News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

The New Atheist Movement is Dead

Started by CrucifyCindy, October 12, 2015, 06:43:41 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

peacewithoutgod

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.
There are two types of ideas: fact and non-fact. Ideas which are not falsifiable are non-fact, therefore please don't insist your fantasies of supernatural beings are in any way factual.

Doctrine = not to be questioned = not to be proven = not fact. When you declare your doctrine fact, you lie.

facebook164


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.

missingnocchi

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.
What's a "Leppo?"

peacewithoutgod

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!!!
There are two types of ideas: fact and non-fact. Ideas which are not falsifiable are non-fact, therefore please don't insist your fantasies of supernatural beings are in any way factual.

Doctrine = not to be questioned = not to be proven = not fact. When you declare your doctrine fact, you lie.

missingnocchi

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:
What's a "Leppo?"

Baruch

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 ;-)
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

peacewithoutgod

#186
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:
There are two types of ideas: fact and non-fact. Ideas which are not falsifiable are non-fact, therefore please don't insist your fantasies of supernatural beings are in any way factual.

Doctrine = not to be questioned = not to be proven = not fact. When you declare your doctrine fact, you lie.

Baruch

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.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

peacewithoutgod

#188
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.
There are two types of ideas: fact and non-fact. Ideas which are not falsifiable are non-fact, therefore please don't insist your fantasies of supernatural beings are in any way factual.

Doctrine = not to be questioned = not to be proven = not fact. When you declare your doctrine fact, you lie.

missingnocchi

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.
What's a "Leppo?"

Baruch

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.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

peacewithoutgod

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.
There are two types of ideas: fact and non-fact. Ideas which are not falsifiable are non-fact, therefore please don't insist your fantasies of supernatural beings are in any way factual.

Doctrine = not to be questioned = not to be proven = not fact. When you declare your doctrine fact, you lie.

missingnocchi

#192
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.
What's a "Leppo?"

Ace101

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".

peacewithoutgod

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!"
There are two types of ideas: fact and non-fact. Ideas which are not falsifiable are non-fact, therefore please don't insist your fantasies of supernatural beings are in any way factual.

Doctrine = not to be questioned = not to be proven = not fact. When you declare your doctrine fact, you lie.