Are the New Atheists just as messed up as Believers?

[HomerJS]

Started to read the article. Stopped right here. Told me everything I needed to know about these so called "new atheists" If they are affiliating with the far right they ditched their entire reason for being...

New Atheism appeared to offer moral clarity, it emphasized intellectual honesty

 

[pauldun170]

How did this "let 's attack atheist" thread go?

Started to read the article. Stopped right here. Told me everything I needed to know about these so called "new atheists" If they are affiliating with the far right they ditched their entire reason for being...

"New Atheist" is a catch phrase created years ago by a journalist writing a story about couple of guys who had some points to make in books and in interviews about religion.

There is no "movement or figureheads".
"a madly disorganized mob, united only by dislike of the god-thing."

There are a couple of well known old Atheist that get quoted time to time. Some even make money through books and appearing in media.
The author of the article that launched this thread wrote a story that essentially states "Those old famous guys are assholes". (Buy my book instead, book me for interviews and publish my essays please)

I'm sure his next article will be about how Einstein was a racist asshole who cheated on his wife. Maybe highlighting Mother Theresa as an asshole who thought it was beautiful to see the poor suffer (hell might as well shit on all saints - https://www.vice.com/en/article/av38x5/mother-teresa-was-a-jerk-and-so-were-a-bunch-of-other-saints


Was the follow up article posted - https://www.salon.com/2017/08/07/be...-movements-obnoxious-tendencies-go-from-here/

How about a counter article

Gajah138: Link Slot Online Gacor Hari Ini Jackpot Besar

Gajah138 merupakan website slot gacor hari ini yang menyediakan berbagai jenis game judi slot online terpercaya 2024. Segera daftar raih kemenanganya!

www.gspellchecker.com

 

[obidamnkenobi]

How did this "let 's attack atheist" thread go?

"New Atheist" is a catch phrase created years ago by a journalist writing a story about couple of guys who had some points to make in books and in interviews about religion.

The article didn't "attack" atheists. It pointed out that many of the, let's say most prominent people (authors, speakers) of a newer, more forceful atheism are in fact, huge assholes. As you say "atheists" is not a cohesive group, so this fact shouldn't concern the average non-believer much. I read several of the books of these guys in the early 2000s, they were interesting and I think highly valuable. I eventually got bored with it, you can only say "there is no god" so many ways. I never go on board with the whole anti-sjw nonsense either. It is in fact even more boring! So learning that these people who's books I read before are in fact awful people cause my no issue. In fact it's a good lesson!

Obviously atheism is not a religion, so we put no stock in authority, only in the arguments they present. So I can agree with The God Delusion's points, and still find Dawkins to now be an abhorrent scumbag. I used to read Skeptic magazine, but I'm still appealed by Shermer's misogynistic comments, culture war bullshit, and his idiotic libertarian nonsense.

 

[woolfe9998]

And to further complicate the matter, any concept I have or could formulate would just be fingers point at something that would not be Him. I just use capital H as a tradition. He surely isn’t male. I just use God to refer to the non thing believers refer to out of ignorance. It’s what a state of awareness got warped into by cargo cults.

A sense of humor is Godly. It’s the result of experiencing a clash of connections the resolution of which make us laugh,. Awakening is like that. It makes you wonder how you could have ever been so stupid.

None of this means I am right about Prop 13, however. Native Americans have a better claim.

Sounds a lot like pantheism to me.

 

[Moonbeam]

Sounds a lot like pantheism to me.

Sounds like why the elephant in the dark story is told:

I have heard, if I remember correctly, there is a Bedouin story that says: There is a Bedouin proverb that runs: There are two thing in life, dates and experience. A Bedouin went to a city and encountered something unfamiliar. What it was I don't remember remember and it might be important to the story, but whatever it was it wasn't dates so the Bedouin said, 'this must be experience'.

These stories exist, I believe, because of the problem of duality. Those who see the world through thought, memory, time, and fear, are unable to comprehend the collapse of unity via the revolution of understanding that experience brings. When Mulla Nasrudin came upon a parrot, he trimmed its beak colored it brown and set it flying away. Now you look like a proper bird.

I do not really know what pantheism is other than by examination of what I know about the roots of the word.

 

[Pontius Dilate]

Sounds like why the elephant in the dark story is told:

I have heard, if I remember correctly, there is a Bedouin story that says: There is a Bedouin proverb that runs: There are two thing in life, dates and experience. A Bedouin went to a city and encountered something unfamiliar. What it was I don't remember remember and it might be important to the story, but whatever it was it wasn't dates so the Bedouin said, 'this must be experience'.

These stories exist, I believe, because of the problem of duality. Those who see the world through thought, memory, time, and fear, are unable to comprehend the collapse of unity via the revolution of understanding that experience brings. When Mulla Nasrudin came upon a parrot, he trimmed its beak colored it brown and set it flying away. Now you look like a proper bird.

I do not really know what pantheism is other than by examination of what I know about the roots of the word.

You know Moonbeam, you really kind of give the game away with your signature. The first sentence simultaneously allows you to disclaim any and everything you post as "sarcasm" and not your real opinion, while also suggesting that anything you post which was misunderstood or failed to be understood by the reader is because what you wrote was sufficiently rarely subtle. The second sentence doubles down on blaming the reader for failing to understand your post by suggesting that they simply don't have the experience to understand.

This ties in nicely with your statement: "Those who see the world through thought, memory, time, and fear, are unable to comprehend the collapse of unity via the revolution of understanding that experience brings." Most, probably all, human beings reading this post would agree that they see (or experience) the world through thought, memory, time and fear, in addition to other similar words. Therefore, only Moonbeam is able to comprehend the collapse of unity (undefined) via the revolution of understanding (undefined) that experience brings. You have had a unique experience, and anyone who fails to understand what you post has not had that experience. If they had, they would simply agree with you.

 

[Moonbeam]

You know Moonbeam, you really kind of give the game away with your signature. The first sentence simultaneously allows you to disclaim any and everything you post as "sarcasm" and not your real opinion, while also suggesting that anything you post which was misunderstood or failed to be understood by the reader is because what you wrote was sufficiently rarely subtle. The second sentence doubles down on blaming the reader for failing to understand your post by suggesting that they simply don't have the experience to understand.

That sig is original in the sense it has been my sig since I have been posting here. I prefer to think of it not so much as giving anything away, but to suggest to others I know and knew even long long before that exactly what to expect. So many, in coming up with remarks about my posts fancy themselves original.

This ties in nicely with your statement: "Those who see the world through thought, memory, time, and fear, are unable to comprehend the collapse of unity via the revolution of understanding that experience brings." Most, probably all, human beings reading this post would agree that they see (or experience) the world through thought, memory, time and fear, in addition to other similar words.

Ties in....hum, I can't imagine why.

Therefore, only Moonbeam is able to comprehend the collapse of unity (undefined) via the revolution of understanding (undefined) that experience brings. You have had a unique experience, and anyone who fails to understand what you post has not had that experience. If they had, they would simply agree with you.

How well I remember that feeling. When I first discovered Zen and starting reading, it threw me into a rage. I remember throwing the first book I had across the room in a huge tantrum. What are those Mother Fuckers talking about, 'Not a tile above or a place to put your foot.', and all the while happy as Larry. Well I wasn't happy. I was fucking thinking I should just end it all because I was doomed to a whole fucking future of endless hopelessness and misery.

Truly, I understand and I think I can help you with that:

If you have a pumpkin I will give you one and if you haven't I'll take it away.

 

[pmv]

The article didn't "attack" atheists. It pointed out that many of the, let's say most prominent people (authors, speakers) of a newer, more forceful atheism are in fact, huge assholes. As you say "atheists" is not a cohesive group, so this fact shouldn't concern the average non-believer much. I read several of the books of these guys in the early 2000s, they were interesting and I think highly valuable. I eventually got bored with it, you can only say "there is no god" so many ways. I never go on board with the whole anti-sjw nonsense either. It is in fact even more boring! So learning that these people who's books I read before are in fact awful people cause my no issue. In fact it's a good lesson!

Obviously atheism is not a religion, so we put no stock in authority, only in the arguments they present. So I can agree with The God Delusion's points, and still find Dawkins to now be an abhorrent scumbag. I used to read Skeptic magazine, but I'm still appealed by Shermer's misogynistic comments, culture war bullshit, and his idiotic libertarian nonsense.

Agreed. Though you go further than I would in giving credit to this gang. I eventually read Dawkins' and Hitchens' anti-religion books out of curiosity, and didn't think much of either of them. Dawkins' was just dull, a very dry and nerdy 'beginners guide to atheism', while Hitchens' had kind-of the opposite flaw - it seemed like a slapdash cash-in and under-researched scatter-shot rant (I vaguely remember spotting a couple of outright factual errors in it, which says something considering I went to one of the crappiest inner city comps in the country and he was the son of an admiral who went to an expensive private school and Oxbridge - I expected better from someone with so many advantages).

I wouldn't say I exactly disagreed with either book (being at least a third-generation non-believer, after all) but I don't think anyone not already that way inclined would have been persuaded by either of them. Besides, you don't change minds with books, people change their views if and when their actual objective circumstances change. Always puzzled how a one-time supposed 'Marxist' like Hitchens never seemed to believe that.

Hitchens did have an effective prose-style, on one level he was a good writer. But he wasn't exactly rigorous and forensic.

What I find curious is how disparate are the mob dissected in the article. They all came from different fields, the main thing uniting them being that they were almost all upper-class white men. And yet so many of them ended up associating with Epstein, among their other sins.

There's something corrupt and sordid about the entire class of 'intellectual entrepreneurs'. Guys who flog a thesis for money and status.

 

[obidamnkenobi]

Agreed. Though you go further than I would in giving credit to this gang. I eventually read Dawkins' and Hitchens' anti-religion books out of curiosity, and didn't think much of either of them. Dawkins' was just dull, a very dry and nerdy 'beginners guide to atheism', while Hitchens' had kind-of the opposite flaw - it seemed like a slapdash cash-in and under-researched scatter-shot rant (I vaguely remember spotting a couple of outright factual errors in it, which says something considering I went to one of the crappiest inner city comps in the country and he was the son of an admiral who went to an expensive private school and Oxbridge - I expected better from someone with so many advantages).

I wouldn't say I exactly disagreed with either book (being at least a third-generation non-believer, after all) but I don't think anyone not already that way inclined would have been persuaded by either of them. Besides, you don't change minds with books, people change their views if and when their actual objective circumstances change. Always puzzled how a one-time supposed 'Marxist' like Hitchens never seemed to believe that.

Hitchens did have an effective prose-style, on one level he was a good writer. But he wasn't exactly rigorous and forensic.

What I find curious is how disparate are the mob dissected in the article. They all came from different fields, the main thing uniting them being that they were almost all upper-class white men. And yet so many of them ended up associating with Epstein, among their other sins.

There's something corrupt and sordid about the entire class of 'intellectual entrepreneurs'. Guys who flog a thesis for money and status.

No, I also think these guys (always guys..) get a bit too much credit. Though how much of that is the media's fault I don't know. "Remember in in 2006 when Dawkins invented atheism!" I honestly don't remember much of the god delusion. I read it once and gave it away🙂 Sounds like similar to your situation I had read other books on the philosophical arguments before, and this was more reinforcing than anything. Heck, Plato's Euthypro is a equally effective/persuasive. I don't know if these guys really convinced anyone. At least not of atheism. That self-important know-it-alls are awful to be around they have done a good job.. Hitchens and Harris I got the sense were saying the same thing, so I never really got much into their writings, as I didn't quite see the point rehashing it. Not being familiar with it it's interesting hearing your view of Hitchens 🙂

If anything I think Selfish gene and Mount improbably were the more interesting things I read from dawkins. Actually teaches something and helps understand evolution.

 

[MichaelMay]

I can't help but imagine you are very sure you are right about this which would suggest you may be projecting. So how am I supposed to have an honest debate or discourse with you? Well, the fact that you are sure you are right is to my mind completely to be expected so I don't hold your preconceptions against you. I am willing to debate, but doubtlessly, in your opinion, disingenuously.



I am perfectly aware of that but you misunderstand my gall. The reason I have always claimed for my knowledge of everybody else rests on a simple but unprovable claim, that what you can see in others depends on if you can see it in yourself. The reason I claim that is that I also claim 'we are all the same'. The problem, of course, is that if I know more about myself than you know about you, it will look like I am projecting something I am not aware of is true about me onto you. So what I am aware of is that you are accusing me of projecting my something you imagine I don't see in myself when it is the opposite that is true. I am telling you how you are because I see it in me. Also, I can't project my inability to understand 'others' onto them. I could only project my inability to understand 'myself' onto them. That also can mean that if you don't understand yourself you could be projecting that on me and it could be just that lack of self understanding about what projection is that caused you to turn it upside down.



Everything I know???? I don't know anything. I died to everything I held ego sacred to see that. Now I am back to being a massive egotist because what I say is the truth I believe in regardless of how offensive it is to those still clinging to their naive dreams about the self they imagine themselves to be. I know I know nothing and nobody can take that glorious revelation from me. I lost everything that can be taken and found what can't be taken, what I could never imagine was hiding there in emptiness. I hope you will experience the realization you know nothing too. It will make you wonderfully stupid. You won't have to take those stupid sacred cows out to pasture every moment you imagine you're awake or if you do you can laugh about it. It's pathetic to be human.



I just thank goodness you yourself are not judgmental. Love you.

That is a LOT of words amounting to nothing but "I know you are but what am I".

You try to play pretend to have deeper thoughts but this is all it amounts to, your idea that you know and others do not so you wallow in your wilful ignorance ignoring everyone else while playing pretend you cannot be wrong.

I don't know why you are this way but it makes you impervious to learn anything when you are so cock sure you have all the answers. I'd say you are a lot like Jordan Peterson, Elon Musk or Donald Trump with an ego so massive and an understanding of others so far from reality that it cannot be fixed.

Even your attempts of humility come across as absolute narcissism because that is all they are.

 

[MichaelMay]

No, I also think these guys (always guys..) get a bit too much credit. Though how much of that is the media's fault I don't know. "Remember in in 2006 when Dawkins invented atheism!" I honestly don't remember much of the god delusion. I read it once and gave it away🙂 Sounds like similar to your situation I had read other books on the philosophical arguments before, and this was more reinforcing than anything. Heck, Plato's Euthypro is a equally effective/persuasive. I don't know if these guys really convinced anyone. At least not of atheism. That self-important know-it-alls are awful to be around they have done a good job.. Hitchens and Harris I got the sense were saying the same thing, so I never really got much into their writings, as I didn't quite see the point rehashing it. Not being familiar with it it's interesting hearing your view of Hitchens 🙂

If anything I think Selfish gene and Mount improbably were the more interesting things I read from dawkins. Actually teaches something and helps understand evolution.

There are quite a few books that Dawkins have written that are absolute masterpieces, the blind watchmaker along with the two you mentioned are all great reads. I do believe he'd be more worthwhile if he stayed with things like that and left the philosophy to philosophers. To be fair, I find philosophy and logical arguments to be completely useless endeavors.