The New Atheist Movement is dead and it is not exactly the fault of those who really wanted to give atheism a voice. I do blame Dawkins, he has in the recent past made some very stupid comments about stuff that as nothing to do with atheismand he can be blamed for giving voice to misogynists in the movement. Do I blame Hitchens? Hell no! Even though Hitchen's politics were sliding into Neo-Con territory I do not blame him, in fact I miss him because he was the one voice that would have questioned Dawkins, Harris an d others. He was the ultimate contarian and I do apprieciate him. Do I blame Sam Harris? Hell yes. Sam Harris has an aggenda that has nothing to do with atheism (whether he is an atheist is doubtful, the dude beleives in Buddhist woo), he is an Islamphobe in the likes of Ann Coulter and you atheist accepted him and invited him into the dialogoe and people like him have poison it with hate. This is why the New Atheist movement has died. It lost any moral high ground and has become a movement of fear, hate and bigotry. The very thing it has criticized about religions. When Dawkins is making misogynistic statements and you accept them then you lost the moral high ground against religion, when you accept Sam Harris perpetuate his hatred of Islam without criticizing it then you have lost the moral high ground against religions that preach hate. A movement always loses when that high ground is lost...The New Atheist movement lost it.
But my hate is speaking truth to power and your hate is bigotry ;-)
On a purely psychological and personal note ... people including myself, who think we can speak to big issues or big villains ... might be lacking in humility and I confess to having a big mouth ;-)
If the New Atheists had been merely against self-destructive Arab politics ... I could respect them, as non-experts. But if someone paints with a big brush, one might get wet paint on oneself as well as the wall one is trying to paint.
An atheist movement that gets rid of gawd but rallies around saints is not worth a glance.
Quote from: jonb on October 12, 2015, 06:54:45 PM
An atheist movement that gets rid of gawd but rallies around saints is not worth a glance.
Without our idolatry, where would we be? Avoiding idolatry by substituting one for another ... is a bit like musical chairs. Don't be the last one to sit down!
Quote from: Baruch on October 12, 2015, 06:57:30 PM
Without our idolatry, where would we be?
I think we would be free.
Thats a hard to get ... freedom. The price is higher than most people are willing to pay, particularly since it is primarily payed in the coin of one's own weaknesses and foibles.
Having been intellectually raised by people like the four horsemen, carl sagan, douglas adams and other science popularizers, intellectuals and writers. I'm truly sad at the way i see atheists act on the internet this days. I have been watching the richard dawkins facebook page that seems to be run by a SJW that keeps publishing articles for everyone to circlejerk in their tribalism of liberals vs conservatives calling people homophobes,racists, sexists without any sort of actual skeptical analysis or refutation. Seems like very few people actually remember what the new atheism movement was about. It was about not taking things at face value but always scrutinizing any claim, even if it was said by another atheist or a scientist.
I found this youtube comment that sums up the degradation of the atheist movement due to it's mixing with political identities and the intellectual laziness of it's members that made it descend into tribalism forgetting that ultimately evidence is king not political affiliation or other characteristics of the speaker. And how they use technology to hide in echochambers rather than debate ideas.
QuoteThe thing we've been learning is that these people aren't atheists in the sense we'd like to know it, aka valuing evidence and reason above all else. These people are anti theists, no different than any religious person who attacks another religion while having no self awareness of their own faiths unsupportable presumptions and irrationality. Its why these new "progressive" leftists/sjw's/feminists are so easily fooled by pseudo science, whether it be thorium cars or solar roadways, science is faith and a badge of social currency, nothing deeper than that. When confronted with arguments they can't rebut, they block, they no platform, they silence. These new "progressives" only wear the skin of atheism and being liberal, they do not care for the values. So while I'm not going to agree with milo on religion as an atheist, he is right about it not being the major issue in western societies anymore. You can bash religion all want(outside islam) on platforms like youtube and suffer no real consequences, but I've watched channel after channel touching on feminism critically being flagged down. In the manosphere its a given that eventually they will be hit with strikes, and youtube has proven that it applies special rules for special people, they are demonetizing videos, demanding they be removed, never getting around to answering questions on the reason for their actions because their system doesn't allow for any recourse or transparency. They are free to be as arbitrary as they wish, and with channels like thinkparadox, redpillphilosophy, tl;dr, becauseiamaboy, themajorofmgtow etc, the track record is becoming clear, they either allow for behavior which creates a chilling effect, or they condone it by rewarding flagging of material which is not offensive by any objective standard, it simply offended feminists. This isn't a danger atheists have to face anymore unless they touch on feminism, like thunderf00t has found out when his twitter was suspended for no good reason as well. Technology doesn't necessarily make people smarter. Gamergate proved xkcd's citogenesis effect,, where bad citation gets repeated in the corrupt and lazy media echo chamber into becoming legitimate wikipedia citations and articles. In gamergate we've seen these regressive leftists promote things like blacklists/blocklists to shield their followers from "harmful opinions". We've seen the very same types push for the removal of comment sections from countless websites and news sites based on the same threat narrative. Tech is enabling more people to create their own little bubbles, enabled by social media companies who find a captive mind the most convenient. The regressive left have common cause with authoritarian tendencies of governments and the desire of corporations to control people to create "safe spaces" by throwing away their privacy and their freedoms. Facebook now demands government ID from accounts they deem too '"fake", soon they will have the excuse that they are doing this just to "protect" people from "danger", government agencies have their own reasons to track people and undermine anonymity, there is always a threat, and the more you can be tracked, the more can be sold to you, the more you can be controlled. Just look at the UN "cyberviolence" report http://pastebin.com/QwwLkFNH they tried to sell just a few weeks ago. This isn't the result of people becoming smarter through technology. It was a demonstration of pervasive intellectually laziness, if not outright dishonesty which is allowed to fester these days, unchallenged in any real way. It took people who have had their name slandered for a year and a "right wing" journalist to help expose such incompetence because no one else would do it, fearing they would be called "misogynists". Just yesterday Forbes pulled an article disagreeing with the notion there is a diversity problem in tech. Its not the right wing silencing discussion anymore, that is for certain.
PS: I don't fully agree with that comment, but it illustrates how the values of scientific thinking are ignored and the label is just used to provide status to the speaker who pretends science is on his side. See people who claim for example that weed is harmless and science proves it! as if that is either true or an argument in and of itself.
Atheism is not a religion, it isn't a gathering of easily manipulated sheeple, it isn't an indoctrination, and it isn't something that can only exist with its own 'church', that itself defeats the purpose of atheism in and of itself, and the only reason people form churches around atheism was because they couldn't get the religious mentality out of their heads.
We don't need shit like that, all atheism has ever been is an awareness of facts about religion, and the view of what all religions are. If you can find like minded people, thats good, but it doesn't have to be the basis of what it represents. I'm an atheist not because I want to look for atheistic meetings and have preacher tell me what to think, its the same shit I have with my diabeties, when they keep offering me invites to these big ass diabetics UK grand meetings, all I think is why the fuck would I want to go to a large meeting place to be reminded I have a medical condition, I don't need that, I control my own condition without the need of some mass groups people with the same medical problem.
Quote from: Munch on October 12, 2015, 07:06:25 PM
Atheism is not a religion, it isn't a gathering of easily manipulated sheeple, it isn't an indoctrination, and it isn't something that can only exist with its own 'church', that itself defeats the purpose of atheism in and of itself, and the only reason people form churches around atheism was because they couldn't get the religious mentality out of their heads.
We don't need shit like that, all atheism has ever been is an awareness of facts about religion, and the view of what all religions are. If you can find like minded people, thats good, but it doesn't have to be the basis of what it represents. I'm an atheist not because I want to look for atheistic meetings and have preacher tell me what to think, its the same shit I have with my diabeties, when they keep offering me invites to these big ass diabetics UK grand meetings, all I think is why the fuck would I want to go to a large meeting place to be reminded I have a medical condition, I don't need that, I control my own condition without the need of some mass groups people with the same medical problem.
the atheist movement that started in 2006 is not the same as atheism though. It was a movement of young people becoming aware for the first time of skepticism and scientific thinking.
This "movement" ...
QuoteDo I blame Sam Harris? Hell yes. Sam Harris has an aggenda that has nothing to do with atheism (whether he is an atheist is doubtful, the dude beleives in Buddhist woo), he is an Islamphobe in the likes of Ann Coulter and you atheist accepted him and invited him into the dialogoe and people like him have poison it with hate.
[citation required]
Quote from: CrucifyCindy on October 12, 2015, 06:43:41 PM
When Dawkins is making misogynistic statements
[citation required]
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 12, 2015, 07:13:02 PM
This "movement" ...
Well it was a reality or fad but it did happen and I am sorry if you are embarrassed about it but it was an actual "meme"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism)
http://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/ (http://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/)
I have no idea what OP is talking about. How about an example of how Sam Harris is criticizing Islam without any merit?
The New Atheist Movement may or may not be dead though atheism is increasing across both
North America and Europe. And this is undeniably a good thing as it makes for a more secular
society. However being an atheist in and of it self does not make one a better human being or
a better critical thinker or a greater authority on the meaning of life. Or any thing else for that
matter. As it just makes you some one who has no belief in the metaphysical being commonly
known as God. Although it actually applies to all gods not just the God but he be the main one
And that is all an atheist is and so anything else is simply arbitrary as it is not conditional on it
Quote from: Sal1981 on October 12, 2015, 07:25:00 PM
I have no idea what OP is talking about. How about an example of how Sam Harris is criticizing Islam without any merit?
She's on board with the ben affleck, reza aslan, the young turks and glenn greenwald bandwagon that have been slandering Sam harris for almost a year now, due to the "discussion" he had with ben afflect on the bill maher show:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vln9D81eO60
Quote from: surreptitious57 on October 12, 2015, 07:26:30 PM
The New Atheist Movement may or may not be dead though atheism is increasing across both
North America and Europe. And this is undeniably a good thing as it makes for a more secular
society. However being an atheist in and of it self does not make one a better human being or
a better critical thinker or a greater authority on the meaning of life. Or any thing else for that
matter. As it just makes you some one who has no belief in the metaphysical being commonly
known as God. Although it actually applies to all gods not just the God but he be the main one
And that is all an atheist is and so anything else is simply arbitrary as it is not conditional on it
I don't know were you get your stats from but actually in the West secularism is increasing not atheism, it is organized religion that is decreasing and alternative or personal spirituality is on the rise. Atheism is largely staying at the same rate of growth while in the rest of the world fanaticism is rising! Why? Economics. Plain and simple. These is no money in atheism. How do I know this? My mom was a marketer, my dad is a marketer and I am a marketer...alternative spirituality as market value while atheism doesn't so alternative spirituality will grow while atheism doesn't
Quote from: CrucifyCindy on October 12, 2015, 07:18:07 PM
Well it was a reality or fad but it did happen and I am sorry if you are embarrassed about it but it was an actual "meme"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism)
http://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/ (http://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/)
From a two word post you decide I'm "embarrassed"? I didn't have to count the words in your post to determine you're an idiot.
Crucifycindy so are you going to substantiate your claims? hopefully they are not based on cheap slander by quote mining like what Sam harris got previously. http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/on-the-mechanics-of-defamation
No money in atheism? Says who? There's money in just about anything. Just because not many people have figured out the angle to making money from it doesn't mean it's not there. Who would have thought there was untold wealth in selling the notion of an invisible, silent eye in the sky? I would never give a plug nickel for it,but plenty of stupid people do.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on October 12, 2015, 08:30:38 PM
No money in atheism? Says who? There's money in just about anything. Just because not many people have figured out the angle to making money from it doesn't mean it's not there. Who would have thought there was untold wealth in selling the notion of an invisible, silent eye in the sky? I would never give a plug nickel for it,but plenty of stupid people do.
Well there is a small market and it isn't big but shrinking when it comes to New Atheism
I can't agree, but then again, no atheist I know has read Hitchens or Dawkins books. We don't need to. We don't need validation. There is a possibility you put far more influence on them than they actually have. I, like many atheists, don't give a shit what other people think, thats kinda why we are atheists. We don't follow the smell of the crowd.
Quote from: aitm on October 12, 2015, 09:04:44 PM
I can't agree, but then again, no atheist I know has read Hitchens or Dawkins books. We don't need to. We don't need validation. There is a possibility you put far more influence on them than they actually have. I, like many atheists, don't give a shit what other people think, thats kinda why we are atheists. We don't follow the smell of the crowd.
I agree with this though i recognize the value on other's opinions, since my insights can be pretty basic and pale in comparison with experts in their particular fields. But i do not agree with them because they call themselves experts but rather because they make sense and evidence their claims. I was an atheist before reading Carl sagan or Dawkins but i learned from them quite a bit about a bunch of different topics like epistemology, evolution , astronomy, skepticism, science. I was also quite young when their books became popular so it was coincidence too that i learned from them, this happened to many young people too which is what i refer to as the new atheist movement.
I did not even know the movement was in existence. So, if it passed, I was not aware of that either. I guess ignorance can be bliss................or something.
Quote from: mauricio on October 12, 2015, 09:18:57 PM
which is what i refer to as the new atheist movement.
well fair enough. I do not belong to a "new" movement.
"New atheist movement"?
Is this just an invented label or what? I'm pretty sure none of those guys you mentioned are claiming they are part of whatever that is supposed to be.
QuoteDo I blame Sam Harris? Hell yes. Sam Harris has an agenda that has nothing to do with atheism (whether he is an atheist is doubtful, the dude beleives in Buddhist woo), he is an Islamphobe in the likes of Ann Coulter and you atheist accepted him and invited him into the dialogoe and people like him have poison it with hate.
I dont take his detractors like Cenk Uygur and Reza Aslan seriously, since they misrepresent, misconstrue and quote mine until people look like Josef Stalin:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GSobo5sk4s
Here's one part that stuck to me:
MAYER:
Wait, let's get down to who has the right answer here. A billion people, you say. All these billion people don't hold these pernicious beliefs? UYGUR: (Utterly twisting his words)
Bingo, right there. That’s the biggest problem in this whole thing. Bill Maher saying, no, over a billion Muslims. All of them. Not a small minority, not even a significant minority, no, he said that’s just not true, all of them hold those opinions.As you can see, that's not what Mayer was saying at all. He is not saying all Muslims hold those beliefs, he is suggesting that not all of them do not.
Unless you are keeping tabs and paying close attention to both sides of the argument, you're in danger of getting duped I'm afraid.
What Sam Harris really wants is reform and secularism in the Muslim world, and its tough to see how this is not eventually going to be necessary anyways.
What baffles me about Aslan is that if anything he is making things worse.
He is trying to shut down the discussion, and in doing so trying to make people forget about the kinds of things we should never tolerate in the Muslim world like female genital mutilation, or the mistreatment of women, homosexuals, and apostates.
Aslan consistently tries to convince people these are not real problems, and people like Harris who suggest otherwise are routinely defamed. Its completely outrageous.
I was not aware that any potential increase in atheism had to be determined
by market values. For I did not know that a philosophical position on the non
existence of God is something that the market was actually interested in now
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 12, 2015, 09:47:09 PM
I did not even know the movement was in existence. So, if it passed, I was not aware of that either. I guess ignorance can be bliss................or something.
Chomsky once made a passing reference to the movement (he spanked Sam Harris right on the arse) then he dismissed it. I should share all references to Chomsky vs New Atheist because it is really fun but i am afraid some will revert to the Chomsky is a cheating asshole in debates argument
Quote from: Cocoa Beware on October 12, 2015, 10:04:13 PM
What baffles me about Aslan is that if anything he is making things worse.
He is trying to shut down the discussion, and in doing so trying to make people forget about the kinds of things we should never tolerate in the Muslim world like female genital mutilation, or the mistreatment of women, homosexuals, and apostates.
Aslan consistently tries to convince people these are not real problems, and people like Harris who suggest otherwise are routinely defamed. Its completely outrageous.
exactly, reza aslan is not helping islam, people like Maajid Nawaz are the ones doing it.
https://youtu.be/1CYuwBcPObQ?t=2m30s
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on October 12, 2015, 08:30:38 PM
No money in atheism? Says who? There's money in just about anything. Just because not many people have figured out the angle to making money from it doesn't mean it's not there. Who would have thought there was untold wealth in selling the notion of an invisible, silent eye in the sky? I would never give a plug nickel for it,but plenty of stupid people do.
A big flaming eye it is ... whose minions need a total rehab.
Quote from: CrucifyCindy on October 12, 2015, 10:07:39 PM
Chomsky once made a passing reference to the movement (he spanked Sam Harris right on the arse) then he dismissed it. I should share all references to Chomsky vs New Atheist because it is really fun but i am afraid some will revert to the Chomsky is a cheating asshole in debates argument
since you do not source, here is the source so people can make up their minds about it.
The discussion:
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-limits-of-discourse
Sam thoughts about it:
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/final-thoughts-on-chomsky
Quote from: surreptitious57 on October 12, 2015, 10:07:17 PM
I was not aware that any potential increase in atheism had to be determined
by market values. For I did not know that a philosophical position on the non
existence of God is something that the market was actually interested in now
Enterpreneurship ... selling non-existent derivatives denominated in fake money on a non-existent G-d is a natural play to the audience!
Quote from: CrucifyCindy on October 12, 2015, 07:38:02 PM
I don't know were you get your stats from but actually in the West secularism is increasing not atheism, it is organized religion that is decreasing and alternative or personal spirituality is on the rise. Atheism is largely staying at the same rate of growth while in the rest of the world fanaticism is rising! Why? Economics. Plain and simple. These is no money in atheism. How do I know this? My mom was a marketer, my dad is a marketer and I am a marketer...alternative spirituality as market value while atheism doesn't so alternative spirituality will grow while atheism doesn't
First of all, it's not so much a movement as it is an awakening/enlightening. What is dieing are your outdated deities. Thousands have already died - yours and others are dieing a slow death now. Atheism won't die until your god chooses to reveal him/herself. Oh, and revealing him/herself only to you - that won't account for much.
Are you only here to shit on atheism? You're obnoxious!
And nothing of real value was lost...
Hitchens was the glue that held the New Atheist movement together. But sadly, he's gone. Then came the Great Schism between the purist atheists, who want atheism to be about atheism, and Atheism+, who wanted to intermix social justice causes (which though noble causes per se, are championed by some insufferably self-righteous pricks) with atheism (which by its nature is doesn't address social justice issues besides the religious based ones). We saw Dawkins fall on one side of the schism and PZ Meyes on the other. It didn't help that Dawkins has made a series of gaffes since then. And Atheism+ seems to have died a quiet death due to its intrinsic flaws.
Staying above the fray of the Great Schism, however, are a new generation of atheist activists, such as the Unholy Trinity: Seth Andrews, Aron Ra and Matt Dillahunty. The New Atheists broke new ground that hadn't been tread by the previous wave of prominent atheists (Carl Sagan, Stephen Jay Gould, etc.) and paved the way for a new generation of atheist activism.
Quote from: hrdlr110 on October 12, 2015, 11:25:39 PM
First of all, it's not so much a movement as it is an awakening/enlightening. What is dieing are your outdated deities. Thousands have already died - yours and others are dieing a slow death now. Atheism won't die until your god chooses to reveal him/herself. Oh, and revealing him/herself only to you - that won't account for much.
Are you only here to shit on atheism? You're obnoxious!
her god is not a deity rather the almighty ideology of SocJus lol
(https://androlphegax.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/byxkcmeceaiz3cf.jpg?w=640)
Quote from: Atheon on October 13, 2015, 12:29:19 AM
Hitchens was the glue that held the New Atheist movement together. But sadly, he's gone. Then came the Great Schism between the purist atheists, who want atheism to be about atheism, and Atheism+, who wanted to intermix social justice causes (which though noble causes per se, are championed by some insufferably self-righteous pricks) with atheism (which by its nature is doesn't address social justice issues besides the religious based ones). We saw Dawkins fall on one side of the schism and PZ Meyes on the other. It didn't help that Dawkins has made a series of gaffes since then. And Atheism+ seems to have died a quiet death due to its intrinsic flaws.
Staying above the fray of the Great Schism, however, are a new generation of atheist activists, such as the Unholy Trinity: Seth Andrews, Aron Ra and Matt Dillahunty. The New Atheists broke new ground that hadn't been tread by the previous wave of prominent atheists (Carl Sagan, Stephen Jay Gould, etc.) and paved the way for a new generation of atheist activism.
Matt dillahunty supported atheism plus until he realized they were a bunch of censorious close minded people, when he made an anonymous account and tried to disagree with the admins and got banned and shit on. Aron Ra is on the camp of '' if you are not a feminist you do not care about woman'' though i have not heard him expand on this topic it may be purely a semantic argument rather than an intolerant attitude. If you got any material of him addresing the topic please link.
I agree with Sam Harris that Islam is a pile of shit, and a Muslim country is one of the last places I would want to live. I also agree with him about Islamophobia. I don't like the term Islamophobia either and I never use it, and think it's completely fine to criticize Islam for the garbage it is. Being bigoted against Muslims is not fine, but criticizing Islam is. When it comes to believing in the State religion, I do think Sam Harris believes in the State religion. Our culture is superior, so what our terrorists do to them is ok. Why is it ok? Because we are us, and they are them.
Harris basically just defends the US with lots of fear porn. What about what the US does to the Muslims overseas in our wars? He'll respond by saying that Muslims want to blow up American cities. What about Israel killing so many Muslims? Well, if the Muslims could, they would wipe out every last Jew. This is just a whole lot of fear porn and he brings up unrealistic 'what ifs' to deflect blame away from the US and Israel.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on October 13, 2015, 01:07:32 AM
I agree with Sam Harris that Islam is a pile of shit, and a Muslim country is one of the last places I would want to live. I also agree with him about Islamophobia. I don't like the term Islamophobia either and I never use it, and think it's completely fine to criticize Islam for the garbage it is. Being bigoted against Muslims is not fine, but criticizing Islam is. When it comes to believing in the State religion, I do think Sam Harris believes in the State religion. Our culture is superior, so what our terrorists do to them is ok. Why is it ok? Because we are us, and they are them.
Harris basically just defends the US with lots of fear porn. What about what the US does to the Muslims overseas in our wars? He'll respond by saying that Muslims want to blow up American cities. What about Israel killing so many Muslims? Well, if the Muslims could, they would wipe out every last Jew. This is just a whole lot of fear porn and he brings up unrealistic 'what ifs' to deflect blame away from the US and Israel.
I don't think you are characterizing his position accurately. He does not defend the US or Israel on their fuck ups, when they kill civilians or destabilize nations and allow muslim extremist to gain power. He just does not like that people equalize all ideologies and disregard the effect of the different ideologies on their respective populations. And likes to analyze things in an ideal way removed from the complicated practical details of the situation and slowly dive into them as they come up in the discussion. If anything he comes out as naive and idealistic by seemingly taking all people at their word as if that reflect their true intention, which is a useless thing in real life where people tend to piss on you and tell you it is raining. Check this out (or his latest book with maajid nawaz) he makes much more sense on a long discussion specially with maajid nawaz who is a pretty insightful guy on this topic. http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/islam-the-future-of-tolerance
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18PbwYdjsps
Atheism did not start with the "New Atheist" movement, and I hardly think it will end there. For as long as there have been people who believed in the supernatural, there have been those that doubted. We have and will always be here.
Quote from: mauricio on October 13, 2015, 01:21:47 AM
I don't think you are characterizing his position accurately. He does not defend the US or Israel on their fuck ups, when they kill civilians or destabilize nations
He kind of does, the way I see it, by saying that the US doesn't mean it when they fuck up. He doesn't come right out and say that he thinks it doesn't matter that innocents are killed, but he says that they don't mean it when they kill innocent civilians, unlike the Muslims who love killing innocents. It's not anything like what they do when we make the dead bodies stack up, because we didn't mean it. We didn't take joy in killing the innocents. If we had some unrealistic perfect weapons and we knew who was innocent, we would choose to not harm the innocents, so what we do is not nearly as bad as what they do. If the Muslims had the same perfect weapons, they would wipe out every last Jew and American though, so what we in the West do is not nearly the same or nearly as bad as when they do it. Yeah, we destabilized the region, but Harris will tell us that we didn't mean to do it. We didn't know our actions were going to cause the destabilization of the region, so that somehow makes our actions not as bad. We didn't want it to happen, so it's not as bad. He will deflect blame by making sure he points out that the different sects are destroying their own countries. Rather than saying we destroyed their country with our invasion, he will say that the Muslims destroyed their own country, and the US only accidentally helped this along, having nothing but good intentions.
This is again about the generation who was born to the social media and became nonbelievers due to a movement led by a few characters. There are people here -including me- who have been nonbelievers as long as they have known themselves, or became nonbelievers after second grade, but learned that it is called atheism when they reached around 15.
No offense, but the idea that you need to follow a certain movement and leaders and their books to become a nonbeliever is just ridiculous. And that is NOT progress. And this is also the reason why the young generation(s) take everything these men say on social issues; genders, cultures like facts and not just what they say, but ADOPT their attitude too. This is ridiculous and exactly the opposite of free thinking and being sceptical and faaaar away from any enlightment. But also a natural outcome of their position.
When the four horsemen started, they filled a required place in the British-American world (Basically 360 million people) and they served secularism a good measure. Mostly in America as UK is already far more secular. Then it spread. People started to read more in English and as times changed they also got translated in the unlikely corners. And a decade or so after that 'tip over', while they had their audience and their word was solid enough to make a community with a name, the moment they started to preach to people about tghe place of their gender and social place, who they are or not, what should their attitude be against certain cultures and religions good or bad, they started to lose. And they will lose, because people are not some material you put in a beaker and manipulate their reactions by adding certain 'stuff' on, expecting a certain result.
A big amount of people who started their basic enlightment with these men have already passed to another phase. Now, they are about more; their race, gender and how being born with those traits effect their lives AND what they can do about it. Because now, doesn't matter who thinks of what about it, they can RAISE their voice. This is a natural process. They are not scientists or writers with international fame. They are ordinary people. Ugly, fat, thin, non-white, female, transgender, gay, poor, underpaid, underappreciated, unhappy, suppressed, oppressed, angry, frustrated, desperate...etc. People. And now a group of them very well know and think that this is about the system. It's not a fate god put on them. And what's more now it is a time that they can get loud; organised about it.
And those people do not like what Dawkins and Harris is advocating, because they are advocating a certain culture -their own- guess what a culture that has been promoted by the Abrahamic religions in the first place. White mainstream bullshit. And now, when people look at those men, they see that. And starting to reject it, because they recognise that hatred or dismissal, belittling expressed by thıse men from what has been thrown at them. The fact that you are tired of hearing this 'white male bullshit' OR that you believe that there is no such thing doesn't change things a bit.
However, New Athiesm is not dead. Because it appeals to specific culture group. I hope it will die out as soon as possible. Because it is starting to be a fucking cult among young generations and particularly young white men. I wonder what would we find, if we could accurately quantify the amount of Dawkins fans? :lol: I have met white women defining Dawkins as their 'hero', but then that is the problem.
The reason that clowns like Sam Harris -or Bill Maher- gets credit in American society in a certain community, because you don't have one real political OPPOSITION talking sense and if anybody tried to be, NOONE wold listen to him unless he is a comedian or a main male character in a controversial politcial show. Because there is no such thing, but right wing and far right and there isn't any foundation to make a real criticism about domestic or international politics of US. So these men are playing a safe government supporting/supported 'bad cop' role in the media with a certain language. Their place and need is born from this and it is like a job. They are payed very well.
I can let Dawkins get away with based on his stand on Irak war -besides his contribution in general- but Sam Harris? That man is a government-war apologist a fucking liar about death toll of Irak war with an average intelligence who made a fortune by writing books like 'A Letter to A Christian Nation' in 2006 . That clown cannot actually criticise anything, because he cannot say ONE THING REAL against US policies or US government. Not that he would be willing, but because if he does, he would lose his place, his fame.
First I thought how is it that this man is compared to olympians like Chomsky or Baudrillard and his opinion taken seriously as a last word on disgareement with them, but then I realised that this is how America deals with its intellectually backward place against Europe. Because you know, it is pretty much like Stephenie Meyer disgreeing with George Orwell on human narrative and reflection of the real world in fantasy/science fiction. :cheesy:
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on October 12, 2015, 08:30:38 PM
No money in atheism? Says who? There's money in just about anything. Just because not many people have figured out the angle to making money from it doesn't mean it's not there. Who would have thought there was untold wealth in selling the notion of an invisible, silent eye in the sky? I would never give a plug nickel for it,but plenty of stupid people do.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that books like The God Delusion, to only mention one, can be said to be profiting from (New) atheism.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on October 13, 2015, 02:32:46 AM
He kind of does, the way I see it, by saying that the US doesn't mean it when they fuck up. He doesn't come right out and say that he thinks it doesn't matter that innocents are killed, but he says that they don't mean it when they kill innocent civilians, unlike the Muslims who love killing innocents. It's not anything like what they do when we make the dead bodies stack up, because we didn't mean it. We didn't take joy in killing the innocents. If we had some unrealistic perfect weapons and we knew who was innocent, we would choose to not harm the innocents, so what we do is not nearly as bad as what they do. If the Muslims had the same perfect weapons, they would wipe out every last Jew and American though, so what we in the West do is not nearly the same or nearly as bad as when they do it. Yeah, we destabilized the region, but Harris will tell us that we didn't mean to do it. We didn't know our actions were going to cause the destabilization of the region, so that somehow makes our actions not as bad. We didn't want it to happen, so it's not as bad. He will deflect blame by making sure he points out that the different sects are destroying their own countries. Rather than saying we destroyed their country with our invasion, he will say that the Muslims destroyed their own country, and the US only accidentally helped this along, having nothing but good intentions.
He mainly speaks about the ideologies not about the people and he assumes the people who professes the ideology is not lying. In that sense jihadist muslims like ISIS or Al Qaeda is in no way morally equivalent to american world police freedom exporting bullshit that's his point and it is true , but since we know (thanks to wikileaks) that many american politicians are dirty fucking liars specially when it comes to war and foreign policy it sounds like hes supporting neocons (which he has explicitly condemned), but that's because hes not talking about that hes analyzing the different ideologies removed from the specifics of their practice. Yes the rhetoric of American world police has been used to support terrible acts his point is not to excuse this actions but point out that this rhetoric is not morally equivalent to the jihadist one, as a counterargument to the simplification of "America is just as evil as the Jihadist" He does not deny the fact that USA destabilized the middle east , rather he is refuting people who ignore the dangers of the Jihadist ideology by putting all the blame on American foreign policy, he does recognize this is a multi-factor issue.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 13, 2015, 03:01:52 AM
the moment they started to preach to people about tghe place of their gender and social place, who they are or not, what should their attitude be against certain cultures and religions good or bad, they started to lose.
What do you specifically mean by this, what is this preaching about their gender, social place and attitudes towards cultures and religions. With quotes please not something vague.
QuoteAnd those people do not like what Dawkins and Harris is advocating, because they are advocating a certain culture -their own- guess what a culture that has been promoted by the Abrahamic religions in the first place. White mainstream bullshit. And now, when people look at those men, they see that. And starting to reject it, because they recognise that hatred or dismissal, belittling expressed by thıse men from what has been thrown at them. The fact that you are tired of hearing this 'white male bullshit' OR that you believe that there is no such thing doesn't change things a bit.
Again what does "white mainstream bullshit'' even means? what are you talking about? With citations please so we can get right down to the specifics and not vague notions.
Quotebut Sam Harris? That man is a government-war apologist a fucking liar about death toll of Irak war with an average intelligence who made a fortune by writing books like 'A Letter to A Christian Nation' in 2006 . That clown cannot actually criticise anything, because he cannot say ONE THING REAL against US policies or US government. Not that he would be willing, but because if he does, he would lose his place, his fame.
QuoteBefore pointing out just how wayward Chomsky’s thinking is on this subject, I would like to concede many of his points, since they have the virtue of being both generally important and irrelevant to the matter at hand. There is no doubt that the United States has much to atone for, both domestically and abroad. In this respect, we can more or less swallow Chomsky’s thesis whole. To produce this horrible confection at home, start with our genocidal treatment of the Native Americans, add a couple hundred years of slavery, along with our denial of entry to Jewish refugees fleeing the death camps of the Third Reich, stir in our collusion with a long list of modern despots and our subsequent disregard for their appalling human rights records, add our bombing of Cambodia and the Pentagon Papers to taste, and then top with our recent refusals to sign the Kyoto protocol for greenhouse emissions, to support any ban on land mines, and to submit ourselves to the rulings of the International Criminal Court. The result should smell of death, hypocrisy, and fresh brimstone.
We have surely done some terrible things in the past. Undoubtedly, we are poised to do terrible things in the future. Nothing I have written in this book should be construed as a denial of these facts, or as defense of state practices that are manifestly abhorrent. There may be much that Western powers, and the United States in particular, should pay reparations for. And our failure to acknowledge our misdeeds over the years has undermined our credibility in the international community. We can concede all of this, and even share Chomsky’s acute sense of outrage, while recognizing that his analysis of our current situation in the world is a masterpiece of moral blindness. - Sam Harris (2004)
You are simply wrong.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on October 13, 2015, 02:32:46 AM
He kind of does, the way I see it, by saying that the US doesn't mean it when they fuck up. He doesn't come right out and say that he thinks it doesn't matter that innocents are killed, but he says that they don't mean it when they kill innocent civilians, unlike the Muslims who love killing innocents. It's not anything like what they do when we make the dead bodies stack up, because we didn't mean it. We didn't take joy in killing the innocents. If we had some unrealistic perfect weapons and we knew who was innocent, we would choose to not harm the innocents, so what we do is not nearly as bad as what they do. If the Muslims had the same perfect weapons, they would wipe out every last Jew and American though, so what we in the West do is not nearly the same or nearly as bad as when they do it. Yeah, we destabilized the region, but Harris will tell us that we didn't mean to do it. We didn't know our actions were going to cause the destabilization of the region, so that somehow makes our actions not as bad. We didn't want it to happen, so it's not as bad. He will deflect blame by making sure he points out that the different sects are destroying their own countries. Rather than saying we destroyed their country with our invasion, he will say that the Muslims destroyed their own country, and the US only accidentally helped this along, having nothing but good intentions.
What fucking bullshit. "Loving to kill innocents." Pfft. And you are ciriticisng Harris. ı don't know which one is more bullshit.
Quote from: mauricio on October 13, 2015, 12:36:17 AMAron Ra is on the camp of '' if you are not a feminist you do not care about woman'' though i have not heard him expand on this topic it may be purely a semantic argument rather than an intolerant attitude.
I think he means feminism in its general sense as "accepting that women are people too" or "believing that men and women should enjoy equal rights". That's what I mean when I call myself a feminist. In other words, he would mean "if you think women are inferior to men, then you don't care about women." I would call this a position of anti-intolerance.
Unfortunately, the word "feminism" has been poisoned by the intolerant antics of many on the extreme end of the feminist spectrum, as well as people like Thunderf00t, The Amazing Atheist, and Sargon of Akkad, who like to tar with a broad brush: the people they refer simply to as "feminists" are those I would refer to as the lunatic fringe of feminism.
I was never anything but an atheist, never even flirted with Buddhism. We don't need a "movement" to be atheists, we just need a fully functional brain.
Quote from: CrucifyCindy on October 12, 2015, 06:43:41 PM
The New Atheist Movement is dead and it is not exactly the fault of those who really wanted to give atheism a voice. I do blame Dawkins, he has in the recent past made some very stupid comments about stuff that as nothing to do with atheismand he can be blamed for giving voice to misogynists in the movement. Do I blame Hitchens? Hell no! Even though Hitchen's politics were sliding into Neo-Con territory I do not blame him, in fact I miss him because he was the one voice that would have questioned Dawkins, Harris an d others. He was the ultimate contarian and I do apprieciate him. Do I blame Sam Harris? Hell yes. Sam Harris has an aggenda that has nothing to do with atheism (whether he is an atheist is doubtful, the dude beleives in Buddhist woo), he is an Islamphobe in the likes of Ann Coulter and you atheist accepted him and invited him into the dialogoe and people like him have poison it with hate. This is why the New Atheist movement has died. It lost any moral high ground and has become a movement of fear, hate and bigotry. The very thing it has criticized about religions. When Dawkins is making misogynistic statements and you accept them then you lost the moral high ground against religion, when you accept Sam Harris perpetuate his hatred of Islam without criticizing it then you have lost the moral high ground against religions that preach hate. A movement always loses when that high ground is lost...The New Atheist movement lost it.
What the hell are you talking about?!!!
BTW, the "new atheist movement" was invented by the Christian Right who feared that Atheists coming out of the closet would be a force to reckon with. FLASH NEWS: regardless that the "new atheist movement" is dead, it won't send the atheists back to the closet.
Quote from: Atheon on October 13, 2015, 06:30:04 AM
Unfortunately, the word "feminism" has been poisoned by the intolerant antics of many on the extreme end of the feminist spectrum, as well as people like Thunderf00t, The Amazing Atheist, and Sargon of Akkad, who like to tar with a broad brush: the people they refer simply to as "feminists" are those I would refer to as the lunatic fringe of feminism.
Thunderf00t simply uses the word feminist for the word misandrist. And frankly, he is perfectly aware what he is doing. Then talk about feminists being 'toxic'.
Oh shit, "The New Atheist Movement is Dead" thread has devolved into "Who is a true feminist" thread.
I read at least one book by each of the criticized atheists in the OP. Really, I didn't find much new. It was mostly stuff I had thought through, years ago. Except for Hitchens, who did include quite a bit of factual information about religions that I simply didn't know. When I first heard the term"the new atheism", I figured it was coined as a description of the vocal celebrities that were rather suddenly appearing on the scene, and perhaps because a few rather isolated atheist groups were taking the government to task over violating separation of church and state and religious freedom. I thought new atheism was a silly term. After all, there wasn't anything new in the comments. The only thing new was that someone was bothering commenting at all, and theists were in a stir about it.
How about a "New Theist" movement, which I see going on now; Politicians, religious groups, and people like Kim Davis are clarifying to the rest of the world that they believe religious freedom is the right of Christianity to force its will on everyone else. It's just the public debate and the courts are forcing Christians to admit to the ugly motives which they were never forced to own before. But the motives are not new either.
Something being marketable to the masses for personal gain shouldn't be the basis of it spreading.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 13, 2015, 12:15:38 PM
Something being marketable to the masses for personal gain shouldn't be the basis of it spreading.
try convincing Benny Hinn, Joel Olsteen, The Grahamsand a hundred other snake oil salesman around today.
Quote from: aitm on October 13, 2015, 12:21:34 PM
try convincing Benny Hinn, Joel Olsteen, The Grahamsand a hundred other snake oil salesman around today.
They get their reward today. They will get their payment tomorrow.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 13, 2015, 12:28:22 PM
They get their reward today. They will get their payment tomorrow.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Nicely summing up the uselessness of your god or gods.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 13, 2015, 08:47:30 AM
BTW, the "new atheist movement" was invented by the Christian Right who feared that Atheists coming out of the closet would be a force to reckon with. FLASH NEWS: regardless that the "new atheist movement" is dead, it won't send the atheists back to the closet.
This is why I said "This movement..." It's not an atheist movement, it's a GOOD CHRISTIANâ,,¢ movement to try to stifle free speech.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 13, 2015, 12:52:44 PM
Nicely summing up the uselessness of your god or gods.
How so. This life is just a small piece of the whole. They will be weighed against their selfish acts just like the rest of us.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 13, 2015, 12:54:49 PM
How so. This life is just a small piece of the whole. They will be weighed against their selfish acts just like the rest of us.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
And people see them getting away with that bullshit while alive and realize that there's nothing to stop them from doing so themselves. This is why idiots like Fat Pat Robertson keep claiming ex post facto that some natural disaster is "God's punishment".
Now, I know you're a drooling idiot when it comes to your god or gods, but other people will read this, that being the only reason I replied at all.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 13, 2015, 12:58:02 PM
And people see them getting away with that bullshit while alive and realize that there's nothing to stop them from doing so themselves. This is why idiots like Fat Pat Robertson keep claiming ex post facto that some natural disaster is "God's punishment".
Now, I know you're a drooling idiot when it comes to your god or gods, but other people will read this, that being the only reason I replied at all.
They too will realize their error in due time. Didn't realize my previous statement was need for negativity,but okay. Your glairing assumptions and generalizations are not helping your cause at all. How is it that I am an idiot? Please explain. As you obviously know, I am slow.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Don't worry about justifying any reply. It is irelevent.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 13, 2015, 12:54:49 PM
They will be weighed against their selfish acts just like the rest of us.
... said Mister Know-it-all. Your self-righteousness is overflowing. I suggest you put a lid on.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 13, 2015, 12:54:49 PM
How so. This life is just a small piece of the whole. They will be weighed against their selfish acts just like the rest of us.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
As I said--batshit crazy!!
That is how I take most idealism. Our poster is spiritually idealistic, even if you agree with spiritualism. While I can sympathize, the idealism is so disconnected from empirical reality ... that I can't take it as more than delusion. An incremental and modest ideal rooted in empirical reality ... might bear fruit.
Quote from: Atheon on October 13, 2015, 06:30:04 AM
Unfortunately, the word "feminism" has been poisoned by the intolerant antics of many on the extreme end of the feminist spectrum, as well as people like Thunderf00t, The Amazing Atheist, and Sargon of Akkad, who like to tar with a broad brush: the people they refer simply to as "feminists" are those I would refer to as the lunatic fringe of feminism.
Thunderf00t and company do not tar with a broad brush anyone that has seen their content know hes talking about a specific group of feminists. They just don't play the not a true scotman game and do actually refer to them as feminists because that's how they call themselves and each other. They also use terms like SJW or tumblr feminist to distinguish this specific feminists and "progressives".
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 13, 2015, 09:26:16 AM
Oh shit, "The New Atheist Movement is Dead" thread has devolved into "Who is a true feminist" thread.
If you wrote this post clearly you have no idea what is going on in this thread or the OP is about.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 13, 2015, 09:11:33 AM
Thunderf00t simply uses the word feminist for the word misandrist. And frankly, he is perfectly aware what he is doing. Then talk about feminists being 'toxic'.
nah he uses the word feminist to refer to feminists that say stupid shit about feminism.
Quote from: mauricio on October 13, 2015, 02:22:41 PM
nah he uses the word feminist to refer to feminists that say stupid shit about feminism.
People have eyes and ears and they can see and hear; understand what they watch. So you don't worry.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 13, 2015, 02:25:31 PM
People have eyes and ears and they can see and hear; understand what they watch. So you don't worry.
exactly so they can see you are full of shit when you say they are just misandrists since most of what thunderf00t argues against are just bad arguments about feminist ideas like rape culture, objectification and the patriarchy; not misandry. They can also see how you completely fucked up on your mischaracterization of Sam harris in the previous pages and just ran away when I showed it to be patently false with his own words.
Seems like you have a tendency to mischaracterize people to use them as examples on your rants against western/white/patriarchal (whatever BS name you use to lump together a bunch of shit) culture, would be nice if you actually took the time to hear what this people actually have to say so you can do a valid refutation, rather than make infantile caricatures.
Quote from: mauricio on October 13, 2015, 02:32:42 PM
exactly so they can see you are full of shit when you say they are just misandrists since most of what thunderf00t argues against are just bad arguments about feminist ideas like rape culture, objectification and the patriarchy; not misandry. They can also see how you completely fucked up on your mischaracterization of Sam harris in the previous pages and just ran away when I showed it to be patently false with his own words.
ThunderfOOt did NOT attack Rebeccas Watson as 'look at this misandrist and how he addresses man'. He DOES NOT make videos titled 'Misandrists poison everything' OR Misandry Poisons Feminism'
He makes videos titled 'Why Feminism Poisons Everything'. So shut the fuck up and own up to his bullshit. E: Oh and "IF men acted like Feminists"... another good example of a title.
Your take on Sam Harris is something expected from the typical citizen of the great banana republic aka USA. You are uncapable of thinking out of that vision and you are showing it in your every reaction. Like I said social media intellectual. There is difference between running away and not taking someone seriously to write more than a few lines. You need get that.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 13, 2015, 02:46:11 PM
ThunderfOOt did NOT attack Rebeccas Watson as 'look at this misandrist and how he addresses man'. He DOES NOT make videos titled 'Misandrists poisons everything' OR Misandry Poisons Feminism'
He makes videos titled 'Why Feminism Poisons Everything'. So shut the fuck up and own up to his bullshit.
Your take on Sam Harris is something expected from the typical citizen of the great banana republic aka USA. You are uncapable of thinking out of that vision and you are showing it in your every reaction. Like I said social media intellectual. There is difference between running away and not taking someone seriously to write more than a few lines. You need get that.
See nothing but caricatures. I'm not american and i do not care about american political propaganda just about debating the factual inaccuracies you made. You were simply factually wrong on your assessment of Sam Harris position but you are coward and always deflect and act like you are above it all when I make the hard questions or outright prove you to be wrong like in this case.
Quotebut Sam Harris? That man is a government-war apologist a fucking liar about death toll of Irak war with an average intelligence who made a fortune by writing books like 'A Letter to A Christian Nation' in 2006 . That clown cannot actually criticise anything, because he cannot say ONE THING REAL against US policies or US government. Not that he would be willing, but because if he does, he would lose his place, his fame.
QuoteBefore pointing out just how wayward Chomsky’s thinking is on this subject, I would like to concede many of his points, since they have the virtue of being both generally important and irrelevant to the matter at hand. There is no doubt that the United States has much to atone for, both domestically and abroad. In this respect, we can more or less swallow Chomsky’s thesis whole. To produce this horrible confection at home, start with our genocidal treatment of the Native Americans, add a couple hundred years of slavery, along with our denial of entry to Jewish refugees fleeing the death camps of the Third Reich, stir in our collusion with a long list of modern despots and our subsequent disregard for their appalling human rights records, add our bombing of Cambodia and the Pentagon Papers to taste, and then top with our recent refusals to sign the Kyoto protocol for greenhouse emissions, to support any ban on land mines, and to submit ourselves to the rulings of the International Criminal Court. The result should smell of death, hypocrisy, and fresh brimstone.
We have surely done some terrible things in the past. Undoubtedly, we are poised to do terrible things in the future. Nothing I have written in this book should be construed as a denial of these facts, or as defense of state practices that are manifestly abhorrent. There may be much that Western powers, and the United States in particular, should pay reparations for. And our failure to acknowledge our misdeeds over the years has undermined our credibility in the international community. We can concede all of this, and even share Chomsky’s acute sense of outrage, while recognizing that his analysis of our current situation in the world is a masterpiece of moral blindness. - Sam Harris (2004)
You are simply wrong.
Writing "You are simply wrong!" again with the same post your wrote before, quoting a paragrah a fucking war apologist wrote about Chomsky trying to prove Harris' worth is an infantile caricature. Stephenie Meyer level caricature. Like claiming Thunderf00t is NOT using the word feminism equal to misandry. You are an infantile caricature yourself with all your frustrated, exasperated reactions to the bullshit going on in social media.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 13, 2015, 09:26:16 AM
Oh shit, "The New Atheist Movement is Dead" thread has devolved into "Who is a true feminist" thread.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 13, 2015, 02:19:38 PM
If you wrote this post clearly you have no idea what is going on in this thread or the OP is about.
The facts show that this thread has devolved into another "Who is a true feminist" thread. Oh wait, let me rephrase this:
The facts show that this thread has devolved into another "Who is a true feminist"
thread shit.
Here's another fact: you can't let go of this issue, and you try in every which way to turn any thread into a fucking shithole of "Who is a true feminist" .
Pathetic.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 13, 2015, 03:09:54 PM
The facts show that this thread has devolved into another "Who is a true feminist" thread. Oh wait, let me rephrase this:
The facts show that this thread has devolved into another "Who is a true feminist" thread shit.
Here's another fact: you can't let go of this issue, and you try in every which way to turn any thread into a fucking shithole of "Who is a true feminist" .
Pathetic.
So no mention of your height?
And I know you are not interested, but this sbject is closely related with how a certain group -cough cough- looks at feminism.
Besides, he started it! :PP
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 13, 2015, 03:06:47 PM
[...]trying to prove Harris' worth[...]
No, I'm not doing that, I'm just proving you wrong about the specific points you made that i quoted, but of course you would never concede. You have too much pride to simply say: "ok I was not entirely accurate when i wrote that, but he is still such and such, here are the sources that show this to be truth"
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 13, 2015, 03:13:35 PM
So no mention of your height?
And I know you are not interested, but this sbject is closely related with how a certain group -cough cough- looks at feminism.
Besides, he started it! :PP
And you were more than glad to jump in. You're not doing any favor to your pet peeve by bringing it up all the times. Give it a fucking rest. We know your position, we also know the position of those who disagree with you. How many more threads do you need to rehash the same fucking bullshit?
Quote from: mauricio on October 13, 2015, 03:15:12 PM
No, I'm not doing that, I'm just proving you wrong about the specifics points you made that i quoted, but of course you would never concede. You have to much pride to simply say: "ok I was not entirely accurate when i wrote that, but he is still such and such, here are the sources that show this to be truth"
Pride pffffft. My ass that is. I talk about anything here. I don't pick battles. I'm not your opponent. I am not here to 'win' and look cool to anyone. When I change my mind I say 'oh ok', when I am wrong I say 'my mistake'. You STARTED this with your attitude and bullshit at the beginning and this is what you are going to get from me. You are not here to talk about Sam Harris or libertarians or feminism or whatever. Go deal with what is upsetting you. Or share, let's talk about together. Whatever it is, this is NOT it. Girlfriend, family, health, work? What is it? Yes I am mind reading again.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 13, 2015, 03:18:34 PM
And you were more than glad to jump in. You're not doing any favor to your pet peeve by bringing it up all the times. Give it a fucking rest. We know your position, we also know the position of those who disagree with you. How many more threads do you need to rehash the same fucking bullshit?
I didn't bring up feminism in this thread. It's mentioned in the OP -by the position of the majority supporting new atheism- because -for the 5th time- this subject IS CLOSELY RELATED to feminism. That is also why it is mentioned by other people. And it is my prerogative to decide what to say where and when. You don't have to read my posts and you usually don't, so I don't even know where does this come from. Are you bored? And you are full of shit for your last line.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 13, 2015, 03:24:36 PM
Pride pffffft. My ass that is. I talk about anything here. I don't pick battles. I'm not your opponent. I am not here to 'win' and look cool to anyone. When I change my mind I say 'oh ok', when I am wrong I say 'my mistake'. You STARTED this with your attitude and bullshit at the beginning and this is what you are going to get from me. You are not here to talk about Sam Harris or libertarians or feminism or whatever. Go deal with what is upsetting you. Or share, let's talk about together. Whatever it is, this is NOT it. Girlfriend, family, health, work? What is it? Yes I am mind reading again.
See you lack all intellectual honesty, you can only respond on emotion since you feel antagonized. Even when evidence of your factual inaccuracies is presented to you the only thing left for you is to deflect, to attack the speaker and to pretend you are above it all. You are pathetic.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 13, 2015, 03:31:58 PM
I didn't bring up feminism in this thread. It's mentioned in the OP -by the position of the majority supporting new atheism- because -for the 5th time- this subject IS CLOSELY RELATED to feminism. That is also why it is mentioned by other people. And it is my prerogative to decide what to say where and when. You don't have to read my posts and you usually don't, so I don't even know where does this come from. Are you bored? And you are full of shit for your last line.
Ok, so new atheism is dead because of feminism. Great.
Disregard what I said that New Atheism is a fabrication from the Christian Right. If it's dead, because of feminism, in spite of feminism, without feminism, I couldn't care less. Lets celebrate the dead part. I know, the OP had other things in mind - feminism, Dawkins, blah, blah, blah... more fucking shit.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 13, 2015, 03:41:39 PM
Ok, so new atheism is dead because of feminism. Great.
Disregard what I said that New Atheism is a fabrication from the Christian Right. If it's dead, because of feminism, in spite of feminism, without feminism, I couldn't care less. Lets celebrate the dead part. I know, the OP had other things in mind - feminism, Dawkins, blah, blah, blah... more fucking shit.
I came in here to argue against this notion of "oh noes new atheism is run by heteropatriarchal white old men shitlords like Dick Dawkins and the neocon islamophobe Sam Hariss" I have heard this line of bullshit before and when you take this people to task... well you just can't because they never evidence their serious accusations of bigotry: case in point crucifycindy and drunkenshoe. All accusations and not a single fucking quote or source. If anything new atheism is dead because of that kind of intellectual laziness. That is new atheism as the group of people that became atheist or active in atheist discussions in the 2000's.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 13, 2015, 03:41:39 PM
Ok, so new atheism is dead because of feminism. Great.
That is what the majority believes and reacts to, joseph. It's NOT my idea. Stop biting my head off. I explained in the first post I wrote here.
QuoteDisregard what I said that New Atheism is a fabrication from the Christian Right. If it's dead, because of feminism, in spite of feminism, without feminism, I couldn't care less. Lets celebrate the dead part. I know, the OP had other things in mind - feminism, Dawkins, blah, blah, blah... more fucking shit.
No, I am not disregarding what you said. I haven't seen it. SORRY. I actually agree with that. OP is not wrong and what she says is actually compatibe with yours. Don't get mad at me again, but Christian Right is the epitome of white male supremacy to begin with.
What is wrong or correct or right IS very different than what majority thinks and reacts to what it is and you know that.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 13, 2015, 04:56:54 AM
What fucking bullshit. "Loving to kill innocents." Pfft. And you are ciriticisng Harris. ı don't know which one is more bullshit.
That was not me giving my own opinion. I was just characterizing Sam's argument.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 13, 2015, 03:53:41 PM
That is what the majority believes and reacts to, joseph. It's NOT my idea. Stop biting my head off. I explained in the first post I wrote here.
That's not precise the atheist/skeptics SJW's ideas and feminism is nothing more than a symptom of the decay due to in and out group biases, intellectual laziness, forgetting about it's core values and the infection that is identity politics.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on October 13, 2015, 03:55:23 PM
That was not me giving my own opinion. I was just characterizing Sam's argument.
My mistake then. Sorry.
I also just want to think that he is after his fame and money more than being a fanatic of that sort spewing poison around...
Whether or not the New Atheist "movement" is dead has no bearing on the fact that there is still no God. I don't think it is dead, but that's just my opinion.
Quote from: Unbeliever on October 13, 2015, 05:14:09 PM
Whether or not the New Atheist "movement" is dead has no bearing on the fact that there is still no God. I don't think it is dead, but that's just my opinion.
Yeah it is not dead it is just fractured due to politics.
Divide and conquer ... bwahaha!
Quote from: mauricio on October 13, 2015, 02:12:17 PM
Thunderf00t and company do not tar with a broad brush anyone that has seen their content know hes talking about a specific group of feminists. They just don't play the not a true scotman game and do actually refer to them as feminists because that's how they call themselves and each other. They also use terms like SJW or tumblr feminist to distinguish this specific feminists and "progressives".
to expand on this:
If I call creationists christians it does not mean i think all christians are creationists, thought I understand how people can think so if i just say "the christian believe that the earth is 6000 years old is wrong". But I would rather have the listener stick to the specifics of my statements than me having to make the disclaimer of "not all feminists..." ''Not all christians..." every single time i want to speak about it. The problem is that there was no specific term to refer to this kind of feminist, now the term SJW has emerged but it's meaning is vague.
Quote from: Baruch on October 13, 2015, 05:29:48 PM
Divide and conquer ... bwahaha!
Thing is, we were never united. No need to do so, we have that one thing in common, and that's not a good basis for cohesion.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 13, 2015, 12:15:38 PM
Something being marketable to the masses for personal gain shouldn't be the basis of it spreading.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
If you can't sell it to people then it doesn't spread. It needs to have something that apeals to people, it has to offer them something like laundry detregent does. Tide makes your clothes whiter than snow = Jesus washes all your sins away. Christianity wouldn't have spread if it didn't offer people anything. This is why atheism is a hard sell because it offers people very little when religion offes people the sky. And atheism is just not sexy like religion is.
Quote from: CrucifyCindy on October 13, 2015, 07:42:57 PM
If you can't sell it to people then it doesn't spread. It needs to have something that apeals to people, it has to offer them something like laundry detregent does. Tide makes your clothes whiter than snow = Jesus washes all your sins away. Christianity wouldn't have spread if it didn't offer people anything. This is why atheism is a hard sell because it offers people very little when religion offes people the sky. And atheism is just not sexy like religion is.
marketing atheism is pointless anyway. We should market things like: free speech, skepticism, science, secularism and human rights. Those do have great benefits.
Quote from: CrucifyCindy on October 13, 2015, 07:42:57 PM
If you can't sell it to people then it doesn't spread. It needs to have something that apeals to people, it has to offer them something like laundry detregent does. Tide makes your clothes whiter than snow = Jesus washes all your sins away. Christianity wouldn't have spread if it didn't offer people anything. This is why atheism is a hard sell because it offers people very little when religion offes people the sky. And atheism is just not sexy like religion is.
But that's the problem. Adherents are promised the moon and the payout is always tomorrow. The religious authority then demands quite a lot in return - time, money, that adherents toe the ideological line of the religion in question and spread it to as many people as possible (for their own good, of course). Needless to say, that's a horrible way of doing things. The search for truth, of course, is not carried out on the basis of what is most pleasing for the searcher. Also, empty promises are worthless. And additionally, insult the intelligence of the recipient.
Atheism, in contrast, neither offers nor expects anything. There are no dogmas to adhere oneself to, no priesthood to obey, and no tithes to be paid. Atheists can, for example, embrace new scientific discoveries without fear that it may contradict a creation myth, make moral decisions without first checking to see if the priesthood approves, and simply enjoy a restful Sunday morning doing whatever it is they want to do. And finally, there is something to be said about living free, simply and honestly, without the pretension and arrogance of claiming divine knowledge of the nature of the universe and the social straightjacket of living in the 21st century according to the dictates of the 10th.
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 13, 2015, 08:23:24 PM
and the payout is always tomorrow
Always tomorrow.. pay up front. That the babble has an entire book devoted to how the priest should be paid does not in the least interest these defcates. They wrote a religion and included a special book on how they should get paid! And the fucking monkeys are too stupid to get the irony of it. If you're that stupid, then you will indeed pay 100 bucks a month to be on "gods direct hot line" LOLOL. what monkeys.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 13, 2015, 08:47:30 AM
BTW, the "new atheist movement" was invented by the Christian Right who feared that Atheists coming out of the closet would be a force to reckon with. FLASH NEWS: regardless that the "new atheist movement" is dead, it won't send the atheists back to the closet.
Exactly.
I have always thought "New Atheism" or whatever it is supposed to be called was an invented label that had no real meaning.
That's nice that it's dead but... it was never alive in the first place to my knowledge.
It's just ignorance to assume that we are united.
I guess some people can only understand a world that is distinctly divisive in a certain way, rather then accepting we are billions of people, and genetically speaking just a variation on a theme.
Quote from: aitm on October 13, 2015, 09:57:37 PM
Always tomorrow.. pay up front. That the babble has an entire book devoted to how the priest should be paid does not in the least interest these defcates. They wrote a religion and included a special book on how they should get paid! And the fucking monkeys are too stupid to get the irony of it. If you're that stupid, then you will indeed pay 100 bucks a month to be on "gods direct hot line" LOLOL. what monkeys.
That was me until early adulthood. :(
I see that we are still beating the dead horse that is feminism on this forum.
Secretly a Warsie.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on October 13, 2015, 11:46:23 PM
I see that we are still beating the dead horse that is feminism on this forum.
as long as people keep riding in on it...
(http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/816/352/a21.png)
Quote from: Cocoa Beware on October 13, 2015, 11:10:48 PM
It's just ignorance to assume that we are united.
I don't think it is sort of a unity assumed in a real sense, but nonbelievers' need to feel a belonging to a group, just like any other.
Labels are usually negative, but they legitimise something in a way when it is collective. And that's crucial when it is progressive.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 14, 2015, 02:53:53 AM
I don't think it is sort of a unity assumed in a real sense, but nonbelievers' need to feel a belonging to a group, just like any other.
Labels are usually negative, but they legitimise something in a way when it is collective. And that's crucial when it is progressive.
I'm a charter member of the Marinus van der Lube International Firebombing Society. It's good to belong.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 14, 2015, 07:36:30 AM
I'm a charter member of the Marinus van der Lube International Firebombing Society. It's good to belong.
Ha, you inadvertently brought the Nazis into this discussion. By virtue of Godwin's law, you lose...:lol:
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 14, 2015, 07:53:41 AM
Ha, you inadvertently brought the Nazis into this discussion. By virtue of Godwin's law, you lose...:lol:
Godwin's Bald Assertion doesn't concern me. As a WWII historian I find it just ... funny.
Quote from: CrucifyCindy on October 13, 2015, 07:42:57 PM
If you can't sell it to people then it doesn't spread. It needs to have something that apeals to people, it has to offer them something like laundry detregent does. Tide makes your clothes whiter than snow = Jesus washes all your sins away. Christianity wouldn't have spread if it didn't offer people anything. This is why atheism is a hard sell because it offers people very little when religion offes people the sky. And atheism is just not sexy like religion is.
Christianity is a 5¢ product in a million $ wrapper. That's marketing. Atheism just is. It doesn't need shiny wrapping paper and sparkely lights to lure people to its rational points and raw truths that leave believers scared as ............hmmm............hell. We don't sell holy water. We don't send prayer requests for profit. We don't solicit followers (because we don't blindly follow) for $ to buy private jets. Atheism isn't pretty, it's a beautiful thing.
I'd be willing to bet most of those at the top of so-called prosperity gospel are not truly believers. Just in it for your money!
Quote from: mauricio on October 13, 2015, 05:32:38 PM
to expand on this:
If I call creationists christians it does not mean i think all christians are creationists, thought I understand how people can think so if i just say "the christian believe that the earth is 6000 years old is wrong".
Just as an aside to this, do any of them truly believe this 6,000 year thing? It would take a powerful quantity of self-delusion to make yourself believe it, no matter how fanatical or fundamentalist or Calvinist scum-bag your creed of choice happens to be. And they wonder why scoffers come a-scoffing, the cretinous twats.
I don't know a Short Chronology Creationist personally, but I am told they do exist. Long Chronology Creationists however are quite common, and look down on the Short Chronology folks ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on October 14, 2015, 11:18:51 PM
I don't know a Short Chronology Creationist personally, but I am told they do exist. Long Chronology Creationists however are quite common, and look down on the Short Chronology folks ;-)
I would have said that at one time, but when I joined Alcoholics Anonymous it was an introduction to the "other side of the tracks". I became aware that young earth creationists abounded and I had been living amongst huge numbers of them my whole life. I just didn't associate with them. It seems like we are psychologically equipped with filters that detect them, or at least detect a "personality type", and we avoid them, not because they signal potential conflict, but because they are difficult to relate to, because they are boring, intellectually foggy, and their attention is drawn to meaningless things. But I'd bet money, you know plenty of them, perhaps not in your circle of friends, but you walk past them every day.
Quote from: SGOS on October 15, 2015, 05:03:09 AMIt seems like we are psychologically equipped with filters that detect them.
Their breastplates of righteousness helmets of salvation and belts of truthfulness aren't working very well. It's been really bad since they gave up their tin foil hats.
As others have noted, atheism has no cohesion as a group of people, because atheists aren't necessarily scientific, critical thinkers, skeptics, human rights supporters/activists, etc.
Besides having no god-belief, atheists only agree on a basic statement, it can never be repeated enough, because theists - particularly the mono-theistic Abrahamic kind - see everything with these rose-linted lenses of belief. I think, deep down, believers are afraid of what atheists remind them of: That we are mortal and death is inescapable.
This would not be a problem if we, as children, aren't raised up with the notion of immortality (souls, afterlife, ghosts, whathaveyou) and instead learn and come to realize our mortal coil.
New Atheism was never a movement to begin with, so it can't be "dead". It was simply the sharing of information and going cross-belief "shit, man, there are these whole other faiths out there! They can't all be right!" type deal, thanks to global communication and the Internet. Not to mention critique, thanks to the Enlightenment and the industrial revolution, was NOT shot down. Hell, that we can criticize religion without, for the most part in the West, fear of reprisal says a lot about how far we've come.
One of the New Atheists (might have been Hitchens) said atheists are like cats, in that you can't herd them. It's all that free thinking that does it.
Quote from: 1liesalot on October 17, 2015, 02:50:54 PM
One of the New Atheists (might have been Hitchens) said atheists are like cats, in that you can't herd them. It's all that free thinking that does it.
And if you ever need evidence, just lurk on this forum for awhile. :lol:
Quote from: 1liesalot on October 17, 2015, 02:50:54 PM
One of the New Atheists (might have been Hitchens) said atheists are like cats, in that you can't herd them. It's all that free thinking that does it.
That's not fair to cats.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 17, 2015, 05:38:25 PM
Oh, don't be a pussy.
(http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff277/josephpalazzo/maxresdefault1.jpg) (http://s243.photobucket.com/user/josephpalazzo/media/maxresdefault1.jpg.html)
Oooooh, bitch-kitty!
Catty, you mean.
Anyway, bad news for Theists.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/27/millennials-less-religious_n_7452998.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/27/millennials-less-religious_n_7452998.html)
Quote from: CrucifyCindy on October 12, 2015, 06:43:41 PM
The New Atheist Movement is dead and it is not exactly the fault of those who really wanted to give atheism a voice. I do blame Dawkins, he has in the recent past made some very stupid comments about stuff that as nothing to do with atheismand he can be blamed for giving voice to misogynists in the movement. Do I blame Hitchens? Hell no! Even though Hitchen's politics were sliding into Neo-Con territory I do not blame him, in fact I miss him because he was the one voice that would have questioned Dawkins, Harris an d others. He was the ultimate contarian and I do apprieciate him. Do I blame Sam Harris? Hell yes. Sam Harris has an aggenda that has nothing to do with atheism (whether he is an atheist is doubtful, the dude beleives in Buddhist woo), he is an Islamphobe in the likes of Ann Coulter and you atheist accepted him and invited him into the dialogoe and people like him have poison it with hate. This is why the New Atheist movement has died. It lost any moral high ground and has become a movement of fear, hate and bigotry. The very thing it has criticized about religions. When Dawkins is making misogynistic statements and you accept them then you lost the moral high ground against religion, when you accept Sam Harris perpetuate his hatred of Islam without criticizing it then you have lost the moral high ground against religions that preach hate. A movement always loses when that high ground is lost...The New Atheist movement lost it.
Besides being particularly obnoxious, the ignorance which you display is unusual for one who spends so much time here.
On Dawkins, he has been at the pinnacle of leadership for modern atheism, and that fact alone creates enemies - especially when there are a minority (but extremely vocal) of radical feminists who covet that position for themselves, and won't let intellectual honesty, nor any manner of ethical argument get in their way. He isn't female, and that's the primary problem which he has with people who think like you. But he does happen to be qualified by being the best, since Darwin, at explaining modern evolutionary theory to the average lay person. He also has proven to be a rallying voice for secularism in society, while clarifying the position of most modern atheists that while we recognize how Natural Selection works, we don't embrace Darwinism as a model for human society. He is in many ways not just an atheist, but a humanist too, which makes him particularly likeable to those who don't hate him simply for not being female and having the nerve to speak his own mind.
YOU say Harris believes in Buddhist woo, but he never actually endorsed anything which is woo. He has found some of the mental exercises which happen to be the product of Buddhist thought to be useful, and so what on that? Drinking German beer doesn't make you German, nor does it mean you think like Merkel. Eating kielbasa doesn't make you Polish, much less Polish-Catholic!
While I too miss Hitchens, I don't think he did anything to help others understand the atheist position. He devoted whole works to attacking religion and its iconic leaders. While what he said about religion poisoning everything was more or less true, such a blanket negative does nothing to help people who aren't atheists see a way forward for a positive society, founded on humanist ideas.
Atheism is dead? The numbers say otherwise! If it ever dies, the responsibility for that will rest squarely on the shoulders of people who think like you and Rebecca Watson.
Get back underground where you belong, Troll!
Quote from: jonb on October 12, 2015, 06:54:45 PM
An atheist movement that gets rid of gawd but rallies around saints is not worth a glance.
ALL movements have their iconic figures, and that happens to be human nature. In that way, we aren't like the Catholics for admiring Dawkins and Hitchens, they just happen to be like everybody else in their own way.
My opinion is similar to that of millions of atheists and secularists around the world - that Dawkins deserves credit as one of modern atheism's greatest leaders because he has been better than any since Darwin at explaining current theory on how Natural Selection works. He has also dedicated much time to his public efforts at promoting a secular society, and he clarifies the position which most modern atheists have expressed - that while Darwinism is a reality of nature, a secular human society does not need to be, and should not be Darwinist. His humanism makes him particularly inspiring to me, and the ability to inspire others is another fact of human nature which is foolishly ignored where that anti-saints mantra can be heard. Call our inspirational figures saints, or just call them inspirational leaders, they are all the same, and we do need them. We need leaders because we need inspiration, and we need motivators - without this, we have nothing!
Quote from: Baruch on October 12, 2015, 06:57:30 PM
Without our idolatry, where would we be? Avoiding idolatry by substituting one for another ... is a bit like musical chairs. Don't be the last one to sit down!
I don't idolize Dawkins, and I haven't actually agreed with everything he says. But I do believe his haters are inspired chiefly by those who covet the clout which he has honestly earned. It's in their behavior, which in general has no place on any forum for honest intellectual discussion.
Quote from: peacewithoutgod on October 20, 2015, 02:58:51 PM
I don't idolize Dawkins, and I haven't actually agreed with everything he says. But I do believe his haters are inspired chiefly by those who covet the clout which he has honestly earned. It's in their behavior, which in general has no place on any forum for honest intellectual discussion.
I do not pretend to know their motivation, but I'm amused by the people who try to smear dawkins as a misogynist , rape apologist or pedophile apologist (yes i have seen those 3 accusations happen multiple times) their logic is completely warped. They take his statements and try to infer the worst possible implication from them, using their mental super powers to discern his inner bigotry, even when the man explicitly states the contrary. Same thing with Sam harris being a neocon racist islamophobe. Those accusations have been diluted and lost meaning thanks to SJW's throwing them around to shut down dissent and for character assassination. Ultimately they only damage their professed cause, kind of like the rolling stones UVA rape article that turned out to be bullshit and fraught with journalistic failures. If you cry wolf so much...
You forget that Lying For Jesusâ,,¢ gets them Heaven Points©. They can be as vile as they want to be and still not violate the Ten Commandments, because they think they're doing "God's Will". The fact that their God needs petty, spiteful little shits like that to get his Will done doesn't seem to bother them. Proving once more that people never invent a God with better morals than their own.
The New Atheist Movement might be dead.
Who the "F" cares?
The important thing to consider is that, as each day passes, more and more believers are casting away their foolish beliefs in non-existent gods.
That's very important. And a good thing, because eventually, atheism will become a dominant (dis)belief, and believers will the ones who are marginalized and viewed as the unenlightened.
Religion is dying a slow death. Ignorance cannot last forever.
Quote from: CrucifyCindy on October 12, 2015, 07:38:02 PM
I don't know were you get your stats from but actually in the West secularism is increasing not atheism, it is organized religion that is decreasing and alternative or personal spirituality is on the rise. Atheism is largely staying at the same rate of growth while in the rest of the world fanaticism is rising! Why? Economics. Plain and simple. These is no money in atheism. How do I know this? My mom was a marketer, my dad is a marketer and I am a marketer...alternative spirituality as market value while atheism doesn't so alternative spirituality will grow while atheism doesn't
"Plain and simple"...just like your mind, as you represent it.
Quote from: mauricio on October 20, 2015, 05:42:19 PM
I do not pretend to know their motivation, but I'm amused by the people who try to smear dawkins as a misogynist , rape apologist or pedophile apologist (yes i have seen those 3 accusations happen multiple times) their logic is completely warped.
They do it because they have lost the argument and deep down they know this.
Quote from: peacewithoutgod on October 21, 2015, 09:46:41 AM
"Plain and simple"...just like your mind, as you represent it.
She actually has a point there. Besides, atheism is not limited to a 100 000 atheists in the US or people who follows American media in the world or in English. It just baffles me that people take New Atheism movement as a world wide atheism watch.
Secularism on the rise, yes. Atheism? No. On the contrary, a large group of atheists are defining themselves as 'nonbelievers' and refrain from using the word 'atheist' for many reasons among them, mainly thinking the label is getting somewhat 'religious'. This is about people's personal choices, you cannot just tell them what to do. You need to win them.
I definitely agree with her about atheism doesn't make money. It doesn't. But all religions do. They actually make very good money. Modern woo does good money too. The amount of bullshit going around only with the simples form of it like from tarots readings to horoscopes, wicca...etc. are industries alone. It's easy to market.
How do you market atheism? You don't, because you can't. There is no product to market. :lol:
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 23, 2015, 05:55:26 PM
She actually has a point there. Besides, atheism is not limited to a 100 000 atheists in the US or people who follows American media in the world or in English. It just baffles me that people take New Atheism movement as a world wide atheism watch.
Secularism on the rise, yes. Atheism? No. On the contrary, a large group of atheists are defining themselves as 'nonbelievers' and refrain from using the word 'atheist' for many reasons among them, mainly thinking the label is getting somewhat 'religious'. This is about people's personal choices, you cannot just tell them what to do. You need to win them.
I definitely agree with her about atheism doesn't make money. It doesn't. But all religions do. They actually make very good money. Modern woo does good money too. The amount of bullshit going around only with the simples form of it like from tarots readings to horoscopes, wicca...etc. are industries alone. It's easy to market.
How do you market atheism? You don't, because you can't. There is no product to market. :lol:
"100,000" atheists in America? SHOE - you really need to stop pretending you know more than you do about America! Even here there's more of us than that! More of us than there are Muslims, according to polls, more like 3 million, not including the 15-20 percent who are undeclared, and that's being conservative.
On "marketing atheism" - this is sad, I mean SAD, VERY SAD, if you are detracted from the point of our efforts over the last 10 years by jeers at what has never been the goal of our best leaders. NDT, Bill Nye, and even Richard Dawkins don't "market" atheism, they market rational thought, and the study and understanding of true natural wonders in the real world. It is only from this clear-headed study and learning that real hope for our future and future generations can be inspired. All other ideas on the universe boil down to placing our flagging hopes in unseen, hard-to-believe deities to come and save us somehow even after it's all been destroyed, which may happen tonight. Reality isn't always hopeful, but what we learn from studying it provides the only tools we will ever have for changing a depressing outlook.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 23, 2015, 05:55:26 PM
She actually has a point there. Besides, atheism is not limited to a 100 000 atheists in the US or people who follows American media in the world or in English. It just baffles me that people take New Atheism movement as a world wide atheism watch.
Secularism on the rise, yes. Atheism? No. On the contrary, a large group of atheists are defining themselves as 'nonbelievers' and refrain from using the word 'atheist' for many reasons among them, mainly thinking the label is getting somewhat 'religious'. This is about people's personal choices, you cannot just tell them what to do. You need to win them.
I definitely agree with her about atheism doesn't make money. It doesn't. But all religions do. They actually make very good money. Modern woo does good money too. The amount of bullshit going around only with the simples form of it like from tarots readings to horoscopes, wicca...etc. are industries alone. It's easy to market.
How do you market atheism? You don't, because you can't. There is no product to market. :lol:
You talk here about people and their personal choice to label themselves. But then when me or someone like thunderf00t criticizes people who identify as feminists and have a big audience who recognizes them as a such, suddenly now labels become prescriptive and they are "not true feminists"
Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 13, 2015, 09:11:33 AM
Thunderf00t simply uses the word feminist for the word misandrist. And frankly, he is perfectly aware what he is doing. Then talk about feminists being 'toxic'.
Anita sarkeesian and Laci green have hundreds of thousands of followers who consider them and themselves to be feminists, that is a significant amount of people using that word , that is common usage. Like it or not the meaning of feminist must also include them now, because words are (specially labels that signal ideological adherence ) are plastic to the usage among populations. Now hopefully if you read my posts to you and shinaru where I explained my reasoning on the semantics of ideological labels you will not misrepresent this post as me trying to dictate a prescriptive definition of feminism. Since I use labels as descriptors of the common usage and recognize their multiplicity in meaning. Which is exactly what you fail to recognize by denying the feminism of certain popular internet feminists prone to retardation.
Wrong, "New Atheism" isn't dead, because it never existed outside of the minds of the woo-pushers and bullshit artists who hate atheists. Those of us who are atheists know what we are, and we never added the word "new", nor anything else to the term by which we identify other than perhaps one of a few equally old terms such as "humanist".
It isn't atheism, it's feminism which is now dead. It died the day that it morphed into a religion, and like every other ideology when it bands behind a term which cannot be morally justified by fair and honest minds, it became a religion when its followers were driven by embarrassment to distance themselves from each other with their own new, and completely illegitimate daffynitions of "feminist". When it requires increasingly ridiculous lies to defend your ideology, then it's a religious one. No, "feminist" doesn't really mean "misandrist", any more than "Aryan Brotherhood" and "Ku Kux Klan" doesn't mean "racist".
Thptptptptptptptppppppt!!!
Feminism deserves to rot for corruption of honest discourse and ethics which it's supporters have been willing to tolerate, but if you want to discuss "egalitarianism" in it's place, than I'll stand with you on that.
Okay, okay, the "New Atheist Movement" is dead. Doesn't affect 99.99% of atheists, so who cares.
New atheism must be some new way of not believing in God. The old way wasn't good enough, so Christians invented new atheism to correct the inadequacies of their perception of the way atheists didn't believe in God. Whether new atheism is better than the old atheism is still unknown. It's more interesting, more flashy, and it seems to promote pissing off the Christians who invented it, so it may or may not last. Really, it depends on how much Christians like to piss themselves off.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on November 07, 2015, 08:50:42 AM
Okay, okay, the "New Atheist Movement" is dead. Doesn't affect 99.99% of atheists, so who cares.
It was only about certain authors and vocal critics working hard to promote book sales and speaking engagements of certain persons ;-)
Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris - the favorite authors of guys who yell at old ladies in line at the supermarket for wearing a Jesus fish necklace. It's a shame someone as respectable as Dan Dennett got caught up in their shenanigans, especially considering how anti-philosophical Dawkins and Harris in particular are. Still, as far as misrepresenting atheism goes, they have nothing on the living, breathing strawman himself, Ricky Gervais.
Quote from: missingnocchi on November 07, 2015, 01:03:15 PM
Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris - the favorite authors of guys who yell at old ladies in line at the supermarket for wearing a Jesus fish necklace.
And this happened when? Or are you another incarnation of the "poster that lies for jesus"?
Quote from: facebook164 on November 07, 2015, 04:57:17 PM
And this happened when? Or are you another incarnation of the "poster that lies for jesus"?
Been around a lot longer than you, newbie :)
Quote from: missingnocchi on November 07, 2015, 06:53:43 PM
Been around a lot longer than you, newbie :)
A. I'm going to say bad things about these people because I don't like them.
B. I'm right because
C. I'm right
D. Been around a lot longer than you, newbie.
Love the meticulous, scientific argumentation there.
Quote from: stromboli on November 07, 2015, 07:43:00 PM
A. I'm going to say bad things about these people because I don't like them.
B. I'm right because
C. I'm right
D. Been around a lot longer than you, newbie.
Love the meticulous, scientific argumentation there.
I didn't start the ad hominem fire
It was always burnin' since the forum vitriol's been churnin'
Edit: But seriously, what did you want me to say to that guy? His points were 1. nuh uh and 2. lol what are you a christian?
"Been around a lot longer than you, newbie" is the rhetoric of a sixth grader talking down to a third grader and laying down the facts of life without having lived a life.
QuoteDawkins, Hitchens and Harris - the favorite authors of guys who yell at old ladies in line at the supermarket for wearing a Jesus fish necklace. It's a shame someone as respectable as Dan Dennett got caught up in their shenanigans, especially considering how anti-philosophical Dawkins and Harris in particular are. Still, as far as misrepresenting atheism goes, they have nothing on the living, breathing strawman himself, Ricky Gervais.
Dawkins has a doctorate in biology and more awards than I can count, Hitchens while alive was a long established and very on point commentator on society. Harris has a PHD in cognitive neuroscience.
Excuse me, but I'm more inclined to listen to people who have a background in the issues they deal with than someone who very casually dismisses their work as either false or trivial. And Gervais is one funny guy and has made some very apt commentary about religion. Oh and by the way, Gervais holds a second class honors degree in philosophy.
These are lettered and experienced people who speak from experience and positions of authority in their fields. Dismissing them out of hand without anything but casual aspersions doesn't make you anything but the sixth grader talking down to the third grader.
Quote from: stromboli on November 07, 2015, 08:28:20 PM
"Been around a lot longer than you, newbie" is the rhetoric of a sixth grader talking down to a third grader and laying down the facts of life without having lived a life.
Dawkins has a doctorate in biology and more awards than I can count, Hitchens while alive was a long established and very on point commentator on society. Harris has a PHD in cognitive neuroscience.
Excuse me, but I'm more inclined to listen to people who have a background in the issues they deal with than someone who very casually dismisses their work as either false or trivial. And Gervais is one funny guy and has made some very apt commentary about religion. Oh and by the way, Gervais holds a second class honors degree in philosophy.
These are lettered and experienced people who speak from experience and positions of authority in their fields. Dismissing them out of hand without anything but casual aspersions doesn't make you anything but the sixth grader talking down to the third grader.
I'll start by saying that I don't care about their degrees. You can have all the degrees you like, it doesn't make you right when you're wrong (though I admit, this is the first time I've ever seen someone try to spin a BA in Philosophy as a merit).
I'm not going to bother responding to your comment about Hitchens, either, since it's not even a meaningful claim. I don't have anything against Dawkins' or Harris' scientific careers. Neither of which, by the way, have much if anything to do with their activities as "New Atheists." No, most of what they did as the New Atheists is complain about how those Christians sure are meanies and act smug about their perceived positions atop the Atheist totem pole. I mean, have you seen this shit? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7IHU28aR2E&ab_channel=CaNANDian
This is the weirdest appeal to authority I've ever seen. Typically it goes something like this:
"A is an authority on a particular topic
A says something about that topic
A is probably correct"
But here you're claiming them as authorities in subjects far removed from their fields.If I've read more philosophy than Dawkins (which isn't inconceivable, considering his tendency to dismiss philosophy out of hadn) then do I get the upper hand? I'll remind you that Michael Behe is at least as much of an authority in Biochemistry as Dawkins is in EvoBio, probably more since he didn't stop doing research the second he got a little fame.
I dismissed whatsisface out of hand because he didn't make any substantial points. I certainly don't dismiss the New Atheists out of hand, however. I am an atheist after all - my natural inclination would be to agree with them. I've read several of their books and watched a lot of their Youtube videos, and my opinion of them is as follows: Dennett is one of the greatest living philosophers and Hitch was a smart guy who also happened to inseparably inject his dickish attitude into everything he wrote. Dawkins and Harris desperately need to read some Hume, because neither of them seems to understand the concept of the is/ought gap or why it's a problem for someone claiming to be ethical independent of a divine entity. Sorry I wasn't in full-on debate mode when I made my earlier comment, if I had known the maturity police were on patrol I would have been more careful.
And you have dismissed all of these people out of hand without making anything like an argument to back it. That is just meaningless aspersions. You can bandy this nonsense all you want, but until you can specifically refute any of their arguments with better ones, you are still a sixth grader talking down to a third grader. You haven't shown anything that rates you as any kind of authority.
In the case of Dawkins and Harris, both can speak from a position of authority because of their respective fields of study. That makes them legitimate in that context. I'm not expecting to see a litany of degrees from you and frankly don't care. But your whole approach is one of some type of superior authority and you haven't shown one thing that supports your attitude or your argument.
Quote from: stromboli on November 07, 2015, 09:30:21 PM
And you have dismissed all of these people out of hand without making anything like an argument to back it. That is just meaningless aspersions. You can bandy this nonsense all you want, but until you can specifically refute any of their arguments with better ones, you are still a sixth grader talking down to a third grader. You haven't shown anything that rates you as any kind of authority.
In the case of Dawkins and Harris, both can speak from a position of authority because of their respective fields of study. That makes them legitimate in that context. I'm not expecting to see a litany of degrees from you and frankly don't care. But your whole approach is one of some type of superior authority and you haven't shown one thing that supports your attitude or your argument.
Wow, look at all those quotes of me and specific refutations of my points! You sure are the science master. I'll be sure NOT to dismiss you out of hand in the future ;)
P.S. I get my BS in Biochemistry in 6 months, then it's off to grad school
Well goody for you. Then be sure and come back and take down everything Dawkins wrote point by point. Until you do that, your comments of dismissal are simply noise.
Quote from: missingnocchi on November 07, 2015, 01:03:15 PM
Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris - the favorite authors of guys who yell at old ladies in line at the supermarket for wearing a Jesus fish necklace. It's a shame someone as respectable as Dan Dennett got caught up in their shenanigans, especially considering how anti-philosophical Dawkins and Harris in particular are. Still, as far as misrepresenting atheism goes, they have nothing on the living, breathing strawman himself, Ricky Gervais.
Who has actually been known to do this (yelling at old ladies for wearing the jesus fish)? Or is that what you call it when they wear the Darwin fish, or the FICTION logo which counters the bullshit of the new-age motivated COEXIST logo, spelled out in religious symbols? Woo cannot coexist with rational thought, which is why those who sell it while preaching coexistence and multiculturalism are the most pathetic hypocrites ever to infest society.
Regarding atheists, there is only one kind, those who don't believe in woo-made gods, and we are nothing "new". Most of us are also too intelligent to think yelling at ignorant old ladies is any good way of changing this world. Just don't impose your sick, ignorant fearmongering on the minds of children, because their future, when you infect them with it, is a threat to mine, and it is to that I will respond!
Quote from: missingnocchi on November 07, 2015, 09:38:17 PM
Wow, look at all those quotes of me and specific refutations of my points! You sure are the science master. I'll be sure NOT to dismiss you out of hand in the future ;)
P.S. I get my BS in Biochemistry in 6 months, then it's off to grad school
Ignorance is strength.
George OrwellYou do know that was satire? Apparently not.
Quote from: peacewithoutgod on November 07, 2015, 11:02:57 PM
Who has actually been known to do this (yelling at old ladies for wearing the jesus fish)? Or is that what you call it when they wear the Darwin fish, or the FICTION logo which counters the bullshit of the new-age motivated COEXIST logo, spelled out in religious symbols? Woo cannot coexist with rational thought, which is why those who sell it while preaching coexistence and multiculturalism are the most pathetic hypocrites ever to infest society.
Regarding atheists, there is only one kind, those who don't believe in woo-made gods, and we are nothing "new". Most of us are also too intelligent to think yelling at ignorant old ladies is any good way of changing this world. Just don't impose your sick, ignorant fearmongering on the minds of children, because their future, when you infect them with it, is a threat to mine, and it is to that I will respond!
No, I'm talking about the loud kind that yells at people in the supermarket (while I was trying to do my job, too). And the kind that shouts 'lol' whenever the professor says something about religion in a cultural geography class. As for 'woo' and what 'most atheists' are like... well, at this point you're just spouting your opinion without much relation to what I've actually said. Is not liking people who are assholes in public 'woo?' News to me! Maybe that's what's "new" about the New Atheists (their name for themselves, not mine, by the way).
Quote from: missingnocchi on November 07, 2015, 06:53:43 PM
Been around a lot longer than you, newbie :)
I have taken part of the discussions of secular forums since the early nineties so cut the crap.
Quote from: Baruch on November 07, 2015, 09:50:10 AM
It was only about certain authors and vocal critics working hard to promote book sales and speaking engagements of certain persons ;-)
Ah, the people who don't sit quietly at the back of the bus. Got it.
Quote from: missingnocchi on November 07, 2015, 09:38:17 PM
Wow, look at all those quotes of me and specific refutations of my points! You sure are the science master. I'll be sure NOT to dismiss you out of hand in the future ;)
P.S. I get my BS in Biochemistry in 6 months, then it's off to grad school
Premature congrats! I agree that appeal to authority (outside of field), among adults, is ridiculous. We have a few teens posting ... they might want to listen more and speak less ... but I won't push it. I like teens and they are free to have an uninformed opinion. And I think Searle does wheelies around Dennett.
Gawdzilla Sama ... yes, atheists are oppressed, and have to be careful speaking out. But they are not comparable to African-Americans. My point is ... people who sell books and speaking engagements ... aren't being objective, they are being commercial. If shit sells, they will sell it.
Quote from: Baruch on November 08, 2015, 08:40:08 AM
Premature congrats! I agree that appeal to authority (outside of field), among adults, is ridiculous. We have a few teens posting ... they might want to listen more and speak less ... but I won't push it. I like teens and they are free to have an uninformed opinion. And I think Searle does wheelies around Dennett.
Thanks! And yeah, I'm kind of being reminded why I stopped coming here in the first place. I do know for a fact that one of my antagonists from last night is quite old, but I won't name names.
I also respect Searle quite a bit, but I'm not sure how much of that I have to attribute to being on his side of the debate. Dennett, on the other hand, has earned my grudging respect. I'm as unconvinced by behavioralism as anyone, but I have to admit that he bites every bullet you need to defend it without flinching. It takes balls to deny mental events as strongly as he has.
Quote from: missingnocchi on November 07, 2015, 11:20:35 PM
No, I'm talking about the loud kind that yells at people in the supermarket (while I was trying to do my job, too). And the kind that shouts 'lol' whenever the professor says something about religion in a cultural geography class. As for 'woo' and what 'most atheists' are like... well, at this point you're just spouting your opinion without much relation to what I've actually said. Is not liking people who are assholes in public 'woo?' News to me! Maybe that's what's "new" about the New Atheists (their name for themselves, not mine, by the way).
What you are talking about is KIDS, not mature adults - kids have always been rude on their opinions. So what?
Quote from: missingnocchi on November 08, 2015, 10:19:58 AM
Thanks! And yeah, I'm kind of being reminded why I stopped coming here in the first place. I do know for a fact that one of my antagonists from last night is quite old, but I won't name names.
What have you got against the wisdom of age, Ass Wipe? Most forums which aren't dominated by complete morons are mainly retirees and students, with a smattering of middle-agers.
Quote from: missingnocchi on November 08, 2015, 10:19:58 AM
I also respect Searle quite a bit, but I'm not sure how much of that I have to attribute to being on his side of the debate. Dennett, on the other hand, has earned my grudging respect. I'm as unconvinced by behavioralism as anyone, but I have to admit that he bites every bullet you need to defend it without flinching. It takes balls to deny mental events as strongly as he has.
Get back to your studies, you arrogant asswipe kid, and come back after you've been living in the real world for a few years - you still have a huge bit to learn!
No offense to other students here, some with brilliance which I admire much.
Quote from: peacewithoutgod on November 08, 2015, 01:38:00 PM
What you are talking about is KIDS, not mature adults - kids have always been rude on their opinions. So what?
...Have you met people? In my experience they only get louder, ruder, and less self aware through the aging process.
Quote from: missingnocchi on November 08, 2015, 02:28:19 PM
...Have you met people? In my experience they only get louder, ruder, and less self aware through the aging process.
You haven't the experience to judge.
Of course the loudest and dumbest people are those who you notice the mostf - loudness is all they have. People tend to become set in their ways as they age, as will you if you survive that long. Those who choose the path of ignorance when they are young will become more ignorant when they are older, while those who go with an inquisitive attitude will become more wise, and less quick to judge. Your attitude as shown so far doesn't really put you on track for the latter.
Quote from: peacewithoutgod on November 08, 2015, 02:36:33 PM
You haven't the experience to judge.
Of course the loudest and dumbest people are those who you notice the most. People tend to become set in their ways as they age, as will you if you survive that long. Those who choose the path of ignorance when they are young will become more ignorant when they are older, while those who go with an inquisitive attitude will become more wise, and less quick to judge. Your attitude as shown so far doesn't really put you on track for the latter.
Nor does your responding to a discussion of the philosophy of mind by calling me an asswipe indicate that you took the latter path. Not that your ad hoc ramblings about paths and how whippersnappers like me need to sit down and shut up actually relates to the real world in any way.
Quote from: missingnocchi on November 08, 2015, 02:48:29 PM
Nor does your responding to a discussion of the philosophy of mind by calling me an asswipe indicate that you took the latter path. Not that your ad hoc ramblings about paths and how whippersnappers like me need to sit down and shut up actually relates to the real world in any way.
I wouldn't have said any of that if you had posted anything other than the product of pure ignorance. You think older people are all duller than you, and you know everything - got that!
Quote from: peacewithoutgod on November 08, 2015, 02:53:15 PM
I wouldn't have said any of that if you had posted anything other than the product of pure ignorance. You think older people are all duller than you, and you know everything - got that!
Yes, I think all old people are loud idiots and experience is inherently without value. That's why I respect the 73 year old Dennett and the 83 year old Searle so much, because I hate old people! :eyes:
Quote from: Baruch on November 08, 2015, 08:40:08 AM
I think Searle does wheelies around Dennett.
Weird. You seemed like a bright fella.
Quote from: missingnocchi on November 08, 2015, 02:58:30 PM
Yes, I think all old people are loud idiots and experience is inherently without value. That's why I respect the 73 year old Dennett and the 83 year old Searle so much, because I hate old people! :eyes:
Then in that case I don't know why you refer to the presence of older people on this forum as an issue. But I do notice you are still here, so maybe you just come around when your talking ass gets the wind. :butt:
Stick around and listen, and you too may learn something.
Quote from: peacewithoutgod on November 08, 2015, 04:50:38 PM
Then in that case I don't know why you refer to the presence of older people on this forum as an issue. But I do notice you are still here, so maybe you just come around when your talking ass gets the wind. :butt:
Stick around and listen, and you too may learn something.
Well, Baruch noted the presence of teenagers as an issue, and I happened to know that wasn't the case for at least one of the people I was arguing with. So I pointed it out. Context is your friend :)
Quote from: missingnocchi on November 08, 2015, 05:32:17 PM
Well, Baruch noted the presence of teenagers as an issue, and I happened to know that wasn't the case for at least one of the people I was arguing with. So I pointed it out. Context is your friend :)
Don't mind Baruch, he's got issues with everybody, and I've never known him to argue straight on any issue.
Quote from: peacewithoutgod on November 08, 2015, 06:57:03 PM
Don't mind Baruch, he's got issues with everybody, and I've never known him to argue straight on any issue.
Well, I like him. If that makes me unpopular, so be it.
I get the feeling that over half of us that come to atheistforums are mainly here because of the resident theist. We will be giving him Pope status next.
Quote from: facebook164 on November 08, 2015, 03:49:17 PM
Weird. You seemed like a bright fella.
Dennett's metaphysics seems to me to be reworked classic gnosticism from 2000 years ago. Not very original. Searle may concentrate on language studies ... but he has those down tight as a drum. The Chinese Room is a classic thought experiment.
Quote from: peacewithoutgod on November 08, 2015, 06:57:03 PM
Don't mind Baruch, he's got issues with everybody, and I've never known him to argue straight on any issue.
I have always liked ...
"There was a crooked man, and he walked a crooked mile.
He found a crooked sixpence upon a crooked stile.
He bought a crooked cat, which caught a crooked mouse,
And they all lived together in a little crooked house."
Quote from: missingnocchi on November 08, 2015, 09:34:34 PM
Well, I like him. If that makes me unpopular, so be it.
I like everyone ... just not all in the same way. And I have never been concerned about popularity. Thanks for assisting with my therapy ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on November 08, 2015, 10:35:14 PM
I have always liked ...
"There was a crooked man, and he walked a crooked mile.
He found a crooked sixpence upon a crooked stile.
He bought a crooked cat, which caught a crooked mouse,
And they all lived together in a little crooked house."
I must admit that since I've stopped expecting anything different from you, you tend to make me laugh more often than not!
Quote from: Baruch on November 08, 2015, 10:32:47 PM
Dennett's metaphysics seems to me to be reworked classic gnosticism from 2000 years ago.
Eh? Give example or point me to something that explaines that thought.
Quote from: Baruch on November 08, 2015, 10:32:47 PM
Not very original. Searle may concentrate on language studies ... but he has those down tight as a drum. The Chinese Room is a classic thought experiment.
and the chinese room is just ruins. Searle is one of the most dishonest philosophers i know. Dennett, on the other hand, on of the most intellectually honest.
Quote from: facebook164 on November 09, 2015, 02:24:37 AM
Eh? Give example or point me to something that explaines that thought.
and the chinese room is just ruins. Searle is one of the most dishonest philosophers i know. Dennett, on the other hand, on of the most intellectually honest.
Curious. How could one know this ... do you like ... know them personally?
Short description of Dennett's psychology ...
Chain of intentional causality bridging the personal to the mechanistic (common sense human level to atomic level).
Until we complete working out the chain, people assume a homunculus at the core ... anthropomorphism.
From level to level there is indeterminacy that provides the creativity necessary for the will.
So this is a kind of epi-phenomenalism, but in layers, like a cake where each level is a different flavor.
So basically we are robots, who are able to simulate being human, but who actually are not human.
Ancient mythology talked of Talos, the giant bronze robot, powered by ichor (Greek for woo woo) who protected the island of Crete, thanks to Daedalus, the builder of the labyrinth and feather/wax wings for flight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxA3wFYxUB8
Claymation strikes back!
Quote from: peacewithoutgod on November 08, 2015, 11:07:02 PM
I must admit that since I've stopped expecting anything different from you, you tend to make me laugh more often than not!
Yes, I only quote old English nursery rhymes. Wonder why? Context is your friend ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on November 09, 2015, 06:23:18 AM
Curious. How could one know this ... do you like ... know them personally?
No, that is obvious from their writings.
Quote from: Baruch on November 09, 2015, 06:23:18 AM
Short description of Dennett's psychology ...
Chain of intentional causality bridging the personal to the mechanistic (common sense human level to atomic level).
Until we complete working out the chain, people assume a homunculus at the core ... anthropomorphism.
From level to level there is indeterminacy that provides the creativity necessary for the will.
So this is a kind of epi-phenomenalism, but in layers, like a cake where each level is a different flavor.
So basically we are robots, who are able to simulate being human, but who actually are not human.
Ancient mythology talked of Talos, the giant bronze robot, powered by ichor (Greek for woo woo) who protected the island of Crete, thanks to Daedalus, the builder of the labyrinth and feather/wax wings for flight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxA3wFYxUB8
Claymation strikes back!
i dont recognize anything that follows after the first sentence as even remotely Dennett. can you please separate what you believe Dennett say from your comments?
Dennett does not talk about a homunculus.
Quote from: facebook164 on November 09, 2015, 07:10:42 AMi dont recognize anything that follows after the first sentence as even remotely Dennett. can you please separate what you believe Dennett say from your comments?
Dennett does not talk about a homunculus.
He actually talks about it quite a bit in his critiques of the Cartesian Theater, which is a term he himself coined to describe the idea that what you see is just an image of the world created by your brain, not the real world. Have you really read Dennett? Here's a video where he alludes to the theory:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evn_hiE8PDs&ab_channel=BigThink
And here's the wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_theater
We are talking about Dennetts own view. "cartesian theater" and "homonuculus" is not part of his model. he mentions these concept when critiquing OTHER models. There are some very good citations from Conciousness explained on the talkside of that wikipedian article you referenced.
Quote from: facebook164 on November 09, 2015, 09:23:16 AM
We are talking about Dennetts own view. "cartesian theater" and "homonuculus" is not part of his model. he mentions these concept when critiquing OTHER models. There are some very good citations from Conciousness explained on the talkside of that wikipedian article you referenced.
Yes, I know he says it to critique... that's why I said they are part of his "critiques of the Cartesian Theater." Nonetheless, he coined both terms in their use in philosophy of mind, and Baruch used them correctly. He said "Until we complete working out the chain, people assume a homunculus at the core," which is precisely Dennett's view on the matter - a homunculus is essentially a place-filling theory people resort to in order to explain the functions of mind for which scientists haven't gotten around to a physical explanation. It's not his theory of mind, but his theory of misunderstanding of mind.
Quote from: missingnocchi on November 09, 2015, 09:34:12 AM. It's not his theory of mind, but his theory of misunderstanding of mind.
And thus not relevant.
now: let Baruch answer how Dennetts philosophy is gnosticism and why that is relevant.
Quote from: Baruch on November 09, 2015, 06:23:18 AM
Curious. How could one know this ... do you like ... know them personally?
You need to look up "fallacious arguments" and study them - knowing them is how you detect intellectual dishonesty.
Factual honesty is a different game, it can be corroborated (or not when absent).
Personal honesty - how does that apply here? I don't think it really does. Dennett could have all the personal integrity with wife and friends as Cthulu, who he unfortunately bears increasing resemblance to as he ages, but I would not see that changing the soundness of his observations, nor the quality of the facts which he bases them on.
Quote from: facebook164 on November 09, 2015, 09:44:29 AM
And thus not relevant.
now: let Baruch answer how Dennetts philosophy is gnosticism and why that is relevant.
Not relevant? It's part of Dennett's thought. I think you're just mad you got called out not knowing about a major theory of his.
Quote from: missingnocchi on November 09, 2015, 12:41:35 PM
Not relevant? It's part of Dennett's thought. I think you're just mad you got called out not knowing about a major theory of his.
I asked why Baruch thinks that Dennett is a gnosticist. Almost everything following that post is a derail.
I got the Dennett summary from a professional philosopher assessing his views. Missingnocchi brilliantly noticed that it is a part of his meta-theory of intention, not his theory ... thus his "not-this" ... that helps define "this". I find both relevant, in defining a thinker. That and his views may have changed over time. I will oblige at a later time, as far as gnosticism goes.
Where do you get the idea the atheist movement is dead? That is a load of crap. Maybe you don't like some of the tactics some spotlight atheists use, but we are not dead one lick. There are tons of atheist groups and they are not going away.
Quote from: Brian37 on November 09, 2015, 02:21:31 PM
Where do you get the idea the atheist movement is dead? That is a load of crap. Maybe you don't like some of the tactics some spotlight atheists use, but we are not dead one lick. There are tons of atheist groups and they are not going away.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism
Quote from: missingnocchi on November 09, 2015, 02:32:47 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism
You argue with Wiki?
HeHEEEEEEEEEEE, isn't that just CUTE!!!
Absolutely nowhere does that article support your false notion, which is like saying "God is dead" - that's equally impossible, for he never lived outside of peoples' heads.
Whoever Tom Flynn is, his opinion is 100% correct as described by the article in question, and it means your reading comprehension is wishful, at best. Recently, there have been high-profile writers and speakers who have called themselves freethinkers, skeptics, agnostics, secularists, humanists, and atheists, but none of them have ever called themselves "New Atheists". That was a label slapped on by the media ignorati and obnoxious religious people in an attempt to taint the image of any modern-day atheist who talks about his atheism with cultism - now how's that for the death-cult followers to be pointing the stinky cultism finger at those who practice no such superstitious woo? Our ideas are so new and cultish that they are older than the oldest religion! There are increasing populations of people who declare themselves with some form of secularism, we are growing in numbers, but there never truly was a "New Atheist" movement, and nothing about atheism is anywhere close to dead.
Quote from: Baruch on November 09, 2015, 01:22:34 PM
I got the Dennett summary from a professional philosopher assessing his views. Missingnocchi brilliantly noticed that it is a part of his meta-theory of intention, not his theory ... thus his "not-this" ... that helps define "this". I find both relevant, in defining a thinker. That and his views may have changed over time. I will oblige at a later time, as far as gnosticism goes.
I wouldnt say brilliant. He (?) is correct but that it is "not-his" is also very obvious to anyone that has actually read Dennett.
Why do you duck the gnosticism? That cant be hard to explain when you were so cocksure earlier.
Quote from: peacewithoutgod on November 09, 2015, 04:50:28 PM
You argue with Wiki?
HeHEEEEEEEEEEE, isn't that just CUTE!!!
Absolutely nowhere does that article support your false notion, which is like saying "God is dead" - that's equally impossible, for he never lived outside of peoples' heads.
Whoever Tom Flynn is, his opinion is 100% correct as described by the article in question, and it means your reading comprehension is wishful, at best. Recently, there have been high-profile writers and speakers who have called themselves freethinkers, skeptics, agnostics, secularists, humanists, and atheists, but none of them have ever called themselves "New Atheists". That was a label slapped on by the media ignorati and obnoxious religious people in an attempt to taint the image of any modern-day atheist who talks about his atheism with cultism - now how's that for the death-cult followers to be pointing the stinky cultism finger at those who practice no such superstitious woo? Our ideas are so new and cultish that they are older than the oldest religion! There are increasing populations of people who declare themselves with some form of secularism, we are growing in numbers, but there never truly was a "New Atheist" movement, and nothing about atheism is anywhere close to dead.
Excuse me? He clearly didn't understand that OP was referring to New Atheism, a specific movement within atheism, rather than atheism as a whole. I was only showing him the page so he could be better informed about what is actually being debated. Think before you post.
Quote from: missingnocchi on November 09, 2015, 05:57:00 PM
Excuse me? He clearly didn't understand that OP was referring to New Atheism, a specific movement within atheism, rather than atheism as a whole. I was only showing him the page so he could be better informed about what is actually being debated. Think before you post.
Hole E Fukk - don't tell ME to think before I post, that's twice in a row that you show how much your reading comprehension (you and the OP) is shit! I pointed out that your fantasy of there being a cult movement called "New Atheism" is nothing more than a media fantasy - it never actually happened! Nobody who you would call a "New Atheist" ever accepted that epithet, so stop insulting us with it - NEW ASSHOLES!!!
Quote from: peacewithoutgod on November 09, 2015, 08:29:36 PM
Hole E Fukk - don't tell ME to think before I post, that's twice in a row that you show how much your reading comprehension (you and the OP) is shit! I pointed out that your fantasy of there being a cult movement called "New Atheism" is nothing more than a media fantasy - it never actually happened! Nobody who you would call a "New Atheist" ever accepted that epithet, so stop insulting us with it - NEW ASSHOLES!!!
Weird, then that Dawkins did this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEClFXjx_fQ&ab_channel=TheAgendawithStevePaikin
And all four of the so-called Horsemen did this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ-xK_PEDgc&ab_channel=Godlessworld
Weird :eyes:
Quote from: facebook164 on November 09, 2015, 12:55:26 PM
I asked why Baruch thinks that Dennett is a gnosticist. Almost everything following that post is a derail.
1. I don't live on Atheistforum ... it just seems like it. I am flesh and blood. Are you a bot?
2. Gnosticism as a label is tricky. I mean metaphysical gnosticism, not religious gnosticism. In Gnostic theology there was an idea ... The Great Chain of Being. Basically at one end you have G-d, and at the other end you have us ... with various grades of angels in between. This is to explain why we aren't gods and G-d isn't human (non-Gnostics like the Christians accepted that in some way G-d is human). It is a metaphysical layer cake with frosting on top.
So basically you have atoms at the bottom and people at the top. You can assume that there is QM woo woo that bridges that gap, randomly, hence allowing free will ... or like Dennett, you can break it into layers with less QM woo woo between each layer, the higher ones being more sophisticated than the lower ones. Dennett's focus is on intention/will ... and the question of free will. A rock doesn't have intention, it simply falls off the mountain. A man does have intention (often), and simply jumps off the mountain ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWfph3iNC-k
Of course materialists deny philosophy, and psychology and everything that isn't material. If you want to believe your pet rock has free will ... then feel free ;-)
Quote from: missingnocchi on November 09, 2015, 08:42:40 PM
Weird, then that Dawkins did this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEClFXjx_fQ&ab_channel=TheAgendawithStevePaikin
And all four of the so-called Horsemen did this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ-xK_PEDgc&ab_channel=Godlessworld
Weird :eyes:
Oh, what a spurious asshole you are - nobody's areguing that the media calls them "New Atheists", but they haven't the right to, because nobody identifies by that slur. That's right, it's a vicious slur, nothing more! Have black people turned down interviews when they knew they would be referred to as "coloreds", when the media always applied that epithet, when the alternative would have been not being heard at all? Point to one single example where anyone calls himself a "New" atheist. We don't capitalize the word "atheist" either, Brainiac. It's been explained ad-nauseum and very recently here, and I am not going to bother repeating it again for a smug ignoramus with your attitude why atheism is no religion, and no ideological movement, therefore the word warrants no capitalization.
:098:
Seems to me that "old atheists" is more insulting than "new atheists" ... but on this forum, I wouldn't take any kind of "atheist" label to be insulting.
Quote from: Baruch on November 10, 2015, 06:40:20 AM
Seems to me that "old atheists" is more insulting than "new atheists" ... but on this forum, I wouldn't take any kind of "atheist" label to be insulting.
The absence of other groups of atheists who aren't "New", to which we would be compared makes my case that the idea put forth by "New Atheist" of atheists caught up in sectarian splintering or cultism is absurd. There are alliances to groups such as freethinkers, skeptics, humanists and such, but they aren't atheists unless they belong to our group too. As atheists (not as scientists, or whoever else we are), we are no different than Epicurus was.
Thanks for your comment on what I should or should not find insulting. While I can't speak for other atheists, I'm aware of how powerful language is at the marginalizing of groups through false implications, and I don't see anything innocent in that insult. Since you insist on calling yourself a theist, you don't have the vote on that anyway.
Quote from: peacewithoutgod on November 10, 2015, 07:54:39 AM
The absence of other groups of atheists who aren't "New", to which we would be compared makes my case that the idea put forth by "New Atheist" of atheists caught up in sectarian splintering or cultism is absurd. There are alliances to groups such as freethinkers, skeptics, humanists and such, but they aren't atheists unless they belong to our group too. As atheists (not as scientists, or whoever else we are), we are no different than Epicurus was.
Thanks for your comment on what I should or should not find insulting. While I can't speak for other atheists, I'm aware of how powerful language is at the marginalizing of groups through false implications, and I don't see anything innocent in that insult. Since you insist on calling yourself a theist, you don't have the vote on that anyway.
To start with, there's Atheism+, which is highly critical of Dawkins and Hitch in particular. But that assumes your premise that a movement isn't real unless there are other movements counter to it. A people moving as one are still moving, though that's clearly far from the case (as exemplified in this very debate). The New Atheists are different from those who preceded them in their view that religion is to be fought head on rather than tolerated, and in their evangelical approach to atheism - they all had the clear goal of spreading their views rather than merely standing their ground. But I'm sure you have a long list of atheists who took those positions publicly before the New Atheists? After all, that's all it would take to show that the movement is nothing more than a book sale bonanza.
Oh, and by the way, Epicurus wasn't an athiest. The earliest appearance of that "why call him god?" quote was more than 500 years after he died, and it wasn't until a few decades after that that it was attributed to him. Epicurus merely taught that we aren't to fear gods, because as perfect beings they would have no need to meddle in the affairs of humans.
Theodorus the Atheist (ironical name) of the Cyrenaic school (the object of life is pleasure, avoidance of pain, achievement of bliss), a contemporary of Epicurus (who was irreligious), was the first Western metaphysical atheist (there are no gods of any kind at all). The Epicurean school superseded the Cyrenaics. Thales was not an atheist just a naturalist, but Pythagoras might have been ... but they both believed in spirits. Socrates and Anaxagoras were accused of atheism, but in a different sense ... irreligion rather than metaphysical denial. The Buddha, Heraclitus and Xenophanes were also irreligious, as was Spinoza (who was a pantheist).
In India, the materialist Lokayata were even earlier than the Buddha, and earlier than any Western atheist.
Quote from: missingnocchi on November 10, 2015, 11:56:09 AM
To start with, there's Atheism+, which is highly critical of Dawkins and Hitch in particular.
Citations needed, and they need to be from those who correctly
self-identify as
atheists. Maybe you missed that post where there are some who identify themselves as "atheist" on a poll, but also claim they are spiritual and believe in "God"? That doesn't fit the definition of atheist, which is simply
not a theist! SHEEEEEEEEEEEESH!
Quote from: missingnocchi on November 10, 2015, 11:56:09 AM
But that assumes your premise that a movement isn't real unless there are other movements counter to it. A people moving as one are still moving, though that's clearly far from the case (as exemplified in this very debate).
Oh, fukking Kreist on a motorized dildo! Atheists aren't a movement, and I know I have addressed that with you directly, and more than once already! We sure aren't, nor were we ever a unified movement. As atheists, we have no shared ideology, if any, but some of us are serious about making the definition of that word understood on account of people who stubbornly continue to feed such misconceptions. As atheists, we are no different than Epicurus was, and everything else that we are which differentiates us from each other has nothing to do with atheism.
REPEAT, ONCE AGAIN!!!
As atheists, we are no different than Epicurus (or anyone who was an atheist during his time or before that) was as an atheist, and everything else that we are which differentiates us from each other has nothing to do with atheism.Quote from: missingnocchi on November 10, 2015, 11:56:09 AM
The New Atheists are different from those who preceded them in their view that religion is to be fought head on rather than tolerated, and in their evangelical approach to atheism - they all had the clear goal of spreading their views rather than merely standing their ground. But I'm sure you have a long list of atheists who took those positions publicly before the New Atheists? After all, that's all it would take to show that the movement is nothing more than a book sale bonanza.
Once again, atheism is not a religion, and not an ideological group. There is only one type of atheist, it is anybody who happens to be a non-theist. If Mr. Hanky, the talking turd was crowned a god, and you didn't believe in him as a god, then this would make you an atheist as well on that god. At the moment, talking to my own shit is beginning to seem like a more sensible discussion for me to be having than this one, with you having made it so clear that you pay attention only to the shit rattling around in your own head.
You still haven't produced an example of anyone self-identifying as a "New Atheist".
"Atheist+" - what the fuck is that, a website? A website alone does not make an ideology. On ideologies, there always will be those, and some atheists can be ideological, but any such group would just be one of regular atheists with an ideology - so what?
Quote from: missingnocchi on November 10, 2015, 11:56:09 AM
Oh, and by the way, Epicurus wasn't an athiest. The earliest appearance of that "why call him god?" quote was more than 500 years after he died, and it wasn't until a few decades after that that it was attributed to him. Epicurus merely taught that we aren't to fear gods, because as perfect beings they would have no need to meddle in the affairs of humans.
That point is debatable, but it's one which I have no interest in pursuing. My reference to Epicurous served only the point that atheism doesn't, and never has changed since his time, nor has it from the earliest history of organized religion. Not on account of doctrine, we all have our own reasons for not believing in any god or gods, and most are the product of applied reason. There can be nothing more simple than nonbelief, and that is why there has only been one way to define it. Whatever other ideas we may have (such as science, humanism, socialism, whatdafukkever) are what they are, but they are not directly tied to our atheism.
Quote from: peacewithoutgod on November 10, 2015, 01:53:09 PM
Citations needed, and they need to be from those who correctly self-identify as atheists. Maybe you missed that post where there are some who identify themselves as "atheist" on a poll, but also claim they are spiritual and believe in "God"? That doesn't fit the definition of atheist, which is simply not a theist! SHEEEEEEEEEEEESH!
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/religion/2012/08/atheism-plus-new-new-atheists
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/tony-sobrado/what-is-atheism-and-do-we_b_1937396.html
QuoteOh, fukking Kreist on a motorized dildo! Atheists aren't a movement, and I know I have addressed that with you directly, and more than once already! We sure aren't, nor were we ever a unified movement. As atheists, we have no shared ideology, if any, but some of us are serious about making the definition of that word understood on account of people who stubbornly continue to feed such misconceptions.
You seem to think I'm conflating New Atheism with atheism because of their names. We could call New Atheism Groshnorp for all I care - the fact of the matter is that in the first decade of the 21st century, a number of prominent atheist authors, often in collaboration with one another, expounded the view that religion was to be fought rather than tolerated and atheism was to be promoted. If that's not a movement, I don't know what is.
QuoteAs atheists, we are no different than Epicurus was, and everything else that we are which differentiates us from each other has nothing to do with atheism.
Yeah, and Republicans have nothing in common except that they all filed to be registered as Republicans! Therefore the Tea Party isn't a movement and has nothing to do with the Republican Party!
QuoteOnce again, atheism is not a religion, and not an ideological group. There is only one type of atheist, it is anybody who happens to be a non-theist. If Mr. Hanky, the talking turd was crowned a god, and you didn't believe in him as a god, then this would make you an atheist as well on that god. At the moment, talking to my own shit is beginning to seem like a more sensible discussion for me to be having than this one, with you having made it so clear that you pay attention only to the shit rattling around in your own head.
Words don't have meaning because you want them to, they have meaning because they are used and understood in a particular way. When they wrote the Oxford English Dictionary, they didn't go around finding words and coming up with the things they wanted them to mean - they had thousands of intellectuals scour through every significant document in the history of the English language and send in every example they could find of a unique use for a word. The only time you get to decide what a word means is when you make it part of an organization - say, a religion, or an ideological group. Otherwise you are forced to accept the common usage.
QuoteYou still haven't produced an example of anyone self-identifying as a "New Atheist".
Kierkegaard and Nietzsche didn't self-identify as existentialists, and yet that's what they were. The members of a movement aren't always allowed to name it - but the fact that none of the Horsemen have spoken out against the designation tells a lot. These are not meek individuals, if they didn't want to be categorized as New Atheists, it would be known.
Quote from: CrucifyCindy on October 12, 2015, 06:43:41 PM
The New Atheist Movement is dead and it is not exactly the fault of those who really wanted to give atheism a voice. I do blame Dawkins, he has in the recent past made some very stupid comments about stuff that as nothing to do with atheismand he can be blamed for giving voice to misogynists in the movement. Do I blame Hitchens? Hell no! Even though Hitchen's politics were sliding into Neo-Con territory I do not blame him, in fact I miss him because he was the one voice that would have questioned Dawkins, Harris an d others. He was the ultimate contarian and I do apprieciate him. Do I blame Sam Harris? Hell yes. Sam Harris has an aggenda that has nothing to do with atheism (whether he is an atheist is doubtful, the dude beleives in Buddhist woo), he is an Islamphobe in the likes of Ann Coulter and you atheist accepted him and invited him into the dialogoe and people like him have poison it with hate.
From the sound of your post it sounds like you're a follower of the far-left, social Marxist version of New Atheism
If you think vanilla New Atheism has died, take a look at the freakshow over at FreeThoughtBlogs - the site is so dead that its main page hasn't even been updated since 2014, and they're begging viewers to turn off their ad-blockers. Individual "Thunderf00t" videos get more views than the entire website.
Quote
This is why the New Atheist movement has died.
Nope it died because it relied on bigotry primarily against Christians rather than substance - 3% of the population isn't going to win fans from 73% of the population by repeating childish insults like "ha ha! you have an imaginary friend".
No one could care less about the social Marxist New Atheists like PZ Meyers, he and the rest of his sideshow are the outcasts even among the New Atheists; Meyers was banned from atheist Ireland for example for being too hateful for their standards; e.x. calling Darwin, the founder of evolution, a "sexist asshat", making fun of Robin Williams' suicide, etc.
Keep up with the times.
Quote
It lost any moral high ground and has become a movement of fear, hate and bigotry.
The very thing it has criticized about religions. When Dawkins is making misogynistic statements and you accept them then you lost the moral high ground against religion,
By "fear, hate, bigotrv (TM)" you mean "anti-Muslim" or "Richard Dawkins said something mean about a cyber-criminal named Rebecca Watson!" - if you didn't have a problem with the movement from the get-go you were never against "bigotry", since the entire movement was bigotry to begin with.
If nothing else Dawkins, Harris, etc at least have grounds to claim consistency since they were bigoted against Christians and Muslims pretty equally - as opposed to reprobates like PZ Meyers and his FreeThoughtBlogs ilk who cried "Islamophobia" while joking about murdering Christians and killing Priests, or crying "sexism" while claiming that lesbians are better than straight women since they "don't have to sleep with their oppressors".
Quote from: Ace101 on November 18, 2015, 02:59:08 PM
From the sound of your post it sounds like you're a follower of the far-left, social Marxist version of New Atheism
If you think vanilla New Atheism has died, take a look at the freakshow over at FreeThoughtBlogs - the site is so dead that its main page hasn't even been updated since 2014, and they're begging viewers to turn off their ad-blockers. Individual "Thunderf00t" videos get more views than the entire website.
Nope it died because it relied on bigotry primarily against Christians rather than substance - 3% of the population isn't going to win fans from 73% of the population by repeating childish insults like "ha ha! you have an imaginary friend".
No one could care less about the social Marxist New Atheists like PZ Meyers, he and the rest of his sideshow are the outcasts even among the New Atheists; Meyers was banned from atheist Ireland for example for being too hateful for their standards; e.x. calling Darwin, the founder of evolution, a "sexist asshat", making fun of Robin Williams' suicide, etc.
Keep up with the times.
The very thing it has criticized about religions. When Dawkins is making misogynistic statements and you accept them then you lost the moral high ground against religion,
By "fear, hate, bigotrv (TM)" you mean "anti-Muslim" or "Richard Dawkins said something mean about a cyber-criminal named Rebecca Watson!" - if you didn't have a problem with the movement from the get-go you were never against "bigotry", since the entire movement was bigotry to begin with.
If nothing else Dawkins, Harris, etc at least have grounds to claim consistency since they were bigoted against Christians and Muslims pretty equally - as opposed to reprobates like PZ Meyers and his FreeThoughtBlogs ilk who cried "Islamophobia" while joking about murdering Christians and killing Priests, or crying "sexism" while claiming that lesbians are better than straight women since they "don't have to sleep with their oppressors".
...and Jeebus said "Forgive him, for he knows not what he says!"