So you want to be a new atheist?

Madouc · 20th November 2009, 09:06 PM

A ‘panentheist’ friend sent me this critique on New Atheism: http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2009/11/16...a-new-atheist/

Peeling through the layers of postmodernist fluff appears to reveal a steaming pile of Strawman, but the writing is so awkward I can’t be sure what the writer is actually saying.

What do you think?

Quote:

Atheism has long been described, as Julian Baggini has explained, as “by its very nature negative” and dependent “for its existence on the religious beliefs it rejects.”

The commenter seems to be framing this as a bad thing, but… well, duh. The concept of not stamp collecting is dependent on the philately it rejects.

Quote:

If the screeds, tracts, speeches and, today, documentary films demonstrate anything, it is that atheists are not bleak existentialists. They are and have been variously colored in their impulses, ranging from sweet naturalists and happy materialists to rabid idealists and polemical ideologues.

Gee whiz, atheists are a varied bunch of peoples. Who woulda thunk it?

Quote:

As Georgetown University professor John Haught wrote in his diagnosis of the New Atheists, “To know with such certitude that religion is evil, one must first have already surrendered one’s heart and mind to what is unconditionally good.”

Um, really? I don’t remember remember any of the new atheists claiming this.

Quote:

The New Atheists may wrap themselves in torn one-liners and haggard scientism, but beneath their cynical swaddle there lies a charming Perfectionism.

Huh? What is ‘scientism’? What is ‘Perfectionism’?

Quote:

For the purposes of ongoing scholarship (not only on the atheist, but also on the related subjects of the secular and the invention of religion) let us bracket the necessary complexities of that archival conversation and say that whatever came before in the annals of atheism, in the last ten years the stance has pullulated. Due, in no small part, to the oddity of its prominence, this stance has been quickly cauterized under a categorical collective.

Translation please? In fact, translation for the whole paragraph that follows please.

And the paragraph after that which gets even weirder. It mixes in strange strawmen with obvious statements, like that the New Atheists are concerned about the Koran, Jerry Falwell and the religious indoctrination of children in eductation.

Quote:

Difference is for hippies, the New Atheists say; what we need now is some sensible positivism. Don’t worry about capitalism—it is. Don’t worry about nationalism or science—they will be.

What? I’ve heard Shermer speak about economics, but I had no idea capitalism was such a popular topic amongst the New Atheists. And nationalism? When has this been brought up other than in criticisms of theocracies? And I think science is kind of a big concern for most skeptical atheists – what does ”it will be” mean in this context?

Quote:

If unimpeded, science and capitalism work with predictable clarity and world-resolving peace, the New Atheists say

Do they really?

Quote:

The New Atheists transpose their fortune onto you: you, too, can be freer than you are, if only you’ll relinquish the belief that restraint does you any material good.

I don’t think any of the New Atheists have ever characterized religion as ‘restraint’, so how can they be advocating to relinquish restraint?

This goes on and on, getting increasingly more bizarre. Not least in continuously quoting from Bill Maher as the posterboy for New Atheism.

I have to rush out of the house now, but was hoping some of you 'New Atheists' could comment on this. Am I reading this wrong? Is there some merit to the madness?

fromdownunder · 20th November 2009, 09:37 PM

Sorry, just an old fashioned atheist, not an Atheist responding here. I have no time or need for "causes", and my personal opinion of Atheists is that they are simply a version of "new agers" who have a cause that they need/want to promote to make themselves feel big in their own minds, and want to become legends in their own lunchtimes.

I will never join a "cause" such as New Atheism (whatever that is supposed to mean), and I think that these people are simply have too much time on their hands, and that they are extremist twits. I have no time for extremist twits no matter what fence they want to move far away from.

Norm

Robin · 21st November 2009, 04:05 AM

Originally Posted by fromdownunder

I will never join a "cause" such as New Atheism (whatever that is supposed to mean),...

Hmmm... Do you suppose that "New Atheism" is a phrase coined by Dawkins, Hitchens etc for themselves?

Or do you think it a phrase coined by their supporters?

Or do you think it a phrase coined by their opponents?

Fiona · 21st November 2009, 05:23 AM

I actually found that interesting. It is not well written; it fails to make its points clearly and simply though it could, I think. And I confess that I got wholly lost in the final paragraph (though, not having read the Bill Maher stuff it references, that fault is probably mine). It seems to be trying too hard to be scholarly, and to show off its academic credentials; and does so at the cost of easy communication. Nevertheless it raises some interesting questions. Gave me something to think about, anyway. So thanks for bringing it here

fls · 21st November 2009, 05:38 AM

Originally Posted by Madouc

I have to rush out of the house now, but was hoping some of you 'New Atheists' could comment on this. Am I reading this wrong? Is there some merit to the madness?

I haven't looked at anything else on the blog, but it reads to me as a parody of religion's history and sect formation.

Linda

Fiona · 21st November 2009, 05:43 AM

I am not so sure it is a parody; that is a possibility given the obfuscatory language, I agree. But if it is not then applying that same type of analysis to atheism as narrowly defined is worthwhile, I think: or at least interesting

fls · 21st November 2009, 06:09 AM

Originally Posted by Fiona

I am not so sure it is a parody; that is a possibility given the obfuscatory language, I agree.

Well, I'm not sure that it is intentional. But if it is read with that framework in mind, the awkwardness and seeming strawmen begin to make sense.

Linda

PixyMisa · 21st November 2009, 06:09 AM

I don't think it's parody; the entire site is like that. The word stultifying comes to mind.

Robin · 21st November 2009, 06:21 AM

Originally Posted by Madouc

Translation please? In fact, translation for the whole paragraph that follows please.

Translation: "please gloss over this prolix nonsense and assume that it is filled with intellectual depth".

HansMustermann · 21st November 2009, 06:37 AM

I don't think atheism depends upon theism in anything except as an easy definition.

You could for example equally define infantry as those who don't ride anything in battle, and that definition would depend on such vehicles by its phrasing. But equally you could simply define it as those who fight on foot, and it no longer relies upon such entities. And in the end it's the same entity no matter how you define it, and it existed just the same thousands of years before there were any kind of combat vehicles at all.

E.g., you could define surface ships as evertyhing seafaring that isn't a submarine, and that definition depends on submarines. But in reality the actual entity defined there doesn't really depend in any form or shape on submarines, and submersible technology was probably not even a consideration at all when designing it. And again, it existed jolly well for thousands of years when submarines didn't exist.

Basically it seems to me like jumping from "those without X" to "they need X" is pretty weak sauce, even as wordplay sophistry goes.

And in the case of atheism, if theism simply disappeared, then atheism wouldn't. In fact, then everyone would be an atheist. We might not have or need a special name for something that encompasses everyone anyway, but we'd all be atheists anyway. So exactly in which way does atheism depend on theism?

jadey · 21st November 2009, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Atheism has long been described, as Julian Baggini has explained, as “by its very nature negative” and dependent “for its existence on the religious beliefs it rejects.”

I think this is a bit misleading. In the absence of these religious beliefs, the atheists (non-belief) position/viewpoint would not change. However, the term atheism might not exist, or at least would not be a distinguishing characteristic.

If by "negative", he means "non-assertive", then I think that is idealistically correct and he is being generous. If he means "opposed to", then I find that idealistically incorrect but can certainly understand his position. I'm guessing he means the latter.

ETA: ... What HM said.

Hux · 21st November 2009, 06:57 AM

Just because a few contemporary atheists, well versed, outspoken have taken to the road and excited other potential atheists in the heartlands of Christianity, does not make them 'new'. They are just reaching a wider audience with arguments not steeped in deep philosophy. Hitchens is well versed in it all but he and Harris have a very straight vocabulary and can challenge doctrine in a way that holds such doctrines up to ridicule.

They are managing to get their message over; there is nothing 'mysterious' about religion, no reason to have respect for blind faith and- as they are finding out, more and more people are willing to come out and admit they have no religious affiliation.

As a consequence, coining the term 'New atheist' is meaningless and just the opposition attempt to characterise a growing movement of free thinking individuals. It has about as much significance as suggesting atheism is just another religion.

Nice to see so many religionists turning uncomfortably in their sleep.

Fiona · 21st November 2009, 06:57 AM

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

I don't think atheism depends upon theism in anything except as an easy definition.

You could for example equally define infantry as those who don't ride anything in battle, and that definition would depend on such vehicles by its phrasing. But equally you could simply define it as those who fight on foot, and it no longer relies upon such entities. And in the end it's the same entity no matter how you define it, and it existed just the same thousands of years before there were any kind of combat vehicles at all.

E.g., you could define surface ships as evertyhing seafaring that isn't a submarine, and that definition depends on submarines. But in reality the actual entity defined there doesn't really depend in any form or shape on submarines, and submersible technology was probably not even a consideration at all when designing it. And again, it existed jolly well for thousands of years when submarines didn't exist.

Basically it seems to me like jumping from "those without X" to "they need X" is pretty weak sauce, even as wordplay sophistry goes.

And in the case of atheism, if theism simply disappeared, then atheism wouldn't. In fact, then everyone would be an atheist. We might not have or need a special name for something that encompasses everyone anyway, but we'd all be atheists anyway. So exactly in which way does atheism depend on theism?

Argument is that the "new atheism" does not fit that stereotype, Hans

fls · 21st November 2009, 07:23 AM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

I don't think it's parody; the entire site is like that. The word stultifying comes to mind.

The other pieces written by that author at that site are quite satirical (the Oprah/Obama piece is especially overt).

Linda

~enigma~ · 21st November 2009, 07:25 AM

Originally Posted by Hux

Just because a few contemporary atheists, well versed, outspoken have taken to the road and excited other potential atheists in the heartlands of Christianity, does not make them 'new'. They are just reaching a wider audience with arguments not steeped in deep philosophy. Hitchens is well versed in it all but he and Harris have a very straight vocabulary and can challenge doctrine in a way that holds such doctrines up to ridicule.

They are managing to get their message over; there is nothing 'mysterious' about religion, no reason to have respect for blind faith and- as they are finding out, more and more people are willing to come out and admit they have no religious affiliation.

As a consequence, coining the term 'New atheist' is meaningless and just the opposition attempt to characterise a growing movement of free thinking individuals. It has about as much significance as suggesting atheism is just another religion.

Nice to see so many religionists turning uncomfortably in their sleep.

Unfortunately there are a bunch of self-proclaimed "new atheists" that relish in the term (I have spoken to many) and they call "old atheism wishy washy. Personally I never knew atheism would suffer from a denominational division as if it were a religion. If you ask me I would tell you what is called new atheism is in my opinion just plain old fashioned religious fundamentalism in the guise of anti-theism being called atheism to make the practitioners feel less dirty.

Nogbad · 21st November 2009, 07:26 AM

FFS! how can there be a new way of not believing something. It is either there or it isn't. A new way of it not being there sounds a bit metaphysical to me.

*confused*

imjohn · 21st November 2009, 08:00 AM

New atheism refers to Hitchens, Dawkins and others who are writing the current crop of books about atheism.

edit: I didn't see enigma's post above mine explaining the new atheism. I have to agree that this "split" is ridiculous.

Darth Rotor · 21st November 2009, 08:00 AM

Originally Posted by fromdownunder

Sorry, just an old fashioned atheist.

The best kind.

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

I don't think atheism depends upon theism in anything except as an easy definition.

I'll be a little nitpicky and disagree with you a bit. To be against theism requires that theism be there to be against. Put differently, you have to have the state of comfort to have uncomfortable, the negative of it, as a state.

I realize that we are getting a bit semantic here, but without there ever being anything that you or I would call theism/religion/belief in gods, atheism as a state or concept never arrives.

DR

HansMustermann · 21st November 2009, 08:04 AM

Except the "a" in "atheism" means "without", not "against".

So, yes, if we were defining "anti-theism", you can't have that without theism. Like you can't have anti-tank without tank. But we're not. We're defining those without belief in a god.

And claiming that one needs a god to be without a god, is akin to claiming that a fish needs a bicycle.

Hokulele · 21st November 2009, 08:09 AM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

I'll be a little nitpicky and disagree with you a bit. To be against theism requires that theism be there to be against. Put differently, you have to have the state of comfort to have uncomfortable, the negative of it, as a state.

I realize that we are getting a bit semantic here, but without there ever being anything that you or I would call theism/religion/belief in gods, atheism as a state or concept never arrives.

DR

I'm not entirely sure I agree, the first paragraph sounds more like anti-theism than atheism. I do agree the word itself and atheism as a human concept would not exist, but the state of lacking a belief in god(s) would still exist. Just as if no one ever had any hair on their head, they would still be bald, the state of being bald could still be a concept, there just wouldn't be a need for a special term.

fls · 21st November 2009, 08:13 AM

So does this parallel the split between the protestants and the catholics, or is this more like the difference between methodists and presbyterians?

Linda

imjohn · 21st November 2009, 08:24 AM

Originally Posted by fls

So does this parallel the split between the protestants and the catholics, or is this more like the difference between methodists and presbyterians?

Linda

You got me -- I don't understand it myself.

It's more like, "You old farts aren't loud enough."

jadey · 21st November 2009, 08:54 AM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Put differently, you have to have the state of comfort to have uncomfortable, the negative of it, as a state.
DR

So if I've never experienced comfort and you have. The two of us sit side by side on a pointy bed of nails. You get to be in a state of discomfort and I don't. Well, in the words of my six year old, "that's not fair."

~enigma~ · 21st November 2009, 09:06 AM

Originally Posted by jadey

So if I've never experienced comfort

Then just for lols, here is Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

jadey · 21st November 2009, 09:10 AM

Originally Posted by imjohn

You got me -- I don't understand it myself.

It's more like, "You old farts aren't loud enough."

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one. My vocabulary is just not quite up to the challenge.

I did get a sense that the author suggests that the "new atheists" have taken atheism from a "position to be held/defended" to "a position to be advanced/promoted". That the tactics are a bit more aggressive and in-your-face.

That is about all I got, but again, I honestly couldn't translate large portions.

Darth Rotor · 21st November 2009, 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

Except the "a" in "atheism" means "without", not "against".

So, yes, if we were defining "anti-theism", you can't have that without theism. Like you can't have anti-tank without tank. But we're not. We're defining those without belief in a god.

And claiming that one needs a god to be without a god, is akin to claiming that a fish needs a bicycle.

I understand what you are saying, but unless there is theism, you can't be without it, as there isn't anything to be without, or out of. this applies to the material as well as the conceptual.

Let us propose a liquid called "beern" that doesn't exist. "I'm out of beern" makes no sense. There wasn't any beern to begin with, so there is no point in inventing the word for beern so that I can be out of it.

Now, someone came up with a god, or some gods, and by doing so got religion thing happening. Those who are in it are not the whole set, so the others, who find no god there, are without. Without belief in god, atheist doesn't arrive until the belief in god was first established, built, created, whatever. Likewise, if you can make some of that beern, I can then check and see if I have any, and be out of it, or without it, as the case may be.

The chicken and egg. You need the religion concept, chicken, to lay the atheist egg, just as you need the religion egg, to give birth to the atheist chicken. Without step 1, step two can't arrive.

Try this in code: Print X
But don't first tell the computer what the variable X is.

Again, it's a quibble, and how we tie thought and concepts into words.

DR

~enigma~ · 21st November 2009, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by jadey

I
I did get a sense that the author suggests that the "new atheists" have taken atheism from a "position to be held/defended" to "a position to be advanced/promoted". That the tactics are a bit more aggressive and in-your-face.

Like an evangelical religion?

Tricky · 21st November 2009, 09:16 AM

Not for me. Gimme that old time irreligion.

Darth Rotor · 21st November 2009, 09:18 AM

Originally Posted by ~enigma~

Like an evangelical religion?

Try: like an evangelical ideology.

(borrowing evangelizing from religion for a moment there ...)

There may be a better term.

jadey · 21st November 2009, 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by Fiona

I actually found that interesting. It is not well written; it fails to make its points clearly and simply though it could, I think. And I confess that I got wholly lost in the final paragraph (though, not having read the Bill Maher stuff it references, that fault is probably mine). It seems to be trying too hard to be scholarly, and to show off its academic credentials; and does so at the cost of easy communication. Nevertheless it raises some interesting questions. Gave me something to think about, anyway. So thanks for bringing it here

Fiona,

Would you be willing to translate a few of the key points that you found interesting?

Pure_Argent · 21st November 2009, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by Tricky

Not for me. Gimme that old time irreligion.

Just leave those old Bibles on the shelf
I'll sit and ig-nore the-em by myself
Today's non-believers ain't got the same soul
Gimme that old-time a-the-ist role

~enigma~ · 21st November 2009, 09:26 AM

Originally Posted by Pure_Argent

Just leave those old Bibles on the shelf
I'll sit and ig-nore the-em by myself
Today's non-believers ain't got the same soul
Gimme that old-time a-the-ist role

Bastard....that made me spew coffee all over my keyboard and monitor. You owe me new ones.

jadey · 21st November 2009, 09:29 AM

Originally Posted by Pure_Argent

Just leave those old Bibles on the shelf
I'll sit and ig-nore the-em by myself
Today's non-believers ain't got the same soul
Gimme that old-time a-the-ist role

If you're playing air-guitar in your tighty-whities, I'd say that's some risque business.

Eyeron · 21st November 2009, 10:42 AM

What's so good about being an atheist?" If you don't fit in you're a social pariah and society demands that we all fit in and be like one another. So what's so wrong about that? Why would anybody want to choose to be a social pariah?

Pure_Argent · 21st November 2009, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by ~enigma~

Bastard....that made me spew coffee all over my keyboard and monitor. You owe me new ones.

HansMustermann · 21st November 2009, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

I understand what you are saying, but unless there is theism, you can't be without it, as there isn't anything to be without, or out of. this applies to the material as well as the conceptual.

Let us propose a liquid called "beern" that doesn't exist. "I'm out of beern" makes no sense. There wasn't any beern to begin with, so there is no point in inventing the word for beern so that I can be out of it.

Yes, you wouldn't need a word for it. But you'd still have no beern anyway.

HansMustermann · 21st November 2009, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by Eyeron

What's so good about being an atheist?" If you don't fit in you're a social pariah and society demands that we all fit in and be like one another. So what's so wrong about that? Why would anybody want to choose to be a social pariah?

Hmm? I'm pretty sure that in most of Europe you wouldn't be a pariah.

But generally, that seems to be the weakest argument of all for religion. I think your mom probably debunked the whole concept of being a brainless lemming when you were still little: if everyone else was jumping off a bridge, would you do it too? 'Nuff said.

imjohn · 21st November 2009, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by Eyeron

What's so good about being an atheist?" If you don't fit in you're a social pariah and society demands that we all fit in and be like one another. So what's so wrong about that? Why would anybody want to choose to be a social pariah?

It's good to be honest with yourself and the world about what you believe or don't believe.

Eyeron · 21st November 2009, 11:51 AM

No it isn't. Being honest has no real value in America.

Hokulele · 21st November 2009, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by Eyeron

No it isn't. Being honest has no real value in America.

Maybe, maybe not, but it certainly has value to a significant number of Americans.

I have always lived in America, always been honest about my beliefs, and have never been made a social pariah over the issue.

Granted, I haven't tried running for President. Yet.

20th November 2009, 09:06 PM	#1
Madouc Scholar Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 73	So you want to be a new atheist? A ‘panentheist’ friend sent me this critique on New Atheism: http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2009/11/16...a-new-atheist/ Peeling through the layers of postmodernist fluff appears to reveal a steaming pile of Strawman, but the writing is so awkward I can’t be sure what the writer is actually saying. What do you think? Quote: Atheism has long been described, as Julian Baggini has explained, as “by its very nature negative” and dependent “for its existence on the religious beliefs it rejects.” The commenter seems to be framing this as a bad thing, but… well, duh. The concept of not stamp collecting is dependent on the philately it rejects. Quote: If the screeds, tracts, speeches and, today, documentary films demonstrate anything, it is that atheists are not bleak existentialists. They are and have been variously colored in their impulses, ranging from sweet naturalists and happy materialists to rabid idealists and polemical ideologues. Gee whiz, atheists are a varied bunch of peoples. Who woulda thunk it? Quote: As Georgetown University professor John Haught wrote in his diagnosis of the New Atheists, “To know with such certitude that religion is evil, one must first have already surrendered one’s heart and mind to what is unconditionally good.” Um, really? I don’t remember remember any of the new atheists claiming this. Quote: The New Atheists may wrap themselves in torn one-liners and haggard scientism, but beneath their cynical swaddle there lies a charming Perfectionism. Huh? What is ‘scientism’? What is ‘Perfectionism’? Quote: For the purposes of ongoing scholarship (not only on the atheist, but also on the related subjects of the secular and the invention of religion) let us bracket the necessary complexities of that archival conversation and say that whatever came before in the annals of atheism, in the last ten years the stance has pullulated. Due, in no small part, to the oddity of its prominence, this stance has been quickly cauterized under a categorical collective. Translation please? In fact, translation for the whole paragraph that follows please. And the paragraph after that which gets even weirder. It mixes in strange strawmen with obvious statements, like that the New Atheists are concerned about the Koran, Jerry Falwell and the religious indoctrination of children in eductation. Quote: Difference is for hippies, the New Atheists say; what we need now is some sensible positivism. Don’t worry about capitalism—it is. Don’t worry about nationalism or science—they will be. What? I’ve heard Shermer speak about economics, but I had no idea capitalism was such a popular topic amongst the New Atheists. And nationalism? When has this been brought up other than in criticisms of theocracies? And I think science is kind of a big concern for most skeptical atheists – what does ”it will be” mean in this context? Quote: If unimpeded, science and capitalism work with predictable clarity and world-resolving peace, the New Atheists say Do they really? Quote: The New Atheists transpose their fortune onto you: you, too, can be freer than you are, if only you’ll relinquish the belief that restraint does you any material good. I don’t think any of the New Atheists have ever characterized religion as ‘restraint’, so how can they be advocating to relinquish restraint? This goes on and on, getting increasingly more bizarre. Not least in continuously quoting from Bill Maher as the posterboy for New Atheism. I have to rush out of the house now, but was hoping some of you 'New Atheists' could comment on this. Am I reading this wrong? Is there some merit to the madness?
Madouc Scholar Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 73	Last edited by Madouc; 20th November 2009 at 09:06 PM. Reason: ETA: Forgot to add the link!

20th November 2009, 09:37 PM	#2
fromdownunder Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,527	Sorry, just an old fashioned atheist, not an Atheist responding here. I have no time or need for "causes", and my personal opinion of Atheists is that they are simply a version of "new agers" who have a cause that they need/want to promote to make themselves feel big in their own minds, and want to become legends in their own lunchtimes. I will never join a "cause" such as New Atheism (whatever that is supposed to mean), and I think that these people are simply have too much time on their hands, and that they are extremist twits. I have no time for extremist twits no matter what fence they want to move far away from. Norm
	Last edited by fromdownunder; 20th November 2009 at 09:40 PM. Reason: spelling and clarification

21st November 2009, 04:05 AM	#3
Robin Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 5,778	Originally Posted by fromdownunder I will never join a "cause" such as New Atheism (whatever that is supposed to mean),... Hmmm... Do you suppose that "New Atheism" is a phrase coined by Dawkins, Hitchens etc for themselves? Or do you think it a phrase coined by their supporters? Or do you think it a phrase coined by their opponents?
Robin Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 5,778	__________________ If any one alters the definitions, I cannot pretend to argue with him, until I know the meaning he assigns to these terms. - David Hume 1711-1776

21st November 2009, 05:23 AM	#4
Fiona Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 6,104	I actually found that interesting. It is not well written; it fails to make its points clearly and simply though it could, I think. And I confess that I got wholly lost in the final paragraph (though, not having read the Bill Maher stuff it references, that fault is probably mine). It seems to be trying too hard to be scholarly, and to show off its academic credentials; and does so at the cost of easy communication. Nevertheless it raises some interesting questions. Gave me something to think about, anyway. So thanks for bringing it here
Fiona Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 6,104	__________________ To see you, who you wanted to be, amongst the bastards out there. Damn you, Fiona - MattC. Damn you, Fi - SkeptikKhatt Damn you, anoiF - CriticalSock You are become Fiona, destroyer of threads! -realpaladin

21st November 2009, 05:38 AM	#5
fls Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,051	Originally Posted by Madouc I have to rush out of the house now, but was hoping some of you 'New Atheists' could comment on this. Am I reading this wrong? Is there some merit to the madness? I haven't looked at anything else on the blog, but it reads to me as a parody of religion's history and sect formation. Linda
fls Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,051	__________________ God - a capricious creative or controlling force said to be the subject of a religion. Evidence is anything that tends to make a proposition more or less true.-Loss Leader sCAM will now be referred to as DIM - Demonstrably Ineffective Medicine www.stopsylvia.com

21st November 2009, 05:43 AM	#6
Fiona Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 6,104	I am not so sure it is a parody; that is a possibility given the obfuscatory language, I agree. But if it is not then applying that same type of analysis to atheism as narrowly defined is worthwhile, I think: or at least interesting
Fiona Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 6,104	__________________ To see you, who you wanted to be, amongst the bastards out there. Damn you, Fiona - MattC. Damn you, Fi - SkeptikKhatt Damn you, anoiF - CriticalSock You are become Fiona, destroyer of threads! -realpaladin

21st November 2009, 06:09 AM	#7
fls Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,051	Originally Posted by Fiona I am not so sure it is a parody; that is a possibility given the obfuscatory language, I agree. Well, I'm not sure that it is intentional. But if it is read with that framework in mind, the awkwardness and seeming strawmen begin to make sense. Linda
fls Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,051	__________________ God - a capricious creative or controlling force said to be the subject of a religion. Evidence is anything that tends to make a proposition more or less true.-Loss Leader sCAM will now be referred to as DIM - Demonstrably Ineffective Medicine www.stopsylvia.com

21st November 2009, 06:09 AM	#8
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 8,087	I don't think it's parody; the entire site is like that. The word stultifying comes to mind.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

21st November 2009, 06:21 AM	#9
Robin Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 5,778	Originally Posted by Madouc Translation please? In fact, translation for the whole paragraph that follows please. Translation: "please gloss over this prolix nonsense and assume that it is filled with intellectual depth".
Robin Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 5,778	__________________ If any one alters the definitions, I cannot pretend to argue with him, until I know the meaning he assigns to these terms. - David Hume 1711-1776

21st November 2009, 06:37 AM	#10
HansMustermann Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,100	I don't think atheism depends upon theism in anything except as an easy definition. You could for example equally define infantry as those who don't ride anything in battle, and that definition would depend on such vehicles by its phrasing. But equally you could simply define it as those who fight on foot, and it no longer relies upon such entities. And in the end it's the same entity no matter how you define it, and it existed just the same thousands of years before there were any kind of combat vehicles at all. E.g., you could define surface ships as evertyhing seafaring that isn't a submarine, and that definition depends on submarines. But in reality the actual entity defined there doesn't really depend in any form or shape on submarines, and submersible technology was probably not even a consideration at all when designing it. And again, it existed jolly well for thousands of years when submarines didn't exist. Basically it seems to me like jumping from "those without X" to "they need X" is pretty weak sauce, even as wordplay sophistry goes. And in the case of atheism, if theism simply disappeared, then atheism wouldn't. In fact, then everyone would be an atheist. We might not have or need a special name for something that encompasses everyone anyway, but we'd all be atheists anyway. So exactly in which way does atheism depend on theism?

21st November 2009, 06:52 AM	#11
jadey Muse Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Merry Land Posts: 595	Quote: Atheism has long been described, as Julian Baggini has explained, as “by its very nature negative” and dependent “for its existence on the religious beliefs it rejects.” I think this is a bit misleading. In the absence of these religious beliefs, the atheists (non-belief) position/viewpoint would not change. However, the term atheism might not exist, or at least would not be a distinguishing characteristic. If by "negative", he means "non-assertive", then I think that is idealistically correct and he is being generous. If he means "opposed to", then I find that idealistically incorrect but can certainly understand his position. I'm guessing he means the latter. ETA: ... What HM said.
	Last edited by jadey; 21st November 2009 at 06:57 AM. Reason: My quote tag was incorrect.

21st November 2009, 06:57 AM	#12
Hux Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,064	Just because a few contemporary atheists, well versed, outspoken have taken to the road and excited other potential atheists in the heartlands of Christianity, does not make them 'new'. They are just reaching a wider audience with arguments not steeped in deep philosophy. Hitchens is well versed in it all but he and Harris have a very straight vocabulary and can challenge doctrine in a way that holds such doctrines up to ridicule. They are managing to get their message over; there is nothing 'mysterious' about religion, no reason to have respect for blind faith and- as they are finding out, more and more people are willing to come out and admit they have no religious affiliation. As a consequence, coining the term 'New atheist' is meaningless and just the opposition attempt to characterise a growing movement of free thinking individuals. It has about as much significance as suggesting atheism is just another religion. Nice to see so many religionists turning uncomfortably in their sleep.
Hux Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,064	__________________ *...people of faith who are that intelligent they've only managed to fool themselves* - MARDUK

21st November 2009, 06:57 AM	#13
Fiona Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 6,104	Originally Posted by HansMustermann I don't think atheism depends upon theism in anything except as an easy definition. You could for example equally define infantry as those who don't ride anything in battle, and that definition would depend on such vehicles by its phrasing. But equally you could simply define it as those who fight on foot, and it no longer relies upon such entities. And in the end it's the same entity no matter how you define it, and it existed just the same thousands of years before there were any kind of combat vehicles at all. E.g., you could define surface ships as evertyhing seafaring that isn't a submarine, and that definition depends on submarines. But in reality the actual entity defined there doesn't really depend in any form or shape on submarines, and submersible technology was probably not even a consideration at all when designing it. And again, it existed jolly well for thousands of years when submarines didn't exist. Basically it seems to me like jumping from "those without X" to "they need X" is pretty weak sauce, even as wordplay sophistry goes. And in the case of atheism, if theism simply disappeared, then atheism wouldn't. In fact, then everyone would be an atheist. We might not have or need a special name for something that encompasses everyone anyway, but we'd all be atheists anyway. So exactly in which way does atheism depend on theism? Argument is that the "new atheism" does not fit that stereotype, Hans
Fiona Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 6,104	__________________ To see you, who you wanted to be, amongst the bastards out there. Damn you, Fiona - MattC. Damn you, Fi - SkeptikKhatt Damn you, anoiF - CriticalSock You are become Fiona, destroyer of threads! -realpaladin

21st November 2009, 07:23 AM	#14
fls Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,051	Originally Posted by PixyMisa I don't think it's parody; the entire site is like that. The word stultifying comes to mind. The other pieces written by that author at that site are quite satirical (the Oprah/Obama piece is especially overt). Linda
fls Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,051	__________________ God - a capricious creative or controlling force said to be the subject of a religion. Evidence is anything that tends to make a proposition more or less true.-Loss Leader sCAM will now be referred to as DIM - Demonstrably Ineffective Medicine www.stopsylvia.com

21st November 2009, 07:25 AM	#15
~enigma~ Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Center of the universe Posts: 7,955	Originally Posted by Hux Just because a few contemporary atheists, well versed, outspoken have taken to the road and excited other potential atheists in the heartlands of Christianity, does not make them 'new'. They are just reaching a wider audience with arguments not steeped in deep philosophy. Hitchens is well versed in it all but he and Harris have a very straight vocabulary and can challenge doctrine in a way that holds such doctrines up to ridicule. They are managing to get their message over; there is nothing 'mysterious' about religion, no reason to have respect for blind faith and- as they are finding out, more and more people are willing to come out and admit they have no religious affiliation. As a consequence, coining the term 'New atheist' is meaningless and just the opposition attempt to characterise a growing movement of free thinking individuals. It has about as much significance as suggesting atheism is just another religion. Nice to see so many religionists turning uncomfortably in their sleep. Unfortunately there are a bunch of self-proclaimed "new atheists" that relish in the term (I have spoken to many) and they call "old atheism wishy washy. Personally I never knew atheism would suffer from a denominational division as if it were a religion. If you ask me I would tell you what is called new atheism is in my opinion just plain old fashioned religious fundamentalism in the guise of anti-theism being called atheism to make the practitioners feel less dirty.

21st November 2009, 07:26 AM	#16
Nogbad Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Scotland Posts: 2,091	FFS! how can there be a new way of not believing something. It is either there or it isn't. A new way of it not being there sounds a bit metaphysical to me. confused
	__________________ Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum.

21st November 2009, 08:00 AM	#17
imjohn Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 266	New atheism refers to Hitchens, Dawkins and others who are writing the current crop of books about atheism. edit: I didn't see enigma's post above mine explaining the new atheism. I have to agree that this "split" is ridiculous.
imjohn Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 266	Last edited by imjohn; 21st November 2009 at 08:05 AM.

21st November 2009, 08:00 AM	#18
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 26,807	Originally Posted by fromdownunder Sorry, just an old fashioned atheist. The best kind. Originally Posted by HansMustermann I don't think atheism depends upon theism in anything except as an easy definition. I'll be a little nitpicky and disagree with you a bit. To be against theism requires that theism be there to be against. Put differently, you have to have the state of comfort to have uncomfortable, the negative of it, as a state. I realize that we are getting a bit semantic here, but without there ever being anything that you or I would call theism/religion/belief in gods, atheism as a state or concept never arrives. DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is some one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton____"Atheism is no safeguard against stupidity."--The Atheist____If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok____ "Your onus is aimed in the wrong direction." -- Cleon

21st November 2009, 08:04 AM	#19
HansMustermann Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,100	Except the "a" in "atheism" means "without", not "against". So, yes, if we were defining "anti-theism", you can't have that without theism. Like you can't have anti-tank without tank. But we're not. We're defining those without belief in a god. And claiming that one needs a god to be without a god, is akin to claiming that a fish needs a bicycle.
	Last edited by HansMustermann; 21st November 2009 at 08:11 AM.

21st November 2009, 08:09 AM	#20
Hokulele Official Nemesis TLA Dictatrix Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: To be determined. Posts: 21,350	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor I'll be a little nitpicky and disagree with you a bit. To be against theism requires that theism be there to be against. Put differently, you have to have the state of comfort to have uncomfortable, the negative of it, as a state. I realize that we are getting a bit semantic here, but without there ever being anything that you or I would call theism/religion/belief in gods, atheism as a state or concept never arrives. DR I'm not entirely sure I agree, the first paragraph sounds more like anti-theism than atheism. I do agree the word itself and atheism as a human concept would not exist, but the state of lacking a belief in god(s) would still exist. Just as if no one ever had any hair on their head, they would still be bald, the state of being bald could still be a concept, there just wouldn't be a need for a special term.
	__________________ You, madam, do not appear to be bound by the physical laws that govern the rest of us. - JoeyDonuts You should listen to the evil one - Don't try to understand it, just experience it. - AJM8125

21st November 2009, 08:13 AM	#21
fls Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,051	So does this parallel the split between the protestants and the catholics, or is this more like the difference between methodists and presbyterians? Linda
fls Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,051	__________________ God - a capricious creative or controlling force said to be the subject of a religion. Evidence is anything that tends to make a proposition more or less true.-Loss Leader sCAM will now be referred to as DIM - Demonstrably Ineffective Medicine www.stopsylvia.com

21st November 2009, 08:24 AM	#22
imjohn Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 266	Originally Posted by fls So does this parallel the split between the protestants and the catholics, or is this more like the difference between methodists and presbyterians? Linda You got me -- I don't understand it myself. It's more like, "You old farts aren't loud enough."
imjohn Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 266

21st November 2009, 08:54 AM	#23
jadey Muse Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Merry Land Posts: 595	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor Put differently, you have to have the state of comfort to have uncomfortable, the negative of it, as a state. DR So if I've never experienced comfort and you have. The two of us sit side by side on a pointy bed of nails. You get to be in a state of discomfort and I don't. Well, in the words of my six year old, "that's not fair."

21st November 2009, 09:10 AM	#25
jadey Muse Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Merry Land Posts: 595	Originally Posted by imjohn You got me -- I don't understand it myself. It's more like, "You old farts aren't loud enough." I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one. My vocabulary is just not quite up to the challenge. I did get a sense that the author suggests that the "new atheists" have taken atheism from a "position to be held/defended" to "a position to be advanced/promoted". That the tactics are a bit more aggressive and in-your-face. That is about all I got, but again, I honestly couldn't translate large portions.

21st November 2009, 09:11 AM	#26
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 26,807	Originally Posted by HansMustermann Except the "a" in "atheism" means "without", not "against". So, yes, if we were defining "anti-theism", you can't have that without theism. Like you can't have anti-tank without tank. But we're not. We're defining those without belief in a god. And claiming that one needs a god to be without a god, is akin to claiming that a fish needs a bicycle. I understand what you are saying, but unless there is theism, you can't be without it, as there isn't anything to be without, or out of. this applies to the material as well as the conceptual. Let us propose a liquid called "beern" that doesn't exist. "I'm out of beern" makes no sense. There wasn't any beern to begin with, so there is no point in inventing the word for beern so that I can be out of it. Now, someone came up with a god, or some gods, and by doing so got religion thing happening. Those who are in it are not the whole set, so the others, who find no god there, are without. Without belief in god, atheist doesn't arrive until the belief in god was first established, built, created, whatever. Likewise, if you can make some of that beern, I can then check and see if I have any, and be out of it, or without it, as the case may be. The chicken and egg. You need the religion concept, chicken, to lay the atheist egg, just as you need the religion egg, to give birth to the atheist chicken. Without step 1, step two can't arrive. Try this in code: Print X But don't first tell the computer what the variable X is. Again, it's a quibble, and how we tie thought and concepts into words. DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is some one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton____"Atheism is no safeguard against stupidity."--The Atheist____If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok____ "Your onus is aimed in the wrong direction." -- Cleon Last edited by Darth Rotor; 21st November 2009 at 09:15 AM.

21st November 2009, 09:13 AM	#27
~enigma~ Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Center of the universe Posts: 7,955	Originally Posted by jadey I I did get a sense that the author suggests that the "new atheists" have taken atheism from a "position to be held/defended" to "a position to be advanced/promoted". That the tactics are a bit more aggressive and in-your-face. Like an evangelical religion?

21st November 2009, 09:16 AM	#28
Tricky Radical centrist Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 27,290	Not for me. Gimme that old time irreligion.

21st November 2009, 09:18 AM	#29
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 26,807	Originally Posted by ~enigma~ Like an evangelical religion? Try: like an evangelical ideology. (borrowing evangelizing from religion for a moment there ...) There may be a better term.
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is some one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton____"Atheism is no safeguard against stupidity."--The Atheist____If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok____ "Your onus is aimed in the wrong direction." -- Cleon

21st November 2009, 09:20 AM	#30
jadey Muse Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Merry Land Posts: 595	Originally Posted by Fiona I actually found that interesting. It is not well written; it fails to make its points clearly and simply though it could, I think. And I confess that I got wholly lost in the final paragraph (though, not having read the Bill Maher stuff it references, that fault is probably mine). It seems to be trying too hard to be scholarly, and to show off its academic credentials; and does so at the cost of easy communication. Nevertheless it raises some interesting questions. Gave me something to think about, anyway. So thanks for bringing it here Fiona, Would you be willing to translate a few of the key points that you found interesting?

21st November 2009, 09:24 AM	#31
Pure_Argent Certified Castlevania Fanboy Join Date: May 2009 Location: The Clock Tower Boss Room Posts: 3,819	Originally Posted by Tricky Not for me. Gimme that old time irreligion. Just leave those old Bibles on the shelf I'll sit and ig-nore the-em by myself Today's non-believers ain't got the same soul Gimme that old-time a-the-ist role
	__________________ "What is a man? Just a miserable little pile of secrets!" - Dracula, Castlevania "The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head." - Terry Pratchett, Hogfather

21st November 2009, 09:26 AM	#32
~enigma~ Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Center of the universe Posts: 7,955	Originally Posted by Pure_Argent Just leave those old Bibles on the shelf I'll sit and ig-nore the-em by myself Today's non-believers ain't got the same soul Gimme that old-time a-the-ist role Bastard....that made me spew coffee all over my keyboard and monitor. You owe me new ones.

21st November 2009, 09:29 AM	#33
jadey Muse Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Merry Land Posts: 595	Originally Posted by Pure_Argent Just leave those old Bibles on the shelf I'll sit and ig-nore the-em by myself Today's non-believers ain't got the same soul Gimme that old-time a-the-ist role If you're playing air-guitar in your tighty-whities, I'd say that's some risque business.

21st November 2009, 10:42 AM	#34
Eyeron Guest Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,774	What's so good about being an atheist?" If you don't fit in you're a social pariah and society demands that we all fit in and be like one another. So what's so wrong about that? Why would anybody want to choose to be a social pariah?
Eyeron Guest Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,774

21st November 2009, 10:50 AM	#35
Pure_Argent Certified Castlevania Fanboy Join Date: May 2009 Location: The Clock Tower Boss Room Posts: 3,819	Originally Posted by ~enigma~ Bastard....that made me spew coffee all over my keyboard and monitor. You owe me new ones.
	__________________ "What is a man? Just a miserable little pile of secrets!" - Dracula, Castlevania "The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head." - Terry Pratchett, Hogfather

21st November 2009, 11:43 AM	#36
HansMustermann Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,100	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor I understand what you are saying, but unless there is theism, you can't be without it, as there isn't anything to be without, or out of. this applies to the material as well as the conceptual. Let us propose a liquid called "beern" that doesn't exist. "I'm out of beern" makes no sense. There wasn't any beern to begin with, so there is no point in inventing the word for beern so that I can be out of it. Yes, you wouldn't need a word for it. But you'd still have no beern anyway.