• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

A very well written article on Atheism

jmercer

Penultimate Amazing
J
Joined
Jan 4, 2005
Messages
12,334
Or so it is in my opinion. Your opinion may vary - and almost certainly will. :)

Here.

Enjoy!
 
I admittedly haven't read the entire article yet (inserting foot into mouth), but it seems that this author is conflating atheism with antitheism under the overly broad and vague banner of "New Atheism". Dawkins certainly comes across in the article as an antitheist, but he's portrayed as being representative of the atheist population as a whole. Atheism and antitheism are most assuredly not one and the same, and to be one is not to be the other. I am an atheist, but I am most certainly not an antitheist.

I worry to think of the consequences of an article like this, published on the internet in a popular magazine - how many people will now mistake one for the other?

Edit: Reading further along, I find myself very annoyed with the article. The author references and describes the "Atheist's Prayer" and continues to display theism and atheism as more black-and-white than I care to agree with.

And statements like this are simply inexcusable:

The New Atheists have castigated fundamentalism and branded even the mildest religious liberals as enablers of a vengeful mob. Everybody who does not join them is an ally of the Taliban. But, so far, their provocation has failed to take hold.
Click to expand...

:mad:
 
Last edited:
I read the piece and am struck with the author's need to create a new species: the new athiest. (Like they differ from earlier thinkers and are somehow more threatening.)
Am not sure why he thinks that Dawkins, Dennett and Harris are militants. They each have specific lines of inquiry and conclusions and they are not of one voice. What they do share is skepticism about the existence of a prime mover, a supernatural creator. Each has his own world view and I don't believe they are taking up arms agains "believers."
I think the whole article is more a first-person piece along the lines of "how I met these guys and sized them up."
 
What I liked about the piece is that he nicely summed up how the fence-sitters perceive the issue. :)
 
Sometimes the topic gets so polarized that I retreat to where I won't get caught in the crossfire. I'm not a Theist. I don't believe in a personal, creator, supream being, but instead a variety of Deism that's Naturalistic instead of Supernaturalistic. But I keep it to myself, because people always want to box me into one or the other of a sterotypical, sound byte Theistic, Deistic, or Atheistic position. All I have to do is say I'm a sort of Deist as above, and nothing I say after that is heard in the rush to attack a straw man or even burn me in a wicker man. Arrows are shot from both sides of camps of the Atheistic or the Religiously Correct.

Basically, I shy away from anyone carrying an axe, no matter what pin they are wearing on their lapel.
 
That was... odd.

One issue was the label of 'New Atheists,' which seems to be a euphemism for 'extremist atheists who want atheism as a new religion.' The author spent so many pages on Dawkins, but did not pick up on the fact that he debates the 'atheism as extremism/religion' in his book. The author does this again by talking about 'atheist prayers' and 'atheist religion.' This part was also particularly odd:

If we reject their polemics, if we continue to have respectful conversations even about things we find ridiculous, this doesn't necessarily mean we've lost our convictions or our sanity. It simply reflects our deepest, democratic values. Or, you might say, our bedrock faith: the faith that no matter how confident we are in our beliefs, there's always a chance we could turn out to be wrong.
Click to expand...

Again, this is in Dawkins' and Harris' books. And it seems contradictory. And, just, :boggled: ...
 
I've been dealing with several theistic friends who have read this article. It's not fun trying to point out the inaccuracies.

On the other hand, I've had my first taste of dealing with common arguments such as "atheism is just as unscientific as theism." Which is pretty much what the article claims.

This thing is pissing me off to no end.
 
What is supposed to be new about "new atheism"?

As the article points out, the arguments are not new. What's new is that these books are bestsellers. After 9/11 people are much more open to arguments against religion.

The writer seems to be yet another of these people who think that atheism is quite acceptable provided you keep quiet about it. Even though he seems to be an atheist himself....
 
I found this article interesting. I don't believe the goal of the author was to promote this notion of an antitheistic movement. And being a novice on such topics, I can say I could easily differ between Atheism, and antitheism. I tend to lean more towards the idea, that anything, in it's extreme, can be dangerous and harmful to society. Afterall, philosophy can only go as far as man/society will allow. If it is the antitheists or for arguements sake, the athiests that moniter this bible-beating, holy-rolling society that is spinning so poorly out of control, who then, I ask, will be monitering them?

Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom