The problem with neo-atheists
Posted on: April 7, 2007 - 3:09pm
Offline
The problem with neo-atheists
I just came across this article in our paper...
Article
- Login to post comments
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.
Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2021.
Same shit we see idiots post here regularly.
I'd refute that if I thought the author would read it. But then, 90% of it is unsubstantiated opinion anyway.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Geez, I thought it was written by an intern, but it turns out he's Harvard educated, and a regular contributor. He cites a member of a conservative think tank in his article for fuck's sake. Christianity is worse than alzheimer's.
This article is the undisputed A to Z of bad arguments in the favour of apathy. Pretty standard shit, as far as I'm concerned.
Jesus died for somebody's sins, but not mine
My local paper ran the same article. It looks like a copycat version of this one
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6521163,00.html , in which Harvard's humanist chaplain Greg Epstein lashes out at the "new atheists" in an underhanded attempt to get some attention.
What the hell is a "new atheist" or "neo-atheist" anyway? Haven't outspoken atheists always existed? Is this just an irrational reaction to the fact that there are more of us nowadays?
"You are 'atheist' simply you are PSYCHO or IGNORANCE. That's why even youself feel like not EXIST on this world."
~Yahoo message board poster
The only new thing is that you're hearing about it. I guess that's offensive enough to a lot of people. It reminds me of people who are "sick and tired" of hearing from 9/11 widows, or about the Jewish holocaust. I hope it's obvious that's not a direct comparison, just a reductio ad absurdum for the fingers in the ears crowd.
The irony of trying to factionalize atheists is incredible, considering there's only ONE uniting characteristic that defines the position.
The notion that there are "neo-atheists" is insane, a product of his total lack of understanding for how simple a concept atheism really is. Typical of another theist trying to distract from the real issues and fundamental flaws in their faith by shallowly painting us to be hypocritical or bigoted or intolerant or arrogant.
"We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes."
- Gene Roddenberry
"They are especially frustrated with religious "moderates" who don't fit their stereotypes."
The stereotype of believing in a religion?
"Argument about faith should not hang on whether religion is socially "useful" or instead promotes "inhumanity." But since the idea that religion is primarily destructive lies at the heart of the neo-atheist argument, its critics have rightly insisted on detailing the sublime acts of humanity and generosity that religion has promoted through the centuries."
Which are outweighed by the acts of horror and evil and INhumanity, especially when you consider the psychological fact that it takes about 3 good deeds to outdo one bad one.This is especially true if you count pseudo-religions like Nazism and Communism as "religions".
"It's true that religious Christians were among those who persecuted Jews. It is also true that religious Christians were among those who rescued Jews from these most-un-Christian acts. And it is a sad fact that secular forms of dogmatism have been at least as murderous as the religious kind."
I'd dispute the "at least". I'd also point out that some (like myself) are against ALL forms of dogmatism.
"But what's really bothersome is the suggestion that believers rarely question themselves while atheists ask all the hard questions."
When I was a christian, I did question all the time. I was encouraged to do so, in fact, by the leaders of several of the churches I went to. HOWEVER, it was always minor forms of questioning. If I questioned whether baptism was necessary for Salvation, or if evolution is scripturally supported, or something of that severity, I was freely allowed. However, if anyone found out that I was questioning the very basis of the belief (the existence of god, Jesus' divinity, etc.) everyone and their mother would engage in debates, attempting to quiet my questions. In essence, it's like in that one Simpsons episode where they became Movementarians. "You can leave at any time." As soon as you began leaving "where are you going?" and subtly coercing them to not leave.
"As for me, Christianity is more a call to rebellion than an insistence on narrow conformity, more a challenge than a set of certainties."
If I had a nickel for every time I heard that...it's especially funny since christians are told to rebuke "rebellious spirits" in themselves.
Look at my blog! It's awesome!
I'm also on this Twitter thing