New Atheism: Is It Dead or an Idea Worth Saving?

[rug]

Posted: 10/01/2014 1:10 pm EDT
Updated: 10/01/2014 1:59 pm EDT
Dan Arel
Author of Parenting Without God

For the lack of a better term I consider myself a "new atheist". Along the lines of those like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel C. Dennett (The Four Horseman) for whom the term is originally coined. I am an outspoken atheist activist who speaks out against religion and believes it causes a great deal of harm in this world.

I have a great deal of respect for all four of these men for their writing, speaking and activism, however it is not such a dogmatic respect that I simply believe and agree with anything they say, or continue to feel they necessarily have to be relevant in the atheist movement, or even a force for good.

I will not speak much of Hitchens, who having past away many years ago now is not worth mentioning to an extreme degree. He was a brilliant polemicist and arguably the most intelligent of the Four Horseman on both religion and politics. He was gravely wrong in backing George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq, but no one is perfect and that does not immediately ruin his legacy.

Dennett is relatively quiet and only speaks up when asks about the more recent drama, so I will not address him either.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-arel/new-atheism-is-it-dead-or_b_5908744.html

[Maedhros]

1. As an Atheist, I find little value in crusading against religion.

I choose not to participate, and will oppose attempts to force my participation, but I'm not inclined to harangue believers. Some "New Atheists" engage in zealotry just like their religious counterparts.

[DesertFlower]

5. i agree. everyone has the right

to their beliefs or lack of beliefs.

[m-lekktor]

7. yes they "have a right" until it infringes on my human rights as a gay man.

that is why i could never be an atheist who sides with religionists and criticizes other atheists who stand up AGAINST bigoted and irrational religious belief systems.

[cbayer]

9. I am curious where you have run into these kinds of people.

I mean, atheists who side (support?) religionists and criticize other atheists who stand up AGAINST bigoted religious beliefs.

I'm leaving the "irrational" part out, because that is a highly subjective word and there are those who feel all religious beliefs are irrational.

[AtheistCrusader]

28. Can't say as I've specifically seen that, but I have seen someone here in this folder stand up with

religious objectors to the contraception coverage mandates of the ACA, and complain that 'women could buy rubbers at 7/11 like everyone else' in defense of the Catholic church's doctrinal prohibitions on birth control.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218122885#post35

Oh, wait, I have seen an 'atheist' in this group compare same sex marriage to marrying your bicycle, a vole, and a number of other things not capable of legally recognized consent. Typical religious bigot talking point when attempting to oppose same sex marriage.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=124676

So, I think said 'atheists' (Yes, those are scare quotes, most certainly and enthusiastically) are perhaps just careful which sorts of bigoted religious beliefs they defend in this venue. (Not that the anti-ACA position wasn't hazardous in this venue. It should have been nuked from orbit. One of the 'marry a bike' posts was nuked.)

[cbayer]

40. Yes, that's exactly what he was saying in both cases.

And I disgust you? Go get your high fives, but I'm taking a big fat break from you.

[AtheistCrusader]

41. Not sure where I said you disgust me, specifically, but a break probably for the best, regardless.

[cbayer]

43. Really? Unlike the garbage you are pulling out of context

to repeat a stupid meme (credit to Dawkins) that has no basis in reality, this one is clear and without question.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=153741

Curious about how many have you on ignore? Can't imagine why.

Bye.

[AtheistCrusader]

44. That specific post was almost a month ago.

And I remain convinced you were being fully disingenuous about that issue.

[AtheistCrusader]

42. And that IS what he said. Whether he meant it, might be another matter, but he said it.

And IIRC, two separate juries agreed.

[cbayer]

8. I think you represent most atheists.

Live and let live, as long as no one is stepping on someone else's rights.

[Starboard Tack]

13. Ain't that the truth.

Zealotry of any kind is vile, especially so when it comes from those who share one's own core beliefs.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

2. I haven't figured out what the definition of "new atheist" is from the article.

[rug]

3. There is a consensus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism

[phil89]

54. Wikipedia?

ok...

[rug]

56. Excellent.

You can click a link.

[immoderate]

4. This guy is a real snooze.

New what??

--imm

[cbayer]

6. I don't think it's dead at all, just in need of some fresh leadership.

It is clearly very much alive and very vibrant, or there wouldn't be so much loud discord coming from so many quarters.

But if those who are considered the major spokespeople aren't able to hear that their positions of some issues run contrary to those they assume to speak for, they need to step aside.

Dawkins most recent "coming out" program is really excellent and merits endorsement, but if there are those that only wish to distance themselves from him personally, he is likely to fail.

[DavidDvorkin]

10. First, there is no such thing as a new atheist

There are only atheists. Some are quiet about it, and some, like me, are not.

Second, that should be "...Hitchens, who having PASSED away..." Tsk, tsk.

[cbayer]

11. So should there be different terms for active versus passive atheists?

And "new atheism" is actually at term that was formally adopted by some, whether they had your approval or not, lol.

[DavidDvorkin]

12. No more than there should be special terms for any active vs. passive people

As for those who adopted the term, they don't speak for me and, more to the point, I don't think the speak for the great majority of atheists.

The point is that there's nothing new about it. It's a meaningless label.

[rug]

14. Nothing new has been said about atheism since Athens.

[AtheistCrusader]

17. Well, I would say 'gaining ground'. Particularly in Europe.

[rug]

19. "Gaining ground" adds nothing to the concept of atheism.

Any more than "losing ground" does.

[AtheistCrusader]

20. What happens to philosophies with no adherents?

What can happen, with influxes of new thinkers, to examine, pull apart, defend or otherwise further the philosophy?

If you're just referring to the Boolean true/false existence of a supernatural thingy, sure, in fact, it's probably been stagnant longer than that.

[rug]

22. That's not the case.

If you're talking about "new atheism", you're really talking about numbers of adherents and tactics, not atheism. Because they've added nothing to it. Can you point to one nonsociological/political contribution they've made to the notion of atheism? Teapot and unicorn analogies don't really do it.

[AtheistCrusader]

23. Says you.

I find the invisible pink dragon analogy quite handy for disassembling anti-atheist arguments from religious quarters. It might not serve to convince them, but it does serve to humiliate and marginalize their claims, ideas, and 'attacks' upon atheism.

For instance, some people deserve credit for defending secularism/atheism by bankrupting 'Pascal's Wager'.

[rug]

24. You're talking rhetoric, not substance.

The defining aspect of "new atheism" that will survive it is its contribution to rhetoric, not atheism.

BTW, the invisible pink dragon argument is limited to circumstances under which it is assumed the scientific method applies to divinity.

[AtheistCrusader]

25. hardly.

Pascal's wager was a recruiting tool. Refuting it is a material contribution to humanity.

[rug]

26. Says you.

[AtheistCrusader]

29. Yes, yes I do.

[rug]

31. That's one vote.

[AtheistCrusader]

34. Let's put it another way.

Do you think, today, that Pascal's wager holds any merit?

(It's my impression that it didn't from previous discussions, but I want to double check)

[rug]

35. I don't think it held any merit 400 years ago.

Essentially it's confined to a binary damnation/salvation analysis and assumes that "salvation" is based on lip service to a deity. It's philosophical card-counting. The House always wins.

[AtheistCrusader]

37. And yet, people still find it in use.

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/what-is-pascals-wager

Seems strangely devoid of caveats pointing out its weakness...

[rug]

45. People still find Adam Smith useful in economic analysis.

I pray for them.

[AtheistCrusader]

47. True that.

Then again, most modern economics books will point out failures of his theories to work when the rubber meets the road.

[cbayer]

15. I agree that they don't speak for the great majority of atheists, but

they do speak for some.

You yourself sport an avatar that has been adopted by both individuals and groups who identify as new, or activist, atheists.

The degree of meaning it has may be debatable, but it has meaning, imo.

[DavidDvorkin]

16. I like the avatar because it denotes atheism

not some branch of same.

As far as I can see its use is spreading among atheists, without regard to the "new" label.

I'd like to know who the atheists are who consider certain public figures to be their spokesmen. As for me, if Dawkins, et. al. say something I agree with, then they speak for me. If they say something I don't agree with, then they don't.

[AtheistCrusader]

18. It's an 'out' campaign actually.

Are recent 'out' efforts made by LGBT activists the 'new' LGBT civil rights movement?

The only thing it denotes is; 'this is what I am'.

[DavidDvorkin]

21. Yes.

[haikugal]

51. Exactly right!!

This OP premise is silly....what 'new atheists' are being spoken about? Dawkins, Harris etc? There is no movement organization other than push back against the 'sit down and shut up' we've been subjected to. Stand up and proclaim yourself atheist...there are many more of us than are supposed.

[Trajan]

27. More SILLY nonsense ....

I don't need new atheism ... the original atheism suits me fine ... This notion is a lame ploy to divide atheists into non-existent camps ...

[procon]

30. I've noticed that frequently recurring theme is promoted by a couple of people here.

I don't know why these confused folks display such intolerance towards atheists. Is it fear that causes them to launch so many posts trying to stuff atheists into pigeonholes that conform to their monotheistic religious concepts? Why do they scour the Internet every day searching for material to support their negative views when there are any number of atheists here at hand who seem quite knowledge and able to refute their biases?

[rug]

32. What "confused folks"?

I'm all ears.

[cbayer]

33. Which confused couple of folks who display intolerance towards atheists are you

referring to?

[procon]

36. Ah... right on cue.

If you placed more emphasis on the text that you omitted; "... display such intolerance towards atheists," we might have found a path to an open dialog and understanding. Since you both recognized yourselves and responded with defensive posturing, unfortunately, it appears that confrontation is the goal in all these similar themed posts.

[cbayer]

38. Right on cue for what?

Actually I didn't omit that phrase at all. It's right there in the subject line.

So you are accusing me of being one of these people? Exactly what do you base that on?

The confrontation seems to be coming from you, as you make outlandish accusations of others based on, well, nothing but your beliefs and faith, I guess.

[cbayer]

39. By the way, this reply is actually to yourself, so it's hard to know who exactly

your were targeting.

[Trajan]

48. He didn't 'respond'

He 'targeted' ...

I'm not surprised that the critical words of an atheist are shot like an arrow into your presumed soul ...

Yes ... atheists don't respond ... they don't reply ... they target ....

It's all part of the atheist plan to persecute christians ...

[cbayer]

49. Lol, the critical words of an atheist shot like an arrow into my presumed soul.

This was targeted, not a reply. It is you that has broadened it to include all atheists, not me.

I'm not a christian, so I make no case for persecution.

I'm not surprised that the critical words of a non-believer shot like an arrow into your presumed soul, Trajan.

[AtheistCrusader]

46. Swift reaction, wasn't it. You might also notice up thread that certain parties are monitoring

the Atheists and Agnostics group on a <20 minute interval, apparently.

(Or they have an RSS Feed alert, depending.)

[rug]

50. Sorry, I recognize nothing objective in that internal monologue you for some reason must post.

If you ever gather the wherewithall to speak to anyone other than yourself, I'll be right here.

[procon]

52. Look at your focus now.

Not one word to address the observations I pointed out regarding all these anti-atheist themes, instead both of you go for the totally irrelevant, low hanging fruit about the physical placement of my post. That's petty and condescending. If "objectivity" was a requirement for adding a POV in a Religion Group, there would be no posts at all.

Yes, you might "be right here", but serving as a voice of intolerance instead of honestly working to forge a bridge of understanding by actually listening the many atheists who have repeatedly responded to you in a knowledgeable, thoughtful and civil manner.

[cbayer]

53. I ask you again what it is that you consider anti-ahteist themes?

Criticism of some individuals who are outspoken atheists?

Do they represent and speak for atheists in general? If not, how can criticism of them be deemed to constitute an anti-atheist theme.

I posted to you twice. Once in response to your post and then about the placement, as I wasn't sure if you were responding to me or not.

Petty and condescending is accusing others of being something they are not. You have made some outlandish accusations about the motivation and intent of others and when asked to clarify, made it clear you were directing this at me.

I ask you again what evidence you have to support your belief.

[procon]

57. It's not a matter of "belief",

I am an atheist afterall, but anyone can see what subjects you choose to post, the opinions you express, and manner in which you respond to those who disagree with your position. There are many atheists here who are far more scholarly and erudite than me,many of whom have tried repeatedly to engage in intellectual debates, but that doesn't seem to be of any profound interest in the overarching point at issue.

[cbayer]

59. Sure it is a matter of belief.

When you hold a view that has absolutely no substance but insist that it is true, it's a belief.

What subjects do I choose to post? Give me a breakdown.

You are completely distorting my position based on some kind of agenda of your own. Perhaps you have come to these conclusions on your own or perhaps you have been fed them, I am not sure.

But you are incorrect.

I engage in a lot of intellectual debates with both believers and non-believers. I do not engage with those who make personal attacks and are on a witch hunt. I hope that you will not join that group, but will get to know me and then judge me based on what I actually do and say.

Again, if you are going to make these broad based assumptions about me, my motives and feel you have the right to take a definitive stance, you really should bring some actual data to the table instead of just your "feelings".

That would be the reasonable and rational thing to do, don't you think?

[rug]

55. Your post is full of assumptions that stem from your mind, not reality.

If I were intolerant, as you repeatedly state, I would not be talking to you.

And haven't you been listening? No one speaks for atheists. Why on earth would I build a bridge with you?

As to what you call "anti-atheist themes", check the sources. They are written by atheists.

Really, what on earth do you think atheism is that you come up with this?

As to self-identified atheists who post here, check what I'm responding to, and how, Let me know if you want links.

Here, I'll get you started with a knowledgeable, thoughtful and civil post:

procon (483 posts)

30. I've noticed that frequently recurring theme is promoted by a couple of people here.

I don't know why these confused folks display such intolerance towards atheists. Is it fear that causes them to launch so many posts trying to stuff atheists into pigeonholes that conform to their monotheistic religious concepts? Why do they scour the Internet every day searching for material to support their negative views when there are any number of atheists here at hand who seem quite knowledge and able to refute their biases?

I hope that doesn't confuse you.

[procon]

58. Quite the contrary,

Your angry outburst merely confirms what I wrote.

[rug]

60. Lol, "angry outburst." In your mind.