The New Atheist Movement is Dead

[stromboli]

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.

[missingnocchi]

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?

[stromboli]

"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, 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.

[missingnocchi]

"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.

[stromboli]

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.

[missingnocchi]

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

[stromboli]

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.

[peacewithoutgod]

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!

[peacewithoutgod]

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 Orwell

You do know that was satire? Apparently not.

[missingnocchi]

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).

[facebook164]

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.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

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.

[Baruch]

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.

[missingnocchi]

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.

[peacewithoutgod]

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?