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...
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on March 19, 2009, 07:11:33 PM
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!
YES. For godssake YES. :mittens:
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?
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on March 19, 2009, 07:11:33 PM
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...
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :mittens: YES!!!
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.
Speaking of the New Atheists:
http://www.fritanke.no/ENGLISH/2009/The_new_atheist_movement_is_destructive/
QuoteThis 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.
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:
QuoteThinking 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.
QuoteTo 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.
QuoteSuch 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...
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on March 20, 2009, 05:01:04 AM
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Rumckle on March 21, 2009, 10:55:51 AM
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.
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on March 21, 2009, 03:30:57 PMBuddhists? 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.
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on March 21, 2009, 03:30:57 PM
Quote from: Rumckle on March 21, 2009, 10:55:51 AM
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. :x
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.
Thanks, so did I. That many of the "new atheists", in particular Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens (not to mention a bunch of lesser atheist reactionaries, such as Charles Krauthammer and Karl Rove), buy into the War on Terror as the Defining Fight Of Civilization wholesale, especially the national security implications of that, this viewpoint becomes very interesting.
Care to elaborate on that? I never heard that before.
Harris has called Islam a "cult of death" and advocates torture as a legitimate tactic. Hitchens has long had issues with radical Islam, which has led him down a long and alcohol sodden path to advocating pre-emptive nuclear strikes on Iran, supported the Iraq War and helped whitewash some of the events there. Krauthammer is 100% Neocon on foreign policy too.
Apparently, Karl Rove is Episcoplian, but it depends on who you ask (those close to him claim its nothing more than a shallow political facade) so I'll leave him aside.
Anyway, it seems essentially an inversion of the religious discourse of fear that was engaged by the Church, only now in defense of the state against religious extremists. Apparently, the WoT is a civilizational fight to death between the rational, secular west and religious bigots in faraway lands (and hidden in our own countries), using WMDs ("dirty" bombs, biological weapons etc), and that dicourse replicates the logic of earlier arguments, down to the dirty, diseased and irrational comparsions, and that all tactics are sanctioned against an evil of this magnitude. The same methods as the Vatican, in the name of another cause
Most of the thankfully few encounters I've had with the "new Athiests" gave the distinct impression that these people were very much of the "follower" mentality. Absolutely opposed to questioning their group creed, absolutely unshakable in their belief that their ideology was the one, right and true way of thinking.
Sound familiar?
Well, I'm not a "new Atheist" or even an atheist with a capital A, but I don't consider myself in a "group" at all.
Though I prayed on Thursday, showing myself to be a total hypocrite. :?
This is real. I generally won't identify as atheist explicitly in front of people who don't know me well because of the social connotations attached to it. Mostly I go by 'non-religious' to avoid being pidgeonholed instantly.
i'm so unclassifiable i stopped distantiating myself from denouncing not identifying myself as "not really an atheist" before it became cool.
Quote from: Triple Zero on March 21, 2009, 08:11:51 PM
i'm so unclassifiable i stopped distantiating myself from denouncing not identifying myself as "not really an atheist" before it became cool.
So you're classless?
My annoyance is typically two-fold, one practical and the other more logical.
The practical one is that there are roughly 5.5 billion religious people on this planet. Going "ur wrong and stupid and Im going to rub your face in it lolololol" is neither clever, nor likely to convert them to my viewpoint, and in some areas will end up with me being put in a dangerous position.
The other is is summed up by "If Jesus, then Space Aliens (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IfJesusThenAliens)." Your rationality on a single topic does not assure either moral superiority, or even better application of rationality elsewhere (for example, a point I have made ITT, many Neocons are atheists, and this has not stopped them from believing in patently stupid shit). Equally, people can believe in God, and still be smart, humane and otherwise rational. Deists, for example.
I generally tend towards atheistic agnosticism, with a touch of ignosticism, so this kind of annoys me. The best way to convert people to your viewpoint is not to treat them as witless morons, nor to trumpet your own superiority to them at every chance. I'm all up for atheists being more engaged on moral and ethical issues, but acting like a bunch of spoilt brats does nothing for the cause of atheism and is probably even harmful to those ends.
Quote from: Felix on March 21, 2009, 08:13:45 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on March 21, 2009, 08:11:51 PM
i'm so unclassifiable i stopped distantiating myself from denouncing not identifying myself as "not really an atheist" before it became cool.
So you're classless?
hell no, those classless posers don't even yet realize their scene is dead.
sellouts. (http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/6220/emoticon0147emo.png)
I've run into a few of those sort of atheists and they've always made me want to punch them in the head, because I'm allergic to morons and proselytizers of all sorts. I simply label myself 'irreligious' (or "piscatarian" if they seem stupid enough not to get it) for those who ask. I'm an atheist, yeah, but I don't really care about religion at all, one way or the other.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 21, 2009, 07:30:57 PM
Most of the thankfully few encounters I've had with the "new Athiests" gave the distinct impression that these people were very much of the "follower" mentality. Absolutely opposed to questioning their group creed, absolutely unshakable in their belief that their ideology was the one, right and true way of thinking.
Sound familiar?
Exactly! Belief that "there is no god" is just as much a religious belief as "There is one God" or "There are several gods", and like any belief system attracts its own share of fundamentalists.
Ultimately, agnosticism (non-belief in
any specific number (including the number zero) of gods/spirits/loa/whatever, and the admission that the entire matter is completely untestable) is the most levelheaded choice, I think.
I usually identify myself as "non-religious"
unless I'm in a situation where describing yourself as such is a liability then I say I'm a discordist
Provided they don't know what discordism is they will think, "well that's cool he has some sacred book he's taking his morals from"
that is, if they don't know what discordism is
hell, when people ask me what my religion is, I have to tell them I'm in fact so incredibly unique in my beliefs, I've actually gone right around the circle and are in fact exactly like them.
they usually tell me they don't believe that.
which proves my point exactly.
"I'm so Atheist, I shit Gods."
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on March 21, 2009, 03:30:57 PM
Quote from: Rumckle on March 21, 2009, 10:55:51 AM
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.
Actually that was slightly tongue in cheek, really Buddhists have the opposite scenario regarding media, that any extreme veiw points (of which there are very very few anyway) don't make it into the news. Perhaps because, in western society, we don't have much contact with Buddhism. Either way, I think the method works for calming the fires, I mean, you rarely hear people bitching on about how Buddhists are so stupid and destroying the world.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on March 21, 2009, 10:04:56 PM
I usually identify myself as "non-religious"
unless I'm in a situation where describing yourself as such is a liability then I say I'm a discordist
Provided they don't know what discordism is they will think, "well that's cool he has some sacred book he's taking his morals from"
that is, if they don't know what discordism is
I've taken to telling people exactly what I believe. Hell of a confusion device when used correctly.
Quote from: Rumckle on March 22, 2009, 02:06:46 AM
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on March 21, 2009, 03:30:57 PM
Quote from: Rumckle on March 21, 2009, 10:55:51 AM
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.
Actually that was slightly tongue in cheek, really Buddhists have the opposite scenario regarding media, that any extreme veiw points (of which there are very very few anyway) don't make it into the news. Perhaps because, in western society, we don't have much contact with Buddhism. Either way, I think the method works for calming the fires, I mean, you rarely hear people bitching on about how Buddhists are so stupid and destroying the world.
Aum Shinrikyo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aum_Shinrikyo)
Even Buddhism is subject to fuckheadamentalism
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 22, 2009, 07:21:53 AM
Everything is subject to fuckheadamentalism (especially discordians)
Fixt
Quote from: Cain on March 21, 2009, 08:15:52 PM
My annoyance is typically two-fold, one practical and the other more logical.
The practical one is that there are roughly 5.5 billion religious people on this planet. Going "ur wrong and stupid and Im going to rub your face in it lolololol" is neither clever, nor likely to convert them to my viewpoint, and in some areas will end up with me being put in a dangerous position.
The other is is summed up by "If Jesus, then Space Aliens (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IfJesusThenAliens)." Your rationality on a single topic does not assure either moral superiority, or even better application of rationality elsewhere (for example, a point I have made ITT, many Neocons are atheists, and this has not stopped them from believing in patently stupid shit). Equally, people can believe in God, and still be smart, humane and otherwise rational. Deists, for example.
I generally tend towards atheistic agnosticism, with a touch of ignosticism, so this kind of annoys me. The best way to convert people to your viewpoint is not to treat them as witless morons, nor to trumpet your own superiority to them at every chance. I'm all up for atheists being more engaged on moral and ethical issues, but acting like a bunch of spoilt brats does nothing for the cause of atheism and is probably even harmful to those ends.
TITCM. Everyone is irrational in some way or another. There is no way to get rid of stupid beliefs. They cannot be killed.
I think the main problem with the New Atheists is that they are still too reactionary. It's like they are still angsty teenagers that never got over their hatred of the church. I like the positive atheism movement better. Stop fighting religion and go do something good in the world.
Quote from: Triple Zero on March 22, 2009, 12:06:42 AM
"I'm so Atheist, I shit Gods."
:lulz:
FACT: Gawd did not exist -- UNTIL CHUCK NORRIS PRAYED TO HIM
Quote from: Rumckle on March 22, 2009, 02:06:46 AM
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on March 21, 2009, 03:30:57 PM
Quote from: Rumckle on March 21, 2009, 10:55:51 AM
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.
Actually that was slightly tongue in cheek, really Buddhists have the opposite scenario regarding media, that any extreme veiw points (of which there are very very few anyway) don't make it into the news. Perhaps because, in western society, we don't have much contact with Buddhism. Either way, I think the method works for calming the fires, I mean, you rarely hear people bitching on about how Buddhists are so stupid and destroying the world.
RIGHT NOW, as you read this, here, in Portland, Oregon, Buddhists ARE not only being so stupid, but also destroying the world.