Page 2 of 8 <12345>Last »
Topic Options
#55203 - 05/30/11 02:55 AM Re: The "New Atheism" and it's Value [Re: Diavolo]
SkaffenAmtiskaw Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 06/24/09
Posts: 1318
The religious nutjobs had learned from their opposition, and understood right off the bat that atheists just refuted faith. They didn't actually have anything they could be in favour of. This caused the new Atheism to develop, as atheists borrowed heavily from the secular Humanist movement. Since new Atheism is a different animal altogether, it is still struggling with childhood diseases. Right now, it's still in its cult of personality phase, and seems hesitant to merge with secular Humanism or strike out on its own, e.g. Dawkins' proposed 'Brights' movement.

It's ingrained in new Atheism that you should reject fallacies, groupthink, orthodoxies and dogma, but I think it's running on fumes, unfortunately. So far, their number is shared with both secular Humanists and other groups, but they lack the coherence to become a force to be reckoned with. I'm uncertain if this is even a goal.
_________________________
"I'd rather be right than consistent" - Winston Churchill

Top
#55204 - 05/30/11 03:45 AM Re: The "New Atheism" and it's Value [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Different organizations appeared indeed, like the Brights you mentioned, promoted heavily by Dawkins and Dennett back in the day, or Dawkins' own foundation, but there isn't much of a goal to be found. They all seem to be heavily stuck at preaching to the choir. Some years ago there was an explosion of activity but these days there is hardly anything noticeable. Much was linked to the popularity of certain books and the media-publicity they triggered but these days all seems back to normal.

I doubt anything will come from it. Seeing "new humanists" wave the slogan "good without god" doesn't really strike me as promising and many non-believers lack the drive most believers have. One of the main problems might be that there is little money or power to be gained in these movements.

If there's no gain, none is prepared to suffer too much pain.

D.

Top
#55221 - 05/30/11 05:00 PM Re: The "New Atheism" and it's Value [Re: Diavolo]
Lucifer Rising Offline
member


Registered: 04/10/10
Posts: 147
Loc: Indianapolis, IN
I think most of my thoughts on this subject has been summed up quite nicely by others here, so this should be short.

I agree that many of those that may be considered part of the "New Atheism" have tried to fill a "God shaped hole" with their own version of prophets. It is my thinking, however, that the majority of people go through this. I myself have gone through this, but I believe there are better ways to fill such a hole as others. Abandoning one religion and replacing it with what is essentially another one is likely unavoidable to a certain degree. Some make a god of humanity. I am probably guilty of making gods out of reality and myself. It is simply something modern humans do.

I don't like the morality many of the "New Atheists" push forward, and agree that it is little more than a modified version of the judeo-christian morality. It is often used as a counter argument, however, and probably would not be anywhere near as acceptable as it is without it.

Over all, I'm favorable to the movement. I much rather have a discussion with an Atheist or humanist than a Christian or Muslim. I think these "New Atheists" are far more formidable opponents and are usually a more intelligent and knowledgeable breed.
_________________________
Even if you're the ultimate evil lord of the underworld, you should always be yourself. Mickey Mouse

Top
#55254 - 05/31/11 11:20 AM Re: The "New Atheism" and it's Value [Re: MattVanSickle84]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
Interesting topic, kudos to you, Sir.

I am late to the conversation and so must echo much of what was already posted in response. I have also noticed thought patterns, as mentioned by others. People in the "New Atheism" movement(?) do tend to break away from the established memes of RHP religions... but they also tend to embrace other patterns, leftward politics (and the oft-false dichotomies therein), Darwin's evolutionary theory etc as if they were a religion in and of themselves.

I can identify with some of the issues/ideas these folks attach themselves to. Other things are heavily dependent on a structure of belief which is where Satanists will differ from them. In my world, it's my job to dismantle belief systems and break them down to primary parts/motivations. Strict adherence to one side of the political spectrum or the other, for example, would require a concession on some or many points. It's the domain of the Satanist to examine both sides of these kinds of arguments from a third side position... without the emotional attachment many feel to them. It's also fun to stir the pot.

As for whether or not I welcome this 'movement'? I don't know, it remains to be seen I suppose. I'm for anything that controls the believers and keeps them out of my hair. If some want to swap god for politics and/or scientific theories it's fine with me. If it catches on I'll have to change my grocery shopping schedule (church time, Sunday mornings in the South) to whatever time the thing that replaces church happens.

As a sidebar: I suspect that the trouble brewing over in Israel at current time might be one of those polarizing events that will serve to renew folk in their godly relations. Talk radio is already speaking in terms of 'us' vs 'them' (my god vs your god) and it's getting the masses lathered up for some bloodshed. This coupled with 'The War on Terra', faltering economies, the questionable dollar, and the impending doom ;\) of 2012 just might send some believers over the edge (the next purge?). The New Atheists might soon find their places in history next to some folks across Europe and in Salem Mass.
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#55633 - 06/09/11 03:30 PM Re: The "New Atheism" and it's Value [Re: Fnord]
Max Stirner Offline
stranger


Registered: 02/04/11
Posts: 14
Loc: Italy
In terms of practical utility New Atheism is really useful: it destroys creationists and challenges the common religious people, winning most of the time.
But in terms of academic challenge it's just a poor movement and it's ideas may have been strong arguments in the XVIII-XIX century but certainly not now. It brings nothing new and it's arguments are boring in the best case and pathetic in the worst. Any decostructivist (philosophically speaking) can literally destroy their rebuttal of faith and their claim that the Weltanschauung they use is based only on reason (or the claim that a Weltanschauung based only on reason can exist) in less than half a page.
The fact that they all blindly subscribe to leftism is just a consequence of their lack of critical thinking about their claims as many of you already said.

As usual, sorry for my terrible English.

Top
#55891 - 06/16/11 04:25 AM Re: The "New Atheism" and it's Value [Re: Max Stirner]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3118
 Quote:
In terms of practical utility New Atheism is really useful: it destroys creationists and challenges the common religious people, winning most of the time.

The purpose of New Atheism or militant Atheism is not to destroy creationists and challenging common religious people. The primary goal is to EDUCATE them and not to desparatly hang on towards the dogmatic history religion describes.

Within Atheism it was never an idea to erase the morals of religion, it was just a view that the same morals can still stand while not believing in any god. If you think that with the merging of new forms of Atheism political views (i.e lefty vs right ideals/ideas) are to be changed then I have some bad news.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#55927 - 06/16/11 02:54 PM Re: The "New Atheism" and it's Value [Re: Dimitri]
Max Stirner Offline
stranger


Registered: 02/04/11
Posts: 14
Loc: Italy
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
The primary goal is to EDUCATE them and not to desparatly hang on towards the dogmatic history religion describes.


If the goal is to educate them, they are doing it wrong.
Exchanging religious dogma with scientism and logical positivism may sound wonderful for two seconds then you realize that the improvement is not that big.
Before New Atheism: religious people who can't think for themselves.
After New Atheism: Atheist who can't think for themselves but they are not as annoying as before.
(obviously that's not always the case)

I think that education goes beyond that.

 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
If you think that with the merging of new forms of Atheism political views (i.e lefty vs right ideals/ideas) are to be changed then I have some bad news.


I've never thought that.

Top
#58990 - 09/09/11 12:33 AM A selfish paradox [Re: MattVanSickle84]
Gattamelata Offline
stranger


Registered: 03/23/10
Posts: 44
 Originally Posted By: MattVanSickle84
There is scarcely a more Satanic idea than that of a gene-centred view of evolution. If we are at all interested in the animal nature of Man, we cannot ignore our evolutionary past and it's implications.


But from the perspective of the genes, the human body is but a machine enslaved to propagate the interest of genetic survival. Far from establishing the selfish man, Dawkins establish the selfish gene, for whom man and all his potential (including his potential for selfishness and/or altruism) is just a temporary vessel of utility.

Dawkins shifts the evolutionary perspective away from man, and onto another stage: the alien world of genetic warfare, conducted througout the ages by mysterious agents whose motives and functions our science has only begun to scratch the surface of.

Curiously enough, the most ’satanic’ thing to do seems to use advanced biotechnology to revert the perspective back to man, enslave the genes to propagate the interest of man so to speak, instead of the other way around.
_________________________
Society : an inferno of saviors. —Emil Cioran

Top
#70855 - 09/14/12 02:54 PM Re: The "New Atheism" and it's Value [Re: MattVanSickle84]
Le Deluge Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/05/12
Posts: 1790
 Originally Posted By: MattVanSickle84
That said, I am interested in gauging opinion of the phenomena dubbed "new-atheism" and would very much appreciate some comments as to it's value or lack thereof. My contention is that it is a very welcome movement indeed and I support it's emergence and growth as a balancing force to monotheistic immorality and ignorance and it's application and championing of reason in the public sphere. This is merely because I am not a masochist and see these as also in my own political or social interests.


As a point of reference, I'm "agnostic". It is not really a precise identifier, but it may be relevant to your queary. I don't see Atheism as going much beyond a disbelief in "God". It is tenuous as a description ... let alone a philosophy or praxis.

 Quote:
I am aware that the public sphere is not necessarily of much interest to many here and I acknowledge the general Satanic mistrust of ecumenicalism and collectives and share this distain, and am also aware that Satanism is not a social cause, nevertheless I am always interested in learning the views of the people who post here and I can see that I am in the presence, so to speak, of some very smart people.


I simply walk the LHP. I will grant that there is certainly no call for a social movement amongst the vast majority here.

 Quote:
I tend to think that the antitheism of someone like Christopher Hitchens (cancer is brave to challenge the man!) is only one step away from the views of many Satanists. He is in some ways a de facto Satanist, though in some ways not (Marxist, socialist activist etc.) Please discuss.


I don't see antitheism as a viable movement. To begin with: the surrogate god of consumerism. It strikes me as being as powerful (and detrimental) as the "Christian God" of faith. I suspect other surrogate gods await the masses. Secular humanism is not something I would oppose. If it degenerates into idiocy like communism, it becomes a different matter. Communism enslaves the individual. I can understand an argument "Well, if I'm the cat in charge though". The philosophical premises behind these political persuasions are just anathema to me (beyond that qualifier.)

Militant atheists are an amusing lot. I think many take on the "disbelief" in a manner similar to the "belief" of fundamentalist christians they oppose. Hell, as agnostic we acknowledge that "God" cannot be proven by logical dictate. We simply do not bother with the thesis as some identifying factor. No to the Atheist vanguard. The 20th Century informs us as to what they often degenerate into.



Edited by Le Deluge (09/14/12 03:48 PM)
Edit Reason: tortured grammar
_________________________
Apres Moi ... Le Deluge

Top
#70879 - 09/15/12 06:52 PM Re: The "New Atheism" and it's Value [Re: Le Deluge]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: Le Deluge
As a point of reference, I'm "agnostic". It is not really a precise identifier, but it may be relevant to your queary. I don't see atheism as going much beyond a disbelief in "God". It is tenuous as a description ... let alone a philosophy or praxis.


I find agnostic an even more ridiculous position than theist because it pretends to refuse taking sides based upon an uncertainty while every single one of them did take sides and either believes or not believes in god. Like I said elsewhere, it is either the one or the other and the very moment you're confronted with the god concept, you will side with the one or the other. One can't choose not to.

In addition, it is also a position too silly to desire.

It's like someone claiming four is the sum of two and two and I'll respond: “I'm going to be agnostic about this since there's an infinitesimal possibility there might be another answer one day". Or me refusing to accept I am living because there's again an infinitesimal possibility I might be dead and this all happens in my mind at some afterlife party.

Sometimes “maybe” isn't an option.

D.

Top
#70881 - 09/15/12 07:25 PM Re: The "New Atheism" and it's Value [Re: Diavolo]
Le Deluge Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/05/12
Posts: 1790
That is the problem I generally have with militant atheists. I don't desire much of anything. I haven't been confronted with a God beyond the precepts of Judeo-Christianity. Rejecting those, I felt no need to label myself the opposite. You could call it ___ . I just don't find the terms to have any use.

PS: I just noticed your other post. If it is simply the godhead I need reject, I would be an Atheist in that sense. I just maintain an extreme level of skepticism towards all things: secular and "spiritual" both.
_________________________
Apres Moi ... Le Deluge

Top
#70882 - 09/15/12 07:59 PM Re: The "New Atheism" and it's Value [Re: Le Deluge]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3812
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Honestly I find the word 'Atheist' to be an insidious and clever bit of christian apologetics. Just as I would not label myself an a-fairyist or an a-leprechaunist, I would not take the label 'Atheist'.

Defining yourself to contrast one particular superstition is to lend that superstition a shit-ton of credibility. Myself, I don't think any one superstition is worthy of any extra portions of importance than any other.


Edited by Dan_Dread (09/15/12 08:47 PM)
Edit Reason: fixed typo
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#70883 - 09/15/12 08:02 PM Re: The "New Atheism" and it's Value [Re: Dan_Dread]
Le Deluge Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/05/12
Posts: 1790
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
Honestly I find the word 'Atheist' to be an insidious and clever bit of christian apologetics. Just as I would not label myself an a-firtist or an a-leprechaunist, I would not take the label 'Atheist'.

Defining yourself to contrast one particular superstition is to lend that superstition a shit-ton of credibility. Myself, I don't think any one superstition is worthy of any extra portions of importance than any other.


That is kind of the problem I have with it. I rejected the whole damn thing. How can I oppose half of it? If someone needs a definition as to my view on the Godhead, I don't have one. It doesn't exist for me to oppose. The movements though, be they secular or "spiritual", I'm extremely skeptical of their efficacy. I find surrogate gods are placed where the original one seemed to be presented to me as a kid. Not good.


Edited by Le Deluge (09/15/12 08:07 PM)
Edit Reason: surrogate god qualifier
_________________________
Apres Moi ... Le Deluge

Top
#70884 - 09/15/12 08:07 PM Re: The "New Atheism" and it's Value [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
That's a weak argument Dan considering you call yourself a satanist. If Atheist is christian apologetic, then surely satanist must top them all.

D.

Top
#70885 - 09/15/12 08:49 PM Re: The "New Atheism" and it's Value [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3812
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Apples and oranges. Satanism is not a claim of belief vis a vis any given superstition..at least not insofar as I understand/deliver it.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
Page 2 of 8 <12345>Last »


Moderator:  TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Woland, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.029 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.