Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
An atheist is defined as a person who does not believe in God (or any gods). I can't see any reason to think a New Atheist is different from any other atheist. It still means no belief in God.
Here’s how one of them describes his motivation...
“it is the campaign against Organized religion, specifically in America and specifically Christianity”
“ the reason we are here is because the Big Lie of Christianity has been perpetuated far too long and we are doing our own little bit (I could wish it was more) to roll it back out of social, political and education influence, where it is doing untold damage.”
“If we don't know better, the case for Christianity can be made to look Very convincing. bamboozling with a carefully designed misinformation pack. And the Liars that peddle these claims keep their fingers crossed that their dupes won't check.”
“they can't win by straight argument, they have to win by cheating; my [30 year] study has been about why they do this. if they had the Case, they could have defeated us years ago.”
“I got onto the Internet Forums just as Atheism was getting a Voice, and talking together. I have been one tiny voice since then”
“This is the most important and worthwhile thing I have ever done in my life. "If we fail, we fall" but if we succeed, I will feel justified in knowing that i played a small part in it.”
“irreligion has to become the influential social force, not religion”
My god...that sounds just like me.
Yes. i have to confess that i was rather explaining what New Atheism actually was. I didn't get onto the irreligion campaign which isn't actually New atheism but is something that came out of it. "ok We now know that we are a lot more than we thought. We have some questions. What should we do? What are our aims?" This has actually firmed up rather recently when the idea of an atheism with voting clout was seen as the best way of getting something done. You can imagine that the 'rise of the Nones' was very good news. But I was talking of an 'Atheist avalanche' long before that.
The campaign sounds more fearsome than it is- it isn't so much to eradicate religion, but to let it 'wither on the vine'. Not that it will do that all the time there are people to preach it. It's more to push it out of a position of social influence, remove it's privileges and remove the influence on politics, threat to education and the ongoing glowering at science.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-01-2019 at 08:15 PM..
Iwasmadenew... that is interesting, thank you. It does not sound like it is looking to co-exist at all with others who believe differently whatever their faith/spiritual background.
A person isn't the same as their beliefs. Beliefs are an add on.
You can imagine that the 'rise of the Nones' was very good news. But I was talking of an 'Atheist avalanche' long before that.
Don't get too carried away by those Nones figures. Those are padded by people who had spiritual traditions that weren't part of the options. Pagans, NeoPagans, and Wiccans to name a few. We have to select "None" if ours isn't listed.
Quote:
The campaign sound more fearsome than it is- it isn't so much to eradicate religion, but to let it 'wither on the vine'. Not that it will do that all the time there are people to preach it. It's more to push it out of a position of social influence, remove it's privileges and remove the influence on politics, threat to education and the ongoing glowering at science.
I don't know if organized religion will survive or not. But not because Atheism is necessarily the answer but because spiritual believers of all traditions may choose something different than what we have now.
If that quote that Iwasmadenew shared was yours... are you from America? At the beginning you were most concerned about America. Can you explain this?
Phetaroi, putting it in its place? Is it a threat?
It is a threat. A threat to its' power and authority. It is a real threat and they are right to fear it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coffeemoments
You put a lot of thought into this which is great. Can we take this a little at a time so as not to miss anything? I would really like to understand this view better.
Sure. however you like. I don't do bear traps or at least will warm you in plenty of time.
Quote:
I understand about having a voice. If your rights are being trampled you need a voice.
This is true. It may seem hard to believe in almost irreligious Europe (or was until recently ) but Religion was a pain, targeting everything it disapproved of. Organizing rallies, propaganda social and political pressure, boycotts...
Quote:
So Christians started websites to talk about Christianity. Seems reasonable to me. Why exactly did Atheists have to react to that? Do you mean on the Christian websites for Christianity they had to react? Or do you mean start their own websites separately?
Don't take me an an authority -this is just what i saw. Thee were Christian Information websites, individual sites and general chatrooms where people exchanged views, arguments and some searing abuse and the occasional hellthreat.
In my early days i started on Atheist sites where Christians rolled up and argued with us. Later Christian websites where I rolled up and argued. If we weren't banned.
Quote:
The high profile names...those are the four horsemen of Atheism, correct?
Correct.
Quote:
About the theist (don't know if I can be considered a theist or not) tendency to see New Atheism as a religion, I have to say, it comes off that way. I see it as a flip of Fundamentalism. From what I've observed there is an evangelical approach to it.
It's the same problem as calling it a religion. Anthing that people feel needs a campaign can be made to look Evangelical - because it is. You can even find extremism, militancy and Fundamentalism in all sorts of things - Racial and sexual equality. Activism and militancy is common in causes but does not a religion make, let alone a Fundamentalist one.
Quote:
Well I will say that snark doesn't cut it for me. If someone uses snark to belittle others they have already lost their cause imo. That kind of stuff I would expect from hate groups.
The right way to do it is an ongoing discussion. I disagreed with a few things, notably atheist sabotage of theist sites, Zombie Jesus marches and even targeting little old ladies running teahouses even though by offering a 10% discount to anyone who prayed they were asking for it
But the fact is that one good laugh at the expense of theist will do far more than two pages of informed argument. And we can't allow ourselves to be intimidated by theists who demand that we be meticilpouisly polite to them while they denounce us, accuse us of every atrocity under the moon and damn us to hell and that say 'We aren't being disrespectful - we're just telling it like it is."
That's what I do. I do it Perry mason style (fine with anyone who is reasonable, but Go For it with those who try to fudge it out) with a bit of humour if I can do it. But always with a valid point I can back up.
Quote:
I will stop here for now to clear, get your thoughts on just this bit so far before proceeding.
1. Have there ever been forced conversions by religions -- including christianity -- sometimes at the peril of death?
2. Are there a number of state laws in "the world's greatest democracy" forbidding atheists from holding political office?
3. Has christianity been used as a justification for slavery?
1. Yes. And I do not think that was at all just.
2. If there are, that would not have been my position. I already stated that (well I used to think anyways) Atheists deserved rights as well. In fact, if you go back in my comment history to my earliest comments you will see where I posted this and a link to something that was happening in the schools today.
3. Yes.
You can cite things from the past and they are all correct. That is NOT the subject of this thread. This thread is about New Atheism which is new and has no long standing history as of yet. I am concerned with its aims as its beginning to understand where it is going from here on out.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My god...that sounds just like me. 
) but Religion was a pain, targeting everything it disapproved of. Organizing rallies, propaganda social and political pressure, boycotts...
