Merged: New Atheists; same as the Fundies?

[mikeyx]

[quoting wikipedia's article on The New Atheism] In his 2008 book I Don't Believe in Atheists (retitled When Atheism Becomes Religion: America's New Fundamentalists for the paperback),[24] journalist and author Chris Hedges argues that there is nothing inherently moral about being either a believer or a nonbeliever. He goes a step further by accusing atheists in general and New Atheists in particular of being as intolerant, chauvinistic, bigoted, anti-intellectual, and self-righteous as their archrivals, religious fundamentalists—in other words, as being secular versions of the religious right [/quote]

My point is pretty much spelled out in the quote. There is among a good number of the posters here, a seemingly "New Atheist" mindset. The point often missed seemingly is, well quoted. You don't believe, that's your right. But in your dislike of the fundies, be they Christian, Muslim, faith of your choice, and I am not in any way advocating their side, in the quest to rescue the religious from their own pathetic ignorance, many atheists come off sounding oddly familiar. They kinda sound like the very thing they claim to oppose.

In a more moderate, you have a right to be a believer, nonbeliever, or agnostic, bit it's still a personal thing and any group, imposing it's mindset really is any better than any other, overbearing Atheists included right alongside the Falwells, the Robertsons, and the Bin Ladens.

Thoughts?

[jcampbell]

I'd hate to feed the troll, but I would consider them distinctly different. We certainly have the right to believe or disbelieve as we choose. So far I haven't witnessed any of these so-called "New Atheists" advocating to the contrary. In contrast, Falwell wanted to change laws to benefit Christian believers to the exclusion of other religious minorities. Osama bin Laden has committed mass murder in the name of his faith, and arguably as a practice of it. I find the argument to be specious, and particularly a reactionary way to respond to the hurt feelings that these "New Atheists" inspire by being so critical of faith, which is all they are doing.

[mushy]

I agree completely with OP. This board is packed full of people who think being an Athiest just means you are mean to people without addressing any of their points. They learn the fancy latin names for arugments and then post them constantly in an attempt to appear knowledeble and smug of a topic they have little to no understand off. Then fade back into the crowd when challenged.

But if you point this out, you are a troll. Typical new athiest ********

[mikeyx]

Originally Posted by jcampbell

I'd hate to feed the troll, but I would consider them distinctly different. We certainly have the right to believe or disbelieve as we choose. So far I haven't witnessed any of these so-called "New Atheists" advocating to the contrary. In contrast, Falwell wanted to change laws to benefit Christian believers to the exclusion of other religious minorities. Osama bin Laden has committed mass murder in the name of his faith, and arguably as a practice of it. I find the argument to be specious, and particularly a reactionary way to respond to the hurt feelings that these "New Atheists" inspire by being so critical of faith, which is all they are doing.

Is it really a troll, or just an inconvenient question in an Atheist-biased venue?

New Atheists have admittedly not killed anyone, but they have in the case of a Father trying to change the wording of Pledge of Allegiance, tried changing things legally, and every Holiday season somewhere there's a Atheist group complaining about the Xtian's and their displays on the town green. Wouldn't be easier to make an Atheist symbol and just display next to the Cross and the Menora?

[Foster Zygote]

I think that "new atheist" is simply a term used to lump a bunch of diverse people together into one easily dismissed package.

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by mushy

I agree completely with OP. This board is packed full of people who think being an Athiest just means you are mean to people without addressing any of their points. They learn the fancy latin names for arugments and then post them constantly in an attempt to appear knowledeble and smug of a topic they have little to no understand off. Then fade back into the crowd when challenged.

But if you point this out, you are a troll. Typical new athiest ********

I can see how some atheists display the qualities of intolerance, chauvinism, bigotry, and self-righteousness. But I am having a more difficult time seeing these atheists being "as anti-intellectual as religious fundamentalists." Can you or another poster explain this position more clearly?

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by mikeyx

Is it really troll, or just an inconvenient question in an Atheist-biased venue?

New Atheists have admittedly not killed anyone, but they have in the case of a Father trying to change the wording of Pledge of Allegiance, tried changing things legally, and every Holiday season somewhere there's a Atheist group complaining about the Xtian's and their displays on the town green. Wouldn't be easier to make an Atheist symbol and just display next to the Cross and the Menora?

Again, you're just using one simple, universal label to apply to any atheist at your convenience. How does protesting the unconstitutional imposition of religious speech in a public school warrant lumping an individual in with every other "new atheist"?

[Hellbound]

Originally Posted by mikeyx

Is it really troll, or just an inconvenient question in an Atheist-biased venue?

New Atheists have admittedly not killed anyone, but they have in the case of a Father trying to change the wording of Pledge of Allegiance, tried changing things legally, and every Holiday season somewhere there's a Atheist group complaining about the Xtian's and their displays on the town green. Wouldn't be easier to make an Atheist symbol and just display next to the Cross and the Menora?

A few problems with ideas like this.

Asking "Why can't you just make an aetheist symbol to display?" is the equivalent of asking "Well why can't the religous get together and agree on a single symbol to display, instead of putting a bunch of them up?". You're trying to shoehorn a diverse group of people into a single entity.

As to the pledge, he was actually trying to get them to reverse the change in wording made in 1954 that added "under God".

I don't think these are particularly valid objections. And there's a difference in complaining about something (such as decorations) and actively protesting it. Opinions are protected, whether we consider them good or bad. We might as well talk about moderate Xians complaining about adult situations on TV (we don't even have to go into fundamentalists on that one).

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by mushy

I agree completely with OP. This board is packed full of people who think being an Athiest just means you are mean to people without addressing any of their points. They learn the fancy latin names for arugments and then post them constantly in an attempt to appear knowledeble and smug of a topic they have little to no understand off. Then fade back into the crowd when challenged.

But if you point this out, you are a troll. Typical new athiest ********

No understand of? Is English your first language? I am an atheist because I have yet to see evidence of the existence of any god or gods. I have read the entire bible twice which is more than most Christians. In my experience here it is the believers who do not address points and respond by quoting the bible.

[Hellbound]

Originally Posted by dafydd

No understand of? Is English your first language? I am an atheist because I have yet to see evidence of then existence of any god or gods. I have read the entire bible twice which is more than most Christians. Go on ,challenge me.

While I suspect this will lead nowhere, thought I would add my two cents as well. I became an atheist after conducting an year long, in-depth study of the Bible while attending a Christian University. The more I actually learned about and understood the religion I nominally professed, the more I realized that, even assuming it true, it was not something I could follow.

And, in general, I tend to find more understanding of the bible in atheists than in the religious (excluding fundamentalists on both sides). And I mean understanding not just of what ministers and other believers tell you it means, but actual understanding of the history of the bible (how it was put together and from what), how it fits into the historical context, the cultures that existed a tthe time of the supposed stories, and the times when the tales were actually written, similarities to other religions (many pre-dating the Christian or Judaic systems), the differences between english and the original languages, and similar things.

[Resume]

Originally Posted by mikeyx

Is it really troll, or just an inconvenient question in an Atheist-biased venue?

Yes it's a troll, and a strawman, and the argument is cliched.

[mushy]

Originally Posted by Ladewig

I can see how some atheists display the qualities of intolerance, chauvinism, bigotry, and self-righteousness. But I am having a more difficult time seeing these atheists being "as anti-intellectual as religious fundamentalists." Can you or another poster explain this position more clearly?

I mean by the double standards they use. As ive posted in many other theads. i.e They think its ok to confront theists and tell them they are wrong. However are outraged when Theists hand out tracts in foreign countries.

Alot of them will act like they know why a statment is rubbish and post some insult thats non-related. Then wander off happy that their gained skeptic-points by being harsh to the "Stupid-fundie/conspiracy-theorist".

Tons more, but i don't have the heart to type it again. I'll just be called a troll, it will be ignored and i will be asked the same question in 10 different ways. When i refuse to keep answering this will be heraled as proof i was a troll.

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by mushy

I agree completely with OP. This board is packed full of people who think being an Athiest just means you are mean to people without addressing any of their points. They learn the fancy latin names for arugments and then post them constantly in an attempt to appear knowledeble and smug of a topic they have little to no understand off. Then fade back into the crowd when challenged.

But if you point this out, you are a troll. Typical new athiest ********

No, I'm pretty sure that it's your posting inflamatory messages with bad logic and occasional hypocrisy makes you a troll, not those eeevil New Atheists. There are people who have managed to make a coherent and well argued case for their religion or favourite woo, and although, granted, the logic failed to support their case, I don't think anyone called that trolling. And at the other end of the spectrum there's the kind of drivel you post.

[Gawdzilla]

Hey, if OP wants to be into sweeping generalizations, we should let him. It's the only christian thing to do.

[Hellbound]

Originally Posted by mushy

I mean by the double standards they use. As ive posted in many other theads. i.e They think its ok to confront theists and tell them they are wrong. However are outraged when Theists hand out tracts in foreign countries.

Alot of them will act like they know why a statment is rubbish and post some insult thats non-related. Then wander off happy that their gained skeptic-points by being harsh to the "Stupid-fundie/conspiracy-theorist".

Tons more, but i don't have the heart to type it again. I'll just be called a troll, it will be ignored and i will be asked the same question in 10 different ways. When i refuse to keep answering this will be heraled as proof i was a troll.

Well, you could break the cycle and post evidence of the type of behavior you're describing, by linking to specific posts/threads.

[mushy]

Originally Posted by dafydd

No understand of? Is English your first language? I am an atheist because I have yet to see evidence of the existence of any god or gods. I have read the entire bible twice which is more than most Christians. In my experience here it is the believers who do not address points and respond by quoting the bible.

Insult -
Boasting about knowledge -
Make generalisation -

Typical New-Athiest.

[mushy]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

No, I'm pretty sure that it's your posting inflamatory messages with bad logic and occasional hypocrisy makes you a troll, not those eeevil New Atheists. There are people who have managed to make a coherent and well argued case for their religion or favourite woo, and although, granted, the logic failed to support their case, I don't think anyone called that trolling. And at the other end of the spectrum there's the kind of drivel you post.

Another Insult lol. Do you people not know how to talk like human beings. Nice to see you got your Skeptic-Approved word "Woo" in to earn your skeptic points. Also "Woo" implies that what they are arguing is false/made-up/wrong etc.. You shouldn't use it so generally, no matter how bad you want the points.

[mikeyx]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

I think that "new atheist" is simply a term used to lump a bunch of diverse people together into one easily dismissed package.

NOPE. The definition of, the source of the definition of both have been clearly stated. You can say the same about diversity among other fundies, Evangelicans, Baptists, Pentacostals, Mormons, Sunnis, Shias, etc, so your response not only fails to address the question, it seems to attempt to dodge the question asked.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by mushy

Insult -
Boasting about knowledge -
Make generalisation -

Typical New-Athiest.

I am a 58 year old almost lifelong atheist. You are the one making the sweeping generalizations. I am not a member of any atheist club,every atheist is an atheist in his or her own way.

[Gawdzilla]

Originally Posted by mikeyx

NOPE. The definition of, the source of the definition of both have been clearly stated. You can say the same about diversity among other fundies, Evangelicans, Baptists, Pentacostals, Mormons, Sunnis, Shias, etc, so your response not only fails to address the question, it seems to attempt to dodge the question asked.

Chris Hedges is infallible? When did he become pope?

[mushy]

Originally Posted by Hellbound

Well, you could break the cycle and post evidence of the type of behavior you're describing, by linking to specific posts/threads.

No, this is the typical New-Athiest defense. "Show me evidence" - spend 1 hour gathering up evidence to support your point, in that time 20 new people will arrive to ask you for evidence for different things, if you don't provide the evidence to all our questions you are a troll.

p.s - If you post evidence, we will dismiss it and ask you for the evidence again.

Its a stupid cycle to get into with you guys.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by mushy

Another Insult lol. Do you people not know how to talk like human beings. Nice to see you got your Skeptic-Approved word "Woo" in to earn your skeptic points. Also "Woo" implies that what they are arguing is false/made-up/wrong etc.. You shouldn't use it so generally, no matter how bad you want the points.

Do you have better word than woo for unfounded beliefs that have no basis in reality?

[Hellbound]

Actually, from your OP, the author includes atheists in general into his classifications of "intolerant, chauvinistic, bigoted, anti-intellectual, and self-righteous as their archrivals, religious fundamentalists—in other words, as being secular versions of the religious right".

This is the strawman. I don't think there are many that would deny the existence of "fundamentalist atheists". Many of us would deny, however, that atheists in general are secular versions of the religious right.

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by mushy

I mean by the double standards they use. As ive posted in many other theads. i.e They think its ok to confront theists and tell them they are wrong. However are outraged when Theists hand out tracts in foreign countries.

Oh please. Exactly when was the last time an atheist rang at your door or stopped you on the street to give you tracts? No, really, time and date.

The only confronting you see is when _you_ come preaching to us. But apparently you think that's some kind of right, but our arguing right back is some offense.

Yes, you illustrate hypocritical double standards but they're just yours.

Originally Posted by mushy

Alot of them will act like they know why a statment is rubbish and post some insult thats non-related. Then wander off happy that their gained skeptic-points by being harsh to the "Stupid-fundie/conspiracy-theorist".

Yes, well, we do know when a fallacy is a fallacy, because we kinda had over 2000 years of studying what is good logic and what is delusional bullcrap. And there's no shortage of people coming back doing the same ones over and over again, lest we forget it, I guess. So yes, we actually know when you post illogical rubish, we don't just act like it.

If you don't even realize you're spewing rubbish... well, then it's your shortcoming, not ours.

Originally Posted by mushy

Tons more, but i don't have the heart to type it again. I'll just be called a troll, it will be ignored and i will be asked the same question in 10 different ways. When i refuse to keep answering this will be heraled as proof i was a troll.

Actually, if you genuinely don't even realize why you end up with 10 people trying to hint the same problem in the same statement of yours... Maybe "troll" is the wrong word after all. Maybe we ought to remember to apply Hanlon's Razor

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by mushy

No, this is the typical New-Athiest defense. "Show me evidence" - spend 1 hour gathering up evidence to support your point, in that time 20 new people will arrive to ask you for evidence for different things, if you don't provide the evidence to all our questions you are a troll.

p.s - If you post evidence, we will dismiss it and ask you for the evidence again.

Its a stupid cycle to get into with you guys.

Funny,it's people like you who always initiate the cycle.

[mikeyx]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

Again, you're just using one simple, universal label to apply to any atheist at your convenience. How does protesting the unconstitutional imposition of religious speech in a public school warrant lumping an individual in with every other "new atheist"?

NOPE. The definition of New Atheist and the largely founders of the Movement have been clearly stated. How is what the father did any different than what Fundie Christians have attempted legally? Conceptually they're the same thing, without the potential observation that the Father is potentially interfering with the daughter's right to choose by imposing atheism on here. The point you seem to be having with is, it works both ways.

[mushy]

Originally Posted by dafydd

I am a 58 year old almost lifelong atheist. You are the one making the sweeping generalizations. I am not a member of any atheist club,every atheist is an atheist in his or her own way.

As is every christian. Ever used the term fundie?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by mushy

As is every christian. Ever used the term fundie?

No.

[Sledge]

Show me an example of a "New Atheist" and what they say.

[mikeyx]

Originally Posted by dafydd

No understand of? Is English your first language? I am an atheist because I have yet to see evidence of the existence of any god or gods. I have read the entire bible twice which is more than most Christians. In my experience here it is the believers who do not address points and respond by quoting the bible.

Noone has yet quoted the bible, we're not talking specifically about Christianity, Islam got thrown in, I could easily observe a healthy anti-Christian undercurrent in various segments of Wicca,.

You didn't answer the question.

Xtian, like USian, isn't a word.

[Hellbound]

Originally Posted by mikeyx

NOPE. The definition of New Atheist and the largely founders of the Movement have been clearly stated. How is what the father did any different than what Fundie Christians have attempted legally? Conceptually they're the same thing, without the potential observation that the Father is potentially interfering with the daughter's right to choose by imposing atheism on here. The point you seem to be having with is, it works both ways.

Actually, on that particular example, I can tell you the difference (which I referenced before, and you either missed or ignored).

The religious were the ones that petititoned and eventually pushed through the legal change to have the words "under god" added to the pledge in 1954, making it a statement of religion as much as a statement of allegience.

The father in your example simple wants it to be set back to the way it was originally...a neutral statement regarding the strength and unity of the nation and one's commitment to same.

Or to put it another way, the addition of "under god" specifically excludes those who don't believe in god. Saying nothing there does not exclude the religious.

[mikeyx]

Originally Posted by Hellbound

While I suspect this will lead nowhere, thought I would add my two cents as well. I became an atheist after conducting an year long, in-depth study of the Bible while attending a Christian University. The more I actually learned about and understood the religion I nominally professed, the more I realized that, even assuming it true, it was not something I could follow.

And, in general, I tend to find more understanding of the bible in atheists than in the religious (excluding fundamentalists on both sides). And I mean understanding not just of what ministers and other believers tell you it means, but actual understanding of the history of the bible (how it was put together and from what), how it fits into the historical context, the cultures that existed a tthe time of the supposed stories, and the times when the tales were actually written, similarities to other religions (many pre-dating the Christian or Judaic systems), the differences between english and the original languages, and similar things.

Personal experience is appreciated but this isn't for the sake of the point meant as uniquely addressing Christianity.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by mushy

I agree completely with OP. This board is packed full of people who think being an Athiest just means you are mean to people without addressing any of their points. They learn the fancy latin names for arugments and then post them constantly in an attempt to appear knowledeble and smug of a topic they have little to no understand off. Then fade back into the crowd when challenged.

But if you point this out, you are a troll. Typical new athiest ********

There was a question here? It's well hidden. The atheists here are very good at responding to points,the believers don't do so well.

[Dunstan]

Originally Posted by mikeyx

Is it really troll, or just an inconvenient question in an Atheist-biased venue?

It's a question that gets asked every couple of weeks here in one form or another. Which is fine; if we didn't recycle topics, this forum would shrivel up and die. But that's why some of us get a little fatigued of dealing with the "just like the fundies" claim. It's not "inconvenient," it's just tiresome.

Quote:

New Atheists have admittedly not killed anyone, but they have in the case of a Father trying to change the wording of Pledge of Allegiance, tried changing things legally

That's a pretty substantial difference, don't you think? Otherwise we could say that the Chamber of Commerce, the AARP, and any other political advocacy group you name are "same as terrorists" because they both try to get the government to change its policies.

What on earth is wrong with going through legal channels to challenge language that was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1950s specifically to ostracize atheists and equate them with communists? (Interestingly, the only reason the "under God" language survives is because the religious are dishonest about it. When atheists challenge it, they freak out about how their beliefs are under attack, and it was such an important issue that 90-some senators gathered for a publicity stunt to show their support for the phrase. When they have to defend it in court, however, they fall back on claiming that it's just meaningless "ceremonial deism" and isn't at all an endorsement of religion, no sir! And most courts pretend to believe this.)

Quote:

, and every Holiday season somewhere there's a Atheist group complaining about the Xtian's and their displays on the town green. Wouldn't be easier to make an Atheist symbol and just display next to the Cross and the Menora?

Again, what's wrong with enforcing the First Amendment?

By the way, if a display truly does combine various religious and secular symbols of the season (not just in a token way), it usually passes constitutional muster. The ACLU and other groups that litigate in this area know this and don't usually bring those kinds of challenges.

And if there was an "atheist symbol," it would just be thrown in our faces as further evidence that atheism is "just another religion."

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by mushy

I mean by the double standards they use. As ive posted in many other theads. i.e They think its ok to confront theists and tell them they are wrong. However are outraged when Theists hand out tracts in foreign countries.

Alot of them will act like they know why a statment is rubbish and post some insult thats non-related. Then wander off happy that their gained skeptic-points by being harsh to the "Stupid-fundie/conspiracy-theorist".

Tons more, but i don't have the heart to type it again. I'll just be called a troll, it will be ignored and i will be asked the same question in 10 different ways. When i refuse to keep answering this will be heraled as proof i was a troll.

So, I will agree that the behavior you describe would make them hypocritical, closed-minded, and self-centered; but living by a double standard does not make one anti-intellectual.

I can give specific examples of Christian fundamentalist in America displaying anti-intellectualism. When scientists say, "here is evidence that the Earth is billions of years old," between 8 and 25 percent of the American population says, "no! I will not consider that evidence - it was created by the devil." Refusing to consider evidence that meets the standards of a U.S. court of law and the standards of the academic community and the standards of the Nobel Prize Committee and the standards of modern medical community and the standards of professionally-published encyclopedias is clearly anti-intellectualism.

So, what precisely do these new atheists do that can be defined as anti-intellectualism?

[Hellbound]

Originally Posted by mikeyx

Personal experience is appreciated but this isn't for the sake of the point meant as uniquely addressing Christianity.

This response was to mushy, not generally to the OP.

[jcampbell]

Originally Posted by mikeyx

Is it really troll, or just an inconvenient question in an Atheist-biased venue?

It's just a troll, same as the book it came from. There isn't really such a thing as a "New Atheist" except as a label to explain the rise of atheists and the popularity of their critical literature. Just because Rick Warren and his books are popular doesn't make him a "New Christian."

Quote:

New Atheists have admittedly not killed anyone, but they have in the case of a Father trying to change the wording of Pledge of Allegiance, tried changing things legally, and every Holiday season somewhere there's a Atheist group complaining about the Xtian's and their displays on the town green. Wouldn't be easier to make an Atheist symbol and just display next to the Cross and the Menora?

You mean change the Pledge back to its original form? Issues of constitutionality affect all religious minorities. As far as holiday displays, I'm not that passionate about it and I can see both sides of the issue. On the one hand, it's a cultural, mostly secular (menora and christmas tree, not cross or star of David) celebration that is recognized and payed homage. On the other, it's hard to get people to agree on what constitutes a religious or secular holiday icon. Preferably, we should just let people do what they want on private property and leave public funding out of it. Rather than pay for decorations, how about helping the city's residents or homeless?

[mikeyx]

Originally Posted by Resume

Yes it's a troll, and a strawman, and the argument is cliched.

actually your response is a dodge and only serves to demonstrate like other Fundies, the more closed minded among the atheists hear don't do well when the shoe is on the other foot.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by mikeyx

NOPE. The definition of, the source of the definition of both have been clearly stated.

Being able to point to a source for a generalizing label doesn't establish the veracity of that label. Pointing to Martin Luther as the source of numerous generalizations regarding Jews doesn't legitimize said generalizations.

Quote:

You can say the same about diversity among other fundies, Evangelicans, Baptists, Pentacostals, Mormons, Sunnis, Shias, etc,...

You could, but you would be just as wrong.

Quote:

so your response not only fails to address the question, it seems to attempt to dodge the question asked.

How so, specifically?

[mushy]

Originally Posted by dafydd

No.

Well many other Athiests do. They group people, but apparently don't like being grouped. Another Double standard.