Speaking of the so called "New Atheists"

[Thurnez Isa]

Cause it seems to be a topic in circulation...
but does anyone else notice this

but does "Atheism" seem like the new "Wicca"?

A sizable majority of both were not so much believers or non-believers as non-believers in Christian Institutions. That both of that group also tend to be very incoherent in their view point (ok the so called new atheists are more coherent then Wicca but a divinely inspired toothpick is more coherent then Wicca) and both groups within their movements seem to have a very strange view of history, or more so historiography

just thought I would ask...

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Cause it seems to be a topic in circulation...
but does anyone else notice this

but does "Atheism" seem like the new "Wicca"?

A sizable majority of both were not so much believers or non-believers as non-believers in Christian Institutions. That both of that group also tend to be very incoherent in their view point (ok the so called new atheists are more coherent then Wicca but a divinely inspired toothpick is more coherent then Wicca) and both groups within their movements seem to have a very strange view of history, or more so historiography

just thought I would ask...

A very interesting observation!

[Kai]

YES. For godssake YES.

[Cramulus]

I think you could plug in any fringe belief system here. Both wicca and atheism are growing really quickly. Christianity, being humongous, disenfranchises more people every year. Is it a surprise that people end up identifying with the rebellion du jour?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Cause it seems to be a topic in circulation...
but does anyone else notice this

but does "Atheism" seem like the new "Wicca"?

A sizable majority of both were not so much believers or non-believers as non-believers in Christian Institutions. That both of that group also tend to be very incoherent in their view point (ok the so called new atheists are more coherent then Wicca but a divinely inspired toothpick is more coherent then Wicca) and both groups within their movements seem to have a very strange view of history, or more so historiography

just thought I would ask...

YES!!!

[Iason Ouabache]

I'm been trying to distance myself from the New Atheists for a little while now.  Their way of thinking has been fucking with my head. They can be too reactionary over the slightest things.  I think I like the Skeptics better anyways.

[Iason Ouabache]

Speaking of the New Atheists:

http://www.fritanke.no/ENGLISH/2009/The_new_atheist_movement_is_destructive/

This antitheism is for me a backwards step. It reinforces what I believe is a myth, that an atheist without a bishop to bash is like a fish without water. Worse, it raises the possibility that as a matter of fact, for many atheists, they do indeed need an enemy to give them their identity.

The new atheism has also, I think, created an unhelpful climate for atheism to flourish. When people think of atheists now, they think about men who look only to science for answers, are dismissive of religion and over-confident in their own rightness. Richard Dawkins, for example, presented a television programme on religion called The Root of all Evil and has as his website slogan "A clear thinking oasis". Where is the balance and modesty in such rhetoric?

For me, atheism's roots are in a sober and modest assessment of where reason and evidence lead us. That means the real enemy is not religion as such, but any kind of system of belief that does not respect these limits on our thinking. For that reason, I want to engage with thoughtful, intelligent believers, and isolate extremists. But if we demonize all religion, such coalitions of the reasonable are not possible. Instead, we are likely to see moderate religious believers join ranks with fundamentalists, the enemies of their enemy, to resist what they see as an attempt to wipe out all forms of religious belief.

[Cain]

Today, inbetween my various duties, I had time to peruse my copy of Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity and I read a couple of things which struck me immediately as being reminiscent of the "New Atheists" (Hitchens and Sam Harris in particular are in for a beating here).

Basic background is this, the author of Writing Security disputes there was a huge rupture between the Christian led Medieval world, and the post Medieval Peace of Westphalia, controlled by states, and that modern states are in fact nothing more than secular replications of the methods and techniques of the Vatican:

Thinking that Western civilization was besieged by a horde of enemies (Turks, Jews, heretics, idolaters, and witches, to name but a few), the church saw the devil everywhere and encouraged introspection and guilt to such an extent that a culture of anxiety predominated.

To talk of the endangered nature of the modern world and the enemies and threats that abound in it is thus not to offer a simple ethnographic description of our condition; it is to invoke a discourse of danger through which the incipient ambiguity of our world can be grounded in accordance with the insistences of identity. Danger (death, in its ultimate form) might therefore be thought of as the new god for the modern world of states, not because it is peculiar to our time, but because it replicates the logic of Christendom's evangelism of fear.

Such obstructions to order "become dirt, matter out of place, irrationality, abnormality, waste, sickness, perversity, incapacity, disorder, madness, unfreedom. They become material in need of rationalization, normalization, moralization, correction, punishment, discipline, disposal, realization, etc." In this way, the state project of security replicates the church project of salvation. The state grounds its legitimacy by offering the promise of security to its citizens who, it says, would otherwise face manifold dangers. The church justifies its role by guaranteeing salvation to its followers who, it says, would otherwise be destined to an unredeemed death. Both the state and the church require considerable effort to maintain order within and around themselves, and thereby engage in an evangelism of fear to ward off internal and external threats, succumbing in the process to the temptation to treat difference as otherness.

Gee, that sounds familiar...

[Richter]

I'm been trying to distance myself from the New Atheists for a little while now.  Their way of thinking has been fucking with my head. They can be too reactionary over the slightest things.  I think I like the Skeptics better anyways.

Definitely.  I've even heard the same reported about "refugees" stepping down from larger branches of Christianity to something like Unitarian Universalism.     

I think it was Clark Ashton Smith who mentioned some folks wanting to "wave their newfound atheism like a soiled rag beneath the noses"  of their former detactors.

[P3nT4gR4m]

The one word that pops into my head more than any other, when thinking about the new atheist movement is "kneejerk"

The pendulum swings from one ridiculous extreme, to it's polar opposite ridiculous extreme. Understandable when I consider the fact that I myself was a seething mass of blind rage at the point where I slipped the chains of the oppressive, enforced mindfuck that is institutionalised christianity.

Started blaming it for everything from stupid laws to stupid repressed sexual morality and would have liked to burn it to the ground more than fucking anything.

[Rumckle]

Possibly, but I think the problem stems from the fact that the most extreme view points are the ones that get the most publicity, both media wise and outside (traditional) media channels.

This manifests in two ways:
1) People like Richard Dawkins, and other 'extreme' atheists, getting noted in the news, where as the more 'moderate' atheists will not get noticed.

2) The more extreme religious views, ie the fundy Xians, Muslims, Buddhists, getting into the news, causing angry reactions from what will normally be more accepting people if they realise most theists aren't like that.


Also, a divinely inspired toothpick is a religious movement I can get behind.

[Prelate Diogenes Shandor]

2) The more extreme religious views, ie the fundy Xians, Muslims, Buddhists, getting into the news, causing angry reactions from what will normally be more accepting people if they realise most theists aren't like that.

Buddhists? Really?
I've always thought of Buddhism as being pretty laid back in terms of extreme public expressions of religious views, or, for that matter, really extreme views in general. Most of the times when you hear about Buddhist sects doing something strange, its typically not something about trying to get others to believe what they believe, but rather to get China to stop harassing them.

[hunter s.durden]

Buddhists? Really?
I've always thought of Buddhism as being pretty laid back in terms of extreme public expressions of religious views, or, for that matter, really extreme views in general. Most of the times when you hear about Buddhist sects doing something strange, its typically not something about trying to get others to believe what they believe, but rather to get China to stop harassing them.

A common mistake.
FUNDIES. ARE. EVERYWHERE.

[Kai]

2) The more extreme religious views, ie the fundy Xians, Muslims, Buddhists, getting into the news, causing angry reactions from what will normally be more accepting people if they realise most theists aren't like that.

Buddhists? Really?
I've always thought of Buddhism as being pretty laid back in terms of extreme public expressions of religious views, or, for that matter, really extreme views in general. Most of the times when you hear about Buddhist sects doing something strange, its typically not something about trying to get others to believe what they believe, but rather to get China to stop harassing them.

Don't get me started about the Dalai Lama. 

[BADGE OF HONOR]

Oh, I always called them "DEAL WITH IT!" atheists.  Just like any other type of reactionary, they drown out the more sensible people.

Also Cain that was very interesting.