Taking Advantage Of The "new Atheism"

[Guest mia 1]

There is a lot going on in the world about well thought out philosophical atheism..when I have more time I'll post all I know with bookmarks to find out more extensive thoughts...Mia

[Guest Joanna Phipps]

Not saying I'll agree with it all but it would make a good and informative read

[Guest Syamantaka]

Greetings Mia1

In the mid '90's there was a site called SpirtWeb, They had about 50 or so lists one could partake, one I partook, was Science

and Spirtuality The site was Global. I could not get back on after I moved, so I lost track. One thing I remember is the 18 signs

of the Zodiac, which, my sign is Andromeda. So good luck.

FYI with Love

[Guest roxannemariska]

I am interested in what you mean by philosophical atheism.

[Guest winterangel]

"New Atheism" is a name attributed to the ideas proposed and promoted by newly famous atheist authors of the 21st century; e.g. Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett. They advocate the view that tolerance of religion should be diminished in favor of criticism and countering of religion with rationale.

This is converse of secularism, which promotes tolerance of personal religion, but elimination of it where most reasonable (e.g. government).

I personally find that, although I encourage tolerance of religion (discussed below), religion is too tolerated in society; for example, terrorizing and torture of children for religious purposes should under no circumstances be exempted, and indoctrination of children, such as that done by parents and by pious schools, is displeasing; however, as to the latter, it is difficult to eliminate this without infringement of free rights.

I find that countering of religion is in almost all cases ineffective, because individual religious beliefs rarely ever have foundation in reason or logic, but in pseudo-philosophy or for short, 'faith.' Neuroscientists have proposed theories as to why the brain might generate these foundations, and if they are correct [that religion is inherent to humanity], we cannot eliminate religion entirely without elimination of H. sapiens itself.

Some religions however, such as Buddhism which is actually more similar to a philosophical system, do not take the strong irrational stances against say, science, as others often do, like Christianity or Islam with beliefs in falsified doctrines such as creationism and opposition to evolution and natural selection.

I feel that it is harmless for a person to believe in a deity or multiple deities, which can never be falsified, and that it is harmless if they are accepting of others, and are respectful of such things as science and history, and are respectful of others in regards to personal beliefs (including their own children, who should not be taught religion at an age too young to be mentally capable of analysis or of choosing their own religion).

I don't believe religion will ever be eliminated, nor do I believe in absolute intolerance of it, but there are some changes that need to occur in society.

[Guest Jackie...]

My major concerns with religion are really those of religious groups and the impact they present within our culture. What is most important with religious and spiritual practices is that they promote love, peace, and harmony over time with our species as we exist on this planet. This involves dealing with behaviors, skills, and values that work to promote the good of humans and our planet. With my connections to our culture, I focus upon a society that is more accepting of those who do conform with the culturally accepted norms of gender identity and sexual orientation.

So, what stands out with me is how many religious groups love the power to impose gender identity and sexual orientation on those who will never have or find the motivation or impetus for conformity. The issue of an XY woman or XX man has nothing to do with god, and so, organized religious groups have NOTHING to offer us other that their love and support. And I do not see them lining up for this cause. This is very depressing and makes me feel the coldness and death that lurks in the shadows of organized religions.

Accepting myself, as transgendered, has opened my eyes to see how different I am from most people I experience in our culture. This change with my consciousness overwhelms any connectivity I might ever have with a religious group. This is not an alignment against the concept or utility of theism, but I certainly do not need it. I think it comes down to me loving myself and those around me every day, and for me, this is a full time task. Huh, did not someone else once say this?

I do not hate the existence of organized religious groups; they are of the fabric of human culture. But, it is their practices and influences that sometimes truly fill me with fear! So, I am wondering, what will the new atheism become?

[Guest Mikkiapolis]

I think winterangel summarized things extremely well, and I agree with all she wrote (nicely done).

I feel very fortunate to live close to one of the few humanist UU churches in the country (we use the word "church" loosely). This non-theistic congregation has shown me that the key aspects of traditional churches (community, education about religions, social justice and works, inspiration) can be provided without the supernatural stuff and outdated dogma.

The OP seemed to be somewhat asking about written material. As a short, easy read, I can highly recommend "The Atheist's Way - Living Well Without Gods" by Eric Maisel.

[Guest MIrajane]

I'm terribly opinionated about religion and should probably keep my mouth shut. But I'm not going to haha. Though I agree with alot of what Winterangel said, I'm a bit more negative towards the less accepting religions

I don't believe religion is inherent to humanity, maybe it once was, but the more we learn the more it seems madness to follow blind faith and out-dated rules in the face of all reason. Personally I think the species is coming to a crux, we're developing so fast, I think society as we know it is either going to change dramatically, save itself, and perhaps that will involve becoming something new, or we're going to wipe most of us out. Alot of people I find reasoning and intelligent are starting to agree with the idea that current way of life is unsustainable - in particular western way of life that the developing world is currently trying to replicate.

I do resent the way Christianty and Islam try to have an impact on my life, deeply resent it. I hate that I was baptized too but thats another thing. And sorry but theres something nasty about the way the ole monotheistic religions help to keep women "in their place" ha, it's alot less of an issue now in Christianity but I just can't see a woman wearing a burkha and not feel a little bit dodgy about it.

If I have any spirituality at all... I do think we're all part of this planet and perhaps not as separate as we all think. Isn't it amazing to think, that the same building blocks that created us, in all our ignorant complexity, are the same ones floating around the huge vastness of space? Always makes me feel better, thinking I'm part of the universe, even though I dont always feel like I am.

All of this of course is just an opinion, and I'm no religious studies expert, nor will I ever be as I'm far too biast and feel too strongly.

[Guest Lacey Lynne]

MIrajane:

From The Isle of Wight, here's the very best book I've ever read on this subject:

http://exopoliticshongkong.com/uploads/David_Icke_-_The_Robots__Rebellion.pdf

Many would say it's author is a nutter. I say he's a genius. You don't have to agree with everything he asserts. Look at the table of contents. Even if you can read only 3-5 pages a day now and then, kindly do. You'll be glad you did, I believe.

When this author wrote this particular book, everybody thought he was the biggest fool they'd ever seen and heard. Today, he packs speaking venues, gets standing ovations and is the go-to guy for matters like we're discussing on this particular thread. Why? Because, what he said nearly 20 years in books like this one have come true nearly 100%.

Moderators:

This book is in the public domain. It's author wants people to see his message. That's why he permits this book to be available to anybody and everybody on The Internet. If he were right there in the room with you, he'd say, "Post it!" most enthusiastically! He has many videos on YouTube. Many are the best I've seem from anybody.

[Guest Mikkiapolis]

For those who like to read, here's a fun satire about the future of religion on planet Earth: Galactic Rapture. Read it, loved it.

I do think we're all part of this planet and perhaps not as separate as we all think. Isn't it amazing to think, that the same building blocks that created us, in all our ignorant complexity, are the same ones floating around the huge vastness of space? Always makes me feel better, thinking I'm part of the universe, even though I dont always feel like I am.

This reminded me of a series we're watching called Through the Wormhole (available via Netflix). One of the episodes talks about recent research that has found amino acids (some of the building blocks of life on this planet) in asteroids that have landed here. Other researchers have reproduced some of the basic components necessary for life by bubbling an early earth brew and simulating lightning. We may not know exactly how life started, but we're clearly getting closer.

I don't need some ancient mythology to prompt me to have wonder and awe about this world. The reality of our age, all the amazing knowledge that we're discovering - that's worthy of wonder and awe (IMHO).

[Guest Elizabeth1974]

Religion is the scourge of mankind it has been throughout history especially the religions of Abraham. It has been used to justify the deaths of millions of innocent for their lack of the same imaginary friend. It has been warped and shaped to provide those in power with more power. The evidence is overwhelming that imaginary friends did not create us, this plant, solar system... The worst of the religions are those that think they have an obligation to save you for the imaginary after life and a willing to do it by any means they can. They persecute us because we do not believe in what they do they spread dangerous false roomers ( mega church in Texas) like vaccinations are immoral or some imaginary friend sends a natural disaster at some city because of the LGBT community there. So to stop rambling we need "new" Atheists we need all Atheists to join the fight before we enter a second dark age.

Liz

[Guest KathleenMarie27]

To equivocally say that a creator doea not exist is as ignorant as saying the earth is 10000 years old. Know ones knows if there is a god, I am an extremely rational person, yet I see to much order in the chaos not to think that their was not a guiding intelligence. Organized religion is not spirituality, it is a system of government.

[Guest Elizabeth1974]

The idea that there must be guidance to the chaos is ignoring infinity that is to say no matter what the odds are that any certain events may take place become 100% when the solution set is infinity, it will happen. The scientific method demands proof of something to say it is; one can hypothesize that there is a deity but no evidence can be presented to support such a hypothesis there for it must be discounted. Now you could counter that argument with that you can not prove the non-existence either, however I can pick any combination of characters or symbols call it my deity/deities and you can't prove they do not exist either so that argument becomes invalid as well.

[Guest AlexR]

Organized religion is not spirituality, it is a system of government.

Too True!

I have to admit I am not a fan of the New Atheist movement. I have had atheist tendencies since I was a pre-teen, and an open atheist for 20 years. To me, the New Atheist movement has all of the same flavour of intolerant theists who refuse to accept my right to not believe in their god. My SO is a believer, though she thinks most organized religion is evil. We get along very well in spite of our differences in belief because we accept that other people have the right to do and believe what they will.

[Guest Elizabeth1974]

Alex,

Organized religion is not spirituality, it is a system of government.

To me, the New Atheist movement has all of the same flavour of intolerant theists who refuse to accept my right to not believe in their god. .

You are correct and most of us that would call ourselves "new atheists" I believe realize this and except it only because the pacifist approach is not working. We have states all across the union that continue to bring theists ideas in to state institutions. I personally feel that religion is what is holding this country back and as long as people like Ray Comfort publish there crazy theist ideas I will continue to express my militant atheist ideas. That being said I will always make every attempt to do so in a polite and intelligent manor however sarcasm will bleed through when I allow my self to be trolled.

[Guest AlexR]

I suppose I can respect that attitude to a degree because in private I agree. I live in an area where it still can be actually dangerous to admit to being an atheist (let alone trans!). My state (Kentucky) is also one of those states that love to mix with religion at every opportunity. I worry sometimes that a militant attitude can cause a backlash, but I also recognize that I don't have all the answers and am extremely non-confrontational by nature, which isn't always the best way to be.

[Guest princessofdarkness]

Old thread, but I'll give my two cents.

New Atheism is very dangerous to atheism. The only thing that's worse in the world of atheism, are the oppressive Atheist Communist states that existed throughout the 20th century (which some New Atheists applaud!). Atheism is the lack of belief in a theistic being, nothing more. People like Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris have chosen to evangelize it. In other words, an atheist would say "I don't believe in God". A 'New Atheist' would say "I believe there is no God". For them, atheism has to take on the style of the religions they oppose. Dogmatic intolerance, and advocating violence against those who don't share their belief.

And yes, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens were (and are) advocates of violence against the Muslim world, both accusing the Bush and Obama administrations for not being violent and imperialistic enough on the Middle East. Hitchens pushed every lie about Iraq having connections with al'Qaeda (if he used an inkling of that alleged reason of his, he'd realize that made no sense) and having weapons of mass destruction (never apologizing for his egregious error/lie). And Sam Harris has advocated using nuclear weapons on Iran; not surprising given his writing's constantly revealing his insane, paranoid level of Islamophobia. He also wants 'racial' profiling for Muslims, which is both unethical, and impossible (because they're not a race, genius). For that matter, Hitchens spoke highly of Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky for "secularizing" Russia when forming the Soviet Union. Showing that he has no understanding of the word 'secular', since outlawing religion and executing priests and nuns isn't a secular society, it's an inverted theocracy. No atheist (hopefully) would embrace H-itler's Germany for his anti-Semitism, so why does Hitchens applaud the Soviet Union for it's religious persecution. Indeed, the Soviet Union didn't have anything on the level of the Holocaust, but did persecution, execution, and oppression of the religious mean nothing to the deceased Hitchens? Wait no, it did. It meant a lot of good in his eyes, obviously, since he calls Lenin and Trotsky "hero's". And this "intellectual" called himself a student of George Orwell. HA!

Many of the so called New Atheists follow the style laid out by Hitchens, Harris, and Dawkins (who, to my knowledge, doesn't want to burn the Middle East to the ground, he's just a standard snob who looks down on religious folks). It's not secular, and it's not based in reason. It's based in an extreme hatred of religion and the religious, and the belief in atheist domination. Profiling the religious? Bombing Muslim countries to 'civilize' them? This is what passes for atheism? C'mon, we can do better. Atheism may co-exist in a world of religion, and when the religious cause trouble (as they so often do) we beat them with logic and reason. Not hatred and venom. And can't we admit there are many good religious people, despite the bad ones? Enough hatred.

[Guest]

First, I've been an Atheist since my late teens. I'm not agnostic, I simply do not believe in a creator. I'm an electrical engineer and believe in what can be proven or has a logical hypothesis, based on some sort of actual evidence, not perceived evidence.

That being said, I always wonder what it must take for a person to believe in an imaginary being that created mankind. However, I do NOT belittle people for their belief in spirituality, BUT, if a religious person decided to discuss religion with me, I will let them know what I think and expect them to prove their opinion; faith is not proof.

I do think that organized religion is an abomination of spirituality. In my own insignificant opinion, religion is the commercialization of spirituality and in many cases in the history of mankind, a source for much hatred and violence.

[Guest Sarah Faith]

First, I've been an Atheist since my late teens. I'm not agnostic, I simply do not believe in a creator. I'm an electrical engineer and believe in what can be proven or has a logical hypothesis, based on some sort of actual evidence, not perceived evidence.

That being said, I always wonder what it must take for a person to believe in an imaginary being that created mankind. However, I do NOT belittle people for their belief in spirituality, BUT, if a religious person decided to discuss religion with me, I will let them know what I think and expect them to prove their opinion; faith is not proof.

I do think that organized religion is an abomination of spirituality. In my own insignificant opinion, religion is the commercialization of spirituality and in many cases in the history of mankind, a source for much hatred and violence.

I will first state that I am a very religious person, and I am also a very science minded person (Biologist).

With that said, I would point out that there is no scientific evidence that there is no creator of any kind. In order to say with out any doubt in ones mind that there is absolutely no creator and that it's impossible it requires just as much faith as it does to believe that somewhere out in the infinite universe, or likely infinite multiverses, a creator could exist. Beyond all of the organized religions and traditions that we have on earth, and breaking it down to the most simple terms.. Creator or No creator, it takes faith either way.

Really though I think new age atheism is only a problem when they feel the need to try to spread their beliefs to others. I don't go around and try to convert others to my religion, I certainly do not want someone to do that with me regardless if those beliefs are another faith, or atheism.

[Guest]

With that said, I would point out that there is no scientific evidence that there is no creator of any kind.

That statement is the antithesis of science,

Really though I think new age atheism is only a problem when they feel the need to try to spread their beliefs to others. I don't go around and try to convert others to my religion, I certainly do not want someone to do that with me regardless if those beliefs are another faith, or atheism.

I tend to agree, however 'spreading the word' by beating on my door at 9AM is nothing new. As much as I want to be left out of all that, if it's OK for religions, it's OK for atheism.

By the way, I'm not one of those atheists that sit around bitching about the ten commandments being on the all in a courthouse or 'In god we trust' being on our currency. I simply don't care, because it has no effect on me whatsoever. As far as I'm concerned, atheists are other religions in that there are different levels of activism.

[Guest April63]

Science learns by falsifying, or by demonstrating that a claim is false. If a claim is not falsifiable, then science cannot learn whether or not it is true. So there is a limit to science. If we correctly follow the scientific method, I do not think we can ever be wrong. However, just because science cannot prove something, such as religion, does not mean that it is false or not valid for consideration. We do not need a proof to believe a claim, but we do need a proof to know that it is true.

If you have a reason for believing a particular religion (even if your reason is that it feels right), then I think you are perfectly justified in believing. You don't know that it's true, but you believe that it is. I think atheism and all of the various forms of theism are just different philosophies or viewpoints of the divine (if the divine exists). If you feel like it's doing you good, then go for it.

April

[Guest]

Science learns by falsifying, or by demonstrating that a claim is false. If a claim is not falsifiable, then science cannot learn whether or not it is true. So there is a limit to science. If we correctly follow the scientific method, I do not think we can ever be wrong. However, just because science cannot prove something, such as religion, does not mean that it is false or not valid for consideration. We do not need a proof to believe a claim, but we do need a proof to know that it is true.

If you have a reason for believing a particular religion (even if your reason is that it feels right), then I think you are perfectly justified in believing. You don't know that it's true, but you believe that it is. I think atheism and all of the various forms of theism are just different philosophies or viewpoints of the divine (if the divine exists). If you feel like it's doing you good, then go for it.

April

Science is starting with a theory/hypothesis based on some anecdotal evidence. Tests are created and performed in order to prove the theory is wrong. The results either come out positive (which adds more evidence toward the theory being correct) or negative (which adds more evidence toward the theory being wrong). At the end, the term proof can be somewhat subjective, but when the preponderance of evidence points as true, then it is considered true until more data is provided to counter that theory.

A lack of evidence is not evidence!

As for the rest of what you said, I agree. As I said, I do NOT harbor any ill will to believers, in general.

[Guest Cyndysub]

You can't prove that something exists in external reality when it only occurs in the mind. There have been more sightings of Flying Saucers than there have ever been of all of the imaginary deities.

[DaHudie Biz]

Oh sure, I can accept what I am getting. Still, some sciences wouldn't exist if it were not for religion. Newton was trying to prove God existed and so can be said about Einstein. He gave all his earthly work profits to a religious school. So don't hate religion. Just put it in it's proper place.

[Guest]

11 hours ago, Caykay1972 said:

Oh sure, I can accept what I am getting. Still, some sciences wouldn't exist if it were not for religion. Newton was trying to prove God existed and so can be said about Einstein. He gave all his earthly work profits to a religious school. So don't hate religion. Just put it in it's proper place.

The fact that a really smart guy tried to prove god isn't anything but information, data. And many of those old scientists saw god as something entirely different than the average 'believer' believes. The proper place certainly isn't the classroom when learning about that which can be proven.