Opinion of New Atheism

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

To summarize what it is:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Positive (Theist)

So long as they don't raise strawmen, I have no objections to atheists forcefully expounding their views.

I don't think they'll have much success, since as a generally rule atheists and theists tend to base their philosophy on different world views, and by that I mean far more than whether the existence of the divine is necessary to a functioning universe.

[Sic Semper Fascistis]

Mixed (agnostic).

While I do think religion should be ruthlessly combated whenever it becomes a tool of social control (something that, alas, it too often does even today), I see no point in attacking one's individual beliefs as long as they don't interfere with others'.

BTW, the quote in your sig is beautiful, Scott.

[DemPGH]

No problems whatsoever with the movement itself or its concept, so Positive (Agnostic). I do not consider myself part of it although it is closer to me than traditional theism.

My view is that religion gets a special pedestal in society of which it is really not deserving, so when people counter it, so long as they are calm and rational, I greatly approve. Or if someone is wonderfully entertaining, again like P&T, I enjoy it. In other words, if people choose to believe in things like reincarnation, fervent prayer, the body and blood of Christ in communion, astrology, fortune telling, alien abductions, and I could go on, then they have to be prepared to tolerate those things being challenged by people who see no empirical basis at all for believing in them. I'm actually more curious about why people believe those things than I am focused on debunking them.

[DC Al Fine]

Have as much a tendency to believe in fairytales as theists, on their's have names like "The three little atheists and the Big Bad Pope" and "How the universe was created ex nihlio".

Generally dislike. I have a certain fondness for the atheists that embrace nihlism, but new athests don't really do that.

[Redalgo]

Negative (Atheist) - though I could have just as easily voted Negative (Agnostic)

To put it succinctly, from personal experience they appear to be the most aggressive, stubborn antagonists one can find among non-believers in the campaign to limit the influence of religious teachings in our day-to-day lives. They are the atheistic equivalent to religious fundamentalists.

[afleitch]

Well if going by the definition; ''religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises" then I don't see how that's a bad thing for someone to do. If we flip it on it's head "atheism should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by religious argument wherever its influence arises" then that would surely apply to just about every Christian who advocates their faith in the increasingly secular public arena. And that's not a bad thing for people to do either.

[angus]

Now we have New Atheism, in addition to internet atheism? 

Well, based on your description negative.  However, New Atheists don't seem to be offering anything new that the old atheists didn't already offer in terms of anti-religious bigotry.  If new and internet atheism are just names for the garden variety atheists one runs into every day (and I'm beginning to suspect that they are), then they're not horrible people so much as the normal sorts of approval-seeking, insecure types who find themselves joining cults.  In fact, the cult of atheism probably pre-dates most of the other more famous cults. 

I'm not really familiar with this guy Dawkins, but Hitchens I know pretty well.  I've met him and heard him speak numerous times.  He comes across as exceedingly well-informed, and he actually knows a good joke or two, but he has a fascist edge to him.  Not the sort of guy I'd want informing public policy. 

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

My problem with New Atheism, going by the definition, is that it advocates zero tolerance.  I, for one, don't see how people can have a productive conversation if no one tolerates the views of each other.  That, in my opinion, defeats the purpose of communication entirely.  Also, New Atheists largely appear to be against religion for its existence as a common idea, regardless of how people act on those views in the public arena.  I really don't see militant atheism as any better than militant religiosity, especially in terms of intellectual exchange.

[afleitch]

My problem with New Atheism, going by the definition, is that it advocates zero tolerance.  I, for one, don't see how people can have a productive conversation if no one tolerates the views of each other.  That, in my opinion, defeats the purpose of communication entirely.  Also, New Atheists largely appear to be against religion for its existence as a common idea, regardless of how people act on those views in the public arena.  I really don't see militant atheism as any better than militant religiosity, especially in terms of intellectual exchange.

I think the difference really is between deism and religion. Productive conversation is often had between deists and atheists over the nature of the existence of a god or some being so astounding that it can't be called anything other than a 'god.' The problem is when theism is introduced; i.e, 'there is a god and it's this one and I know what he thinks.' It then becomes a different argument and I entirely understand the frustration that some people have of having to wade through the theistic and doctrinal stuff while still having to offer it (theistic belief) the same platform as they would deism. It's a bit like talking about the supernatural with someone who believes in the supernatural (which I like doing) but only being able to talk about it with respect to their belief in ghosts. Therefore you have to keep talking about ghosts and why you don't believe in them because you don't believe in the supernatural, when your opponent is focused almost exclusively on ghosts

[angus]

My problem with New Atheism, going by the definition, is that it advocates zero tolerance.  I, for one, don't see how people can have a productive conversation if no one tolerates the views of each other.  That, in my opinion, defeats the purpose of communication entirely.  Also, New Atheists largely appear to be against religion for its existence as a common idea, regardless of how people act on those views in the public arena.  I really don't see militant atheism as any better than militant religiosity, especially in terms of intellectual exchange.

I think the difference really is between deism and religion. Productive conversation is often had between deists and atheists over the nature of the existence of a god or some being so astounding that it can't be called anything other than a 'god.' The problem is when theism is introduced; i.e, 'there is a god and it's this one and I know what he thinks.' It then becomes a different argument and I entirely understand the frustration that some people have of having to wade through the theistic and doctrinal stuff while still having to offer it (theistic belief) the same platform as they would deism. It's a bit like talking about the supernatural with someone who believes in the supernatural (which I like doing) but only being able to talk about it with respect to their belief in ghosts. Therefore you have to keep talking about ghosts and why you don't believe in them because you don't believe in the supernatural, when your opponent is focused almost exclusively on ghosts

You both assume that everyone ought to wear his religion on his sleeve.  Monotheists, atheists, etc., must necessarily get into these discussions.  In your country and Scott's folks are presumably free to practice whatever religion they want, even atheism, and ought to be able to practice it without fear of persecution.  That's where the so-called New Atheist offends.  So long as he's practicing his own atheism and enjoying it, there's no problem, but when he steps up to a guy in an airport who is on a mat bowing to the east and chanting "Muhammed rasul Allah" and he says, "you chump, don't you know that there is no god?" then it's hard to feel sorry for him when the supplicant jumps up and puts a knife in his liver. 

I suppose that's why we're not allowed to carry knives on planes anymore.  I blame the New Atheists.

[afleitch]

So long as he's practicing his own atheism and enjoying it, there's no problem, but when he steps up to a guy in an airport who is on a mat bowing to the east and chanting "Muhammed rasul Allah" and he says, "you chump, don't you know that there is no god?" then it's hard to feel sorry for him when the supplicant jumps up and puts a knife in his liver. 

I suppose that's why we're not allowed to carry knives on planes anymore.  I blame the New Atheists.

Yeah, but that's a guy being a douche. It's got nothing to do with being an atheist nor is it a product of it. If a guy shouted 'Come on the Celts' in Bridgeton, Glasgow and got jumped by Rangers fans it's the same thing. At a lot of LGBT get togethers I've had people of faith basically calling us all paedophiles. That's not them being a 'Christian'; that's just them being a douche.

[DemPGH]

See, I think where these atheist conversations are shows how utterly and completely dominant religion and Christianity are. I've never met an Internet Atheist, a New Atheist, or an aggressive atheist - which will surely be the next term if it's not already coined. Atheists might be 20% of the population. In this I sympathize with Dawkins and Hitchens and see those guys in a much more positive light. However, particularly in public places on university campuses, I have met plenty of aggressive Christians.

They tend to come out of the woodwork with a half wild look and accost you with something like, "Hey, you wanna talk about JESUS?!" Well, sure. Let's talk about Jesus (no, I never felt the impulse to stab any of them). What archaeological evidence do you have that Jesus even existed? Do you know that everything he supposedly said was written down long after he supposedly lived? And it's usually not long until the "aggressive Christian" saunters off. Just recently I was in a coffee shop and was at the bar getting my cappuccino while another guy nearby was standing turned partly toward me and the people around me. He was going on about what all God had done for him to the barista - God got his life back in order, God did this, God probably wakes him up in the morning for all I know and makes him breakfast - at any rate, talking about God fixing things in his life loudly so that anyone around the bar could easily hear him. Meanwhile I waited for my soy cappy. Well he seemed half good-natured, so I finally said, "Hey, man, maybe you did some that stuff for yourself." So he pivoted more fully and kept going on, reiterating much of it. There was no reasoning to be done, so when I got my drink I excused myself and left. I've never met the atheist equivalent of these examples.

I don't know of any atheist preachers on TV, but I know of plenty of militant Christian ones. I don't know of any atheist universities, but I know of many militant Christian universities to which people flock. There's no such thing as an atheist President. But there are / have been plenty of militant Christian ones. And so on. Maybe if there were any of these things, and if atheism really were the norm, I could accept some of the pro-religious handwringing, but until that happens the religious handwringing is just the majority lamenting the fact that their belief system doesn't get the protected spot atop the cultural pedestal that it used to.

That's ultimately why I like the New Atheist movement. Religion should not get the protective bubble that it has always gotten. Want to believe weird things like spirit talk and holy books? Fine. But don't wince when someone challenges it.

[Wiggle Your Yummy Moist Preggers Cake Ben Shapiro]

Negative. Fundamentist Atheism is a better name.

[angus]

I've never met an Internet Atheist, a New Atheist, or an aggressive atheist - which will surely be the next term if it's not already coined....

I'm thinking Atheist Fundamentalist.  At least that's the term applied to Muslims, Christians, a few high school band directors, and good college football coaches.  Fundamentalists.  "Boys, we got to get the fundamentals straight!  Gimme fifteen pushups.  Now!" 

Ah, I see It's-A-Me! has beat me to it.  Well, I suppose that mediocre minds think alike.

(no, I never felt the impulse to stab any of them).

Well, of course not.  Why would you?  It's not like anyone ever walked up to you in an airport and profiled you because you were an atheist.  You're not a problem for the authorities.  Being an atheist is like being white in a rich neighborhood.  You simply have no excuse to get indignant because you're not going to be profiled.  Surely you realize that.

In all honesty, outside this forum I never engage in such discussions either.  I too had never heard of the terms internet atheist or New Atheist.  As far as Richard Dawkins, whoever he might be...  Well, I listen to public radio news just about every morning on the way to work, and I watch the PBS newshour just about every evening, and I've never heard his name mentioned even once.  Same goes for Nicki Minaj, who I also probably would never have heard of if I didn't post here regularly.  Now, Justin Biebert I had actually heard of, even outside this forum.

[fezzyfestoon]

I'm not going to speak on theoretical or universal terms with regards to this, because of the particular situation in the US. When there's such an adamantly antagonistic and politically motivated religious base of groupthink that has accumulated such vast influence, it's offensive to hear people call the criticism of that negative, militant, or fundamentalist. Part of why this country's political landscape has drifted so far from a rational level of discourse is because of the cowardly deflection to religious teachings at the hint of criticism for ignorance or even bigotry. The refusal to answer for bad policy is crippling our ability to effectively and appropriately assess how to improve our flailing nation. When religion recognizes and respects atheism maybe there'll be a bit of a departure from needing to assault religion in general in order to make any statement on a person's politics. If evangelical politicians want to pin their platform to religion, then they can't bitch when their religion gets criticized as a result. So my meandering point is essentially that the dismissal of the atheist perspective in the name of "respect" for religion is narrow-minded and unfair.

[angus]

If evangelical politicians want to pin their platform to religion, then they can't bitch when their religion gets criticized as a result.

That is fair, and if an atheist wants to pin his platform to his religion, then it is also far to criticize his.

Politicians are pretty much fair game for all sorts of assaults, in my opinion, be they mono-, poly-, or atheist, or even unconcerned with such things at all.  That, however, is not the same thing as "criticizing, countering, and exposing whenever the influence arises."  The influence of religion arises, for example, when an African child with no rice is provided with food, or when a South American child with a cleft palette is provided with surgery.  The influence of religion arises when the homeless are given shelter, or a leper is given medicine.  Taken at face value, the stated objectives of the New Atheist seems counterproductive in many ways.  Hateful as well.