Is New Age Atheism the new fundamentalism?

Turtwig

For : Richard Harries,Charles Moore.
Against : Richard Dawkins, A.C Grayling.

Just about to start watching ....
Will comment on it later.
Original Video Here.

Turtwig

Dawkins got challenged by a questioner as to why he refuses to debate William Lane Craig (WLC) aka Fraudster Debater.
He replied quite bluntly that he doesn't debate people who are creationist and their only claim to fame is debating.

LMAO moderater thought WLC was a lady!

MagicMarker

Nice, I shall watch when I get home. These debates are always entertaining:)

Galvasean

Interesting how the against the motion lobby won over most of the undecided voters, however the for lobby won over a few too. Not as dramatic a result as say, the debate on the Catholic Church, but a reasonable victory nonetheless.

Also, notice the dramatic variation in the online result. Damn atheists and their internets!

Goduznt Xzst

I fully expect their to be a growing level of anti-theism towards the religious in the next few decades. To the point were there will be violent opposition towards the religious. This will, however, be reactionary to organized opposition to Atheism and what it stands for. Currently it is mostly just ridiculed.

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. - Arthur Schopenhauer

The problem with evoking a reactionary response is it never chooses to stop at merely obtaining acceptance and validity. It will usually push past this into discriminating against those that where their discriminators. The feminism movement is an example, as well as PETA, or Germany after WWI. These movements aim to spread guilt and illegitimate the power of those that once held power over them. They rarely aim for equilibrium, but rather an almost inverse oppression.

Which just begins the cycle all over again. Society, at least for a few, will eventually get to a point where the Religious are largely ridiculed, which will just fuel how strongly they will rebound.

Zombrex

Interesting he says the New Atheists go for the weakest arguments of theism, as opposed to the strongest arguments. What exactly are the strongest arguments for theism?

robindch

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

The problem with evoking a reactionary response is it never chooses to stop at merely obtaining acceptance and validity. It will usually push past this into discriminating against those that where their discriminators. The feminism movement is an example, as well as PETA, or Germany after WWI. These movements aim to spread guilt and illegitimate the power of those that once held power over them. They rarely aim for equilibrium, but rather an almost inverse oppression.

Very well put.

MagicMarker

Thanks for posting Malty_T! Noticed at the end there that this was held on Saturday, nice to be able to see it so quickly.

I find it interesting that theists often use the argument that they hold strength in numbers in comparison to atheists, as if this somehow validates their theistic beliefs. Yet the opposite is usually the case in pretty much all the debates I've seen such as this.

Does anyone know of any such debate where the majority have voted in favour with the theists?

rohatch

This was a good debate, it gets a bit personal at times against RD. Both speakers Dawkins/Grayling are completely in control. Grayling is so eloquent.

Of course the religious side Harries/Moore really have no answer, they know they are on the run now. To have us questioning them and their 3,000 year belief in fairies and pixies and rabbits. Why are we allowed to question them. Why are we allowed to question them. Why are we allowed to question them.

Questions from the floor were a bit of a shambles, with delays and pauses and microphone issues , and the questions getting asked in multiples of 3, and then not every panelist gets the time to address them.

I would like to have seen a rigorous debate at the end but it was flat, Harries/Moore were a bit god light, and seemed like reasonable people.

On a personal note
(Questions from the floor) people should really write down the questions they have

1 hr 40 minutes long.

condra

I was pleased to see a much more balanced debate than the other recent one with Anne Witticome, Hitchens etc, where the theists hadn't a chance.

I was a bit disappointed that the debate digressed so much from the issue at hand. I would have thought there were many more compelling arguments for the motion than I saw presented here.

Religion is really taking a hammering these days in Western Europe.

pH

I'm still confused at to exactly what is new (age) atheism, and how it differs from other forms of atheism? Is it a critique of tone? or are people who are using 'new age' as a label just unaware of historical atheist thought and writing?

Or are they merely annoyed they have to hear about it?

Turtwig

pH wrote: »

I'm still confused at to exactly what is new (age) atheism, and how it differs from other forms of atheism? Is it a a critique of tone? or are people who are using 'new age' as a label just unaware of historical atheist thought and writing?

Or are they merely annoyed they have to hear about it?

We're "disrespectful".

Zombrex

Malty_T wrote: »

We're "disrespectful".

"annoying" atheism

Sam Vimes

It goes roughly thus:

Believer: You can't prove god doesn't exist

Atheist: You can't prove the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist but that doesn't mean we should believe in him

Believer: How dare you compare god to your spaghetti monster!!! You're so arrogant and disrespectful, why do you feel the need to attack people like that!!! Is it because you're insecure in your own faith of atheism!!!!


The correct and rational respsonse is of course:

Believer: Hey, you're right, the argument I just gave can be applied to anything no matter how ridiculous. It really is a silly argument isn't it! I will stop using it from now on and endeavour to improve my arguments beyond the fallacy I just gave you. Thank you for explaining the flaw in my reasoning that now allows me to strengthen my faith through stronger arguments.

But that doesn't happen when someone is emotionally attached to an idea. When someone points out that what you just said is ridiculous you have three options:

1. Strengthen the argument
2. Concede the argument
3. Insult the person who pointed out how ridiculous the argument is

Unfortunately option 3 is the one most commonly chosen by believers, an example of which is trying to brand us fundamentalists so they can dismiss us and if they're really lucky, stop people listening to us

Turtwig

Sam Vimes wrote: »

1. Strengthen the argument
2. Concede the argument
3. Insult the person who pointed out how ridiculous the argument is

You forgot option 4:

Run Away - Negative Influence!

pH

Malty_T wrote: »

We're "disrespectful".

Wicknight wrote: »

"annoying" atheism

Still I don't see what's "new" about that, is it just that people who are calling the writings of Dawkins, Hitchens etc. "new atheism" are unaware of history, or perhaps they just cannot be suppressed any more.

For example :

Aikenhead was indicted in December 1696. The indictment read:

"That ... the prisoner had repeatedly maintained, in conversation, that theology was a rhapsody of ill-invented nonsense, patched up partly of the moral doctrines of philosophers, and partly of poetical fictions and extravagant chimeras: That he ridiculed the holy scriptures, calling the Old Testament Ezra's fables, in profane allusion to Esop's Fables; That he railed on Christ, saying, he had learned magick in Egypt, which enabled him to perform those pranks which were called miracles: That he called the New Testament the history of the imposter Christ; That he said Moses was the better artist and the better politician; and he preferred Mahomet to Christ: That the Holy Scriptures were stuffed with such madness, nonsense, and contradictions, that he admired the stupidity of the world in being so long deluded by them: That he rejected the mystery of the Trinity as unworthy of refutation; and scoffed at the incarnation of Christ".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aikenhead

Aikenhead lived in the late 17th century, is Dawkins really a lot more disrespectful than the above?

Or are they just complaining that they can't hang Dawkins like they hung Aikenhead?

Galvasean

pH wrote: »

Or are they just complaining that they can't hang Dawkins like they hung Aikenhead?

That's prety much it. In times past it was easy to simply 'brush them under the carpet'. But nowadays there are more of them and they are protected by them damnable ooman rights. Since they can now longer have the pesky atheists hung drawn and quartered or burned at the stake (as opposed to speaking to them rationally), they try their best to label them as 'fanatics' or 'extremists'. Much in the way that the polite and placid Dawkins is often charicatured by religious people as a ravid raving zealot. By pretending he's some daft loon, it is easier to ignore what he says.

It's very laughable that some consider atheists the 'new extremists' when we live in a world where it is still common for religious extremists to give women 10 lashes for wearing throusers or simply blow themselves up because someone disagreed with them.

MrPudding

pH wrote: »

Still I don't see what's "new" about that, is it just that people who are calling the writings of Dawkins, Hitchens etc. "new atheism" are unaware of history, or perhaps they just cannot be suppressed any more.

For example :

Aikenhead was indicted in December 1696. The indictment read:

"That ... the prisoner had repeatedly maintained, in conversation, that theology was a rhapsody of ill-invented nonsense, patched up partly of the moral doctrines of philosophers, and partly of poetical fictions and extravagant chimeras: That he ridiculed the holy scriptures, calling the Old Testament Ezra's fables, in profane allusion to Esop's Fables; That he railed on Christ, saying, he had learned magick in Egypt, which enabled him to perform those pranks which were called miracles: That he called the New Testament the history of the imposter Christ; That he said Moses was the better artist and the better politician; and he preferred Mahomet to Christ: That the Holy Scriptures were stuffed with such madness, nonsense, and contradictions, that he admired the stupidity of the world in being so long deluded by them: That he rejected the mystery of the Trinity as unworthy of refutation; and scoffed at the incarnation of Christ".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aikenhead

Aikenhead lived in the late 17th century, is Dawkins really a lot more disrespectful than the above?

Or are they just complaining that they can't hang Dawkins like they hung Aikenhead?

How many people knew Aikenhead existed and read his work? How many people in 1696 knew of his indictment or murder? I think that for the most part the atheists are the same, we just have more opportunity to spread the word.

If atheist from 300 years ago could get their thoughts and opinions out in the open with the ease that we can, with little or no risk of death, that debate would the debate in the OP would probably have happened then.

MrP

condra

Atheism really in peoples faces more these days than ever before, and I think it's reasonable enough to say that there is an atheist "movement" now, more than ever.

I don't think anyone could describe this movement as fundamentalism though. At best, it might be said that there are a small proportion of atheists who edge towards fundamentalism, because of their dedication to a sort of cause, and their narrow-minded, dogmatic resolve.

I don't like the term "new atheism" any more than "neo atheism". Actually, I think atheism is one of the most difficult demographics to make generalisations about, because atheists can be fiercely independent. Our lack of belief in any god, is the only thing we all have in common.

I forget what my point was. I'm tired.

ChocolateSauce

"New age atheism" is a new fundamentalism? By new age, people obviously mean militant atheism, which is new only in the sense than for the first time the population is being widely exposed to its radical agenda, mostly via the internet and a handful of high profile figures like the four horsemen.

Other than that, people calling us militant ones fundamentalists are either unaware of the meaning of the word or just upset at us for calling them on their stupid beliefs and are trying (and failing) to damage our cause. Once it is properly explained to people that militant atheists are almost always the exact opposite of fundamentalists, the only ones left singing that tired falsehood are our detractors.

robindch

pH wrote: »

I'm still confused at to exactly what is new (age) atheism, and how it differs from other forms of atheism?

It doesn't differ. God's not there in the same way now as he wasn't there 2,000 years ago.

pH wrote: »

Or are they merely annoyed they have to hear about it?

That's one thing, but the more basic thing is that it's much easier to ignore an opinion if you can label it as coming from some group that you think you don't like. It's mildly pejorative too, as it vaguely implies that this "new atheism" is just something that turned up recently, and will disappear again as quickly, once people start believing again.

Still, I suppose it's better than this "militant atheism" that our religious brethren keep chattering about.

Sam Vimes

robindch wrote: »

Still, I suppose it's better than this "militant atheism" that our religious brethren keep chattering about.

Or "atheist regimes" which to everyone who doesn't have a vested interest in making atheism look bad are known as "communist dictatorships runs by madmen"

iBumblebeetuna

A little something I stole from another board that I thought would come in handy one day:http://www.freeratio.org/
Fundamentalist Theist Vs Fundamentalist Atheist
Assassinate doctors - Argues that god doesn't exist

Fly planes into buildings, slaughtering - Argues that god doesn't exist
thousands of civilians

Start illegal, immoral and unnecessary wars because - Argues that god doesn't exist
people in the target country are of a different
religion, slaughtering hundreds of thousands of civilians

Sets fire to trains full of women and children, - Argues that god doesn't exist
burning most to death

Persecutes millions of women and homosexuals, - Argues that god doesn't exist
often with torture, execution, or just making
them miserable enough to commit suicide

Blowing up gay night clubs - Argues that god doesn't exist

Blowing up buses full of schoolchildren - Argues that god doesn't exist

Setting off a pipe bomb at the Olympics - Argues that god doesn't exist

Using helicopters to fire advanced military - Argues that god doesn't exist
missiles into civilian apartment buildings because
the magic sky faerie gave that land to YOU,
not the infidels!

Bombing girls' coming of age parties - Argues that god doesn't exist

Yup. The fundamentalists from both sides are just as bad!

liamw

The fundamentalist aFairiest is the worst kind. They just keep on saying that fairies don't exist, there is no evidence, it's nonsense. How dare those fundamentalists aFairiests disrespect my beliefs like that. They have faith that there's no fairies.

Mark Hamill