Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   New Atheism enters its post-conversion phase, rejecting the hysterical fanaticism of its founders, transforming into a more mature religion   (salon.com ) divider line
    More: Cool, God Is Not Great, metaphysics, Paleolithic, Scientific Method, eastern religions, sensationalism, Richard Dawkins, free-thinks  
•       •       •

4169 clicks; posted to Geek » on 23 Jun 2013 at 5:10 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



196 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-06-23 05:10:55 PM  
I don't believe it.
 
2013-06-23 05:16:55 PM  
I've never heard of "New Atheism".
 
2013-06-23 05:20:42 PM  
Not sure how the subby defines religion.  If all they have is a statement of what they believe in, it is just a corporate mission statement without a deity.
 
2013-06-23 05:21:42 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: I've never heard of "New Atheism".





We elected a new pope, now. Didn't you get the memo?
 
2013-06-23 05:23:29 PM  
FTFA: I am an atheist, if to be an atheist means not believing in a CEO God who sits outside his creation

Ummm ... no. To be an atheist is to be "without gods" any gods. Not the hypocritical one who acts like a petulant child, not the party crowd of Greeks/Romans, and not the "so disconnected that he might as well not exist" god of the deist.

If you believe in a magical creation being of any sort you are not an atheist.

So shut the fark up and stop writing articles claiming to represent people you do not even understand.
 
2013-06-23 05:29:30 PM  
Well, that was angry and boring at the same time.

/and I'm an atheist.
//would rather read Hitchens or Dawkins.
 
2013-06-23 05:31:43 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: I've never heard of "New Atheism".


I've been calling it neo-atheism here for years now, which is pretty much the same, only German makes it sound scarier. I'm an atheist myself, and feel the need to distance myself from the rabid assholes who now wear the title, so it serves to do that.

And like i've railed on about before, most atheists in the west fashion themselves as modern crusaders leading some revolution. But atheism is really only new to them. The concept itself is ancient and global, and no one else really thinks its a big deal. So there's definitely a difference between what most modern people take it to mean.
 
2013-06-23 05:33:08 PM  

rev. dave: Not sure how the subby defines religion.  If all they have is a statement of what they believe in, it is just a corporate mission statement without a deity.


Atheist have nothing of the sort. There are no mission statements, no organization that we all belong to, no leaders that we all follow, no magic books. The only thing that binds us together is that we all lack a belief in a deity.

Think of it this way: If you look at all the people who's hearing is below an arbitrary level you can refer to them as "hearing impaired". This does not make them part of a hearing impaired religion, they do not have a mission statement, they are not an organization. They just share a quality.

Could some of these people form support groups? Yes. Do the members of these groups or the charters of these groups represent all hearing impaired people. No, of course not. That would be stupid. Are there people who write books about being hearing impaired? Yes. Do these authors' opinions represent all hearing impaired people? Again, no. Don't be stupid!
 
2013-06-23 05:36:29 PM  
And neo is greek, of course. Apologies.

/downgraded from scary to ominous
 
2013-06-23 05:37:33 PM  
In before letrole
 
2013-06-23 05:37:40 PM  

Farking Canuck: rev. dave: Not sure how the subby defines religion.  If all they have is a statement of what they believe in, it is just a corporate mission statement without a deity.

Atheist have nothing of the sort. There are no mission statements, no organization that we all belong to, no leaders that we all follow, no magic books. The only thing that binds us together is that we all lack a belief in a deity.

Think of it this way: If you look at all the people who's hearing is below an arbitrary level you can refer to them as "hearing impaired". This does not make them part of a hearing impaired religion, they do not have a mission statement, they are not an organization. They just share a quality.

Could some of these people form support groups? Yes. Do the members of these groups or the charters of these groups represent all hearing impaired people. No, of course not. That would be stupid. Are there people who write books about being hearing impaired? Yes. Do these authors' opinions represent all hearing impaired people? Again, no. Don't be stupid!


Well, to be fair, there are explicitly atheist organizations (American Atheists comes to mind).
 
2013-06-23 05:39:16 PM  
Well, see farking canuck has said everything I say in these threads so I'll just lurk this one.

Good work.
 
2013-06-23 05:39:31 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: And like i've railed on about before, most atheists in the west fashion themselves as modern crusaders leading some revolution. But atheism is really only new to them.


You seem to be confusing people who are attempting to stand up for their rights with crusaders trying to push something on to others. I do not get persecuted and it sounds like you do not either ... but there are people out there that do and they are attempting to speak out about it. That is why it is a more local movement. Most western countries understand that a secular government protects all citizens ... bot the religious and non-religious.

It is sad that you feel the need to look down your nose on them. Maybe the next christian based law that comes in will directly affect you. You might suddenly change your tune then.
 
2013-06-23 05:40:26 PM  

Galileo's Daughter: Well, to be fair, there are explicitly atheist organizations (American Atheists comes to mind).


And do they represent all atheists?
 
2013-06-23 05:45:13 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2013-06-23 05:49:54 PM  

Farking Canuck: Galileo's Daughter: Well, to be fair, there are explicitly atheist organizations (American Atheists comes to mind).

And do they represent all atheists?


No, they don't.  Then again, the Westboro Baptist Church doesn't represent all Christians, either, but that doesn't stop atheists from painting all Christians with the same broad brush.
 
2013-06-23 05:50:03 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: But atheism is really only new to them. The concept itself is ancient and global, and no one else really thinks its a big deal.


Do you live outside of the United States? There is a fairly severe distrust and even hatred of atheists in this country. Atheists are possibly the most underrepresented group in Congress (depending on how you define "group." More underrepresented than LGBT, less underrepresented than just T). There are still laws on the books in some states (though unenforceable) that state atheists cannot hold public office. Have you heard the news about Islamophobia? A Pew research study shows that people would rather vote for a Muslim for president than an atheist.  I can virtually guarantee we'll see a homosexual president before an atheist president.

Then there are all of the anecdotal stories of kids being verbally abused by their parents for being atheist. Coming out atheist is about as bad as coming out as gay in some families. Here's one example:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8Aq00yJSxo  "Atheist" is used as some kind of insult in many circles.

Atheism is also horribly misunderstood. I've had people ask me "what, are you some sort of Satan worshipper?" when they find out I'm an atheist. I've also been flat-out told that I'm not an atheist; that atheists don't exist. Or, the softer version, "there are no atheists in foxholes," meaning if somebody fears death, they show their "true" colors and start believing in a god. Other times, it's just met with complete confusion, as if I was insisting the grass was purple.

So, a lot of people care.
 
2013-06-23 05:51:33 PM  
You know, I'm an atheist too but instead of spending loads of time going on and on about, I'd rather just go do something fun instead. I don't spend time railing against giant magical chickens either.
 
2013-06-23 05:51:41 PM  

Farking Canuck: Galileo's Daughter: Well, to be fair, there are explicitly atheist organizations (American Atheists comes to mind).

And do they represent all atheists?


Does the NAACP represent all African Americans?
 
2013-06-23 05:51:45 PM  
Wow that article sucked
 
2013-06-23 05:53:16 PM  
A long diatribe criticizing a poorly written [and I read it] book by Christopher Hitchens, who died a couple of years ago. This guy, Curtis White, sounds angry and he is all over the place with his "argument".  Maybe he is upset that Hitchens' book is still getting shelf space in book stores?
 
2013-06-23 05:53:47 PM  

Galileo's Daughter: Farking Canuck: Galileo's Daughter: Well, to be fair, there are explicitly atheist organizations (American Atheists comes to mind).

And do they represent all atheists?

No, they don't.  Then again, the Westboro Baptist Church doesn't represent all Christians, either, but that doesn't stop atheists from painting all Christians with the same broad brush.


Your high-ground is eroded slightly by the complete lock-down Christians have on the US.  There are still states with a "no atheists can be elected to office" policy hard-wired into their constitutions.

The horrible thing isn't that all Christians are Westboro Baptists.  The horrible thing is that a Westboro Baptist is really "just another Christian".  It's a particularly ugly part of a much bigger, uglier game.
 
2013-06-23 05:56:49 PM  
Is this a "Hitchens was wrong and a jerk in cases therefore Atheism is invalid" piece?
Or is it a "you must respect religion for the role it played in history" piece?

I once came across someone arguing how large a role Christianity and the Catholic Church played in the development of European Science. The problem is that none of this role depended on the content of Christianity. If instead Zoroastrianism had been the dominant religion in Europe with as much scholarship, independence, and political power people would claim that is was a cause of science.

Islam used to be a great religion for science until a bunch of fundie clerics (around 1300?) decided that the Koran was the source of all truth and any science must come from passages from it. Today you can find numerous examples of Muslim "scientists" quoting the Koran and giving some wild interpretation as a justification of the facts they are investigating. Westerners might find such ridiculous but sadly it is the only "legitimate' path for Muslim research.
 
2013-06-23 05:57:19 PM  
Is it just me or does TFA's writer comes off as a far larger asshole than Hitchens?

I mean, he all but calls Hitchens an evil lying piece of shiat for a) not mentioning obscure theological and philosophical works when discussing religion in a book aimed at the mass-market, b) debatably getting a couple of facts wrong and c) accepting modern neurological science's position on the conscience.

I'm not saying Hitchens didn't get anything wrong or that he couldn't be strident or act like an asshole sometimes, but TFA's writer is demonizing someone who's just died over utterly trivial bullshiat. How is he NOT an awful, awful human being?
 
2013-06-23 05:57:21 PM  
Darn, I was hoping that there would be no reading. Is there some other way not to believe.
 
2013-06-23 05:59:30 PM  
Assumed New Atheism referred to the religion of A+ Theism, glad to see it doesn't. How is A+ Theism working out these days?
 
2013-06-23 06:00:02 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: But atheism is really only new to them. The concept itself is ancient and global,


While that's true, atheism as a worldview has never been dominant in any culture in human history, and up until the twentieth century, never held the sway of any more than a smattering fragment of a fraction of the population.

I've often said that the United States will have a first woman, gay, jew, latino, chinese, native indian, east indian and pothead President before it ever has a first openly atheist President.
 
2013-06-23 06:00:09 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Galileo's Daughter: Farking Canuck: Galileo's Daughter: Well, to be fair, there are explicitly atheist organizations (American Atheists comes to mind).

And do they represent all atheists?

No, they don't.  Then again, the Westboro Baptist Church doesn't represent all Christians, either, but that doesn't stop atheists from painting all Christians with the same broad brush.

Your high-ground is eroded slightly by the complete lock-down Christians have on the US.  There are still states with a "no atheists can be elected to office" policy hard-wired into their constitutions.

The horrible thing isn't that all Christians are Westboro Baptists.  The horrible thing is that a Westboro Baptist is really "just another Christian".  It's a particularly ugly part of a much bigger, uglier game.


So, by your logic, r/atheism on Reddit is just another ugly part of a much uglier game.
 
2013-06-23 06:00:44 PM  

Farking Canuck: You seem to be confusing people who are attempting to stand up for their rights with crusaders trying to push something on to others. I do not get persecuted and it sounds like you do not either ... but there are people out there that do and they are attempting to speak out about it. That is why it is a more local movement. Most western countries understand that a secular government protects all citizens ... bot the religious and non-religious.

It is sad that you feel the need to look down your nose on them. Maybe the next christian based law that comes in will directly affect you. You might suddenly change your tune then.


If your definition of standing up for my rights would be something like throwing a tantrum and calling the media because a religious person wanted to say a prayer before a meal, then yes, i guess i'm not standing up for my rights. That's what most of this perceived persecution claimed by neo-atheists amounts to. Someone wants to be religious near them! The horror.

There really aren't any 'Christian based laws', with maybe the exception of marriage, and the idea it should only be a man and a woman for religious reasons has already fallen apart incredibly fast. As soon as the protests began demanding same sex marriage, various places began allowing it. In just a couple more years it'll be pretty much universal, which is a new record as far as human rights issues go.
 
2013-06-23 06:02:06 PM  
This is an outrage.
 
2013-06-23 06:02:30 PM  
Truex is running away with it now.
 
2013-06-23 06:02:35 PM  

Gunther: Is it just me or does TFA's writer comes off as a far larger asshole than Hitchens?

I mean, he all but calls Hitchens an evil lying piece of shiat


This is Salon's modus operandi, their joie de vivre, their oeuvre.

It how they signal to you how much better they are than you.

And how they get clicks to keep them afloat.
 
2013-06-23 06:04:17 PM  
I didn't really understand this guys contention with Hichen's book. Many of the points he makes devolve down to "We can't prove anything, so we don't know."

On some level that can be okay on a case by case basis, however there are also cases when as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle said through Holmes, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

Of course, new evidence can change your position on the above - but that's one of the great things about science as opposed to religion.

Anyway, with his other gripe - mainly that Hitchens doesn't respect any religion, well... I am still looking for the fark I am supposed to give.
 
2013-06-23 06:04:19 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Your high-ground is eroded slightly by the complete lock-down Christians have on the US.  There are still states with a "no atheists can be elected to office" policy hard-wired into their constitutions.

The horrible thing isn't that all Christians are Westboro Baptists.  The horrible thing is that a Westboro Baptist is really "just another Christian".  It's a particularly ugly part of a much bigger, uglier game.


I thought Westboro Baptist was satirical.  I don't think anybody believes that they share the beliefs of, say, the Southern Baptist Association; to my knowledge, they aren't affiliated with any religious organization in the US.

The fact that "some" states have a no-atheists-in-office policy does not constitute a "lock down" by all Christians.  It's a non sequitur.  There are atheists in office in several states as well as in Congress.
 
2013-06-23 06:05:15 PM  
"Like Hitchens, I am an atheist, if to be an atheist means not believing in a CEO God who sits outside his creation, proclaiming edicts, punishing hapless sinners, seeking vengeance on his enemies, and picking sides in times of war. "

This doesn't seem like a very good definition of atheism at all. This reminds me of someone who would say "I'm not religious, I'm spiritual", and then go on to espouse mystical energies or some other BS.
 
2013-06-23 06:06:50 PM  

Gunther: Is it just me or does TFA's writer comes off as a far larger asshole than Hitchens?

I mean, he all but calls Hitchens an evil lying piece of shiat for a) not mentioning obscure theological and philosophical works when discussing religion in a book aimed at the mass-market, b) debatably getting a couple of facts wrong and c) accepting modern neurological science's position on the conscience.



img.fark.net
 
2013-06-23 06:07:13 PM  

jack21221: J. Frank Parnell: But atheism is really only new to them. The concept itself is ancient and global, and no one else really thinks its a big deal.

Do you live outside of the United States? There is a fairly severe distrust and even hatred of atheists in this country. Atheists are possibly the most underrepresented group in Congress (depending on how you define "group." More underrepresented than LGBT, less underrepresented than just T). There are still laws on the books in some states (though unenforceable) that state atheists cannot hold public office. Have you heard the news about Islamophobia? A Pew research study shows that people would rather vote for a Muslim for president than an atheist.  I can virtually guarantee we'll see a homosexual president before an atheist president.

Then there are all of the anecdotal stories of kids being verbally abused by their parents for being atheist. Coming out atheist is about as bad as coming out as gay in some families. Here's one example:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8Aq00yJSxo  "Atheist" is used as some kind of insult in many circles.

Atheism is also horribly misunderstood. I've had people ask me "what, are you some sort of Satan worshipper?" when they find out I'm an atheist. I've also been flat-out told that I'm not an atheist; that atheists don't exist. Or, the softer version, "there are no atheists in foxholes," meaning if somebody fears death, they show their "true" colors and start believing in a god. Other times, it's just met with complete confusion, as if I was insisting the grass was purple.

So, a lot of people care.


And trusted less than rapists.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2011-12-10/religi on -atheism/51777612/1

And attacked for not being charitable...even in instances where they were clearly charitable

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/06/23/time-cover-s to ry-wrongly-attacks-atheists-for-not-helping-out-victims-of-oklahoma-to rnadoes/

Yes, I'm absolutely an atheist who cares.
 
2013-06-23 06:12:11 PM  

TwistedFark: I didn't really understand this guys contention with Hichen's book. Many of the points he makes devolve down to "We can't prove anything, so we don't know."

On some level that can be okay on a case by case basis, however there are also cases when as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle said through Holmes, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

Of course, new evidence can change your position on the above - but that's one of the great things about science as opposed to religion.

Anyway, with his other gripe - mainly that Hitchens doesn't respect any religion, well... I am still looking for the fark I am supposed to give.


And also, my take based on a few videos I've watched (especially The Four Horsemen), Hitchens didn't want to rid the world of religion; his love of debate was that strong. The aghast look from Dennett and Dawkins was priceless.
 
2013-06-23 06:13:02 PM  

Farking Canuck: FTFA: I am an atheist, if to be an atheist means not believing in a CEO God who sits outside his creation

Ummm ... no. To be an atheist is to be "without gods" any gods. Not the hypocritical one who acts like a petulant child, not the party crowd of Greeks/Romans, and not the "so disconnected that he might as well not exist" god of the deist.

If you believe in a magical creation being of any sort you are not an atheist.

So shut the fark up and stop writing articles claiming to represent people you do not even understand.


Yup. This guy is appropriating the atheist label in an attempt to give his criticisms more legitimacy.
 
2013-06-23 06:17:01 PM  

HairBolus: Islam used to be a great religion for science until a bunch of fundie clerics (around 1300?) decided that the Koran was the source of all truth and any science must come from passages from it.


The guy you want to blame for that is right here:

img.fark.net

Abu Hāmed Mohammad ibn Mohammad al-Ghazzālī, or just Ghazali in the west. This guy single-handedly brought down the once proud, opulent, wealthy, tolerant, and scientifically literate civilization of Islam. He wasn't a caliph or a general. He was just a theologian.

See, before him, Muslims were racing forward in all areas of science, technology, philosophy, astronomy, medicine and other high pursuits. The Islamic golden age was one of trade, freedom, and tolerance of all faiths... especially for the classic Greek philosophers like Aristotle and Plato, who were of course huge among Islamic intellectuals. This is how Islamic civilization was able to stay devoutly religious spiritually, but be flexible and practical in day-to-day concerns, letting its scientists apply Greek deduction and rhetoric to problems and experiments.

Ghazali wrote tons of books, but none were more devastating than The Incoherence of the Philosophers, in which he soundly thrashed all Greek philosophy and even Islamic philosophers like Ibn Sina who were inspired by Socrates. Rejecting everything classical as a corrupting force on Islam, Ghazali convinced the Abbasids to close the empire's doors to foreign ideas and embrace a new era of insulating fundamentalism. Almost immediately, scientific inquiry completely withered in Islamic lands and the civilization began to decline, and it has yet to recover from such suffocating myopia.

A century later, St. Thomas Aquinas read up on him and tried to do the same thing to Christianity, but the fragmented nature of western Europe made such sweeping fundamentalist reforms prohibitive.
 
2013-06-23 06:17:30 PM  

Galileo's Daughter: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Your high-ground is eroded slightly by the complete lock-down Christians have on the US.  There are still states with a "no atheists can be elected to office" policy hard-wired into their constitutions.

The horrible thing isn't that all Christians are Westboro Baptists.  The horrible thing is that a Westboro Baptist is really "just another Christian".  It's a particularly ugly part of a much bigger, uglier game.

I thought Westboro Baptist was satirical.  I don't think anybody believes that they share the beliefs of, say, the Southern Baptist Association; to my knowledge, they aren't affiliated with any religious organization in the US.

The fact that "some" states have a no-atheists-in-office policy does not constitute a "lock down" by all Christians.  It's a non sequitur.  There are atheists in office in several states as well as in Congress.




Their interpretation of the bible is just as valid as anyone's. Modern Christians may be horrified by the Spanish inquisition and witch burnings, but that doesn't mean that they were scripturally incorrect.
 
2013-06-23 06:32:56 PM  

Begoggle: In before letrole


That's his surname. He's French.

/not collecting stamps is a hobby
//bald is a hair color
 
2013-06-23 06:41:09 PM  

Farking Canuck: FTFA: I am an atheist, if to be an atheist means not believing in a CEO God who sits outside his creation

Ummm ... no. To be an atheist is to be "without gods" any gods. Not the hypocritical one who acts like a petulant child, not the party crowd of Greeks/Romans, and not the "so disconnected that he might as well not exist" god of the deist.

If you believe in a magical creation being of any sort you are not an atheist.

So shut the fark up and stop writing articles claiming to represent people you do not even understand.



And what if you don't believe in a magical being but believe in a creator? I created my son, it wasn't magic, it was science
 
2013-06-23 06:43:01 PM  
There are two types of atheist. This is indisputable.

1.) They who realise there are no gods, but aren't willing to argue with people about their problems, and just let people go about persecuting each other without standing up for their friends.

2.) They who realise there are no gods, but will not let anyone persecute their friends and family because of bullshiat reasons as lain down in a book written by man, purportedly written by gods.

Christopher Hitchens is a hero of mine. People call Dawkins a bastard because of his lack of tolerance towards believers and arrogant nature, but Hitchens made Dawkins look like a pussy cat. If you spoke shiat in front of Hitchens he would verbally haul you up infront of the supreme court and dissect you before you even realised what was going on.

The world is a worse place for the lack of Hitchens, because he put people in their place. No one likes being put in their place, so now he's gone it's easy to criticise him back, but if he was here he would take these arguments laid forth against him and destroy them sentence by sentence.

The point is you can either realise we can get along by being nice, or you can realise that religion is the ultimate cause for evil and they can't get on so the only hope for a peaceful world is to try to destroy religion. Hitchens clearly was the latter, because he was right, and not a pussy.

If you're an atheist already you only have to Google "Hitchslap" to be presented with a myriad of wonderful videos of Hitchens schooling willfully ignorant buffoons. I wish I believed that such videos would convert believers, but I believe believers already believe because they don't want to believe their past years of belief were in vain. That's the only belief I have. There are no gods and goddesses. Except Aphrodite... she's hot.

Ultimately I don't believe it's healthy to argue against secularist, humanist and atheist points, because they are all correct. You will learn a lot more in a half hour with Richard Dawkins, Richard Attenborough, or even Ricky Gervais than you ever would with a religious pastor or preacher, from Iowa to Isfahan. Religion is evil. The atheist argues for greater acceptance of people, and less acceptance of myth. The religionist argues for greater persecution of mankind because of the writings found in mythology.
 
2013-06-23 06:46:21 PM  

Farking Canuck: rev. dave: Not sure how the subby defines religion.  If all they have is a statement of what they believe in, it is just a corporate mission statement without a deity.

Atheist have nothing of the sort. There are no mission statements, no organization that we all belong to, no leaders that we all follow, no magic books. The only thing that binds us together is that we all lack a belief in a deity.

Think of it this way: If you look at all the people who's hearing is below an arbitrary level you can refer to them as "hearing impaired". This does not make them part of a hearing impaired religion, they do not have a mission statement, they are not an organization. They just share a quality.

Could some of these people form support groups? Yes. Do the members of these groups or the charters of these groups represent all hearing impaired people. No, of course not. That would be stupid. Are there people who write books about being hearing impaired? Yes. Do these authors' opinions represent all hearing impaired people? Again, no. Don't be stupid!


Could some of these support groups reject hearing impaired people who aren't completely deaf, or who don't believe that the completely deaf worldview is superior to all other worldviews, even that of other hearing impaired people?  Yes.  And that's what's happening with, specifically, Atheism Plus, the supporters of Rebecca Watson and P.Z. Myers who basically reject any atheist who doesn't also support their version of feminism. They are to activist "New" Atheists what "normal" atheists think "New" Atheists are to them.
 
2013-06-23 07:09:02 PM  
Oh good! Another article by somebody who can't grasp what atheism really is.
 
2013-06-23 07:09:27 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: LouDobbsAwaaaay: I've never heard of "New Atheism".

I've been calling it neo-atheism here for years now, which is pretty much the same, only German makes it sound scarier. I'm an atheist myself, and feel the need to distance myself from the rabid assholes who now wear the title, so it serves to do that.

And like i've railed on about before, most atheists in the west fashion themselves as modern crusaders leading some revolution. But atheism is really only new to them. The concept itself is ancient and global, and no one else really thinks its a big deal. So there's definitely a difference between what most modern people take it to mean.


My understanding of 'New' in New Atheists was a new focus - attack the religious who overstep and try to force their religious ideas onto others, whether in school or in public displays.  Not new in claiming to change the concept.

Most atheists do not see themselves as crusaders leading a revolution, we usually shrug at the absurdities of religious beliefs and get on with our lives.

But we do need the crusaders who will stand up and fight the religious fruitcakes who think their country should be a theocracy.
 
2013-06-23 07:09:50 PM  

red5ish: A long diatribe criticizing a poorly written [and I read it] book by Christopher Hitchens, who died a couple of years ago. This guy, Curtis White, sounds angry and he is all over the place with his "argument".  Maybe he is upset that Hitchens' book is still getting shelf space in book stores?


It may be because his own book (*) is worse [and I read both]...
* http://www.amazon.com/The-Science-Delusion-Questions-Culture/dp/16121 9 2009/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1372028887&sr=8-1&keywords=curtis+white
 
2013-06-23 07:12:21 PM  

IlGreven: that's what's happening with, specifically, Atheism Plus, the supporters of Rebecca Watson and P.Z. Myers who basically reject any atheist who doesn't also support their version of feminism. They are to activist "New" Atheists what "normal" atheists think "New" Atheists are to them.


Let me guess what sort of atheist you are.

1) Liberated (libertine) - Since all morality comes from God and God doesn't exist then there should be no moral constraints on behavior.

2) Men's Rights Activist

3) Pickup Artist

4) Naturalist - men are naturally superior to women

You don't have to choose just one. Some guys are all 4.
 
2013-06-23 07:16:09 PM  

HairBolus: IlGreven: that's what's happening with, specifically, Atheism Plus, the supporters of Rebecca Watson and P.Z. Myers who basically reject any atheist who doesn't also support their version of feminism. They are to activist "New" Atheists what "normal" atheists think "New" Atheists are to them.

Let me guess what sort of atheist you are.

1) Liberated (libertine) - Since all morality comes from God and God doesn't exist then there should be no moral constraints on behavior.

2) Men's Rights Activist

3) Pickup Artist

4) Naturalist - men are naturally superior to women

You don't have to choose just one. Some guys are all 4.


Oh god, please do not summon a bunch of MRAs to this thread.  You won't be able to take enough showers to get that dirty feeling off of your skin.
 
Displayed 50 of 196 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report