Atheist Elite College.

raah!

strobe wrote: »

What's the qualification criteria raah!?

Could you give a list of traits or beliefs that someone must posses to qualify as a 'new atheist' in how you would use the term?

I can give you a list yest, but as I said it's a social/cultural grouping. It's a group similar to like : emos, hippies, punks.

They do not need to possess all of the traits to be usefully described as a new atheist. You could describe it as a certain sensibility, butthe time frame is obviously important. So just as you could say to someone whose not an emo "that's an emo thing to do", you can describe behaviours of people who would be well outside of this category as new atheistic behaviours. Anyway, I've mentioned many before:

-Obviously, the first one is Ricahrd dawkins and those fellows. Those four fellows. They are the main part of it. That is, that people like him, that ecven if they don't like him they hav eheard of him and repeat the same arguments, even if they are wrong. That people repeat logically invalid arguments (see sam harris's latest crap) suggest that they are repeating it for reasons other than that it is just "the truth".
-anti theism, which is connected with those fellows
-scientism, scientific realism, materialism/naturalism
-The belief that the above philosophical views follow naturally from science.
-emphasis on "rationalism". That's a hilarious joke there. Rationality is what they mean. But some people say "rationalism" which is a forum of idealism. And this is the opposite.
-internet presence.
-interest in popular science
-modernistic view on the progress and that... guess this was contained up there. but it's a bit different I suppose.
-Attending "atheist meetings" and "atheist forums"
Now, as I've said a million times before, if atheist just means "lack of belief" then it's clear that many of these things cannot be considered to be contained deductively within this term. So the word "atheist" is inappropriate.

Now, there are many more, but those are general guidelines. It's important to realise that it would be ridiculous to say that "if you have this this and this characteristics then you're this" because that's not what the term is for. Just as with emos, they could not have the hair but have the dark clothes. So with this someone could have some of the characteristics but not all of them. Just as with hippies and emos it is ridiculuos to try and give a solid definition, it is a generalisation of a group of people.

SO if you want to describe hippies you'll get like "certain kind of movement in 60s associated with this that and the other". There will not be "if you are a hippy then you're this". There are other examples of the names of people from certain cultural or youth movements through history but I can't think of them. Just as with these other movements, as people see new commonalities amongst this group, they will report and describe them. So as people would say "the hippes are taking drugs". It is because the word atheist is well defined and people like to play little ga mes, if someone goes "atheists like richard dawkins" there will be "atheist just means lack of belief". So "new atheists like richard dawkins" is more appropriate.

There should be a name for this. There should be a name for the person who at any oppurtunity will whip out the "actually, I'm an atheist..." or the "as an atheist...". New atheist is a perfectly valid term fro this. Now furthermore, even if you think these new characteristics are only due to the fact that atheists are not being suppressed these are new behaviours which are common to a group of people, and the term is still useful. I disagree with this above thing, to some extents, but also think that even with this we could explain alot of behaviours, and not in the way that people here seek to do it. We can discuss that later. And I've given millions of reasons as to other sources of these dieas etc., but it doesn't make a difference to the term being appropriate.

I am typing too much here anyway, I'll respond to the other one another day, plus my holidays are over and I shouldn't spend too much time on internet.

Morbert

raah, this is the "type" of atheist most atheists are. Would you consider this "new atheism"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBCDTsgZomw

raah!

Well he's a bit rambly there. As far as common new atheistic traits he certainly possess that tension in what he's saying of "I doubt everything, nature is there as it is to be seen by us". That is, the tension of skepticism and scientific realism. Scientific realism is in most peoples opinions (and I think this is clear) weaker than anti realism. And he uses the common argument that the whole purpose of religion is to explain the universe and give answers to lots of things. So he is using arguments that occur commonly amongst new atheists.

As to what kind of type he is I'm not sure what you mean. It's certainly not true that most atheists are genius level physicists, or even that they are interested in the universe to that extent.

In fact, the widespread reading of things like popular science is completely contrary to this "I like finding things out but don't just want answers". Popular science is nothing more than a list of answers.

However, as I was saying, this new atheism is very largely cultural social, he doesn't really go into this "all we need to do is remove religion to usher in a new secular utopia" stuff. And as I've said, social groupings like this are not clear cut. He uses some arguments common amongst new atheists, and he does emphasis this science religion conflict, but would it be fair to say that he is part of this cultural movement? Or staunchly anti religion? Does he possess all of or even alot of those characteristics? If you compared him to a group of people at an atheist convention, how much would they have in common. It is in this way that you must deteremine the extent to which someone is a part of a certain cultural group. It is also important whether or not the cultural movement has influenced him. Is it accurate to call a person wearing hippy clothes in the 60s whose never heard of hippies a hippy?

As I said, it's a word for a group of people. And while it can be used to make probabilistica statements abou the individual memebers of that group, it is more useful for making general statements about the group as a whole.

Edit: Another more similar example is knackers, I couldn't think of that earlier. They are a social class, but the word knacker means much more than just being working class and it doesn't just mean traveller:

Example: Be careful near them knackers (identifying the group). That knacker may not treat you nicely if you are dressed in drag in a dark ally (prediction of the knacks behaviour from the group of which he is a part. (You guess he is a knack because he is dressed like a knacker. Then you infer that he will behave in a certain way because he is dressed like those other knacks you have seen who have also often behaved like that.) Note the term knacker is not well defined, but most people know what it means and what kind of person it refers to.

Now, political correctness aside, is this not more useful than "every human being is an individual about whom we can know nothing until they tell use or we directly observe them as an individual"?

Another interesting corollary here is that while knackers themselves may reject this title, they are certainly aware that they are a part of a group, because they know who is not in the group.

strobe

raah! wrote: »

I can give you a list yest, but as I said it's a social/cultural grouping. It's a group similar to like : emos, hippies, punks.

They do not need to possess all of the traits to be usefully described as a new atheist. You could describe it as a certain sensibility, butthe time frame is obviously important. So just as you could say to someone whose not an emo "that's an emo thing to do", you can describe behaviours of people who would be well outside of this category as new atheistic behaviours. Anyway, I've mentioned many before:

-Obviously, the first one is Ricahrd dawkins and those fellows. Those four fellows. They are the main part of it. That is, that people like him, that ecven if they don't like him they hav eheard of him and repeat the same arguments, even if they are wrong. That people repeat logically invalid arguments (see sam harris's latest crap) suggest that they are repeating it for reasons other than that it is just "the truth".
-anti theism, which is connected with those fellows
-scientism, scientific realism, materialism/naturalism
-The belief that the above philosophical views follow naturally from science.
-emphasis on "rationalism". That's a hilarious joke there. Rationality is what they mean. But some people say "rationalism" which is a forum of idealism. And this is the opposite.
-internet presence.
-interest in popular science
-modernistic view on the progress and that... guess this was contained up there. but it's a bit different I suppose.
-Attending "atheist meetings" and "atheist forums"
Now, as I've said a million times before, if atheist just means "lack of belief" then it's clear that many of these things cannot be considered to be contained deductively within this term. So the word "atheist" is inappropriate.

Now, there are many more, but those are general guidelines. It's important to realise that it would be ridiculous to say that "if you have this this and this characteristics then you're this" because that's not what the term is for. Just as with emos, they could not have the hair but have the dark clothes. So with this someone could have some of the characteristics but not all of them. Just as with hippies and emos it is ridiculuos to try and give a solid definition, it is a generalisation of a group of people.

SO if you want to describe hippies you'll get like "certain kind of movement in 60s associated with this that and the other". There will not be "if you are a hippy then you're this". There are other examples of the names of people from certain cultural or youth movements through history but I can't think of them. Just as with these other movements, as people see new commonalities amongst this group, they will report and describe them. So as people would say "the hippes are taking drugs". It is because the word atheist is well defined and people like to play little ga mes, if someone goes "atheists like richard dawkins" there will be "atheist just means lack of belief". So "new atheists like richard dawkins" is more appropriate.

There should be a name for this. There should be a name for the person who at any oppurtunity will whip out the "actually, I'm an atheist..." or the "as an atheist...". New atheist is a perfectly valid term fro this. Now furthermore, even if you think these new characteristics are only due to the fact that atheists are not being suppressed these are new behaviours which are common to a group of people, and the term is still useful. I disagree with this above thing, to some extents, but also think that even with this we could explain alot of behaviours, and not in the way that people here seek to do it. We can discuss that later. And I've given millions of reasons as to other sources of these dieas etc., but it doesn't make a difference to the term being appropriate.

I am typing too much here anyway, I'll respond to the other one another day, plus my holidays are over and I shouldn't spend too much time on internet.

raah! wrote: »

Well he's a bit rambly there. As far as common new atheistic traits he certainly possess that tension in what he's saying of "I doubt everything, nature is there as it is to be seen by us". That is, the tension of skepticism and scientific realism. Scientific realism is in most peoples opinions (and I think this is clear) weaker than anti realism. And he uses the common argument that the whole purpose of religion is to explain the universe and give answers to lots of things. So he is using arguments that occur commonly amongst new atheists.

As to what kind of type he is I'm not sure what you mean. It's certainly not true that most atheists are genius level physicists, or even that they are interested in the universe to that extent.

In fact, the widespread reading of things like popular science is completely contrary to this "I like finding things out but don't just want answers". Popular science is nothing more than a list of answers.

However, as I was saying, this new atheism is very largely cultural social, he doesn't really go into this "all we need to do is remove religion to usher in a new secular utopia" stuff. And as I've said, social groupings like this are not clear cut. He uses some arguments common amongst new atheists, and he does emphasis this science religion conflict, but would it be fair to say that he is part of this cultural movement? Or staunchly anti religion? Does he possess all of or even alot of those characteristics? If you compared him to a group of people at an atheist convention, how much would they have in common. It is in this way that you must deteremine the extent to which someone is a part of a certain cultural group. It is also important whether or not the cultural movement has influenced him. Is it accurate to call a person wearing hippy clothes in the 60s whose never heard of hippies a hippy?

As I said, it's a word for a group of people. And while it can be used to make probabilistica statements abou the individual memebers of that group, it is more useful for making general statements about the group as a whole.

Edit: Another more similar example is knackers, I couldn't think of that earlier. They are a social class, but the word knacker means much more than just being working class and it doesn't just mean traveller:

Example: Be careful near them knackers (identifying the group). That knacker may not treat you nicely if you are dressed in drag in a dark ally (prediction of the knacks behaviour from the group of which he is a part. (You guess he is a knack because he is dressed like a knacker. Then you infer that he will behave in a certain way because he is dressed like those other knacks you have seen who have also often behaved like that.) Note the term knacker is not well defined, but most people know what it means and what kind of person it refers to.

Now, political correctness aside, is this not more useful than "every human being is an individual about whom we can know nothing until they tell use or we directly observe them as an individual"?

Another interesting corollary here is that while knackers themselves may reject this title, they are certainly aware that they are a part of a group, because they know who is not in the group.

Heh, dude... wait... what?

Galvasean

raah! wrote: »

Now, I'm not sober, but

The most important part of your post

ShooterSF

So what's the difference between a "new atheist" and an anti-theist? Could you give an example of someone that is one but not the other to help?

raah!

Anti-theist has a well defined meaning. It is an ideological stance. 'New atheism' is not the name of any particular well defined ideological stance but the name of a cultural group whose members tend to have certain ideological views. Most new atheists are anti-theists. Indeed you could add that onto the list, it is a crucial part of what makes a new atheist.

The difference between the two would be the same as the difference between emos or knackers, and like a political group. If you are an emo you are this vague collection of things, if you are a communist you believe some specific things. Likewise for religions or other well defined philosophical positions, naturalism etc.

Turtwig

raah! wrote: »

Anyway, I've mentioned many before:

-Obviously, the first one is Ricahrd dawkins and those fellows. Those four fellows. They are the main part of it. That is, that people like him, that ecven if they don't like him they hav eheard of him and repeat the same arguments, even if they are wrong. That people repeat logically invalid arguments (see sam harris's latest crap) suggest that they are repeating it for reasons other than that it is just "the truth".
-anti theism, which is connected with those fellows
-scientism, scientific realism, materialism/naturalism
-The belief that the above philosophical views follow naturally from science.
-emphasis on "rationalism". That's a hilarious joke there. Rationality is what they mean. But some people say "rationalism" which is a forum of idealism. And this is the opposite.
-internet presence.
-interest in popular science
-modernistic view on the progress and that... guess this was contained up there. but it's a bit different I suppose.
-Attending "atheist meetings" and "atheist forums"
Now, as I've said a million times before, if atheist just means "lack of belief" then it's clear that many of these things cannot be considered to be contained deductively within this term. So the word "atheist" is inappropriate.

Huh, that's odd.

there seems to be an absence of a certain ornithological trait.

recedite

raah! wrote: »

I'm saying that the college run by such people will most likely be openly anti-theist in terms of ethics morality etc.

That's a fair enough assumption.

raah! wrote: »

I think everyone is capable of perfect logic, if they are careful, but just that people often have very confused premises and basic beliefs.

The second part would seem to be a criticism of religion?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

In what way is his atheism new?

In fairness to raah!, he didn't invent the term New Atheism; it does have some valid meaning.

raah! wrote: »

What the term atheist means to people here is very important. That is obvious. Read the forum. I find it hilarious that it is called the "Atheists and Agnostics" forum, and yet these days it is the trend to incorporate agnostics into the umbrella term of atheists, and then pretend this was always the case.

Maybe there is confusion and overlap in the labelling, but labels are not so important anyway, unless you are swearing allegiance to a fundamentalist organisation (eg a religion). That being the case, we can lure more people in to think about the ideas expressed in this forum by using both terms simultaneously :D (says he with an evil laugh)

raah! wrote: »

Now furthermore, even if you think these new characteristics are only due to the fact that atheists are not being suppressed these are new behaviours which are common to a group of people, and the term is still useful.

Good description. It will probably happen any time an ideology (or the rejection of a dominant ideology) reaches a certain critical mass.
For Christians, New Christianity happened during the reign of the Roman emperor Constantine. The Romans stopped feeding Christians to the lions, and made Christianity the favoured State religion around that time. Of course atheists were only discouraged rather than persecuted in recent history, but a new attitude is becoming apparent, and there is a sense that the days of Christianity dominating Europe are over.

Mark200 wrote: »

One of the guys involved in setting up this University was on Sky News earlier, and when asked about its exclusivity he said that about 30% of places will be allocated on a scholarship basis, rather than based on ability to pay. If that is the case then I think that's fair enough.

Indeed, what you have to remember is that the American style elite colleges admit 3 types of people; rich & clever, rich & not so clever, poor & clever.

At £9000 fees, the UK colleges will get everyone except the poor. So which system is better? AC Grayling is just trying out the american model.

Oxford and Cambridge might respond by gradually dropping their obsolete religious trappings. This is akin to what happened to the green political movement here; other parties adopted many of their green policies, thus rendering them somewhat irrelevant. If that happened, and his New College failed, AC Grayling might still count it a success.

BTW nobody should disrespect those who don't attend university. The guy who services the brakes in my car has a more important job, in my mind, than the bank clerk with a university degree. Society works better when a certain number of people do skills training by choice or by family tradition, and not just because they had lower exam points.

Yahew

Morbert wrote: »

raah, this is the "type" of atheist most atheists are. Would you consider this "new atheism"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBCDTsgZomw

Feynman is not a new Atheist because he is dead, and therefore an old atheist. Thats mild stuff compared to Grayling's sub-educated ramblings on Christian history.

Yahew

recedite wrote: »

Indeed, what you have to remember is that the American style elite colleges admit 3 types of people; rich & clever, rich & not so clever, poor & clever.

also, rich and dumb.

raah!

Malty_T wrote: »

Huh, that's odd.

there seems to be an absence of a certain ornithological trait.

Are yo saying these criteria are broad? Many of those ones there are not independent.

Or what are you saying?

Turtwig

raah! wrote: »

Are yo saying these criteria are broad? Many of those ones there are not independent.

Or what are you saying?

It appears to be lacking awareness of a certain avian variety.

raah!

Oh right, family guy. I thought you were saying that it was too broad by referencing Aristotle's definition of man as bipedal featherless things, and in doing so saying "what you have said here applies to practically all people, you might as well have just said people, but you forgot to say featherless". Family guy is funny, but Diogenes the Cynic heard of Aristotles definition and got a chicken and plucked its hair and then said "here is Aristotle's man". That is much funnier I think. Oh, I do enjoy clacking away at the keyboard. I'll leave your thread in peace anyway.

recedite wrote: »

That's a fair enough assumption.

The second part would seem to be a criticism of religion?

Not necessarily. Just why I think people say things which are inconsistent with other things they say. If you think the things religious people say are inconsistent then I guess it would apply in that case. That was not my intent in saying that however.

Mark Hamill

recedite wrote: »

In fairness to raah!, he didn't invent the term New Atheism; it does have some valid meaning.

Oh, I know he didn't invent the term, I know exactly what it means and where it came from. I also know that its about as valid a term as saying someone is a "new catholic" when the vatican gets a new pope. Terms like "new atheist" and "militant atheist" are emotive labeling used to disregard groups of people en mass, which is why I usually make it a point to question what exactly is new about someones atheism (or where they are advocating violence, if they are labeled "militant").

Mark Hamill

raah! wrote: »

Anyway, I've mentioned many before:

-Obviously, the first one is Ricahrd dawkins and those fellows. Those four fellows. They are the main part of it. That is, that people like him, that ecven if they don't like him they hav eheard of him and repeat the same arguments, even if they are wrong. That people repeat logically invalid arguments (see sam harris's latest crap) suggest that they are repeating it for reasons other than that it is just "the truth".
-anti theism, which is connected with those fellows
-scientism, scientific realism, materialism/naturalism
-The belief that the above philosophical views follow naturally from science.
-emphasis on "rationalism". That's a hilarious joke there. Rationality is what they mean. But some people say "rationalism" which is a forum of idealism. And this is the opposite.
-internet presence.
-interest in popular science
-modernistic view on the progress and that... guess this was contained up there. but it's a bit different I suppose.
-Attending "atheist meetings" and "atheist forums"

All you are saying is that modern atheists have the internet and follow modern atheistic thinkers (if you are trying to argue that being anti-theist, rational and scientific is new for atheists then you are off your rocker). But the thing is, nothing here supports the assumption that ancient atheists wouldn't have used the internet and forums, should they have existed back then. This has been explained several times before. The context has changed (there are new outlets for people to discuss why they are atheists and what they think about religions), but the atheism is the same.

The Mad Hatter

(Lifted from Ph, here)

I don't see what's so new about new atheists.

"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". -Thomas Aikenhead, Scotland, 1697

He was tried for heresy, and executed.

I don't think the "New Atheists" are new, but I must say I'm more fond of the new Christians than the old.

Rev Hellfire

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I don't think the "New Atheists" are new, but I must say I'm more fond of the new Christians than the old.

The old ones seemed less whiny.

Galvasean

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

The old ones seemed less whiny.

That's because they had no need to whine when they could just set you on fire if you disagreed with them.

Rev Hellfire

Galvasean wrote: »

That's because they had no need to whine when they could just set you on fire if you disagreed with them.

aka "The good old days" on the Christanity forum.

coffee_cake

Galvasean wrote: »

That's because they had no need to whine when they could just set you on fire if you disagreed with them.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

aka "The good old days" on the Christanity forum.

A positive take on "the burning times" :pac:

raah!

Mark Hamill wrote: »

All you are saying is that modern atheists have the internet and follow modern atheistic thinkers (if you are trying to argue that being anti-theist, rational and scientific is new for atheists then you are off your rocker). But the thing is, nothing here supports the assumption that ancient atheists wouldn't have used the internet and forums, should they have existed back then. This has been explained several times before. The context has changed (there are new outlets for people to discuss why they are atheists and what they think about religions), but the atheism is the same.

I don't know how much clearer I can be Mark Hamill. I didn't respond to your last posts because you had gotten beyond ridiculous, calling any figurative aspect of a post a "strawman". You did this before as well. I can only surmise that you are so wrapped up in arguing a certain side (the new atheist side) that you can't even read anymore. If you do something like quote me saying "I could eat a horse" and go "that's a strawman" I will not respond to you anymore. An example, if you quoted this and said "this is a strawman, I never quoted you saying you could leat a horse" it would mean you don't understand english.


The context changing is enough to change alot of things. But even then, what is going on is new. It's a new group of people. Bertrand russell is not the same as Richard Dawkins, neither is nieztche. Please don't say that they are the same simply because they are "atheist popular thinkers", one could easily point out that while those fellows are that, Dawkins is an "atheist populist thinker".

We could take the one stock argument which is constantly repeated, and show that even this can produce all those other things listed there. (This repittition of the exact same arguments is also something which serves as evidence for the existence of this cultural movement).

Atheists are not being put to death. In the past they were, and the automatic position was theism. It's a fashionable Richard Dawkins argument, much repeated (it might be from someone else but that doesn't make a difference) that if someone i snot told to be religious then they won't be religious. So we have people unthinkingly arriving at atheism. There is a difference between a group of teenagers and an ancient philosopher, do you understand that?

In the past, someone had to actually be a "free thinker", so we see that those people who were atheists actually thought. Everything epicurus said was couched in his philosophy. Bertrand Russell's rejections were couched in his logical positivism. Nietzche, Sartre, Camus, did not just ignore any implications of atheism that weren't politically advantageous.

The likes of Dawkins and Harris these days just make the absurd (and completely incorrect claim that science comes from morality). Pretty much all of their arguments stem from the conflation of materialism with science. And we have pointed this out to be incorrect. As far as I can tell Hitches just makes money being being boorish in front of a crowd of people. The uniformly populist inclinations of these writers is enough to make them "new".

So, first of all. Their arguments are different from the average argument put forward before them. Their perspective is different, it is scientistic. And secondly, their followers are different. New atheism is new. The arguments might not be brand new, but this is completely irrelevant. It could be just a revival of old arguments (and of course those scientistic arguments have arrived before) in a certain way, it would still be appropriately labeled "new". All we would need do is contrast things like:

Nietzche: Nihilism is the biggest problem for man in this or that.
Sam Harris: Moral arguments are boring, I don't like I oughts, we'll use should instead. How can science determine human values? Oh it can't, but I'll still sell a million copies of the book.

Secondly, different followers. And thirdly, asscoiated with this, their writings often contain little by way of arguments, and alot by way of "you're such a good boy for being an atheist, you're intelligent if you're an atheist". That is comments made specifically to mark out differences between the group of which their readers are a part, and the group of religious people. It's not difficult to accept that there are many people whose interest in loudly declaring the inferiority of people outside the group in which they are contained stems from their desire to be perceived as superior. This kind of thing would be very attractive in this day and age of internet IQ tests, and people with little or no academic or intellectual acheivements who place such importance on intelligence.


Example: Just to illustrate a common misconception here. Which I've more than pointed out before. Fishing out an argument from years ago and then saying "new atheism isn't new" completely misses the point. Here is a similar example. Don Quixote is full of self referecence and other such post modern this or that. This means that the claim that the ideas of postmodernists are new is wrong. It does not mean that postmodernism did not occur in the (whenever) and that it was a new thing.

And if we look at that mans arguments there, while they do contain the virulent anti-theism found in today's new atheists. He does not share all their characteristics. He's not just saying "conflict thesis", nor is he making arguments directly from science. He's just saying negative things about religion. Nobody is claiming that saying negative things about religion is new. It's the saying the negative things in a certain way, in a certain time, in a certain movement, to certain people.

He probably didn't attend any conventions either. And as I've pointed out a million times, the social aspects and all this are very important. It is a cultural social thing. It's a cultural/social movement which prefers certain arguments, but it is nonetheless not just somthing like a political ideology. I've already pointed this out. You [mad hatter] have posted somehting which shows someone is simply an anti-theist, but we've already marked this distinction between a new atheist and simply an anti theist.

robindch

raah! wrote: »

Anyway, atheists groups. Skeptiks. Atheist societies in colleges. All obvious examples of atheist groups. I really don't see how you can be so blind, sitting in this forum for atheists. But I think really you are just a politician. And I can tell you this: you derive some sense of identity from the fact that you are an atheist. If you'd like I could trawl through your posts and show you instances of this.

I think it would really be quite useful if you would.

For the sake of clarity, please find posts in which I claim that atheists are a separate group who share more than a common, simple belief that deities do not exist, and who, for the purposes of argument, can legitimately be classed as a single identifiable group who can be dealt with as such.

raah!

For the sake of clarity, the latter point there is not something which I have attributed to you. We both know that "atheists" is a very specific and unuseful term for categorising people, save people who are atheists. That is why the term new atheist exists. New atheist is a term I've used for a reason. I know you will be resistant to this grouping, just as a goth is resistant to the suggestion that perhaps they haven't been so successful in avoiding conformity by all dressing in black. But that doesn't make it not a valid group.

With regard to your deriving some sense of identity from the fact that you are an atheist, a bare atheist. Well, were you not a proponent of this "no religion" campaign. In which you urged people like you to identify as not religious? And in your case, atheists? Have you never started a post with "as an atheist, I...".

You are the moderator of the skeptics forum and the atheist forum, perhaps these two things mean nothing to you. But it is very much how other people will identify you. It would be very strange if it didn't mean anything to you, considering you spend so much time posting on these forums.

I don't really want to trawl through your posts to find a thing where you go "As an atheist..." but I think I have provided sufficient evidence to support that, to you, being an atheist is a part of who you are. Or who you are not, it doesn't make a difference, and I'm not interested in word games.

As I said, I know you reject the term new atheist, you've said that in this thread. I have given support for that term myself.

And just a further point, when someone starts a thread and says "what do atheists think about the after life", the typical response is "atheists don't think anyone" but we all know what the person meant. They meant, what do the people here, given what they have previously said, and their predilection for dawkins, think about this. The person who said that could have said "new atheists" and that would have immediately chopped away all that empty rhetoric about lacks of this or that.

The obsession with pedantics is just a common way of avoiding the obvious fact that todays generation of Dawkins era atheists hold many views in common, views which are not logically entailed in just atheism. This is why the term new atheism exists.

RussellTuring

raah! wrote: »

The obsession with pedantics is just a common way of avoiding the obvious fact that todays generation of Dawkins era atheists hold many views in common, views which are not logically entailed in just atheism. This is why the term new atheism exists.

Can you provide a short list of these common traits? Bullet points would be perfect if you don't mind.

robindch

raah! wrote: »

I don't really want to trawl through your posts to find a thing where you go "As an atheist..."

As above, I really think you should because then, there might be some substance to your argument. But until you do, I'm afraid that you're going to have to accept the default position which is that there isn't.

raah! wrote: »

I'm not interested in word games.

Unfortunately, you are playing one by claiming that I am something that I am telling you, quite specifically, that I am not.

ShooterSF

raah! wrote: »

And just a further point, when someone starts a thread and says "what do atheists think about the after life", the typical response is "atheists don't think anyone" but we all know what the person meant. They meant, what do the people here, given what they have previously said, and their predilection for dawkins, think about this. The person who said that could have said "new atheists" and that would have immediately chopped away all that empty rhetoric about lacks of this or that.

Not really. You'd just end up with similar noise as is going on here as we try and nail down a definition of new Atheist. If the poster asked what a supernatural skeptic thought that would cut out the "empty rhetoric". Actually, if some theists wouldn't go to any end to try and twist atheism into a belief system those responses wouldn't even be posted. Unfortunately, they are done so these days in preparation that such a silly question is a loaded one.

On the new atheist thing what I think I have gotten so far is it's a supernatural skeptic with a dab of anti-theism. If that's correct then I guess I'm a "new atheist" :shrugs:

Mark Hamill

raah! wrote: »

The context changing is enough to change alot of things. But even then, what is going on is new. It's a new group of people. Bertrand russell is not the same as Richard Dawkins, neither is nieztche. Please don't say that they are the same simply because they are "atheist popular thinkers", one could easily point out that while those fellows are that, Dawkins is an "atheist populist thinker".

Nothing here (in your whole post, actually) responds to the points made in my post you quoted, its just a rant against modern popular atheistic thinkers and how little you think of them. Your empty dismissals of their arguments aside, you have not shown how the average atheist on the street now is any different to the average atheist on the street 100 or 500 or 2000 years ago. People will always listen to and regurgitate the arguments of popular thinkers they like, you seem to think that because you, personally, dismiss the modern arguments that this makes the modern atheist different to those of the past. Its quite clear that you think "new" atheists worse for this, and its quite clear the insult hidden behind the word "new" even to one who, under your own criteria, it doesn't apply to.

raah! wrote: »

There is a difference between a group of teenagers and an ancient philosopher, do you understand that?

Ludicrous strawman. The point is not that the average modern atheist (teenager or otherwise) is the same as ancient philosophers, or even modern philosophers, its the average modern atheist is the same as the average ancient atheist. The atheism is the same, the context has changed.

Yahew

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Ludicrous strawman. The point is not that the average modern atheist (teenager or otherwise) is the same as ancient philosophers, or even modern philosophers, its the average modern atheist is the same as the average ancient atheist. The atheism is the same, the context has changed.

Dont be silly. Atheists were

1) Brave.
2) A good deal more intelligent than normal.
3) Far less common than the modern New Atheist thinks anyway. Newton was a deist, Bacon was a priest, Bayes a presbyter, Descartes a Christian, Pascal a Catholic and I could go on, and on.

however, the atheists who appeared after Darwin were smarter than normal, for sure.

Now, since atheism is common the common are atheist. Thats is, people of normal intelligence.

raah!

RussellTuring wrote: »

Can you provide a short list of these common traits? Bullet points would be perfect if you don't mind.

I have in anohter post

robindch wrote: »

As above, I really think you should because then, there might be some substance to your argument. But until you do, I'm afraid that you're going to have to accept the default position which is that there isn't.Unfortunately, you are playing one by claiming that I am something that I am telling you, quite specifically, that I am not.

I said that you derive a sense of identity from your atheism. I cited your support of that voting thing. Those posts exist, it's not necessary for me to quote them.

ShooterSF wrote: »

Not really. You'd just end up with similar noise as is going on here as we try and nail down a definition of new Atheist. If the poster asked what a supernatural skeptic thought that would cut out the "empty rhetoric". Actually, if some theists wouldn't go to any end to try and twist atheism into a belief system those responses wouldn't even be posted. Unfortunately, they are done so these days in preparation that such a silly question is a loaded one.

On the new atheist thing what I think I have gotten so far is it's a supernatural skeptic with a dab of anti-theism. If that's correct then I guess I'm a "new atheist" :shrugs:

Well, if it meant only that then we would not include those other ubiquitous commonalities like insistence on the conflict thesis, and those other cultural social factors, which, as I've been saying from the start are waht the term refers to. It's not the definition of an ideology. I've pointed that out a million times.

But yes, those threads would be cleared up if the Op said that, they would also be cleared up if the people in the forum didn't pretend not to understand what he meant. The fact that there is always that concerted effort to shove the independence of each and every new atheist down the throat of everyone serves as evidence of the fact that your average person , without explicitly saying so, can easily perceive the commonalities.