Rachel Bronwyn wrote:You can't attribute an upsurge in people identifying as atheist to "New Atheism". The group of people labelled "New Atheists" may well be driving more people away from identifying as atheists (goodness knows I wish the label didn't apply much of the time) than they're bringing in. Attributing the fact atheism isn't as bad a word as it used to be in North America is by no means as indication Richard Dawkins or Jerry Coyne have done anything right.

Which is why I just reject the term, and then hold and express an opinion on what atheists actually say like, you know, in the usual way.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:I'd gladly further distance myself from every one of them if people were mistakenly associating me with them.

That's exactly what the people constantly blathering about the flaws of new atheism want you to do. And it's not going to stop there, next up merely being an atheist is a problem.

But you know, if you want to sit down and shut up about your atheism have at it.

"New Atheism" is just the religious apologetics lobby's attempt to dress atheism up as something new and dangerous. They've basically taken atheism, put a silly hat on it, and started pointing and going "waily, waily, waily, its dangerous."

Religion has a problem with atheism. They've tried tackling it straight on (albeit in its usual dishonest, evasive, goalpost shifting way) and failed. So they've rebranded the problem of atheism in the hope it will make their attacks on it more successful. Which is basically religion just creating another strawman to beat down to try and feel good about itself.

I agree with this guy's take on it:

I don 't wax lyrical about my atheism because it's not interesting and nobody cares. I talk about it as much as I talk about other aspects of my identity that have virtually no impact on my life. Occasionally it comes up (usually on questionnaires, sometimes in discussion) in which case I openly share it and talk about it if others are interested, though there's not much to talk about - "I don't believe in god/s" - but otherwise it plays no role in my life so, no, I don't talk about it a lot. I don't know how that constitutes sitting down or shutting up. Just seems like a big ol' misrepresentation, actually!

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:I don 't wax lyrical about my atheism because it's not interesting and nobody cares. I talk about it as much as I talk about other aspects of my identity that have virtually no impact on my life. Occasionally it comes up (usually on questionnaires, sometimes in discussion) in which case I openly share it and talk about it if others are interested, though there's not much to talk about - "I don't believe in god/s" - but otherwise it plays no role in my life so, no, I don't talk about it a lot. I don't know how that constitutes sitting down or shutting up. Just seems like a big ol' misrepresentation, actually!

I think for the most part Rachel, this is how the vaaaast majority of atheists go about our daily lives. We're not trying to shove atheism down anyone's throat.

What religion doesn't like though, is the fact that when it tries to get in our faces, we're prepared to stand up and rationalise vigorously at them in order to get them to fuck off with their preaching. That is what religion doesn't like and that's what it is now branding as "new atheism."

As ever, its just another ridiculous double standard from the legion apologetic.

It is fine for religion to preach at people.
It isn't fine for anyone to present a counter argument to the bollocks they are preaching about.

I'm open to the possibility "New Atheism" is applied to any atheist who pushes back against religious advances. I totally agree that's terrible. It's not my experience though. My experience is the label is applied to a specific handful of atheists who share attitudes beyond just being atheists which lots of atheists will disagree with.

THWOTH wrote:The so-called 'new atheists' are just what they're calling 'atheists who don't keep quiet about it' these days. If people want to retain the right to talk about their religious beliefs and practices they just have to put up with other people talking about how they might not share those beliefs and why. I mean, what's the alternative?

Yes, I think this is about the only thing that's really 'new' about atheism.

We just happen to live during a window of time where one can express such sentiments in public without being attacked by the officers of the law.

How long we have this bit of liberty is no sure thing. Should the usual marriage of church and state resume we will have to go back underground because freedom of conscience is not a right generally recognized by religious fanatics eager to take up the reins of state power.

Sendraks wrote:

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:I don 't wax lyrical about my atheism because it's not interesting and nobody cares. I talk about it as much as I talk about other aspects of my identity that have virtually no impact on my life. Occasionally it comes up (usually on questionnaires, sometimes in discussion) in which case I openly share it and talk about it if others are interested, though there's not much to talk about - "I don't believe in god/s" - but otherwise it plays no role in my life so, no, I don't talk about it a lot. I don't know how that constitutes sitting down or shutting up. Just seems like a big ol' misrepresentation, actually!

I think for the most part Rachel, this is how the vaaaast majority of atheists go about our daily lives. We're not trying to shove atheism down anyone's throat.

What religion doesn't like though, is the fact that when it tries to get in our faces, we're prepared to stand up and rationalise vigorously at them in order to get them to fuck off with their preaching. That is what religion doesn't like and that's what it is now branding as "new atheism."

As ever, its just another ridiculous double standard from the legion apologetic.

It is fine for religion to preach at people.
It isn't fine for anyone to present a counter argument to the bollocks they are preaching about.

Well said. The job of counter-apologetics doesn't really fly unless there are some apologetics to counter.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote: My experience is the label is applied to a specific handful of atheists who share attitudes beyond just being atheists which lots of atheists will disagree with.

Is that really "new atheism" or simply people being opinionated "I am right you are wrong" dickheads? You know, the sort of people who if they aren't busy being loud, obnoxious and "right" about atheism, they're busy being loud, obnoxious and "right" about something else.

Funny how every other group deemed as "other" by established powers found itself being labelled as "militant" or "strident", when said group started saying out loud "er, there's something seriously amiss with the status quo, not least the denial of rights to us". It's the standard tactic of every threatened power elite.

Calilasseia wrote:Funny how every other group deemed as "other" by established powers found itself being labelled as "militant" or "strident", when said group started saying out loud "er, there's something seriously amiss with the status quo, not least the denial of rights to us". It's the standard tactic of every threatened power elite.

To be fair though, a group that seeks reform for some inequity in society may become less strident both in terms of perception and reality, if there is progress in terms of needed reforms. As reforms accumulate, and the moral Zeitgeist of the society changes, so will the message.

Now I am just an ordinary bog standard atheist and so there is nothing new about
me at all. I have got grey hair for Gods sake. And in so far as that other adjective
is concerned well I am about as strident as rice pudding. And so there you have it

The authority of religions, like a queen abdicating her office, has slowly descended as though down a wide spiral staircase, carefully trying not to trip over the hem of its ridiculous gown. Each step represents an era in which the advance of knowledge and human thriving reveals more of religion's shameful pretense to understanding and power.

At each of those steps, the hag queen has spewn abusive vituperation at the clamoring crowd that jeers at her clownish appearance and rejoices in her disgrace. With each step, she re-labels her rivals, puts them in some new and threatening light, and gives fresh utterance to accusations of evil, hoping that her partisans will find fresh inspiration to fight for her eventual restoration.

Because you see...apologists only fear the loss of power and influence. This name-calling, this hand-waving, are only the response of a former tyrant, now cornered by her former slaves, pissing in her shoes and desperate to return to yesterday.

...when all her troubles seemed so far away; now she's looking for a place to pray; I disbelieve in yesterday.

Theists are guilty by association. Gods have appalling bad manners, the worst of which is their non-existence. Yet these religious folks persist in being friends with/serving/worshiping such incredibly rude entities. I want nothing to do with them.

There are definitely such things as evangelical atheists. I don't think it's atheism they should be evangelizing. What they should be evangelizing is hard thinking. Atheism is, at least arguably, a knock-on benefit of this more fundamental virtue.

The numerous shenanigans I've seen in movement atheism, whether they had anything to do with this "evangelical" attitude or not (most didn't), have led to me to dissociate from it completely. I very rarely discuss my atheism, or agnosticism, with anyone anymore and usually have to be prodded somewhat to admit to it at all. My focus now is almost entirely on science and (other aspects of) philosophy.

Sadegh wrote:There are definitely such things as evangelical atheists. I don't think it's atheism they should be evangelizing. What they should be evangelizing is hard thinking. Atheism is, at least arguably, a knock-on benefit of this more fundamental virtue.

Burn him! Burn the heretic!

Sadegh wrote:There are definitely such things as evangelical atheists. I don't think it's atheism they should be evangelizing. What they should be evangelizing is hard thinking. Atheism is, at least arguably, a knock-on benefit of this more fundamental virtue.

I like this.
There are atheists out there who claim a position of superiority because of their atheism, although fall short on the critical thinking stakes.

Sadegh wrote:There are definitely such things as evangelical atheists. I don't think it's atheism they should be evangelizing. What they should be evangelizing is hard thinking. Atheism is, at least arguably, a knock-on benefit of this more fundamental virtue.

The numerous shenanigans I've seen in movement atheism, whether they had anything to do with this "evangelical" attitude or not (most didn't), have led to me to dissociate from it completely. I very rarely discuss my atheism, or agnosticism, with anyone anymore and usually have to be prodded somewhat to admit to it at all. My focus now is almost entirely on science and (other aspects of) philosophy.

The thing is religions [especially monotheistic ones], have not got a particularly good track record in terms urging for, enforcing, or even complying with the principles of a secular state. They love to influence government covertly or overtly. Although there are some religious people who are secular, and fight for a secular state, most religions are not interested in freedom of belief, informed choice, or critical thinking, especially when such critical thinking questions religious beliefs or assumptions.
Some people deny this, or get confused about it, but religion is the politics of privilege.