What primarily killed New Atheism?

[Dr. MB]

If 'dying off' resulted in declaring ones atheism to become twice as popular amongst GenZ than Millennials then I'll put flowers on it's grave.

https://mobile.twitter.com/ryanburge/status/1479859967695982592

I think this is probably because the perception of self-identified atheism among people younger than twenty-five or so is no longer dominated by people like Dawkins, Harris, etc. That and the fact that it's especially clear in very-young online spaces that "nothing in particular" says nothing about one's actual views and that plenty of people who describe themselves that way are at least as nonrational in their approach to fundamental questions as most religious people.

Yeah I'd say the majority of my friends are non religious but I've never met anyone my age who's actually vocal about their atheism (unless you go back to a couple particularly edgy people in middle school). It's more that they just don't really care much about religion.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I mean sure, there's probably a genetic component, but he's clearly saying much more than that in this passage, and this is all in the context of the discussion around IQ. And then in the very next sentence he's implying that there's a correlation between that and race.

It's really not hard to draw the implications of what he's saying and I can't help feeling like you're being deliberately obtuse to avoid it.

It's possible that people like Harris stop right before the line because they don't want to "say the quiet part out loud" and give away their true beliefs. But it's also possible that they just choose their words very carefully because they genuinely don't believe in the interpretations you're drawing. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt here, mostly because Harris and people like him are very good at making their opponents look like they're jumping to conclusions if they don't respond precisely to the letter of what they've said.

But this all started because you said Harris was "alt-right," and I still don't see that he was involved in the alt-right movement at all based on the evidence you've drawn my attention to.

That would imply that a careful reading of their words would yield a different interpretation from the one that I'm drawing. If you can actually provide me a different interpretation (of the whole passage, not just of selected quotes, since the point here is clearly that he's making a bunch of isolated statements and letting the audience connect the dots) I can let you know if I find it plausible. Mostly though this discussion is getting pointless. The evidence is on the table, feel free to interpret it as you will.

[Samof94]

If 'dying off' resulted in declaring ones atheism to become twice as popular amongst GenZ than Millennials then I'll put flowers on it's grave.

https://mobile.twitter.com/ryanburge/status/1479859967695982592

I think this is probably because the perception of self-identified atheism among people younger than twenty-five or so is no longer dominated by people like Dawkins, Harris, etc. That and the fact that it's especially clear in very-young online spaces that "nothing in particular" says nothing about one's actual views and that plenty of people who describe themselves that way are at least as nonrational in their approach to fundamental questions as most religious people.

Yeah I'd say the majority of my friends are non religious but I've never met anyone my age who's actually vocal about their atheism (unless you go back to a couple particularly edgy people in middle school). It's more that they just don't really care much about religion.

New Atheism is islamophobic too.

[James Monroe]

If 'dying off' resulted in declaring ones atheism to become twice as popular amongst GenZ than Millennials then I'll put flowers on it's grave.

https://mobile.twitter.com/ryanburge/status/1479859967695982592

I think this is probably because the perception of self-identified atheism among people younger than twenty-five or so is no longer dominated by people like Dawkins, Harris, etc. That and the fact that it's especially clear in very-young online spaces that "nothing in particular" says nothing about one's actual views and that plenty of people who describe themselves that way are at least as nonrational in their approach to fundamental questions as most religious people.

Yeah I'd say the majority of my friends are non religious but I've never met anyone my age who's actually vocal about their atheism (unless you go back to a couple particularly edgy people in middle school). It's more that they just don't really care much about religion.

New Atheism is islamophobic too.

Only if you think criticism of Islam is phobia. Given the state of Islam in many parts of the world it should be fair to criticize a religion which has become a source of repression for minorities and a leading cause of violence in the world.

[John Dule]

If 'dying off' resulted in declaring ones atheism to become twice as popular amongst GenZ than Millennials then I'll put flowers on it's grave.

https://mobile.twitter.com/ryanburge/status/1479859967695982592

I think this is probably because the perception of self-identified atheism among people younger than twenty-five or so is no longer dominated by people like Dawkins, Harris, etc. That and the fact that it's especially clear in very-young online spaces that "nothing in particular" says nothing about one's actual views and that plenty of people who describe themselves that way are at least as nonrational in their approach to fundamental questions as most religious people.

Yeah I'd say the majority of my friends are non religious but I've never met anyone my age who's actually vocal about their atheism (unless you go back to a couple particularly edgy people in middle school). It's more that they just don't really care much about religion.

New Atheism is islamophobic too.

There's no such thing as "Islamophobia." It is a fabricated term used to deflect valid criticisms of the most violent cult on the planet.

[Samof94]

If 'dying off' resulted in declaring ones atheism to become twice as popular amongst GenZ than Millennials then I'll put flowers on it's grave.

https://mobile.twitter.com/ryanburge/status/1479859967695982592

I think this is probably because the perception of self-identified atheism among people younger than twenty-five or so is no longer dominated by people like Dawkins, Harris, etc. That and the fact that it's especially clear in very-young online spaces that "nothing in particular" says nothing about one's actual views and that plenty of people who describe themselves that way are at least as nonrational in their approach to fundamental questions as most religious people.

Yeah I'd say the majority of my friends are non religious but I've never met anyone my age who's actually vocal about their atheism (unless you go back to a couple particularly edgy people in middle school). It's more that they just don't really care much about religion.

New Atheism is islamophobic too.

Only if you think criticism of Islam is phobia. Given the state of Islam in many parts of the world it should be fair to criticize a religion which has become a source of repression for minorities and a leading cause of violence in the world.

Definitely, but there’s a difference between being critical of Islam and being racist(Dawkins claimed “clock boy” was a terrorist). I don’t think Trump ever argued that Islam was in need of a some social modernization and the French far right talks about “white genocide” simply because more Muslims move to France.

[afleitch]

If 'dying off' resulted in declaring ones atheism to become twice as popular amongst GenZ than Millennials then I'll put flowers on it's grave.

https://mobile.twitter.com/ryanburge/status/1479859967695982592

I think this is probably because the perception of self-identified atheism among people younger than twenty-five or so is no longer dominated by people like Dawkins, Harris, etc. That and the fact that it's especially clear in very-young online spaces that "nothing in particular" says nothing about one's actual views and that plenty of people who describe themselves that way are at least as nonrational in their approach to fundamental questions as most religious people.

Yeah I'd say the majority of my friends are non religious but I've never met anyone my age who's actually vocal about their atheism (unless you go back to a couple particularly edgy people in middle school). It's more that they just don't really care much about religion.

New Atheism is islamophobic too.

There's no such thing as "Islamophobia." It is a fabricated term used to deflect valid criticisms of the most violent cult on the planet.

There absolutely is such a thing as Islamophobia even ripped away from it's religious foundation. Many Muslims experience it because it's a proxy for anti-Arab, Indian, Pakistani, Bengali etc discrimination against sometimes shared family and communal traditions and culture. Hindus and Sikhs experience it to despite not being Muslim because the very last thing most Islamophobia is, is a 'valid criticism' of the faith.

[John Dule]

If 'dying off' resulted in declaring ones atheism to become twice as popular amongst GenZ than Millennials then I'll put flowers on it's grave.

https://mobile.twitter.com/ryanburge/status/1479859967695982592

I think this is probably because the perception of self-identified atheism among people younger than twenty-five or so is no longer dominated by people like Dawkins, Harris, etc. That and the fact that it's especially clear in very-young online spaces that "nothing in particular" says nothing about one's actual views and that plenty of people who describe themselves that way are at least as nonrational in their approach to fundamental questions as most religious people.

Yeah I'd say the majority of my friends are non religious but I've never met anyone my age who's actually vocal about their atheism (unless you go back to a couple particularly edgy people in middle school). It's more that they just don't really care much about religion.

New Atheism is islamophobic too.

There's no such thing as "Islamophobia." It is a fabricated term used to deflect valid criticisms of the most violent cult on the planet.

There absolutely is such a thing as Islamophobia even ripped away from it's religious foundation. Many Muslims experience it because it's a proxy for anti-Arab, Indian, Pakistani, Bengali etc discrimination against sometimes shared family and communal traditions and culture. Hindus and Sikhs experience it to despite not being Muslim because the very last thing most Islamophobia is, is a 'valid criticism' of the faith.

We have a word for discrimination against Arabs, Pakistanis, etc-- it is called "xenophobia," or just "racism." Islam is a religion, not a race. If you voluntarily choose to be a member of a belief system, you should not be able to use the "phobia" shield to defend yourself. You might as well call someone "commiephobic" for speaking out against the CCP.

[afleitch]

If 'dying off' resulted in declaring ones atheism to become twice as popular amongst GenZ than Millennials then I'll put flowers on it's grave.

https://mobile.twitter.com/ryanburge/status/1479859967695982592

I think this is probably because the perception of self-identified atheism among people younger than twenty-five or so is no longer dominated by people like Dawkins, Harris, etc. That and the fact that it's especially clear in very-young online spaces that "nothing in particular" says nothing about one's actual views and that plenty of people who describe themselves that way are at least as nonrational in their approach to fundamental questions as most religious people.

Yeah I'd say the majority of my friends are non religious but I've never met anyone my age who's actually vocal about their atheism (unless you go back to a couple particularly edgy people in middle school). It's more that they just don't really care much about religion.

New Atheism is islamophobic too.

There's no such thing as "Islamophobia." It is a fabricated term used to deflect valid criticisms of the most violent cult on the planet.

There absolutely is such a thing as Islamophobia even ripped away from it's religious foundation. Many Muslims experience it because it's a proxy for anti-Arab, Indian, Pakistani, Bengali etc discrimination against sometimes shared family and communal traditions and culture. Hindus and Sikhs experience it to despite not being Muslim because the very last thing most Islamophobia is, is a 'valid criticism' of the faith.

We have a word for discrimination against Arabs, Pakistanis, etc-- it is called "xenophobia," or just "racism." Islam is a religion, not a race. If you voluntarily choose to be a member of a belief system, you should not be able to use the "phobia" shield to defend yourself. You might as well call someone "commiephobic" for speaking out against the CCP.

Do you think people who are xenophobic have enough nuance in their xenophobia to hurl the correct slurs at the correct groups?

[John Dule]

Do you think people who are xenophobic have enough nuance in their xenophobia to hurl the correct slurs at the correct groups?

I'm not sure how this pertains to the subject at hand.

[afleitch]

Do you think people who are xenophobic have enough nuance in their xenophobia to hurl the correct slurs at the correct groups?

I'm not sure how this pertains to the subject at hand.

I just explained in earlier post. You think it's 'just' xenophobia, but if you are getting hurled anti Muslim insults, despite not being a Muslim, but you know, you're 'Muslim looking' or the person insulting you is too stupid to know that the turban wearing gentlemen is Sikh, then it's not xenophobia. It's targeting someone on the assumption they are Muslim. That's not motivated by race, ethnicity is it?

[John Dule]

Do you think people who are xenophobic have enough nuance in their xenophobia to hurl the correct slurs at the correct groups?

I'm not sure how this pertains to the subject at hand.

I just explained in earlier post. You think it's 'just' xenophobia, but if you are getting hurled anti Muslim insults, despite not being a Muslim, but you know, you're 'Muslim looking' or the person insulting you is too stupid to know that the turban wearing gentlemen is Sikh, then it's not xenophobia. It's targeting someone on the assumption they are Muslim. That's not motivated by race, ethnicity is it?

Xenophobia is the hatred/fear of "the other" generally. I think what you described falls very neatly into that category, and there's no need to carve out a special term for a religion (especially one like Islam).

[afleitch]

Do you think people who are xenophobic have enough nuance in their xenophobia to hurl the correct slurs at the correct groups?

I'm not sure how this pertains to the subject at hand.

I just explained in earlier post. You think it's 'just' xenophobia, but if you are getting hurled anti Muslim insults, despite not being a Muslim, but you know, you're 'Muslim looking' or the person insulting you is too stupid to know that the turban wearing gentlemen is Sikh, then it's not xenophobia. It's targeting someone on the assumption they are Muslim. That's not motivated by race, ethnicity is it?

Xenophobia is the hatred/fear of "the other" generally. I think what you described falls very neatly into that category, and there's no need to carve out a special term for a religion (especially one like Islam).

It's entirely appropriate to consider aggrevation towards a persons faith, perceived faith, or lack of one as something distinct.

I'm from Glasgow after all.

Doing so shouldn't elevate that above other descriptors.

Though I can see how that has happened in the US with First Amendment protection being disproportionately leveraged and weaponised by Christians (but certainly not by Muslims).

[John Dule]

It's entirely appropriate to consider aggrevation towards a persons faith, perceived faith, or lack of one as something distinct.

Why should a person's beliefs receive some special recognition or protection under the law just because they are rooted in centuries-old texts or supernatural doctrines? Why are other deeply-held beliefs, such as political or secular moral beliefs, not afforded this same degree of deference?

[afleitch]

It's entirely appropriate to consider aggrevation towards a persons faith, perceived faith, or lack of one as something distinct.

Why should a person's beliefs receive some special recognition or protection under the law just because they are rooted in centuries-old texts or supernatural doctrines? Why are other deeply-held beliefs, such as political or secular moral beliefs, not afforded this same degree of deference?

Thing is, I don't completely disagree with you.

On a rights basis; the fact a person can hop from religion A, to religion B and from position A to position B on a matter of 'conscience' overnight and have position A protected from an advocate of position B, even though that person held position B the day before, does have the potential to debase rights associated with characteristics such as race and sexuality.

And of course an argument could be made for say, advocating that white supremacy is a sincerely held belief and personal philosophy (which it unfortunately is for some) which we would wish no court, whether legal or public opinion to agree to. The fact we have a basket of certain beliefs we separate out from that is clearly a matter of choice.

So yes, 'special' concessions are made for religious belief and tradition as 'things' worthy of protection carried over from periods of state formation and in dis/functional western democracies seems to not cause any significant problems.

I tend to be an advocate of expanding rights, so it's not something I would wish to be rolled back; rather having religious rights constrained as the expression of all rights are, by others in the public sphere.

[James Monroe]

If 'dying off' resulted in declaring ones atheism to become twice as popular amongst GenZ than Millennials then I'll put flowers on it's grave.

https://mobile.twitter.com/ryanburge/status/1479859967695982592

I think this is probably because the perception of self-identified atheism among people younger than twenty-five or so is no longer dominated by people like Dawkins, Harris, etc. That and the fact that it's especially clear in very-young online spaces that "nothing in particular" says nothing about one's actual views and that plenty of people who describe themselves that way are at least as nonrational in their approach to fundamental questions as most religious people.

Yeah I'd say the majority of my friends are non religious but I've never met anyone my age who's actually vocal about their atheism (unless you go back to a couple particularly edgy people in middle school). It's more that they just don't really care much about religion.

New Atheism is islamophobic too.

Only if you think criticism of Islam is phobia. Given the state of Islam in many parts of the world it should be fair to criticize a religion which has become a source of repression for minorities and a leading cause of violence in the world.

Definitely, but there’s a difference between being critical of Islam and being racist(Dawkins claimed “clock boy” was a terrorist). I don’t think Trump ever argued that Islam was in need of a some social modernization and the French far right talks about “white genocide” simply because more Muslims move to France.

Yes, criticism of Islam can lend into racist tendencies. I think the New Atheist writers for the most part were cautious about the racism while being just as critical of Islam as all religions. Daring to take on Islam when politically correct liberals just stand on their toes while leaders of the faith are preaching killing enemies in their name is a courageous act. Remember what the Iranian government did to Salem Rushdie you learned the dangers of theocratic governments.

[John Dule]

It's entirely appropriate to consider aggrevation towards a persons faith, perceived faith, or lack of one as something distinct.

Why should a person's beliefs receive some special recognition or protection under the law just because they are rooted in centuries-old texts or supernatural doctrines? Why are other deeply-held beliefs, such as political or secular moral beliefs, not afforded this same degree of deference?

Thing is, I don't completely disagree with you.

On a rights basis; the fact a person can hop from religion A, to religion B and from position A to position B on a matter of 'conscience' overnight and have position A protected from an advocate of position B, even though that person held position B the day before, does have the potential to debase rights associated with characteristics such as race and sexuality.

And of course an argument could be made for say, advocating that white supremacy is a sincerely held belief and personal philosophy (which it unfortunately is for some) which we would wish no court, whether legal or public opinion to agree to. The fact we have a basket of certain beliefs we separate out from that is clearly a matter of choice.

So yes, 'special' concessions are made for religious belief and tradition as 'things' worthy of protection carried over from periods of state formation and in dis/functional western democracies seems to not cause any significant problems.

I tend to be an advocate of expanding rights, so it's not something I would wish to be rolled back; rather having religious rights constrained as the expression of all rights are, by others in the public sphere.

Yet surely you'll agree that some rights are mutually exclusive. The right to free speech, for example, might often conflict with the supposed "rights" of religious or spiritual people, and in that instance I would certainly support "rolling back" religious protections in favor of protections for free speech. What bothers me about the term "Islamophobia" is that it attempts to equate Muslims with a protected class on the level of racial or sexual minorities. This is the thin end of the wedge-- the other end of the wedge is anti-blasphemy laws, which have no place in modern society.

[Hindsight was 2020]

It’s leaders becoming a bunch of cranky reactionaries tbh. Sam Harris promotes 19th century race based pseudoscience, Richard Dawkins jumped on the “western democracy is under threat from Muslims migrates so we need to elect strongmen to stop them. Because when has giving the state power to go after marginalized groups on the ground of preserving a way of life ever had bad consequences?” bandwagon. An Bill Maher has been growing increasingly hostile to trans people.

[Sestak]

Most posters in here have it right; the initial new atheist movement was essentially completely successful in its cultural aims. The second wave of it wasn’t really “killed”, it never really was alive to begin with. The leaders of the initial movement (the ones who cared about remaining as public figures; does anyone even know what Daniel Dennett is doing these days?) pivoted to other stuff. Over time most atheists got bored of this and left or actively thought “what the fyck is this” as they sought new targets.

Regarding Harris specifically, I don’t think he personally believes in that stuff but it doesn’t particularly matter in terms of what he does as a commentator; most of the internet commentators he’s connected to now are more clearly alt-right adjacent. To more cleanly separate himself from those sorts of people would mean losing substantial amounts of viewers/listeners and he’s made it clear he doesn’t care enough to do that. You can argue what you want about what initially caused this - I will note that around 2014-15 algorithms on YouTube and other content websites started agressively pushing/recommending alt-right content - very easy to jump from content about someone like Penn Jilette (someone who’s an adamant atheist but never cared for any sort of alt-right politics) to a Milo Yiannopolous or a Sargon of Akkad. This sort of implicit affiliation surely didn’t help.

[Samof94]

Do you think people who are xenophobic have enough nuance in their xenophobia to hurl the correct slurs at the correct groups?

I'm not sure how this pertains to the subject at hand.

I just explained in earlier post. You think it's 'just' xenophobia, but if you are getting hurled anti Muslim insults, despite not being a Muslim, but you know, you're 'Muslim looking' or the person insulting you is too stupid to know that the turban wearing gentlemen is Sikh, then it's not xenophobia. It's targeting someone on the assumption they are Muslim. That's not motivated by race, ethnicity is it?

Turbans aren’t even much of a Muslim thing anyway. That’s like thinking someone is a Christian when they are really Jewish.