The Efficacy of New Atheism

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Efficacy of New Atheism

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

Rakosi posted:

Do you raise your kids by telling them to believe everything they're told? Society doesn't do that with anything else but Religion. It is a topic which is in a complete blind spot to what almost every Human recognizes is an important life skill (critical thinking and skepticism).

Imagine being told that gays are bad because the Quran says so and just going "Oh, okay! Fags burn in hell!" lmao.

Plenty of people are told as children by their parents in your case to distrust certain people not of their nationality or to think others as their lessers for imagined crimes. Should we have separated you from your unfit parents? Like we should separate children from unfit religious parents?

# ¿ Jul 8, 2016 10:38

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

jiggerypokery posted:

Personally, I subscribe to the line of thought this thread calls 'new atheism'. I detest Islam, Catholicism in particular and could happily rank the world religions in a subjective order of 'evilness'. The real challenge of holding such views is expressing that detesting Islam is categorically NOT the same as detesting Muslims. Sam Harris has done a great job of pushing this point. The temptation to false dichotomy is irresistible to many in this thread already, and is extremely frustrating.

Islam isn't a race, a group of people or anything. You can't offend an Islam, you can't persecute nor discriminate against an Islam. Likewise a Catholicism, it's nonsensical. To criticise Catholicism for it's introduction of the concept of Hell, and the horrific consequences such an idea has in terms of subjugating people, for example, is absolutely not the same thing as criticising Catholics as a group of people.

My gosh this is the height of falseness. If one is even going to take this from a "rational" context at least note that Zorastrianism already believed in a place of punishment long before Christ was born, likewise the Greeks also had Tarturus for those who had really pissed off the Gods. Seriously if there is one thing that really gets me about people like you is when you make such easily disprovable comments.

# ¿ Jul 8, 2016 16:55

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

The idea of a second death which is synonymous to Hell existed within second temple Judaism though. So no it was a Jewish concept.

# ¿ Jul 8, 2016 17:32

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

computer parts posted:

New Atheism started as a "no gently caress you dad" movement by white libertarians but has devolved into generic anti-Islam screeds.

/thread

Also anyone who think the new athiests got people out of religion not the idiocies of Blair, Bush, and JPII I have a bridge to sell you.

# ¿ Jul 8, 2016 20:53

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

Al-Saqr posted:

https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/325957740835004416

These guys are utter fascists and racists when it comes to certain religions, and are really close in their rhetoric to anti-semitic Europeans against jewish religion only with a different target.

That has to be probably the quote that made me realize that there was no reason to debate Dawkins at his heart he is a simple bigot who just seeks to beat down on any theist period. I was still on the wall then on where I stood in relation to God, but this idea that someone cannot be respected because they hold a view that might be strange to some, which in no way impacts their job was utterly insane to me.

# ¿ Jul 8, 2016 21:04

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

Uroboros posted:

New must be a relative concept to you...might as well just call them all Communists too.

https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/how-to-lose-readers-without-even-trying/

Probably the easiest way is to advocate for nuking people for not believing what you do under the pretense of a pre emptive strike. Sam Harris has always been a blood thirsty psychopath to me.

# ¿ Jul 8, 2016 21:26

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

Uroboros posted:

Not even related to the conversation, and hardly the point behind his argument. Taking the mere hypothetical of what you do when MAD isn't a deterrent to nuclear war and pushing it into the idea that he wants to commit to genocide against the entire Middle East is pretty disingenuous and not the first time I've seen it parroted here.

That being said, this article is about Ojectivists, which is merely a counterpoint to Computer Parts weak attempt to imply that New Atheists are all Libertarians. Still, we haven't gotten down to what counts as New Atheist, and I am willing to bet a good number of the people on here regardless of "side" categorize themselves as non-religious to some degree, so it really just seem to be a catch all title for "people I don't like/agree with" but since we have already so many people toss out varying l titles, but I'd say what clearly people mean by New Atheist is "Conservative Atheist" and then cherry pick people who are clearly ostensible liberal so they fit that viewpoint.

Then again maybe it is I who lacks perspective here. I haven't been going to all the Atheist rallies or trawling through Reddit Threads so maybe I've just missed New Atheism's beating black heart? But getting back to the OPs original topic. I'd say there is viability in the ideas pedaled by the New Atheists, but again I don't really like the idea of a sub-movement within the larger Progressive sphere that needlessly alienates. I'd say most of the arguments against religion stand on their own, and fundamentalists do a great job of scaring people off themselves that we don't need an equally loud and fervent team at the other end of the spectrum cheerleading.

Is anyone familiar with AronRa? As far as youtube Atheists go he is the only one who I have taken the time to follow in all these years. The Foundational Falsehoods series is still amongst my favorite.

Sorry the burden of proof is on you, and merely posting a picture of Ayn Rand does not an argument make.

One it shows his rather simplistic understanding of Muslims, and the fact he thinks he would need to do that to deter Muslims is quite frightening. Maybe it is indeed you profile all people of a religion, who think its fine who lacks perspective and maybe you need to learn some basic human compassion and not rush to prophets of "reason who think its reasonable to align with fascists, and advocates preventing a people from being able to build centers of worship. Also taking someone at their word is not creating a man of straw.

# ¿ Jul 8, 2016 22:00

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

evilmiera posted:

I hope it is a nice bridge that can lead into a better argument because I am pretty sure I became an atheist without any world leaders influence. I did not exclusively read or listen to any of the main 3 guys in atheism usually brought up, but beyond some comedy podcasts with an atheist bent I was influenced quite a bit by The Atheist Experience, which in turn had been influenced by some of the people mentioned. I don't agree with them on everything, especially some of the dumber political stuff Hitchens spouted, but I would say their writings helped make me an atheist today, whereas before I was one of the more ardent (and only) believers in my circle of friends and coworkers.

Really so you were not put off by obvious hypocrisy of some of faith or say Wahabist attacks?

# ¿ Jul 8, 2016 23:17

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

Uroboros posted:

My understanding is whatever passed for a New Atheism movement kind of petered out. I've only really got this from an atheist youtuber I used to like that went off the deep end claiming Feminism had killed the movement gloating over the very poor turnout of the reason rally. It is hard to envision a resurgence with the current crop of thinkers and individuals who might of been considered known names. If there should be a focus for any kind of new effort I think it should aim primarily at combating anti-science movements in the U.S.

You know one dose not need atheism to be against anti gazers and yec types.

# ¿ Jul 9, 2016 02:46

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

Jack Gladney posted:

Hey, pop quiz: when a woman is raped do you consider her outfit and the time of night relevant evidence worth entering into the analysis?

Well as the wise Richard Dawkins says she certainly shouldn't be getting drunk at parties.

# ¿ Jul 9, 2016 04:29

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

OneEightHundred posted:

I think the best definition of New Atheism is mostly "the God Is Not Great Book Tour." It's run into a ditch because Creationism flamed out, Harris has been off on his goofy tangent to scientifically disprove the is-ought gap, and Hitchens is dead.

As for its efficacy, I think that the biggest thing that it accomplished in the end was giving people in religious communities an exit, and not really creating a movement of its own as much as eroding support for political Christianity in the US. The religious right has lost a huge amount of influence, and Trump is partly the culmination of that.

I think the scandals in both the protestant right and the RCC pedophile scandals did that.

# ¿ Jul 9, 2016 07:10

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

OwlFancier posted:

I'm sure it had some effect in the sense that individual boulders in a landslide do have an effect even if they aren't the cause, but the fact that he was able to a) publish it and b) find an audience big enough to create that shock, is indicative of the time in which he did publish it.

As I said if you want something to point to as being the most significant effector of secularization in society I would immediately suggest capitalism.

That is exactly what I would argue, something that turns the only things that matter are goods not our actions certianly helps speed up peoples turning away from faith.

# ¿ Jul 9, 2016 19:13

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

GAINING WEIGHT... posted:

Harris does not lust for war; try again.

You mean like how he supported the war in Iraq? Or his bellicose nature towards Iran?

# ¿ Jul 9, 2016 20:48

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

I could have sworn Sam Harris the ever rational said something about the war in iraq being the civilized nations trying to bring civilization to barbarians.

# ¿ Jul 9, 2016 21:26

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

jiggerypokery posted:

Think ISIS or ISIS 2.0, not Iran.

Yeah ISIS didn't exist at that point, in fact Iraq was under our boot at that point.

# ¿ Jul 10, 2016 00:14

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 02:40

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

BrandorKP posted:

That doesn't seem to be the case...

They do it because think it creates meaning in their life and that they will help make the world a better place.

http://www.npr.org/2015/12/15/459697926/the-psychology-of-radicalization-how-terrorist-groups-attract-young-followers

"Among those mindsets: A belief that the world is a disaster, that peaceful change is not possible, that self-sacrifice is honorable, that noble ends justify immoral means, and that it is possible to create a utopia."

Speaking of suicide bombers aren't major employers of it, the secular Tamil Tigers and the secular PKK? Also suicide attacks were done long before the wahabists decided it would be the best way to spread their filth.

Chinese soldier ready to blow up some Japanese tanks in ww2.

# ¿ Jul 10, 2016 00:21

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Efficacy of New Atheism