New Atheism

[PostmodernProphet]

Most world religions throughout all of human history have never contemplated an afterlife, or if they did it wasn't particularly pleasant.

Your vision of a transcendent afterlife and an eternal soul comes from the pagan Plato, not Christianity.

and yet, it comes from scripture.....go figure.....

 

[NiftyNiblick]

I think the New Atheists thought of themselves as openly and publically confrontational with religion. And furthermore, like Marx, Freud, and Lenin before them, they considered religion not just to be foolish and irrational but actively harmful to humanity

It's difficult to come right out and say it when you know so many people of faith who appear to be very likable people,
but I have to confess that my mind goes in that direction as well.
Religion causes so much conflict for impossible to rationalize reasons.

 

[IBDaMann]

interesting......New Atheism sounds just like the same old atheism.......

Incorrect. The so-called "New Atheism" is "Fame and Fortune with a Book Deal and the Lecture Circuit."

Note that the book and the lecture series are not the same old atheism, but are the same old anti-theism with which you are familiar but that you unfortunately refer to as atheism.

 

[Lightbringer]

The term New Atheism was coined by the American journalist Gary Wolf in 2006 to describe the positions of some atheist academics, writers, scientists, and philosophers of the 21st century.

New Atheism advocates the view that superstition, religion, and irrationalism should not simply be tolerated. Instead, they should be criticised, countered, examined, and challenged by rational argument, especially when they exert strong influence on the broader society, such as in government, education, and politics. Major figures of New Atheism include Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Proponents of New Atheism often criticised what writers such as Dawkins described as the indoctrination of children and the social harms caused by perpetuating ideologies founded on belief in the supernatural. Critics of the movement described it as militant atheism and fundamentalist atheism.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism


"I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. There is something infantile in the presumption that somebody else has a responsibility to give your life meaning and point… The truly adult view, by contrast, is that our life is as meaningful, as full and as wonderful as we choose to make it."

Richard Dawkins

And that's the problem isn't it?

 

[IBDaMann]

but I have to confess that my mind goes in that direction as well. Religion causes so much conflict for impossible to rationalize reasons.

This underscores the problem faced by undereducated people such as yourself whose bulbs aren't burning quite so brightly. Nowhere in there do you consider the good caused by religion and hence, you never fill in the proper equation and you never perform a fair and accurate assessment. Face it, you would be far too intellectually lazy to perform a fair assessment.

This is why stupid people like you fall for that whole "ocean acidification" scam, because you just aren't smart enough think "wait a minute, there is an entire other half of the equation that isn't being considered." It's also why you stupid people so easily fall for the "atmospheric CO2 is increasing" line. You don't consider the rest of the cycle. Similarly, none of the global religious charity was a component of your assessment, nor the wars that it averted.

You're an idiot who needs for others to think he is somehow philosophical and wise.

 

[IBDaMann]

I think the New Atheists thought of themselves as openly and publically confrontational with religion. And furthermore, like Marx, Freud, and Lenin before them, they considered religion not just to be foolish and irrational but actively harmful to humanity

Marx did not oppose religion. He leveraged it by creating his own. Of course, he opposed all other religions, being competitors, and to that end, he never referred to his own religion as a religion (for marketing purposes, Marxist religions are referred to as "economics" and "science"), but he knew that religion can be used as the opiate of the masses, to get people hooked and then to control them. So he created Marxism and became its first preacher. Other notable preachers of Marxism followed and really pushed that religion into global prominence, creating many breakoff denominations, sects, cults and even dividing into major branches. Today there are worshipers to be found everywhere, including of course here on JPP.

 

[Lightbringer]

Marx did not oppose religion. He leveraged it by creating his own. Of course, he opposed all other religions, being competitors, and to that end, he never referred to his own religion as a religion (for marketing purposes, Marxist religions are referred to as "economics" and "science"), but he knew that religion can be used as the opiate of the masses, to get people hooked and then to control them. So he created Marxism and became its first preacher. Other notable preachers of Marxism followed and really pushed that religion into global prominence, creating many breakoff denominations, sects, cults and even dividing into major branches. Today there are worshipers to be found everywhere, including of course here on JPP.

Marx was an idiot working for a prominent family. The fact anyone ever took him seriously speaks to the stupidity of mankind.

 

[IBDaMann]

Marx was an idiot working for a prominent family. The fact anyone ever took him seriously speaks to the stupidity of mankind.

A few comments:

* Marx refused to work for his father. He was too lazy to be productive in any way and he was morally opposed to adding value to society.
* People took him seriously because they saw political potential for controlling people and for gaining power ... and wealth ... because Marxists are simultaneously the GREEDIEST as well as the LAZIEST bastards on earth. Marxism appeals to the lazy-greedy who desperately need your wealth right now and who demonize you for not handing it over immediately, so they appeal to the government to confiscate your wealth and to punish you for having had it in the first place. Politicians can't get enough of this kind of stupidity that they can stoke and then profess to champion.
* The people who took seriously those preaching the Marxism were definitely the stupid ones who aren't interested in building a better society but would be willing to destroy it if they could make a buck off doing so, or if they could make many other people suffer, that would do just fine as well.

 

[Lightbringer]

A few comments:

* Marx refused to work for his father. He was too lazy to be productive in any way and he was morally opposed to adding value to society.
* People took him seriously because they saw political potential for controlling people and for gaining power ... and wealth ... because Marxists are simultaneously the GREEDIEST as well as the LAZIEST bastards on earth. Marxism appeals to the lazy-greedy who desperately need your wealth right now and who demonize you for not handing it over immediately, so they appeal to the government to confiscate your wealth and to punish you for having had it in the first place. Politicians can't get enough of this kind of stupidity that they can stoke and then profess to champion.
* The people who took seriously those preaching the Marxism were definitely the stupid ones who aren't interested in building a better society but would be willing to destroy it if they could make a buck off doing so, or if they could make many other people suffer, that would do just fine as well.

I see you playing both sides and I have no respect for you.

 

[IBDaMann]

If you do not believe that man created the 10 commandments- all you have to do is look at the first commandment- "Thou shalt have no other God's before me". That sounds more like a Donald Trump than any God!

Explain. On its face, this sounds like just more totally absurd dishonesty/fabrication for virtue-signalling purposes, but I'm sure you've got YouTube video of Donald Trump saying this, yes?

And if you are going to only have 10 rules for mankind, why are the first 4 rules about insisting you have no other gods before me, and you shall hot worship anything but me, and you shall not take my name in Vane, and you should reserve one day in your week- and spend that day dedicated to me and worshipping me.

I imagine that God found it important. Is your imagination so limited that this never occurred to you?

If that doesn't sound like some power hungry ELITIST like Donald Trump with a very low self-esteem of himself and his powers that be, I do not know what does.

Well, you're going to provide that video in this thread, right?

It is obvious that if God exists, and wrote the 10 commandments, he is weak- not strong,

You know this because you arm-wrestled Him and beat him 3-out-of-5, yes? Do you have any sort of argument that ... well, you know, ... that logically follows?

... and has the very same emotional flaws as any man he created.

Christians tell me the same thing, i.e. that God loves mankind to a fault. So, you agree with Christians. Great. I'm waiting for the Trump video where he proclaims himself to be God or to be a god.

The first 4 commandments on the list is all about committing your life to ME! ME! ME!

... and isn't that what many Christians do?

Typical Donald Trump mentality.

Explain this in such a way that it doesn't run counter to my direct observations.

And what is this- "Thou shall not kill". Can we be more specific here?

It clearly means "Don't kill living humans ... unless it would be convenient." Frank Apisa can tell you more.

Which does not explain why it is OK to stone your wife to death in accordance to God's Bible, if you suspect her of having committed adultery

God's "Thou shalt not kill" probably had a caveat in the footnotes "unless convicted of a high crime as determined by your district's elected representatives." I'm sure that the wife had to be convicted first and due process followed. God couldn't mandate lethal injection because they didn't have it back then.

Which by the way, suggests to me that whoever wrote the 10 commandments- WAS A MAN!

... and that must be BAD. Men = Bad. You are very astute.

Because there is no such Bible verse that OK's stoning one's husband to death- if he is suspected of having adulterous affairs!

This makes it clear that you are a leftist because you aren't allowed to recognize that men and women are different. No one ever says to a woman "How do you know the baby you are carrying is actually yours?" A man has no way of knowing that the child carried by his woman is his. He has to trust. Adulterous affairs by a woman shatter that trust and forces a man to wonder whether the children he is raising are his. An adulterous affair by a man does not force his woman to wonder if her children are hers.

With that totally obvious difference between men and women in mind, laws were made that leveled harsh penalties for women who behave in such a manner that they damage that confidence/trust that leads to men taking actions that are harmful to society, e.g. abandoning the family to fend for themselves so the man can try again elsewhere with a different woman and ensure he actually has offspring, returning the woman to her father, who can now no longer marry her to another man, etc...

Was your complaint that these differing standards of behavior are somehow "not fair" because life is supposedly equal and fair and equivalent in all things for all people?

So GOD has some double standards and must have been some kind of a MISOGYNIST.

Aaaaah, so you do think that life is supposed to be equal and fair and equivalent in all things for all people, and that's why you think a man is a woman! I get it now.

I mean, EVE got the blame for committing the very first sin!

We've got to blame someone, and you know how leftists won't ever allow the actual guilty party (i.e. Satan in this case) to be blamed, and Donald Trump hadn't announced his candidacy yet so you weren't going to blame him. That left Eve as the closest to the guilty party.

Women are the weak sex and can be tempted by evil.

... and with chocolate and with certain jewelry.

Women were created from a man's rib. yanno?

In Spanish, "la costilla" (the rib) is another way to refer to the wife.

The Bible is filled with verse that suggests men are superior to women.

The Guiness Book of World Records is full of entries that suggest that men are superior to women.

IF IT WERE A REAL GOD, AND IT WANTED TO PUT THE FEAR OF GOD IN MAN, HE WOULD HAVE [WRITTEN EVERYTHING IN ALL UPPER CASE LETTERS]

I don't think the ancient Hebrew had upper/lower case.

And my message to GOD- If you are listening- "Don't give me a brain- if you do not want me to be able to use it for logic and reasoning and think things out for myself"!

Do you think that maybe God, in His omniscience, knew you were going to make that request ... and granted it? Maybe your message should be one of thanks, yes?

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Incorrect. The so-called "New Atheism" is "Fame and Fortune with a Book Deal and the Lecture Circuit."

Note that the book and the lecture series are not the same old atheism, but are the same old anti-theism with which you are familiar but that you unfortunately refer to as atheism.

it's the old atheism before the atheists, feeling lonely and isolated, decided to call agnostics weak atheists and themselves strong atheists......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Quote Originally Posted by Geeko Sportivo View Post
The Bible is filled with verse that suggests men are superior to women.

and yet there is Esther.....Ruth......Deborah, who was one of the judges.....

 

[Cypress]

It's difficult to come right out and say it when you know so many people of faith who appear to be very likable people,
but I have to confess that my mind goes in that direction as well.
Religion causes so much conflict for impossible to rationalize reasons.

I have a hard time seeing religion being actively more harmful to humanity than communism, fascism, nationalism, imperialism, racism..

The question is really whether any benefit of religion is outweighed by any harm it does.

As for me, I favor a pluralistic society where freedom of conscience is guaranteed by law. The lesson I take from history is that the two endpoints of both State theocracy and State atheism are equally harmful to the human condition.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

In contrast, my view of religion is that it's at least as harmful as any ism.

Some Americans in particular hold truly despicable values that are encouraged by biblical nonsense,
and fundamentalist Muslims take it even a little further than that.

In similar contrast, good things that are done by good people
are inaccurately credited to the religious superstitions belived to be held by those persons.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

The term New Atheism was coined by the American journalist Gary Wolf in 2006 to describe the positions of some atheist academics, writers, scientists, and philosophers of the 21st century.

New Atheism advocates the view that superstition, religion, and irrationalism should not simply be tolerated. Instead, they should be criticised, countered, examined, and challenged by rational argument, especially when they exert strong influence on the broader society, such as in government, education, and politics. Major figures of New Atheism include Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Proponents of New Atheism often criticised what writers such as Dawkins described as the indoctrination of children and the social harms caused by perpetuating ideologies founded on belief in the supernatural. Critics of the movement described it as militant atheism and fundamentalist atheism.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism


"I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. There is something infantile in the presumption that somebody else has a responsibility to give your life meaning and point… The truly adult view, by contrast, is that our life is as meaningful, as full and as wonderful as we choose to make it."

Richard Dawkins

Interesting. I much prefer to think of religion as a personal, private thing that is best kept inside one's house. By that I mean no discussion of it with others (unless requested), no flaunting it loudly, no trying to evangelize others, and esp. no trying to make it part of secular government whether local or national. If ppl find comfort and contentment with their faith, that's good. I am not in favor of it being abolished.

 

[Cypress]

Interesting. I much prefer to think of religion as a personal, private thing that is best kept inside one's house. By that I mean no discussion of it with others (unless requested), no flaunting it loudly, no trying to evangelize others, and esp. no trying to make it part of secular government whether local or national. If ppl find comfort and contentment with their faith, that's good. I am not in favor of it being abolished.

I totally agree organized religion should definitely not be making government policy.

I don't neccessary think it should be kept inside the home. I can't imagine Catholicism, Judaism, Islam without churches, synogogues, mosques.

As for discussions, I don't think random strangers should be approached on the street and proselytized. But personally, I enjoy reading Guno's theads on Judaism, and I actually didn't mind Dukkha starting threads about Buddhism.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

I totally agree organized religion should definitely not be making government policy.

I don't neccessary think it should be kept inside the home. I can't imagine Catholicism, Judaism, Islam without churches, synogogues, mosques.

As for discussions, I don't think random strangers should be approached on the street and proselytized. But personally, I enjoy reading Guno's theads on Judaism, and I actually didn't mind Dukkha starting threads about Buddhism.

Well, home and place of worship. My error.

I also enjoy observations and info about others' beliefs, as long as they aren't being proffered in an attempt to evangelize someone else, which IMO is just rude. You would not approach a person with brown hair, for instance, and inform them that YOUR color hair is superior and "Why don't you come to the beauty shop with me and you can try it?" Why is doing that with religion any different?

 

[Cypress]

and yet, it comes from scripture.....go figure.....

Paul wrote about actual physical bodies being resurrected and an Earthly Kingdom of heaven.

The concept of an immaterial soul and a transcendent heaven comes from Plato, making a big part of your belief pagan in origin.

 

[Cypress]

Well, home and place of worship. My error.

I also enjoy observations and info about others' beliefs, as long as they aren't being proffered in an attempt to evangelize someone else, which IMO is just rude. You would not approach a person with brown hair, for instance, and inform them that YOUR color hair is superior and "Why don't you come to the beauty shop with me and you can try it?" Why is doing that with religion any different?

Agree, I never got the sense Guno or Dukkha were proselytizing.

 

[BidenPresident]

The term New Atheism was coined by the American journalist Gary Wolf in 2006 to describe the positions of some atheist academics, writers, scientists, and philosophers of the 21st century.

New Atheism advocates the view that superstition, religion, and irrationalism should not simply be tolerated. Instead, they should be criticised, countered, examined, and challenged by rational argument, especially when they exert strong influence on the broader society, such as in government, education, and politics. Major figures of New Atheism include Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Proponents of New Atheism often criticised what writers such as Dawkins described as the indoctrination of children and the social harms caused by perpetuating ideologies founded on belief in the supernatural. Critics of the movement described it as militant atheism and fundamentalist atheism.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism


"I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. There is something infantile in the presumption that somebody else has a responsibility to give your life meaning and point… The truly adult view, by contrast, is that our life is as meaningful, as full and as wonderful as we choose to make it."

Richard Dawkins

It is a gross mischaracterization of Sam Harris to reduce all his work to opposing theism.

His podcasts are very informative interviews which rarely even mention religion or theism.

https://www.samharris.org/podcasts/making-sense-episodes