What primarily killed New Atheism?

[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

[afleitch]

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.

I think that's a good point. The growth in self-identifying as atheist (which when I saw this data actually took me by surprise) amongst younger GenZ is probably in part due to interacting with peers who aren't Christian or another established faith, but certainly dabble with other spiritual beliefs; pagan, tarot etc. So there's a need to define as more than just 'nothing in particular'.

There is also a tendency in American discourse to have a want to categorise 'nothings' (and atheists responding 'nothing') as potential Christians under the surface. I think because the US has been so defined by religious adherence and experienced a young boomer religious revival when Europe did not, that's there's an expectation that something similar is around the corner which while not entirely out of the question, is more likely just to be nothing more than standard western secularisation. Studies of millennials have showed that in general there isn't a return to faith, even when establishing families and having children.

[afleitch]

People began to realize that the secular right, when given power, could be just as dangerous as the rabidly Evangelical right, and that they often aligned with one another.

Except amongst self declared atheists, Trump only got 11%. This was the lowest share amongst any religious/non religious group other than black protestants.

I don't think it helps to mix up a few prominent online voices with the views of atheists. That's as disingenuous as saying church leaders 'represent' the laity.

[afleitch]

Also, as I've talked about before, 'edgy' atheism is somewhat a clumsy deconstruction undertaken by people leaving faith behind. And Christians taking shots back. The fact it was and is a very American phenomenon stems from the fact that US Christianity, socially in communities and families can be a toxic environment. Being an atheist in these circles can be difficult.

[afleitch]

People began to realize that the secular right, when given power, could be just as dangerous as the rabidly Evangelical right, and that they often aligned with one another.

Except amongst self declared atheists, Trump only got 11%. This was the lowest share amongst any religious/non religious group other than black protestants.

I don't think it helps to mix up a few prominent online voices with the views of atheists. That's as disingenuous as saying church leaders 'represent' the laity.

But this thread is specifically about New Atheism, not atheism in general. I don't think New Atheists are representative of the average self-described atheist, but that's precisely the point.

It still requires defining New Atheist online voices as 'the New Atheists' not people who define themselves as atheist, 'new' or 'new adjacent' or otherwise. There were probably more individuals involved with the Westboro Baptist Church than were online figures of note for atheism for a hot second in 2010.

The people who knew the most, talked the most, engaged the most and lined the pockets the most of New Atheists were Christians and Christian educational institutions in particular.

[afleitch]

People began to realize that the secular right, when given power, could be just as dangerous as the rabidly Evangelical right, and that they often aligned with one another.

Except amongst self declared atheists, Trump only got 11%. This was the lowest share amongst any religious/non religious group other than black protestants.

I don't think it helps to mix up a few prominent online voices with the views of atheists. That's as disingenuous as saying church leaders 'represent' the laity.

But this thread is specifically about New Atheism, not atheism in general. I don't think New Atheists are representative of the average self-described atheist, but that's precisely the point.

It still requires defining New Atheist online voices as 'the New Atheists' not people who define themselves as atheist, 'new' or 'new adjacent' or otherwise. There were probably more individuals involved with the Westboro Baptist Church than were online figures of note for atheism for a hot second in 2010.

The people who knew the most, talked the most, engaged the most and lined the pockets the most of New Atheists were Christians and Christian educational institutions in particular.

I mean, obviously it's not the kind of thing that can be defined rigorously, but I think most people understand what they mean when they say "New Atheist". There was a pretty specific phenomenon of very aggressive atheists in the 2000s and 2010s who had Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens as their ideological ringleaders and were famous for being mostly devoted to celebrating their own supposed intellectual superiority. I don't have statistics on this, but anecdotal experience suggests a disproportionate number of these people drifted toward the alt-right during the second half of the past decade (including Harris himself, of course) and have largely become irrelevant clowns in the process.

Well Gary Wolf is credited with coining the phrase in about 2006 ish. He 'initiated' three; Dawkins, Harris and Dennett, none of whom were Trump supporters, Dennett especially. Dawkins and Harris in particular drifted into 'muh centrism' ambivalence.

Add in Hitchens, who is dead.

No one else was really that prolific. Boghossian maybe, who ended up a centrist chud but not a Trump supporter and Hirsi Ali who we can say went off on a tangent.

People conflate New Atheist players with the 'IDW' grift, but there's not that much of an overlap other than very early interactions between people like Dave Rubin interviewing say, Stephen Fry long before his audience capture.

[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.

[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?

[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?

[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).

[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.