The New Atheism movement
 

I've seen a shit ton of coverage of this lately, so much that I'm more inclined to think it's a sign from God not to be an atheist than to take them as being right. Most recently I watched the video Metal linked in the ATI board, but I figured I'd respond more in focus here.

I don't really care to talk about what proofs there are and how well they work or how badly they fail. For one thing, from a theological perspective it wouldn't make sense for a god to leave abounding evidence of his existence around for the fact that it would defeat the purpose of life as a test of virtue. At this point, we have reasonable explanations for every facet of why existence is the way it is, except for why we have existence in the first place. To say that the existential buck stops at God or at the big bang, neither one is more intrinsically rational in and of themselves.

Obviously, personal conviction is and should be the biggest factor in one's faith in God or lack thereof. I think the biggest problem that the New Atheists movement fails to consider is that some people are perfectly justified in believing in God just from statistics. Like, if someone wins the lottery right when they need it, to them personally they are likely to find divine order that the millions who didn't won't find. It's a given that one person in a million or whatever will win, but for that person it's a one in a million to be him. Does this provide objective proof? No, absolutely not. But it falls to the realm of rational personal conviction.

Another thing that really annoys me is that the new atheist movement has a total condescending attitude toward inter-religious dialog. There's no credit they can possibly give to rational theists who hold rational views and use them in a rational manner, because to do so would threaten their paradigm. As such, the only language they are capable of using is hyperbole. Religion is de facto synonymous with racism, fanaticism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, anything else that's bad. In his most recent book, it was famously pointed out that Richard Dawkins consults no scholastic authority whatsoever from the theological camp. No academic journals from theological sources. At all. He has publicly stated that theology is a non-subject. Seriously, how can he talk about something when he has no idea what it really is? Isn't that a little, umm, propaganda-ish?

The main strategy they seem to use is to caricature a Christian as being all things bad, then suggesting that "If Jesus was homophobic then he obviously didn't exist". Seriously, how much sense does that make? Ironically, it's been quite the meme (a term Dawkins invented) to associate Jesus as the symbol of naivete, and thus an automatic L-O-L symbol. Really, is it a good idea to promote the idea that atheists love their neighbors, when they deny the existence of the person to whom we have ascribe the Beatitudes?

To take a totally naturalistic perspective on Christ, you would have to say that he was born of a non-virgin, he died and rotted in the ground somewhere, and nowhere in between did he raise the dead or walk on water. But, it's totally asinine to suppose that he didn't exist and that he held no lasting influence on the culture around him. In particular, The God Who Wasn't There uses patently wrong history (mostly in the introductory segment) to achieve its ends. Anyone who's surprised that Christ was ascribed an amalgamation of different mythological attributes is a moron--atheist, Christian, or otherwise.

The most annoying form of condescension I see employed is counterfactualism. It's very popular to suggest that if the Crusades or the Inquisition never happened, a perfectly secular world would have turned out better and the present would be prettier. Even on the faulty grounds that both the Crusades and the Inquisition were both mostly secular in operation, any supposition that to remove religion from the picture would give a prettier portrait is totally speculative and vacuous. I personally believe that were there a drastic paradigm shift, society could operate to some extent lacking consensus in religious ideology. That is, the world wouldn't fall apart if we were suddenly atheist. But, it's totally moronic to suppose that an atheistic society would be in any way immune or even less susceptible to bigotry and warfare. I would have to take a long ordeal to explain why, but an atheistic society would by nature exacerbate social relations between classes. Maybe wars would happen less frequently, I doubt it, but when they did break out then in the absence of total long-standing plurality of nations there would be total chaos. Humanitarian concerns would be forgotten.

Plus, what exactly does the New Atheist movement wish to achieve? They could be as right as right can be in regards verisimilitude, but to think that they're going to make a lasting mark in their own lifetimes regarding the religious status quo is more far-fetched than saying that a divine figure once turned water into wine. Be they right or be they wrong, they're not going to do anything productive besides marginalize themselves. There are what I would consider to be worthwhile atheist activities, but these tend to run the line of Atheists for Jesus or Secular Humanism. Statistics show that Americans trust Muslims on average more than they do atheists, and they have only themselves to blame. If they want to make a difference, then they should work for a positive change rather than bitch. Really, the New Atheism movement is founded on bitching about how stupid they think the rest of the world is. They can hold their opinions all they want, and talk about them til their tongues fall off. But really, what besides bitching are they really accomplishing? In the end, all they're saying is "I'm going to oblivion when I die, and boy does that feel good." What moral or message or enticement is that, really? Even to put aside Pascal's Wager, why should cognizance of life's supposed futility be anything of which one should brag and prosylitize? If they really think that the fact that Jerry Falwall is an asshole affects an underlying metaphysical truth of theistic ontology, then they really have no claim to the term "bright".

I can't respond to this in full now due to lack of time, but I will say that the term "bright" is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. They say it's not supposed to be associated with the obvious connotation of "intelligent" but it very obviously does.

I didn't much care for that video, either, but then again it's just another piece of the same crap that every atheist with a webcam and a YouTube account puts out at some time or another. It was condescending and guilty of a lot of the same fallacies he accused Christians of being guilty of. Like when he showed that timeline with Satan bouncing about and saying that the first Easter was celebrated in 2300 B.C. or whatever and not showing any proof of it, even a bloody snapshot of an archeological dig.

That and he used that god damn "this is just a simulation" song that every atheist video ever uses, so he loses points for that.

Plus, I think I would've been more shocked if he had asked those questions to theologians who couldn't answer it than people on the street who couldn't answer it. Most people on the street can't tell you what a quadratic equation is either, but you don't film them stumbling around for an answer with the caption "MARTHA JOHNSON: MATH STUDENT FOR 14 YEARS" underneath them. The fact is, any random person you meet on the street isn't likely to know much about any random topic you thrust in their faces.

every atheist "Philosophy" or whatever I've read has been full of... well... i hate to say bigotry or prejudice but it practically is. In my experience most Atheists will talk/write more about how Christians are stupid than whether or not there is a god (which actually works if you're talking about psychology and sociology but this is clearly about God and the universe), they also don't discuss (or discuss very little of) any validity of the philosophic/theological claims, and if they do it seems like they just find some weak, nearly irrelevant claim to consider.
Even when they do discuss psychology and sociology even that seems irrelevant and misleading.

I am an Atheist. I personally couldn't care less what anyone else believes, as long as they don't try to shove it down anyone's throats. I don't think a person's religious beliefs, or lack thereof, necessarily define them as a person.

Problems arise whenever any group thinks that their way is best, and anyone who doesn't see it their way is stupid. So, though I agree with their Atheism, I don't agree with deriding anyone who believes otherwise.

People need to shut the fuck up and keep this silliness to their selves. Religion/Spirituality/Whatever is an extremely personal thing. Leave me out of yours, and I'll leave you out of mine.

Re: The New Atheism movement
 

I've been reading Dawkins' "The God Delusion" (the release of which can be reasonably said to have sparked all of this New Atheism coverage we've been seeing) and I think it's actually quite good.

Is it fair to call this a "movement"?

A lot of people would like to see it that way.

I just had a movement myself.

I just have a problem with Christians who think they have the right to shove their blind faith down everybodies throat. They think it's their job to save everybody on one hand, then stage God Hates Fags rallies with the others. If Jesus did exist, he was a very tolerant and accepting guy, something modern Christians seem to forget when it's convenient. If there is a God, it's highly unlikely that it's sitting up there judging everything you do, whereas his followers do nothing but judge everyone else.

The fact that the Bible has been re-written several times throughout history to fit the needs of whatever ruling class there was at the time doesn't speak much towards it's credibility. It's also missing books thanks to the Vatican picking and choosing for you what you need to know about Jesus' time on Earth.

Thank you, Dan Brown.

:lol

I think the aim of this "movement" (or at least a large portion thereof) is to bring atheists together as an organized body. Which seems like a really bad idea to me. I think that kind of goes against what most atheists stand for. It's too much akin to organized religion for my tastes.

While the Bible has been "re-written" several times throughout history, I generally think that the most rewrites have come about via translations, and in that some of the actual meaning has been lost. I won't deny that I think some of the Bible was changed in order to fit more with the ideology of the current day, though whether or not this occurs to fit in with the ideology of the ruling class or just the general public is uncertain.

And, yes, I do have a problem with the books that are considered canon having been handpicked and most of the other manuscripts destroyed or locked away, but I think some of the ones that Vatican chose to do wtihout were practical choices. I mean, I'm a fairly spiritual person, and even I would be hard pressed to believe some of the shit they wrote in some of the other scriptures, such as the Infant Gospels.

Just my two cents, anyway.

You do know that we have the original Greek texts of the New Testament, and the Old Testament in both the original Hebrew and Greek, right?

"We" meaning you Illuminati folk, right?

I know, but mainstream Christians don't exactly usually go and pick those up to read. You have a valid point, though. However, at the same time, translation, even if you yourself are reading through those texts and personally translating it, requires, to some extent, interpretation as to how some of the words are being used. It wouldn't be hard to mistake some of the meaning of the original text when attempting to translate/read it.

Intelectual circle-jerking is really all it is. I just don't get atheism in general anymore. I used be a full atheist in middle school, until I realized that saying there is absolutely no god is as retarded and fallacious as saying that there is. I now hover somewhere around agnostic and deist. I don't think I could ever actually believe any religion, unless Jesus were to come down from heaven and miraculously make my cock 14 inches, or something. But you all have heard this shit before. I'll shut up now.

That used to be my logic except for the fact that it doesn't really hold up when you use the same logic in a similar situation. For example, if it's a matter of faith to say "I believe God doesn't exist," it's another matter of faith to say "I believe Zeus doesn't exist," or "I believe unicorns don't exist," or whatever you want to substitute. And yet nobody would say that they're agnostic about those things, and it's a perfectly respectable position to say that you don't believe any of those things exist and be "certain" of it.

That's exactly why I'm always reluctant to give any kind of name to whatever the fuck the higher order is. I have an inkling that there is something greater than this universe, but not proof. I also do not know what the fuck it is. God? Aliens from another dimension? I don't presume to know.

Just checking: it doesn't like I misunderstood your post, does it Emu? Please correct me if you think I did.

Well said. These are my thoughts exactly.

Praise Science!

I've never even read the DaVinci Code or Angels and Demons, you fail.

And Science dammit!

I'm glad the joke was lost on you, Mr. Deduction.

You're the one that conveys a stark ignorance of history, and I'm the one that fails because of it? Brilliant.

The Wired article I read on the subject was pretty interesting. In the end, the writer decided that he wants to be an atheist, but everyone he interviewed was a total douche regardless. I guess the main crux of the movement is that religious tolerance shouldn't be a given any longer.

I see no stark ignorance of history in my post. It is a known fact that the Vatican is sitting on top of a veritable mountain of historical, theological, and cultural documents, that for whatever reason, they refuse to release to the public. They don't even deny this fact. As far as the rest of religious history goes, I know plenty about Christianity's very violent and bloody rise to prominence. It's history is downright repulsive, and is littered with the ashes millions of so-called non-believers. Organized religion has brought plenty of death and despair to the world throughout it's time.

When was the last time that religious tolerance was a given in the world? Muslims for sure don't believe in it, and every Christian evangelist I see on the TV sure has a wealth of hate speak to share about non-Christians. It works both ways. Except hate speak is perfectly acceptable when it's coming from underneath the shroud of God.

It's nice that instead of rebuffing my claim that calling the West's history of persecution "bloody" is vacuous and counterfactual, you simply repeated the fact that you don't know shit.

Seriously, the Vatican Secret Archives? Anyone high enough in academia can request to read any damn thing they want in there, it just requires a lot of red tape because you're talking about 11th Century folios in there and not some geeks comic collection.

So, for having never read Dan Brown's books, you sure make a great fan of his.

I mean, seriously. People who whine about how terrible the Crusades were don't have a fucking clue what the Crusades actually were. It's not like centuries of those thoroughly secular conflicts came remotely close in terms of killing to what the antitheist regimes of the 20th century did.

You should look into that stark ignorance of history, it's kind of problematic.