Happy Atheist Forum

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.

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?

I believe he's talking about this (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html). (I.e., Daniel Dennett, Sam  Harris, Dawkins.)

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".

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.

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.

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?

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.

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".

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.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"I believe he's talking about this (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html). (I.e., Daniel Dennett, Sam  Harris, Dawkins.)

Thanks for the clarification.

I didn't realise there was a distinction.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Someone asked who is Tim Keller, and since I've been listening to him for the last few weeks and think he is quite interesting I'll add a little more about him.

The link I gave is a good quick introduction to Keller

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

This is the talk he gave at the Google HQ, it was one of the best attended talks by an author at Google.

These are some bits taken from the wiki article about him.

Timothy J. Keller (born 1950) is an American author, speaker, and the founding pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA) in New York City, New York. He was asked by the PCA to start Redeemer in 1989 despite his relative lack of experience and after two others had turned down the position. The church grew from 50 people to total attendance of over 5,000 people each Sunday as of early 2008, leading many to call him "the most successful Christian Evangelist in the city." His target audience consists mainly of urban professionals, whom he believes exhibit disproportionate influence over the culture and its ideas, and in his preaching, He shuns the label "evangelical" because of its political and fundamentalist connotation, preferring to call himself simply orthodox.

Keller, once the director of his denomination's mercy ministries, has always emphasized Christian service and charity, both in his own church's members and in those the center trains to plant urban churches. The Vision of Redeemer is:

QuoteTo spread the gospel, first through ourselves and then through the city by word, deed, and community; To bring about personal changes, social healing, and cultural renewal through a movement of churches and ministries that change New York City and through it, the world.

Redeemer, according to Christianity Today, is "one of Manhattan's most vital congregations" and, according to a 2006 survey of 2000 American church leaders, is the sixteenth most influential church in America.

Keller's book The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism was named Book of the Year for 2008 by World Magazine. It rose as high as #7 on the New York Times Non-Fiction Best-Seller list in March of 2008.

Quote from: "bertrandrusselisdead"Redeemer, according to Christianity Today, is "one of Manhattan's most vital congregations" and, according to a 2006 survey of 2000 American church leaders, is the sixteenth most influential church in America.

Keller's book The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism was named Book of the Year for 2008 by World Magazine. It rose as high as #7 on the New York Times Non-Fiction Best-Seller list in March of 2008.

To me, that says more about those periodicals than anything else.

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 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?.

Well for a start all those people who are hurting themselves and others in the name of some totally irrational religion may stop and think that this is the only life they will ever have and stop wasting it by becoming a martyr in the hope of a better afterlife. :hmm:

New Atheism huh. By this I can only think that you mean new as out of the closet atheists. (we have never been popular) Well as one of these new Atheists I can say I have no delusions that getting rid of religion will destroy evil in the world but it would destroy superstition and that can only be a good thing. Also historically there is a very good argument that destroying religion would stop a lot of wars and conflicts. So there are a lot of good things about getting rid of it.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"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.

However, some Christians call Child Protective Services on parents who don't take their children to church and some Christians use a parent's lack of religion to weight custody in favor of the religious parent in divorce cases.

Teaching a child about your religion is not abusive - teaching them self-hatred, teaching them to despise non-Christians, forcing them to practice your religion or be kicked out on the street, denying them medical treatment, and keeping them from an adequate education are all child abuse.

I think that presenting a religion to children as the one and only Truth which overrules all other types of thought is an abuse of power.  It's like the soup kitchens and shelters that require the homeless people who use it to attend a church service and yell "praise Jesus!" in order to get fed or allowed to stay the night.  A child who is indoctrinated in a religion has no choice in the matter.  Don't you think that it would be more meaningful for people to choose to believe rather than to be indoctrinated and believe because they know nothing else?

A number of teens I've taken in over the years were discarded for religious reasons and in their cases, their parents' religious practices were horrible child abuse often accompanied by physical abuse and emotional abuse.  Have you any idea how a fundie reacts to a child who confesses to having a homosexual thought?  Or to a child who decides to explore another religion?  It's brutal.  The lion's share of my kids came from uber religious homes.

I definitely believe it's a mild form of child abuse. Making them believe if they don't do this this and this that they will burn in hell. And all the feelings of guilt religion imposes on them; 'a strict father figure is watching your every move'. I'm not saying it's done to intentionally to abuse them - but they are.

Quote from: "Kylyssa"Teaching a child about your religion is not abusive - teaching them self-hatred, teaching them to despise non-Christians, forcing them to practice your religion or be kicked out on the street, denying them medical treatment, and keeping them from an adequate education are all child abuse.

[aside]
Did you know that malaria was originally believed to be caused by not being Christian?  
[/aside]

Its not just christian fundies like the 700 club or Westboro who are guilty of this sort of zealotry though, orthodox Jewish families are specificaly known for disowning a child who turns from the faith or marries out of the faith. The Catholic Church states in the Catechism that it is important for a person to understand other beliefs and structures. However in Catholic College you will find classes mostly on the Ancients, St Thomas Aquinas, and St Agustin, you may go so far in the other direction as Hume, you will not however never find a class on an atheist or an eastern philosopher without a HEAVY Catholic overtones. This is because even though it states in the Catechism that a good Catholic must understand the world and various points of view, however if you read the fine print it basically also says that every thing that is against the bible or the church tradition is automatically in error and so everything must be viewed though church colored glasses. This is most times emphasized to protect the faithful, but it keeps them from real understanding as well. (I got kicked out of class more than a few times) Any thing is abusive if all the power is going one way is it not?

Are they claiming religion is the cause of all evil?
Probably not. But religious people are capable of prolonged evil (think of the Inquisitions).

Suddenly everyone will understand how probability really works?
They will if the subject is properly taught in public schools. [They don't teach it at Sunday School]

If they achieved their utopia
They probably wouldn't use the word "utopia"

and managed to prevent anyone from holding any wrong beliefs
That's an extreme position - The New Atheists merely desire to live in a society where falsehoods are not taught as fact (with eternal punishment as a convincer).

how do they define wrong belief?
Neil Armstrong walked on the moon (correct belief)
Jesus Christ ascended into heaven (wong belief)
And those definitions are based on the evidence available

most beliefs can't be proved
But the degree of error can be minimized.
I am 99.99999% certain the sun will rise tomorrow
I am slightly less certain that an angel will appear tomorrow.

what do they think would happen?
I think we would gain an immediate advantage because more people would make more sensible decisions about all sorts of things. I can't see the down-side.

I'm puzzled by their apparent claim it is religion that is somehow responsible for what is wrong with the world
"Apparent" is the key word. It may be that New Atheist are not claiming what you say they claim. Few would claim that religion is the sole cause of all wrongs, nor even the major cause of many wrongs.

 rather than (for example) the unequal distribution of power and wealth, or unaccountability of those with power etc.
These things are not ignored by atheists - but they are not just secular problems either:

Unequal distribution of power and wealth: Compare the Pope in his palace and the believer in his shanty-town
Unaccountability of those in power: Think of the pedophiles protected from the law for centuries by the church.

I'd like to jump in and tackle this child abuse...thing. I think that (no, I know that), while a child is developing, they ask LOTS of questions. When the answer to every question revolves around religion and god, well that does constitute child abuse in my book, because that parent is ill-preparing that child for their life. Sure that kid is eventually going to learn that god doesn't give us babies when we pray really hard, but that kid is still, perhaps, going to have doubts in his head, because of things his parents told him when he was little. Maybe he still feels guilty about little "sins" here and there in his adult life, because he was taught that we're all sinners, right from the very beginning. Doesn't causing a life-long doubt in your child's head about what is right and wrong, and making them generally unhappy constitute child abuse?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that parents who are atheists have got it all nailed down either, but IMO, if people can teach their children religion at a young age, they should also teach them basic science, common human decency, let them be exposed to other cultures and *gasp* other religions. (Haha, in a perfect world right?) But that's not likely, since most deists are highly insecure of their faith, lest they lose their child to atheism, or Hinduism or w/e. This type of subtle mental child abuse will not ever be the type that is punishable by law, IMO. And as atheists we really couldn't suggest such a law, really. That would call for the government to intervene in people's religion, which, may I remind everyone, is bad.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"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.

I agree. But I think the problem comes when you teach your child the morals and values you hold to be important, etc and then scare them into believing what you do by saying that they will go to hell if they don't believe. Scare tactics are common in totalitarian rules and we all know how well those work out. I'd say teach your child what you can about being a good person and what not and then live and let live.