The New Atheist Movement is Dead

[mauricio]

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

[Baruch]

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!

[hrdlr110]

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  What is dieing are your outdated deities.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! 

[Shiranu]

And nothing of real value was lost...

[Atheon]

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.

[mauricio]

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

[mauricio]

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.

[FaithIsFilth]

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.

[mauricio]

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

[Hijiri Byakuren]

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.

[FaithIsFilth]

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.

[drunkenshoe]

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? 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. 

[Sal1981]

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.

[mauricio]

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.

[mauricio]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Before 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.