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

[Freodin]

They are actively opposed to free speech. They're utterly toxic.

"They" are actively opposed to "free speech" that they consider to be "utterly toxic".

Why did I put "they" in quotes? Well, it seems to me that this is some kind of vicious circle going on there... who are we talking about?
Social justice warriors are those people who utterly toxically oppose free speech! How do we know that they utterly toxically oppose free speech? They are social justice warriors... that's how!

Yes, their methods might sometimes be counterproductive. Yes, they often are obnoxious and aggravating even to people who would share their values. Yes, they can be extremely overzealous at times.

I have run into trouble with zealots of this kind often enough. Been called a "dictionary" or "village" atheist. Been called an misogynist and enabler of violence against women for advising that women should leave violent spouses.

But I have met just too many people who use this to justify their own self-righteousness and lazyness when it comes to social questions.

Just don't throw out the babies with the bathwater!

 

[nightflight]

What's new about this? Its the same old Atheism Plus nonsense from a few years ago.

 

[devolved]

Atheism is never, and shouldn't ever been an identity. It's stupid to identify oneself by what one doesn't do. Are there organized clubs for non-smokers, or non-drinkers, or non-sports-fans.

I think it's refreshing to see people like Harris finally coming to their senses and speaking on this subject.

I think there should be an appropriate label, something like "Post-theist", which could mean that one no longer attributes anything and everything to a god, but rather seeks other causes.

But, on the other hand, there's really no need to keep bashing people who are still in the orbit of theism and simply following certain narrative that they cling to for some psychological stability. Whenever they are talking about "God", if you really listen closely, they are actually talking about things like morality, which carries the narrative of God. One can reject the narrative, but still agree on some common core issues.

Religions today do transform and shift in order to survive the modern moral progress. Drilling people, especially fundamentalists, tends to cause them to dig in and form "us vs them" type of mentality. I think it's possible to talk to people using their own language and seek some agreement, instead of presenting some form of elitist mentality that doesn't really work in these settings.

Atheism as an identity should be outgrown eventually into something more mature.

 

[FireDragon76]

Whenever they are talking about "God", if you really listen closely, they are actually talking about things like morality, which carries the narrative of God.

That's more of an American or English view of what theism is about. There are plenty of Christian traditions and theologies where morality is not the driving concern. Usually these theologies have more in common with mysticism, existentialism, than sort of thing.

 

[Cearbhall]

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.

Yep, that's my feeling. The fact that I don't believe in any gods isn't important to me. Labeling myself according to the beliefs of other people doesn't say anything about what I believe.

Or honest.

Eh, but if we're not going to be PC, then there's no need to correct someone who calls you a jerk. There's nothing to correct.