated far too long and we are doing our own little bit (I could wish it was more) to roll it back out of social, political and education influence, where it is doing untold damage.”
“If we don't know better, the case for Christianity can be made to look Very convincing. bamboozling with a carefully designed misinformation pack. And the Liars that peddle these claims keep their fingers crossed that their dupes won't check.”
“they can't win by straight argument, they have to win by cheating; my [30 year] study has been about why they do this. if they had the Case, they could have defeated us years ago.”
“I got onto the Internet Forums just as Atheism was getting a Voice, and talking together. I have been one tiny voice since then”
“This is the most important and worthwhile thing I have ever done in my life. "If we fail, we fall" but if we succeed, I will feel justified in knowing that i played a small part in it.”
“irreligion has to become the influential social force, not religion”
You put a lot of thought into this which is great. Can we take this a little at a time so as not to miss anything? I would really like to understand this view better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
I can only give my Take on it. It is essentially just the same as old atheism - a disbelief in any god - claim. Which it always was. The only diffference is now we have a Voice. We had voices in the past. Russell was a notable atheist speaker- he had a voice that others didn't because he had exposure.
I understand about having a voice. If your rights are being trampled you need a voice.
Quote:
It was I think the Internet that made the difference. for the first time people started talking and atheists - who had been isolated because people kept quiet about it - realised that Others were out there. There were a lot of Christian websites started and the Fundamentalist/creationists were right there. They were evangelists after all. So the reaction was atheist websites popping up. Farrell Till and Cliff Walker were the ones I used while i was doing 'Atheist apprentice-ship' in the 80's.
So Christians started websites to talk about Christianity. Seems reasonable to me. Why exactly did Atheists have to react to that? Do you mean on the Christian websites for Christianity they had to react? Or do you mean start their own websites separately?
Quote:
I don't need to rehearse how high profile atheist spokesbods gained attention - Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and Dennett. Nor do i need address the Theist tendency to Interpret 'New' atheism in terms of a religion. because when you examine it, it is illogical and what the heck, anyway, if religion is so good?
The high profile names...those are the four horsemen of Atheism, correct? About the theist (don't know if I can be considered a theist or not) tendency to see New Atheism as a religion, I have to say, it comes off that way. I see it as a flip of Fundamentalism. From what I've observed there is an evangelical approach to it.
Quote:
Rather I'd address the immediate efforts to shut atheism up. A nd the 'You are so Wude ' package (incorporating 'aggressive atheism is hurting the atheist cause) was a favourite. We distrust these ploys because if they aren't Sheep in Wolf's clothing trying to destroy atheism fofrom the inside they are religious doubters who still have a residual affection for religion. or those who have been indoctrinated with a hatred for anything 'Liburl'.
Well I will say that snark doesn't cut it for me. If someone uses snark to belittle others they have already lost their cause imo. That kind of stuff I would expect from hate groups.
I will stop here for now to clear, get your thoughts on just this bit so far before proceeding.
I would like to ask what is New Atheism all about? What are its aims? What is its level of tolerance towards others that are not aligned with it? Does it seek to remove all religion or coexist? Go.
An atheist is defined as a person who does not believe in God (or any gods). I can't see any reason to think a New Atheist is different from any other atheist. It still means no belief in God.
So Christians started websites to talk about Christianity. Seems reasonable to me. Why exactly did Atheists have to react to that? Do you mean on the Christian websites for Christianity they had to react? Or do you mean start their own websites separately?
The high profile names...those are the four horsemen of Atheism, correct? About the theist (don't know if I can be considered a theist or not) tendency to see New Atheism as a religion, I have to say, it comes off that way. I see it as a flip of Fundamentalism. From what I've observed there is an evangelical approach to it.
Well I will say that snark doesn't cut it for me. If someone uses snark to belittle others they have already lost their cause imo. That kind of stuff I would expect from hate groups.
I will stop here for now to clear, get your thoughts on just this bit so far before proceeding.
You're doing it right now.
Christians should be able to speak out against non-belief, but non-believers shouldn't speak out against belief. So much for equality.
Here’s how one of them describes his motivation...
“it is the campaign against Organized religion, specifically in America and specifically Christianity”
“ the reason we are here is because the Big Lie of Christianity has been perpetuated far too long and we are doing our own little bit (I could wish it was more) to roll it back out of social, political and education influence, where it is doing untold damage.”
“If we don't know better, the case for Christianity can be made to look Very convincing. bamboozling with a carefully designed misinformation pack. And the Liars that peddle these claims keep their fingers crossed that their dupes won't check.”
“they can't win by straight argument, they have to win by cheating; my [30 year] study has been about why they do this. if they had the Case, they could have defeated us years ago.”
“I got onto the Internet Forums just as Atheism was getting a Voice, and talking together. I have been one tiny voice since then”
“This is the most important and worthwhile thing I have ever done in my life. "If we fail, we fall" but if we succeed, I will feel justified in knowing that i played a small part in it.”
“irreligion has to become the influential social force, not religion”
Iwasmadenew... that is interesting, thank you. It does not sound like it is looking to co-exist at all with others who believe differently whatever their faith/spiritual background.
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.
I can only give my Take on it. It is essentially just the same as old atheism - a disbelief in any god - claim. Which it always was. The only difference is now we have a Voice. We had voices in the past. Russell was a notable atheist speaker- he had a voice that others didn't because he had exposure. 
' package (incorporating 'aggressive atheism is hurting the atheist cause) was a favourite. We distrust these ploys because, if they aren't Sheep in Wolf's clothing trying to destroy atheism from the inside, they are religious doubters who still have a residual affection for religion. or those who have been indoctrinated with a hatred for anything 'Liburl'. 
