Silent no More: The Rise of the New Atheists

[Jagella]

I read some very good news in the April 2018 Scientific American. Michael Shermer writes in his Skeptic column "that 23 percent of all Americans have forsaken religion all together." The 23 percent figure is based on a 2013 Harris Poll and corroborated by a 2015 Pew Research Center poll. It is a "dramatic increase" from 2007 when only 16 percent of polled Americans said they were affiliated with no religion.

Why these poll results are so important to me is that the real good news is that America has a chance to lead the world with a new sense of social responsibility. We atheists can succeed where religionists have failed. As religion and superstition decline; science, critical thinking, and true morality can increase. We can level the playing field for all Americans granting everybody a chance to make something out of themselves. Let's leave religion and all its "bad fruit" behind forever!

Our efforts to turn the tables on Christianity appear to be working. Do you agree?

[Overcomer]

historia wrote:

More importantly, Soviet policy included the express aim of advancing atheism with the ultimate goal of eliminating religion. That was true under Stalin's reign as well.

Same thing in China. It was always a goal of Mao Tse-Tung. The Central Cultural Revolution Group, formed in early 1965 by Mao’s supporters, predicted the eradication of religion.

Here we are, decades later, and the underground Christian church in China is going strong.

[alexxcJRO]

No, I have noted that the OP makes those distinctions. The fact that you favor science does not mean that all atheists do. This "New Atheism", to which the OP refers, does have that as one of it's characteristics, according to the OP. Now, your expansion of those characteristics to include a commitment to avoiding the promotion or defense of "actions like genocides, slavery, rape, male supremacy, and so on" makes it the statement of moral position.


Atheist don't study the nature of God for they don't believe in God. They just debunk nonsense like an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good being that has free will, a perfectly just being who is also at the same time perfectly merciful, a omniscient being that has regrets, a god that sacrifice himself to himself in order to be able to save people from something he is responsible for.

That is not true, some atheists do study the nature of deities and take positions in opposition to their existence. In fact, that paragraph shows that you have engaged in the study of deities sufficient to give specific objections to them. Those objections constitute theological positions and, if holding those objections is viewed as distinguishing characteristic of what the OP calls the "New Atheism", them the "New Atheism" is based on a theological position.


It is true that basic atheism does not involve theistic practices or accept theistic writings as authoritative. However, if an atheist actively opposes theistic practices and theistic writings, that atheist is taking a theological position, especially if that opposition is based on the fact that they are theistic practices and writings. Now, if one goes further, as the OP has, and claims that this active opposition is an intergal part of the "New Atheism", then the "New Atheism" is based on a theological position.


That is true that merely ignoring theistic claims is not a theological position. However, one can be an atheist and take positions in opposition to theism. Those are theistic positions and the more detailed the opposition the more theistic the position. That said, I am not desperate to make atheism a religion. I am just pointing out that this "New Atheism" proposed by the OP is based on a theistic position, not only because it opposed theism, but also because it defines that opposition with some detail.

Nonsensical ramblings in desperate attempt to make atheists look religious.

I am afraid there is no way out of this. Again:


theology
plural theologies
1 : the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially : the study of God and of God's relation to the world
2 a : a theological theory or system Thomist theology a theology of atonement
b : a distinctive body of theological opinion Catholic theology
3 : a usually 4-year course of specialized religious training in a Roman Catholic major seminary

theological

1 : of or relating to theology
2 : preparing for a religious vocation a theological student

Theological is relating to theology.
Theology means the study of God and of God's relation to the world. (this assumes God exists)
An atheist does not believe God exists.
C: Therefore an atheist whether he actively opposes theism(anti-theist) or not cannot have a theological position.

As long we are discussing whether God hypothesis is a plausible one or not, as long as we are still discussing whether God is logically possible or not to exist we are not doing theology but philosophy.
Atheism is the rejection of theology aka there are no Gods available to study. Theology is the study of God or gods and assumes there is a God or gods from the start.

Also,
What atheist accepts theistic writings as authoritative? Common. What are you smoking?


Here a few examples of theological positions:
http://www.mst.edu.au/theological-position/
http://www.bcbsr.com/topics/bcbsrth.html

[alexxcJRO]

Like most philosophers, Brown is an atheist.

Irrelevant. Being a philosopher or an atheist does not make him right.

Sure, but words have shades of meaning depending on the context. In this case, you missed the intended meaning. And now we've clarified.

Nonsense dear sir.

I am afraid there is no way out of this. Again:

theology
plural theologies
1 : the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially : the study of God and of God's relation to the world
2 a : a theological theory or system Thomist theology a theology of atonement
b : a distinctive body of theological opinion Catholic theology
3 : a usually 4-year course of specialized religious training in a Roman Catholic major seminary

theological
1 : of or relating to theology
2 : preparing for a religious vocation a theological student

Theological is relating to theology.
Theology means the study of God and of God's relation to the world. (this assumes God exists)
Atheism means being skeptical about God existence.
C: Therefore an atheist cannot have a theological position.


As long we are discussing whether God hypothesis is a plausable one or not, as long as we are still disscusing whether God is logically possible or not we are not doing theology but philosophy.
Atheism is the rejection of theology aka there are no Gods available to study. Theology is the study of God or gods and assumes there is a God or gods from the start.

Here a few examples of theological positions:
http://www.mst.edu.au/theological-position/
http://www.bcbsr.com/topics/bcbsrth.html

[alexxcJRO]

Your argument suggests that Christians are encourage to murder people. You failed to answer my question.

Let me answer you: Yes, Christianity does encourages and promotes murder, intolerance, slavery, male supremacy, genocide.

Now please answer mine:

Q: Does Christianity encourage people to go spread the message of the gospels?(Yes/No question)

Q: Would it be fair of me to say that if one is speaking about Christians, one at least should investigate whether Jesus encouraged people to murder?

This ties in with your own question re the gospels.

Q: Is it recorded anywhere that Jesus ordered his followers to murder others?
Q: Can Christians use the old testament script you quoted to justify murdering others, without somehow contravening Jesus' orders?
Q: Can any who do (or have done) murder others in the name of Jesus or Christianity be considered to be following Jesus' orders?

If not, then i suggest that these people may call/have called themselves followers of Jesus but are/were obviously not.

Pretty simple really.

They would be following Yahweh order. But wait a minute:

Jesus is God.
Yahweh is God.
Holy spirit is God.
One will 3 manifestations.
Yahweh’s will’s is Jesus’s will and vice versa.
Yahweh’s directives from Deuteronomy are in fact Jesus’s directives.

C: Therefore they would be following Jesus’s orders.



Also,

This supposedly peaceful, warm, fuzzy feelings guy hinted for humans to fear “Him(meaning Jesus for he is God part of Triune God) who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell�.

This supposedly peaceful, warm, fuzzy feelings guy will condemn billions of people to conscious eternal torment in the Lake of fire/Hell.

“10 And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.� (Revelation 20:10)
“10 they, too, will drink the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. They will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever. There will be no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image, or for anyone who receives the mark of its name.��(Revelation 14:10-11)
“41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.� (Matthew 25:41)
“46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.��(Matthew 25:46)
“13 They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever."(Jude 13)
“9They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might� (2 Thessalonians 1:9)
Hell is a place of great torment:
“50 and throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.�(Matthew 13:50)
“43 If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out.�(Mark 9:43)

[historia]

A "theological position" would be an opinion of some sort (that's the "position" part) about something (say, existence or lack thereof) specifically about God (that's the "theological" part). "Either God exists, or God does not exist" is a theological position, because it contains the premise that both sides of the disjunction make sense.

Why do i would care what other religious man says?

Off course he would say otherwise. Religious people rarely agree with definitions of the words when it concerns religion.

Like most philosophers, Brown is an atheist.

Irrelevant. Being a philosopher or an atheist does not make him right.

No one said it did. I'm simply pointing out that your assertion that he is religious is erroneous.

It's also rather humorous to see you now arguing Brown's beliefs regarding God are irrelevant, when you made the exact opposite argument in your previous post when you assumed he was religious. It's always nice to see someone refute their own ad hominem argument.

Theological is relating to theology. Theology means the study of God and of God's relation to the world.

Right, and a possible position one can take with regard to God and God's relation to the world is skepticism of God's existence.

(this assumes God exists)

Not necessarily. As the parentheses here indicate, this is an assumption you've read into the definition.

Look, as fun as it is to quibble over words, this is really neither here nor there in the discussion. I'll leave you to it, as there are far more interesting things to discuss.

[historia]

What are you thinking of here in terms of social responsibility?

We need more women, racial minorities, and the disabled living in and participating in the mainstream of society. We should all be allowed freedom and opportunity to live our lives the best way we can free of unnecessary prejudices. Atheists should adopt attitudes that favor these social advancements, and as we grow in numbers, we need to use our growing influence to make sure society advances this way.

It seems to me that what you are describing here is just good, old-fashioned Western Liberalism.

A good case can be made that, far from being antithetical to religious belief, Liberalism appears to have evolved from Christian doctrines on the equality of all souls before God and concern for the poor and disadvantaged.

Consider Friedrich Nietzsche, the famous atheist philosopher, as the obvious counter-example here. Like you, he was highly critical of Christianity. Like you, he wanted to develop a new, secular morality free of Christian influence.

Where you differ is that Nietzsche recognized that egalitarianism and concern for the weak and downtrodden were Christian virtues. He wanted to return instead to pre-Christian Roman ideals of strength, will, and nobility of spirit.

Religious leaders have made a mess of the world. Much of the problem lies with the pseudo-morality they preach.

There would appear to be an inconsistency in your argument here. On the one hand, you condemn Christian morality as "making a mess of the world," while on the other hand you embrace some of its core virtues. Nietzsche's position would seem the more logically consistent in that he rejects both.

[William]

[Replying to post 74 by alexxcJRO]

Your argument suggests that Christians are encourage to murder people.

Yes, Christianity does encourages and promotes murder...

Q: Would it be fair of me to say that if one is speaking about Christians, one at least should investigate whether Jesus encouraged people to murder?

_Is it recorded anywhere that Jesus ordered his followers to murder others

_Can Christians use the old testament script you quoted to justify murdering others, without somehow contravening Jesus' orders

_Can any who do (or have done) murder others in the name of Jesus or Christianity be considered to be following Jesus' orders

If not, then i suggest that these people may call/have called themselves followers of Jesus but are/were obviously not.

Pretty simple really.

They would be following Yahweh order. But wait a minute:

Jesus is God.
Yahweh is God.
Holy spirit is God.
One will 3 manifestations.
Yahweh’s will’s is Jesus’s will and vice versa.
Yahweh’s directives from Deuteronomy are in fact Jesus’s directives.

C: Therefore they would be following Jesus’s orders.

This does not answer the question put to you. Also - assuming then that the OT GOD said that all adulterers should be stoned to death, what do you make of the story where the crowd tested Jesus and he told them that those without sin could cast the first stone, and when no one did cast the stones, the adulterous was spared?
It appears to me that either Jesus was not representing the OT idea of GOD, or if he was, then he has changed his mind.
Assuming also that Jesus was without sin, even his allowing for that anyone without sin could throw the first stone, Jesus himself did not throw a stone at the adulterer.

With all that in mind, it does appear that your reasoning above is faulty.

Why not simply answer my question and bring the actual quotes that Jesus orders Christians to murder others?

Or - failing that, admit that you are misleading/mislead.

Also,

This supposedly peaceful, warm, fuzzy feelings guy hinted for humans to fear “Him(meaning Jesus for he is God part of Triune God) who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell�.

This supposedly peaceful, warm, fuzzy feelings guy will condemn billions of people to conscious eternal torment in the Lake of fire/Hell.

You are now focusing on another subject which has nothing to do with Jesus ordering his followers to commit murder.

[ttruscott]

Madalyn Murray O'Hair
April 13, 1919

Occupation Activist, founder and president of American Atheists
Known for Abington School District v. Schempp (Supreme Court case)

Madalyn Murray O'Hair (née Mays; April 13, 1919 – September 29, 1995),[1] was an American activist, founder of American Atheists, and the organization's president from 1963 to 1986. She created the first issues of American Atheist Magazine. O'Hair is best known for the Murray v. Curlett lawsuit, which led to a landmark Supreme Court ruling ending official Bible-reading in American public schools in 1963. That case came just one year after the Supreme Court prohibited officially sponsored prayer in schools in Engel v. Vitale.

Should I go back farther?

[For_The_Kingdom]

I read some very good news in the April 2018 Scientific American. Michael Shermer writes in his Skeptic column "that 23 percent of all Americans have forsaken religion all together." The 23 percent figure is based on a 2013 Harris Poll and corroborated by a 2015 Pew Research Center poll. It is a "dramatic increase" from 2007 when only 16 percent of polled Americans said they were affiliated with no religion.

Why these poll results are so important to me is that the real good news is that America has a chance to lead the world with a new sense of social responsibility. We atheists can succeed where religionists have failed. As religion and superstition decline; science, critical thinking, and true morality can increase. We can level the playing field for all Americans granting everybody a chance to make something out of themselves. Let's leave religion and all its "bad fruit" behind forever! Our efforts to turn the tables on Christianity appear to be working. Do you agree?[/b

Turning the tables on Christianity? LOL. That is what it is all about, huh. If people want to leave Christianity, let them go..

1 John 2:19 "They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us."

Anybody that leaves the faith was never with us to begin with...and Jesus already stated that the path to eternal life is narrow, but the path to destruction is WIDE...so according to your poll; there are more people to walk along that wide road.

[benchwarmer]

Madalyn Murray O'Hair
April 13, 1919

Occupation Activist, founder and president of American Atheists
Known for Abington School District v. Schempp (Supreme Court case)

Madalyn Murray O'Hair (née Mays; April 13, 1919 – September 29, 1995),[1] was an American activist, founder of American Atheists, and the organization's president from 1963 to 1986. She created the first issues of American Atheist Magazine. O'Hair is best known for the Murray v. Curlett lawsuit, which led to a landmark Supreme Court ruling ending official Bible-reading in American public schools in 1963. That case came just one year after the Supreme Court prohibited officially sponsored prayer in schools in Engel v. Vitale.

Should I go back farther?

I see the title of that post is "Atheists LOUDLY imposing their will on Christians.". Isn't it really STOPPING the Christians from imposing their will on everyone else?

OFFICIAL Bible reading and OFFICIALLY SPONSORED prayer. I see no where that ANY Bible reading or ANY prayer is prohibited in this.

In other words, Christians are getting bent out of shape because their reign of the public schools system is/was finally being dismantled. They are still free to read Bibles and pray, but no one is forced to do such anymore.

In my opinion, schools are not the place for religious indoctrination. Would Christians be happy if Islam was forced on the students? No, of course not. Schools should be a place of learning, not about imposing beliefs. By all means learn about religion - all religions - in schools, but not for the purpose of claiming one to be right, rather to simply inform of what exists in the world.