News:

There is also the shroud of turin, which verifies Jesus in a new way than other evidences.

Main Menu

Question about the New Atheism

Started by bertrandrusselisdead, April 01, 2009, 11:40:46 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

bertrandrusselisdead

I'm puzzled about the claims of the new atheists.

Obviously bad things have been done in the name of religion, but what are they really saying? Are they claiming religion is the cause of all evil? If we irradicate religion we will irradicate all irrational thought? Suddenly everyone will understand how probability really works? If they achieved their utopia and managed to prevent anyone from holding any wrong beliefs (how do they define wrong belief? most beliefs can't be proved) what do they think would happen?

I'm not talking about are there good arguments or not for God, I'm puzzled by their apparent claim that it is religion that is somehow responsible for what is wrong with the world, rather than (for example) the unequal distribution of power and wealth, or unaccountability of those with power etc.

karadan

By the term 'New Atheist' do you mean a group which is now calling themselves this or simply a definition of how current atheists think?

Can we have a link please?
QuoteI find it mistifying that in this age of information, some people still deny the scientific history of our existence.

curiosityandthecat

I believe he's talking about this. (I.e., Daniel Dennett, Sam  Harris, Dawkins.)
-Curio

Will

Quote from: "bertrandrusselisdead"I'm puzzled about the claims of the new atheists.

Obviously bad things have been done in the name of religion, but what are they really saying? Are they claiming religion is the cause of all evil? If we eradicate religion we will eradicate all irrational thought? Suddenly everyone will understand how probability really works? If they achieved their utopia and managed to prevent anyone from holding any wrong beliefs (how do they define wrong belief? most beliefs can't be proved) what do they think would happen?

I'm not talking about are there good arguments or not for God, I'm puzzled by their apparent claim that it is religion that is somehow responsible for what is wrong with the world, rather than (for example) the unequal distribution of power and wealth, or unaccountability of those with power etc.
While I'm not speaking for everyone, I don't think it's as simple as "religion is somehow responsible for what is wrong with the world". Those atheists interested in spreading atheism for the sake of what they see as good often argue that religion hinders progress (scientific, social) and allows people to excuse very serious acts. If you're familiar with the new crop of outspoken atheists, I'm sure you've heard things like "you don't see atheist suicide bombers". Admittedly, this is putting a simplistic spin on a complex issue, but the point is that religion is often used as an excuse to do very bad things. Is religion alone in this? Not by a long shot. Still, I'd argue that religion is institutionalized group think, and it's a lot easier to hate gay people or want to destroy the west if you're surrounded by a million other people that think the same thing. Not only that, but a higher power changes the context of the hatred. An ideologue hating something can't fall back on the creator of the universe when his or her beliefs are called into question. If you have faith in a higher power, though, you've got a logical scape goat for whatever beliefs you have: they can be truly unquestionable.

I don't necessarily agree with all of that, but I can understand where the people making these claims are coming from. I've seen some pretty terrible stuff said and done under the guise of following what someone believes god wants.

So I don't think it's quite as absolutist as "if we eradicate religion we will eradicate all irrational thought", it's more like, "if religion has less power, people will find it more difficult to use it as an excuse and crutch for their ignorance or prejudices".
I want bad people to look forward to and celebrate the day I die, because if they don't, I'm not living up to my potential.

AlP

To me a new atheist is someone who sees atheism in a positive way. They see atheism not just as an absence of belief or as a loss of belief but as a better world view in its own right. I think that's why they will so often compare atheism to theism and conclude that atheism is better. I am not a new atheist. Atheism is now a relatively unimportant part of my world view. It is no more important to me than the multitude of other things I have rejected. That's the main weakness I see in the new atheist argument.
"I rebel -- therefore we exist." - Camus

bertrandrusselisdead

Here is a link

http://newatheists.org/

Has anyone watched the Tim Keller video on authors@google?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kxup3OS5ZhQ

In his opening remarks he notes that one difference with the new atheists and "old" atheists is the new atheists don't feel it is necessary to respect theists, they want people to belittle and disdain theists, and think it is ok to not show them any respect. They are quite aggressive towards any signs of theism, for example they might say teaching a child to believe in God is child abuse.

If this is the case it sounds as if they are turning into some sort of crude charactiture of the very people they are vilifying.

Whitney

I personally do not like the term "new atheism" because it implies that being an atheist involves views beyond that of not believing in a god.  I can't help but think the term was started by theists who didn't like what the "4 horseman" had to say.  I don't think Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, or Harris are supporting the site you linked to...otherwise it would have had a larger design budget.

I'd call what you are describing "militant atheism" and "anti-theism" and there is nothing new about it. I also don't find it very productive since no one responds well to harsh criticism.  I'm all for promoting free thought, and I think religion hinders free thought.  Imo, if we get more people to think for themselves religion will naturally lose its strong hold without the need for disrespect towards religious people.

Who's Tim Keller?

Ihateyoumike

Quote from: "bertrandrusselisdead"In his opening remarks he notes that one difference with the new atheists and "old" atheists is the new atheists don't feel it is necessary to respect theists, they want people to belittle and disdain theists, and think it is ok to not show them any respect. They are quite aggressive towards any signs of theism, for example they might say teaching a child to believe in God is child abuse.


There's no need for a new label, IMO. This would be an atheist-fundie, the opposite of a theist-fundie.

Although I don't think your example is a good one. I don't think it's ok to openly disrespect someone or belittle someone for their religious beliefs, unless they try to force them on me. Which leads me to your example, religion is more often than not forced upon children in their most vulnerable years. I believe that is a form of child abuse, yet I would not be included in this "new atheists" category. Teaching a child about your god right along side science and evolution, and teaching them to think for themselves, that's nurturing the child.
Prayers that need no answer now, cause I'm tired of who I am
You were my greatest mistake, I fell in love with your sin
Your littlest sin.

VanReal

When I saw the title to this thread I clicked on it to find out what "New Atheism" was.  I certainly haven't seen an uprising of atheists running around belittling the religious and/or calling social services on parents teaching religion.  It may be something theists have come up with to explain their interaction with more outspoken atheists.  I am think about Madalyn Murray O'Hare and there aren't many more "in your face" or outspoken atheist than she was, and seeing as she was petitioning the courts and going on the Phil Donahue show in the 60s I'd hardly call that approach "new".
In spite of the cost of living, it's still popular. (Kathy Norris)
They say I have ADHD but I think they are full of...oh, look a kitty!! (unknown)

Tom62

With perhaps the exception of Christopher Hitchens, the so called "New Atheists" (IMHO a stupid name) are not disrespectful towards theists. Whenever they interview a deist or have a discussion with them, they do show remarkable respect for the person they are talking to. They are not aggressive in their behavior and don't attack the person. To be honest I find that quite astounding, considering the huge amount of death threats and hate mail that they receive from deists for speaking out. The problem is that, when you discuss religion with a deist it is very likely that the deist regards this as a personal attack. You are attacking his personal faith, so you are attacking him (or her) as a person. Therefore there are many deists who detest atheists, because they thinks that the primary goal of atheists is to destroy their religion. This is absolutely not true. What most atheists want is a peaceful coexistence between deists and atheists. But, respect has to come from both sides and it has to be earned. Just because someone believes in a god should not be a reason for treating him (or her) with more respect.
The universe never did make sense; I suspect it was built on government contract.
Robert A. Heinlein

karadan

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"I believe he's talking about this. (I.e., Daniel Dennett, Sam  Harris, Dawkins.)

Thanks for the clarification.

I didn't realise there was a distinction.
QuoteI find it mistifying that in this age of information, some people still deny the scientific history of our existence.

liveyoungdiefast

Failed institutions are what's wrong with the world. Religion is part of a greater arc that includes government, media, and money, I think. But this is the opinion of a non-religious leftist activist, people on this forum may just only disapprove of religion, can't speak for them.

rlrose328

I, for one, DO think that belief in a god or the supernatural CAN be dangerous, both globally and locally.  Women have let their children die in the name of god.  Men have abused power in the name of god.  Anyone can say they weren't "true Christians" or "true believers," but who are they to judge?  It really doesn't matter if ANYONE is a true this or a true that.  The fact remains that the mere existence of god and associated religion has been detrimental to the evolution of man and society, brainwashing children and leading people to believe in things that cannot be proven AND to deny things that CAN be proven.

That said, I don't approve of the "new atheism" any more than I approve of Christian fundamentalism.  Extreme belief and ostracization is not acceptable and causes it's own brand of problems.

THere is no perfect answer as long as man is involved.
**Kerri**
The Rogue Atheist Scrapbooker
Come visit me on Facebook!


Hitsumei

I agree with Bertrand.

I will comment on the ridiculousness of calling teaching children one's religion child abuse. What shall be the punishment for such indiscretions? What sort of totalitarian process shall be sought to punish these thought crimes? Is it just religion, or should telling children anything that someone doesn't think is true be illegal? If so, then we certainly are all criminals.

This is especially frightening come from a minority group, who must realize that if anyone's beliefs were to be legislated against, it isn't going to be the majority. Attempting to set up a system, or even just social taboo about teaching children something you don't agree with would clearly have a damage of being used against you, the minority, and it quickly becoming considered child abuse to teach children that it's false.

Parents do the best we can. We raise children to up-hold the values we think are good, to believe the things we think are true, to  live the life we think is fulfilling, and happy, and to impart the most, and best that we have to offer on to them. Not everyone is even remotely going to agree on everything I think is virtuous, right, a good life, or agree with what I think is important. I can only do the best that I can, and so can others.

The children will take from me less than they take from their peers, and probably have deep rooted dissenting opinions on everything I taught them, and then will do the same thing themselves when they have children.

At the very least, calling teaching children that one's religion is true "child abuse" is just an insult, as it certainly can't be something they want to make illegal, unless they are mentally-imbalanced, and no action at all has been proposed against the "child abusers" that do this. So there is no point, or ends to even saying it. It is just calling religious people child abusers, and this is being civil, and respectful? Religious people think atheists are wrong, but I haven't even heard a mainstream creationist call them all child abusers for not teaching their children that religion is true, and they think there is a hell of a lot more at steak.
"Women who seek to be equal with men lack ambition." ~Timothy Leary
"Marriage is for women the commonest mode of livelihood, and the total amount of undesired sex endured by women is probably greater in marriage than in prostitution." ~Bertrand Russell
"[Feminism is] a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their

rlrose328

I've been told, personally by some local believers, that NOT teaching my son about god and NOT making sure he gets an education in the church is child abuse.  I just return the compliment when the chance presents itself.  ;-)

I don't approve of brainwashing and i believe that's what "bring up a child in the church" is.  More and more these days, evangelical and fundie churches are doing fun programs to bring in more kids and thus, more adults once the kids are fully brainwashed.  I think it's horrible.  Children will believe what trusted adults tell them and there's the unspoken aura of trustworthiness in church-going people.  I find that repulsive.  

Then they turn around and say atheists are trying to brainwash people and push their agenda.  Sure.

I don't think it's child abuse like beating a child or starving a child is child abuse.  But i do not think it's responsible parenting to tell children that, beyond a shadow of doubt, this god exists and that he makes a difference in their lives.
**Kerri**
The Rogue Atheist Scrapbooker
Come visit me on Facebook!