Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris are old news — a totally different Atheism is on the rise

[Colter]

Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris are old news — a totally different Atheism is on the rise

CHRIS HALL, ALTERNET
25 MAY 2016 AT 00:18 ET

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/05/hit...atheism-is-on-the-rise/#.V0YmC0JQIW5.facebook

 

[Gene2memE]

Meh.

Colour me unimpressed with either the 'New Atheists' or 'Atheism Plus'.

I like much about Dawkins, Harris and the late Hitchens. I like much about Christina and Dadhaboy. There is much to dislike about either set as well.

However, I've not seen a particular inclination towards (to quote the article) "organized hatefulness, racism, misogyny, transphobia, or just the malign neglect of old-school atheists" in 'New Atheism' that would not come with a group of its particular demographics, which is most strongly male, 16-44, educated, middle class, white, and inclined to be engaged in STEM and media.

The 'new atheists' are much more than Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens though. AC Greyling, Daniel Dennett, Michael Onfray, Victor Stenger, Jerry Coyne, P Z Meyers, and Hirsi Ali are all just as important, but their positions have been less polemic (or perhaps less juvenile), and thus they have garnered less popular attention. Personally, I'd read/listen to Greyling, Dennett and Stenger over any of the other public intellectuals associated with 'New Atheism' or 'Atheism Plus'.

Have there been incidents? Yes, sexism and unwanted sexual advances by Dawkins and Shermer come to mind immediately. As does Harris' misogyny. Any such incidents is one too many, but I see no entrenched propensity towards these collective views in the 'new atheists' though.

Maybe I've not been paying too close attention though. I phased out of the whole back and forth in atheist social circles in 2011, when this split between new atheism and atheism plus emerged.


For me, atheism is a single stance on a single issue. That's it. End of story.

As an Australian, that's all it needs to be.

I could be a humanist, a leftist, a conservative, a feminist, a socialist, a capitalist, a libertarian, an environmentalist, a progressive, a right winger or almost any other 'ist' without it having any impact on my beliefs about gods.

I have no need, or desire, to link my atheism to any other set of views.

Maybe its different in the US, where most of this seems to be sparking. There seems to be this strong link between religious views and social/economic/political views in the US that is either non-existent or tenuous in the rest of the world.

I don't see 'New Atheists' or 'Atheism Plus' as being necessary. I'm just an atheist, no prefix or suffix needed.

 

[FireDragon76]

I think that dude is just pathologically angry, and that has blinded him. Plus he's young and naive. He will find in the secular "social justice movement" a cacophony of voices each vying for their own little slice of political power, not some kind of friendly group of like-minded folks.

It's ironic, he abandoned Episcopalianism, which is one of the oldest churches in the US noted for its stances on many social justice issues. I sense parental/daddy issues and rebellion.

 

[SkyWriting]

Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris are old news — a totally different Atheism is on the rise

I got bored very fast with the excited-media-discovery tone of the story.

 

[PsychoSarah]

So silly. As if atheism isn't enough by itself to warrant people defending it independently of other issues. This is like atheism plus. This is like when people say Christianity HAS to be tied to being against abortion, and then people speak out against the association. Why? Because the association is not a definitive aspect of Christianity, but a different issue entirely. As an atheist, why would I want to be associated with the SJW movement, which I hate?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Atheism Plus is merely an abortive attempt by Social Justice Warriors to get support from atheists of the sort who join atheist movements. Its only claim to fame is that it destroyed the vibrant New Atheist movement. And now the SJWs are trying to do the same thing with humanist organizations, and will only succeed in destroying them as well.

There is no new atheist movement "on the rise". This phenomenon is only destructive.

I have little doubt that new atheist movements will arise like a phoenix from the ashes, but only when SJWs are prevented from interfering.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

As an atheist, why would I want to be associated with the SJW movement, which I hate?

Good question indeed. I'm an atheist and a cultural libertarian who is naturally very much against the cultural authoritarianism of the SJWs. Steve Shives type arguments that atheists have to be SJWs are simply ridiculous.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[SamuelTP1977]

If you don't mind me asking what is a SJW?

Sam

 

[Eudaimonist]

If you don't mind me asking what is a SJW?

SJW = Social Justice Warrior

SJWs are crybullies that try to push their political correctness on others. They tend to call themselves Social Justice Activists.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Freodin]

If you don't mind me asking what is a SJW?

Sam

Social Justice Warrior. It its current form it is used as a pejorative term for people to claim to be fighting for diverse social justice agendas, but are more interested in promoting their own self image.

 

[Freodin]

SJW = Social Justice Warrior

SJWs are crybullies that try to push their political correctness on others. They tend to call themselves Social Justice Activists.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Well, on the other hand people who denigrate people as "SJWs" and "crybullies" are usually people who spend a lot of time defending their inate right to be jerks.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Well, on the other hand people who denigrate people as "SJWs" and "crybullies" are usually people who spend a lot of time defending their inate right to be jerks.

Or honest.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Freodin]

Or honest.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Just as SJWs can be honest, in contrast to "try[ing] to push their political correctness on others".

People usually don't portray themselves as the bad gus. SJWs don't, Anti-SJWs don't.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Just as SJWs can be honest, in contrast to "try[ing] to push their political correctness on others".

Sorry, bad analogy. I don't doubt that SJWs are honest. Not in the slightest. But that's not what defines them.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Freodin]

Sorry, bad analogy. I don't doubt that SJWs are honest. Not in the slightest. But that's not what defines them.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Nor does honesty define the Anti-SJWs. But I dare say that their insistence on their right to be jerks defines these people just as much as "trying to push their political correctness on others" defines SJWs.

 

[Eudaimonist]

My specific problem with the philosophy behind Atheism+ is well covered by Logicked here.

eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Freodin]

My specific problem with the philosophy behind Atheism+ is well covered by Logicked here.

eudaimonia,

Mark

PZ has a point with his view of Atheism+ in that many social questions are influenced by religion... and thus it is reasonable to say that a rejection / disbelief of religion should influence your thoughts abouts these social questions.

Where I think he, erm, is slightly mistaken is his view that this must mean every atheist has / should / ought to agree with his own social views.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris are old news — a totally different Atheism is on the rise

CHRIS HALL, ALTERNET
25 MAY 2016 AT 00:18 ET

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/05/hit...atheism-is-on-the-rise/#.V0YmC0JQIW5.facebook

I can't help but "chuckle" every time I see yet another article about the "new atheists" or whatever, while holding up person X or Y as some kind of "leader of the unfaithful" or whatever....

As if I draw my atheism from anything that Dawkins has to say.

I was an atheist LONG before I knew any of these people.
In fact, I was an atheist even before I knew what the word "atheism" means.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I was an atheist LONG before I knew any of these people.

Yeah, me too.

My earliest introduction was to Richard Dawkins, and that's only because I had read his book The Selfish Gene, which was mildly interesting. But that was already several years after becoming an atheist, and I didn't pay much attention to Richard Dawkins for many years after that. And even that attention was just watching a handful of youtube videos.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chris B]

" atheist voices are talking about nonbelief less as an end in itself, but as part of a larger conversation about social justice. "

Seems reasonable. There's room for a bit more social justice.

"The increase in diversity isn’t happening quietly or easily, "
Is it increasing? One thing about atheists is that we are about as diverse as you can get already. capitalists and socialists? Yes, both. Libertarians and conservatives? Yes, both. Dedicated single-cause campaigners? Yes, on all sorts of varied issues.

"...organised atheism..." You'd be hard put to find any such in significant numbers compared to the rest of us.

"... atheist and skeptic groups have a history of looking at these issues in isolation,"

That's problem of every special interest or single-focus campaign or lobby group, whether atheist or theist.
"More money for X, extra priority for Y" rarely involves thinking about who or what is to have less money or a lower priority as a result.
Single-focus activism is relatively easy. I suspect that's why it's becoming more popular.
Political parties which have to put a whole social and economical program together, and with the compromises needed to attract a sufficient spectrum of people who agree with enough of it (despite the rest) to sign up to support it, now that's not as easy for the politicians or the grassroots supporters.

But organised atheism?
Come back to that once you've learned to herd cats.