Author Topic: The New Atheism is Dead  (Read 274 times)

Offline Baruch

Re: The New Atheism is Dead
« Reply #15 on: June 10, 2020, 12:25:04 AM »
Christians do have a thing for authoritarian, angry father figures whose "love" somehow ends up resulting in suffering.

Spare the tazer, spoil the protestor ;-))
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ ła’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Re: The New Atheism is Dead
« Reply #16 on: June 10, 2020, 02:20:29 AM »
Atheism by itself is not an -ism at all, is it? Not gonna define myself in terms of religion-isms. 'Belief' is worthless therefore everybody is either agnostic, misled or is a liar.

New atheism seems to be anti-theism. Hitchens was so entertaining while shredding any theist stupid enough to take him on.

Online Shiranu

Re: The New Atheism is Dead
« Reply #17 on: June 10, 2020, 05:17:30 AM »
Speaking of triggers, I would like to know how Christians felt about federal police in riot gear firing gas canisters and grenades containing rubber pellets to scatter the largely peaceful, and presumably predominantly Christian, demonstrators to clear the way for Trump, surrounded by the nation’s top law enforcement and military leaders, to walk to the historic St. John’s Church for a three-minute photo op holding a Bible. If I was a Christian, I imagine I would have some feelings about that.

Run the Jewels have two fucking brilliant lines about that on their new album, on the track "Walking in the Snow"...

Quote from: El-P
Pseudo-Christians, y'all indifferent, kids in prisons ain't a sin? Shit
If even one scrap of what Jesus taught connected, you'd feel different.

Quote from: Killer Mike
All of us serve the same masters, all of us nothin' but slaves
Never forget in the story of Jesus, the hero was killed by the state
ACAB

Offline SGOS

Re: The New Atheism is Dead
« Reply #18 on: June 10, 2020, 09:35:16 AM »
Atheism by itself is not an -ism at all, is it? Not gonna define myself in terms of religion-isms.
Atheism is an odd duck in that regard.  It would exist with or without theism, but it would not have a name if theism did not exist.  Instead of "atheist" you would simply be a "person."  I've tried to think of how many other things have names that are defined as what they are not.  I can't think of any at this moment.  What is an "ism" anyway.  I'd never thought about it before.  Google says this:
Quote
-ism. a suffix appearing in loanwords from Greek, where it was used to form action nouns from verbs (baptism); on this model, used as a productive suffix in the formation of nouns denoting action or practice, state or condition, principles, doctrines, a usage or characteristic, devotion or adherence, etc.
I have to admit that half way through that definition I got lost, and I just said, "Oh, the Hell with it."  But someone else may find it interesting.

Offline Sal1981

Re: The New Atheism is Dead
« Reply #19 on: June 10, 2020, 09:36:28 AM »
New atheism and its corollary militant atheism were invented by Christian apologia. I reckon it was an attempt in discrediting atheism as ideological transgressors of theological "thought" or something. I never personally adopted a label other than agnostic apostate atheist. I don't care what my rivals call me, I define myself in my own environment, and only as a response to theism in this regard.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" --- Richard P. Feynman

Offline aitm

Re: The New Atheism is Dead
« Reply #20 on: June 10, 2020, 10:02:35 AM »
A few  things to note of the idea of new atheism. Granted that Islamic radicals raised the fears of main stream Xian’s. Happening parallel to that was a sudden rise in the call for “intelligent design”, add a relatively new and boisterous social media and suddenly voices seldom heard started responding to intolerance and the new maybe pseudo xian fervor and we got Dawkins and Hitch and several others even Tyson at the mic along with several more outspoken people of “fame” such as Gervais being far more outspoken and we bathed in three years of fierce debating along with a very fine realization among younger people how religion is trying to circumvent education.

It did seem to die quickly as perhaps one can only beat the proverbial horse to its conclusion. I think far more people have quietly agreed that the scientist are right and have stopped waisting time in useless debates. We shall see for certain when intelligent design pops back up. It will again, it is far easier to produce the next generation of believers since they have far more available and one or twenty will not escape the grip of religion, whereas scientist would rather do their work and not get entangled in debates that are fruitless. I am certain they will rise again when the call goes out for god to find his way back into the school that somehow man excommunicated him from. Silly gods, men seemed so puny.
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Offline SGOS

Re: The New Atheism is Dead
« Reply #21 on: June 10, 2020, 10:08:04 AM »
New atheism and its corollary militant atheism were invented by Christian apologia. I reckon it was an attempt in discrediting atheism as ideological transgressors of theological "thought" or something.
That certainly seemed like the intention among Christians that showed up on atheist forums.  Although, I didn't pick that up from mainstream media.  I think the media just recognized it as a phenomenon, and needed a name so they could talk about it.  I don't know who coined the term, but I think it was more important to theists, who felt the most threatened by the outspokenness of the whole thing.  Mostly it seems to me like atheism got repackaged and passed off as something different.

I never personally adopted a label other than agnostic apostate atheist. I don't care what my rivals call me, I define myself in my own environment, and only as a response to theism in this regard.
"Atheist" was good enough for me.  When I came to terms with it in myself, it was a perfect description of who I was, but this is not as true as it once was because some dictionaries, maybe most, are beginning to define atheism as anti-theism, and an atheist is now a person who "knows there is no God."  This whole change in definitions seems driven by theistic hubris.  Since they know there is a god, an atheist must know that there is no god.  I lack the necessary hubris to be an atheist under that limiting definition. 

So here I am with no word to describe myself.  I think I'm supposed to call myself an agnostic, and while that works, it fails to describe the essence of my lack of belief, which is the most important part.  Agnostic describes only the part of me that does not know, and completely misses the point that I have no belief.  It bugs the Hell out of me.  Fucking theists are defining me the way they want me to be, and not understanding who I really am.  Ok, I'm not as upset as that sounds.  I'm exaggerating my response just to try and make a point.  I don't really care what theists think.  It's like trying to teach my dog to speak English. An impossible task.  He will never speak English, so I just accept it.

Offline Baruch

Re: The New Atheism is Dead
« Reply #22 on: June 10, 2020, 10:24:54 AM »
Atheism is an odd duck in that regard.  It would exist with or without theism, but it would not have a name if theism did not exist.  Instead of "atheist" you would simply be a "person."  I've tried to think of how many other things have names that are defined as what they are not.  I can't think of any at this moment.  What is an "ism" anyway.  I'd never thought about it before.  Google says this:I have to admit that half way through that definition I got lost, and I just said, "Oh, the Hell with it."  But someone else may find it interesting.

The definition implies "action".  Sitting on your ass and posting isn't an -ism, unless asshole-ism is a word ;-)
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ ła’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Offline SGOS

Re: The New Atheism is Dead
« Reply #23 on: June 10, 2020, 10:26:13 AM »
It did seem to die quickly as perhaps one can only beat the proverbial horse to its conclusion. I think far more people have quietly agreed that the scientist are right and have stopped waisting time in useless debates. We shall see for certain when intelligent design pops back up. It will again.
As atheism exists only in relation to theism, creationism (specifically "creation science") exists only in relation to science. Neither can exist without the other.  I don't want to start another pointless debate, but just to be a little Devil, who started the whole frakus?  Scientists or theists?  If scientists are to blame, I don't think it was intentional.  The problem is that science often leads to places we don't want to be.  It was much easier when the church had cornered the market on all truth.  Easier, but dumber.  Reality gets in the way of so many of our goals.  It's the reason, I can't play pro basketball.

Offline Baruch

Re: The New Atheism is Dead
« Reply #24 on: June 10, 2020, 10:27:38 AM »
New atheism and its corollary militant atheism were invented by Christian apologia. I reckon it was an attempt in discrediting atheism as ideological transgressors of theological "thought" or something. I never personally adopted a label other than agnostic apostate atheist. I don't care what my rivals call me, I define myself in my own environment, and only as a response to theism in this regard.

Atheism was originally discredited by association with treason, heresy and revolution.  As an epistemology, it doesn't have that implication.  But human beings are combinations of multiple -isms.  In some circles, "deconstructionism" is not politic free, it is associated with the "march thru the institutions" by the Cultural Marxists ... so it isn't just epistemology.

Socrates in the City: Conversations on "Life, God, and Other Small Topics" by Eric Metaxas … with YouTube channel.  Discusses the old New Atheism still.  Some of the guests (it is a kind of interview show) are old enough to remember, just like posters here.  I don't think Milllenials or Z-Gen talk about this.  Old Atheism = Lawrence Welk, New Atheism = Rock & Roll.

A problem for those of you who eschew jargon, who don't think philosophy is worth your time either ... you are talking about Me-ism.  Which didn't start with the Boomers!  in a world where there is only the Church, Western atheism must be anti-church.  In a world with no science, it wasn't possible to be anti-science, but it is possible today.  Me-ism isn't necessarily sociopathic, though it can be.  Otherwise it is covered by "narcissism" ;-))
« Last Edit: June 10, 2020, 12:42:45 PM by Baruch »
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ ła’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Re: The New Atheism is Dead
« Reply #25 on: June 10, 2020, 10:41:29 AM »
That certainly seemed like the intention among Christians that showed up on atheist forums.  Although, I didn't pick that up from mainstream media.  I think the media just recognized it as a phenomenon, and needed a name so they could talk about it.  I don't know who coined the term, but I think it was more important to theists, who felt the most threatened by the outspokenness of the whole thing.  Mostly it seems to me like atheism got repackaged and passed off as something different.
"Atheist" was good enough for me.  When I came to terms with it in myself, it was a perfect description of who I was, but this is not as true as it once was because some dictionaries, maybe most, are beginning to define atheism as anti-theism, and an atheist is now a person who "knows there is no God."  This whole change in definitions seems driven by theistic hubris.  Since they know there is a god, an atheist must know that there is no god.  I lack the necessary hubris to be an atheist under that limiting definition. 

So here I am with no word to describe myself.  I think I'm supposed to call myself an agnostic, and while that works, it fails to describe the essence of my lack of belief, which is the most important part.  Agnostic describes only the part of me that does not know, and completely misses the point that I have no belief.  It bugs the Hell out of me.  Fucking theists are defining me the way they want me to be, and not understanding who I really am.  Ok, I'm not as upset as that sounds.  I'm exaggerating my response just to try and make a point.  I don't really care what theists think.  It's like trying to teach my dog to speak English. An impossible task.  He will never speak English, so I just accept it.
Your dog understand English better than a theist understands facts or critical thinking.  I don't mind the word atheist; but you are correct, the theists named it that.  I do often use the term 'nonbeliever' instead of or in combination with 'atheist'.  A nonbelieving atheist is pretty close to what I am.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent,
Is he able but not willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?

Online Hydra009

Re: The New Atheism is Dead
« Reply #26 on: June 10, 2020, 02:08:23 PM »
As atheism exists only in relation to theism, creationism (specifically "creation science") exists only in relation to science.
Creationism definitely existed before science.  It was one of those just-so stories that filled the gaps in our knowledge - especially our lack of knowledge about the distant past and how the current species came to be.  It wasn't until science came into the picture and people literally started digging into the past that modern creationism came to be - a religious psuedoscience that tried to imitate science in all ways except methodology while concluding that the religious just-so story is true.  It's an insulting sham.

Offline SGOS

Re: The New Atheism is Dead
« Reply #27 on: June 10, 2020, 03:21:33 PM »
Creationism definitely existed before science.  It was one of those just-so stories that filled the gaps in our knowledge - especially our lack of knowledge about the distant past and how the current species came to be. 
This is why I added 'specifically "creation science"' as an afterthought when I realized the problem.  At that point, I should have just back spaced over creationism, and taken it out.  Christians may have just renamed creationism as "creation science" but it's just a name for essentially the same thing.  Sometimes I have wondered if they actually though renaming it was going to work.

- a religious psuedoscience that tried to imitate science in all ways except methodology
In other words "tried to imitate science in all ways except science."  I wonder if that glaring nuance was lost on creationists.  "Glaring nuance" may be an oxymoron.  I hope so, because it's what I intended.