Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
What is your opinion of the "New Atheist" movement?
DaftChris
Spiritually conflicted. Not of this world. Veteran
For those who may not know, "New Atheism" is (in a nutshell) the collected ideas and writing of prominent 21st century atheists. It takes a different approach from, for lack of a better term, traditional atheism which tolerated religion; It claims that, because of scientific progress, religion, faith and superstition need to be criticized and exposed to rational arguments. Some of the leading individuals of this movement include Dawkins, Harris, Stenger and the late Htchens.
I myself am an Agnostic Atheist, but there is just something off-putting about those who subscribe to New Atheism. I don't want to say that it is militancy, because, realistically, militant atheists write books at the most. While militant Christians bomb abortion clinics and radical Islamists suicide bomb whatever they can.
It's also not the fact that it criticizes faith and religion. I do that all the time and, likewise, people have criticized my lack of belief. A good debate is always good to have, as long as people try to maintain some composure. Besides, there is nothing "new" about an Atheist using logic to criticize religion.
Honestly, I think it is because the N.A. movement has almost made itself into what atheists don't have: a religion. During arguments, many will refer to one of the many books written by the various authors to reinstate their claims and there have been quite a few atheists I have seen that have gone beyond just admiring people like Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens. That type of commitment (and almost obsession) with any ideology is quite religious in any context; just don't tell that to any of them. They won't like that.
Also, on a semi-related note, what do you think of TheAmazingAtheist?
I myself am an Agnostic Atheist, but there is just something off-putting about those who subscribe to New Atheism. I don't want to say that it is militancy, because, realistically, militant atheists write books at the most. While militant Christians bomb abortion clinics and radical Islamists suicide bomb whatever they can.
It's also not the fact that it criticizes faith and religion. I do that all the time and, likewise, people have criticized my lack of belief. A good debate is always good to have, as long as people try to maintain some composure. Besides, there is nothing "new" about an Atheist using logic to criticize religion.
Honestly, I think it is because the N.A. movement has almost made itself into what atheists don't have: a religion. During arguments, many will refer to one of the many books written by the various authors to reinstate their claims and there have been quite a few atheists I have seen that have gone beyond just admiring people like Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens. That type of commitment (and almost obsession) with any ideology is quite religious in any context; just don't tell that to any of them. They won't like that.
Also, on a semi-related note, what do you think of TheAmazingAtheist?
0
Comments
I like Hitchens approach because it is more of a debate than an irritated rant, and he comes across as very intelligent and focused which allows him to be blunt without being rude. Religion bothers him more than it bothers me, but he does make some good points.
But on the other hand, it's not like I don't understand that Christianity is the majority (in America and many other countries)... and it is nice to hear people being loud and open about alternate views. *shrugs*
Is such a thing possible? :scratch:
It just means that while I don't personally believe in any god(s), I don't believe that I can disprove one's existence. Just like no theist can 100% prove any god's existence.
http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm
(Sorry, MG, I never did get the concept.)
I just think it's a bit of prevarication and gilding the lily....
and if I'm completely honest, you might as well throw in 'Theist' as well, at this rate, because i just think fundamentally, anyone who sits that far across the fences is just hedging their bets and playing it safe.....
I would much prefer people didn't pussyfoot around.
Plant your staff and don't be so indecisive....!
I was a R.Catholic for 40 years or so, and I'm damn sure of exactly which camp i fall into.
:thumbdown:
Theist: Belief in a deity.
Atheist: Lack of a belief in a deity.
Gnostic: Position that we can ultimately know whether or not a god exists.
Agnostic: Position that we can't ultimately know whether or not god exists.
Gnosticism can also be known as a "Strong position" and Agnosticism known as a "Weak position."
So people can be 1 of 4 things.
Gnostic Theist: Belief that a god does exist, and we can ultimately know this is true.
Gnostic Atheist: Belief that a god doesn't exist, and we can ultimately know this is true.
Agnostic Theist: Belief that a god does exist, but we can't actually know if this is true.
Agnostic Atheist: Lack of a belief in a god because we can't ultimately know if one exists.
Many religious people and theists are Gnostic Theists.
Most self-proclaimed atheists and agnostics are Agnostic Atheists.
How to tell what you are:
Do you personally hold a distinct belief in a deity of any sort?
If you do not believe in a deity, you are an atheist.
If you do believe in a deity, you are a theist.
Do you believe your position is absolutely correct?
If you do, you are gnostic.
If you don't, you are agnostic.
Problems may occur when defining "deity." Deity is typically defined as: a recognized preternatural or supernatural immortal being, who may be thought of as holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, and respected by believers.
Buddhism, assuming you don't consider devas or Bodhisattvas deities, is typically seen as an Agnostic Atheistic religion, or even Apatheistic.
Apatheism is the belief that belief in a deity does not matter. It is typically seen as a form of Agnostic Atheism.
When I decided I was no longer a Christian, or a believer in God, I wanted to figure out the term to define my beliefs, as to let people accurately know what my beliefs were when I was asked.
After looking for a while, I considered myself an agnostic, but eventually found out that just calling myself an agnostic was not entirely accurate. Most agnostics do not hold any belief in a deity, making them atheists as well. So, I was actually an agnostic atheist.
What am I!? :existential crisis:
I do not think a deity exists, in fact, I think the chance of that happening is very low, but I can not honestly say to myself that I am absolutely correct, because I admit knowledge about a deity existing is truly unknowable.
Think about it this way. Which one of these do you agree with the most?
I know God exists. (Gnostic Theist)
I know God does not exist. (Gnostic Atheist)
I think God exists. (Agnostic Theist)
I think God doesn't exist. (Agnostic Atheist)
No allowance made for that category of person, i see......
Make a Wikipedia article on it and then it will become official.
I don't know what good it's doing. Religions like Christianity and Islam or Judaism seem harder for me to understand than say Buddhism or Taoism.
Just some quick thoughts.
And amazing athiest... sometimes I agree with him and sometimes I think he's too extreme and starts talking about stuff he doesn't know much about.
I think Buddhism is a sort of ;if you don't wanna have a religion, then fuck it don't be a buddhist who cares.' maybe filling your mind with buddhist ideas isn't for you.
re·li·gion/riˈlijən/
Noun:
1.The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
2.Details of belief as taught or discussed.
Atheism
a·the·ism/ˈāTHēˌizəm/
Noun:
1. The theory or belief that God does not exist.
Not a religion.
Here's another definition of religion that doesn't mention God or gods at all: "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith".
As for my own position, I'm an agnostic. But even if I was firmly religious or atheist, I imagine my response would be the same.
+
A new study by the University of B.C. says religious people distrust atheists more than they do persons from other religious groups, gays and feminists. The study found that the only group religious people distrust as much as atheists are rapists.
The research involved six studies conducted with 350 American adults and nearly 420 university students in Canada. The study posed a number of hypothetical questions and scenarios to participants. In one of the studies, participants presented with description of an untrustworthy person found it to be more representative of an atheist than Muslims, Jews, gays and feminists.
Gervais, according to RichardDawkins.net, said that the only group the participants distrusted as much as atheists was rapists.
Doctoral student Will Gervais, according to Science Daily, co-authored the study with University of British Columbia Associate Prof. Ara Norenzayan and Azim Shariff of the University of Oregon. The study published in the online Journal of Personality and Social Psychology said the attitude of religious people to atheists has a significant impact on their welfare in society and often limits their job opportunities.
According to Science Daily, Gervais observed:
"Where there are religious majorities (that is,in most of the world), atheists are among the least trusted people. With more than half a billion atheists worldwide, this prejudice has the potential to affect a substantial number of people."
Gervais said that the negative attitude to atheists is striking since atheist are not a "coherent, visible or powerful social group." According to Gervais:
“People are willing to hire an atheist for a job that is perceived as low-trust, for instance as a waitress. But when hiring for a high-trust job like daycare worker, they were like, nope, not going to hire an atheist for that job."
The researchers concluded that:
"Outward displays of belief in God may be viewed as a proxy for trustworthiness, particularly by religious believers who think that people behave better if they feel that God is watching them. While atheists may see their disbelief as a private matter on a metaphysical issue, believers may consider atheists' absence of belief as a public threat to cooperation and honesty."
Huffington Post reports that the study was significantly motivated by a Gallup poll survey which found that only 45 percent of Americans would vote for a qualified atheist as president. Gallup showed that this figure was the lowest among several hypothetical minority candidates, implying that atheists were the least trusted group in America.
The researchers emphasized, however, that distrust was the major factor in the prejudice against atheists, not hatred or disgust. The researchers said that identifying distrust as the major factor in the prejudice against atheists would help to combat it.
Atheists, however, do not return the hard feelings against them, the researchers say. According to Gervais, atheists tend to be indifferent to people's religious beliefs when assessing their trustworthiness:
“Atheists don’t necessarily favour other atheists over Christians or anyone else. They seem to think that religion is not an important signal for who you can trust."
http://digitaljournal.com/article/315425
"
You're on a Buddhist forum. Buddhism is (or can be seen as) a religion. If you're so anti-religion, why are you here? That's not said in a nasty tone, by the way. Hard to convey tone via the written word. Is it a "oh, but Buddhism's different" thing? Why, because you personally subscribe to it?
He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster.
- Friedrich Nietzsche