Andrew Brown gives you the chance to quiz yourself to find out if you’re a new atheist! Asserting that ‘new atheism’ (what I’m pretty sure was a handy marketing phrase developed by the book industry a few years ago, and not a movement) is political as opposed to intellectual, the Guardian blogger raises a few hackles both on his own blog and on Richard Dawkin’s.
Commenter Steve Mading on Dawkins points out:
He’s right that “New Atheists” are primarily about social and political concerns, rather than the philosophical argument. He just fails to see why that’s the case. It’s because philosophers in the past have already won that argument If he wants to talk about that sort of argument - go check the philosphers of the 1700s, 1800s, and early 1900s. We won that argument already in the philosophy world - it’s just that the world is full of dishonest people who don’t admit it. The point of the “new” atheists is - what are we going to DO about it now?
The newness surrounding atheism is surely the internet, which spreads ideas at a pace unimagined in Inquisition days. We now know that the world is explainable; dedicated scientists are working on those explanations daily. We also suspect, if we don’t already know, that religions were made up by people (and awfully ignorant people, at that); as such we are realizing aloud more and more that the special dispensations we’ve granted them aren’t deserved and should be revoked. That’s all.
Here’s a response to that conversation from orDover, a former Evangelical Christian turned atheist.
I’d add to this that besides lies not helping children or anyone else deal with death, they also belittle the experience of living. If this is all the time I have with any person, place or thing that I love, then every moment is precious and should be savoured, in case it’s my last.
Recently we wrote about Fox News’ absurdly juvenile blog post, “The Devil Is In the Details: Another Obama Connection You Ought to Know About“, in which the author attempts to tie Obama to, wait for it, Lucifer. The devil, as you may know, is totally evil, and you should super not vote for someone with an extremely tenuous connection to the lord of the imaginary underworld.
[That was sarcasm. Please vote for Barack Obama.]
We despaired for the future of America upon reading that ridiculous blog post, and hoped that was the last we would hear of politicians with so very little regard for the intellects of their constituents that they would try to fearmonger with such sad material. Alas, America, Senator Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C., thinks you’re even dumber than Faux Noise does.
It’s not entirely politician’s marketing team’s fault that they think their electorate is susceptible to being manipulated by this garbage. The Pew Forum on Religion and Politics reports that almost 70%, “the vast majority of Americans agree that it is important for a president to have strong religious beliefs”. Regardless of political affiliation,
Overall views of the presidential candidates are linked with views of their religiosity; those who perceive a candidate as being very religious tend to express the most favorable overall views of each candidate, followed by those who perceive the candidate as being somewhat religious. Those who view candidates as being not too or not at all religious, on the other hand, are much less likely to express favorable views. Notably, even people who themselves are not particularly observant have a more positive opinion of candidates they believe are at least somewhat religious.
Americans, the Pew shows, have a bias towards thinking religious people are good guys. In light of the survey results, no candidate would dream of campaigning without professing to be religious, so a) you can’t trust that they even are genuinely religious and b) they may well turn out to be Ted Haggart-level hypocrites, a self-fulfilling prophecy with a Christ complex. Not necessarily good guys, so shake that image and give the good people at Pew a straight answer next time they call.
And what of Dole’s opponent, the atheistic Democrat Senator Kay Hagan? A practicing Christian, Kay said that Dole should be “ashamed of herself.”
Coast to Coast AM is a late-night talk show, about 5 million listeners strong, covering topics like the paranormal, exobiology, and conspiracy theories. The show is hosted by George Noory, a “believer” who’s opinions seem weighted towards making him popular with his spiritually hungry audience.
Noory’s deluded psuedo-mystical opinions have exceeded my tolerance and must be exposed for the bullshit they are. The audience Noory attracts are avid and kinda gullible, and like the John McCain followers who worry that Obama is a Muslim, the stupidest theories stick. I don’t like to see ignorant people manipulated.
George spoke with Gary Schwartz on Wednesday, an intelligent design crackpot who buries his beliefs in scientifical jargon. On this fine Wednesday, George made it clear that he thinks a precondition for “pure evil” is atheism.
Is it safe to assume that pure evil does not believe in a higher intelligence, a higher consciousness, God, call it what you will?
See I don’t think they do. I think, and I’ve watched an evolution of people, as they become closer to what you have in this book, The G.O.D. Experiments, they become better people. They become more enlightened.
People that I have seen now, and witnessed in my life, who are what I call ‘pure evil’, some of them we see on the news, ok, see I don’t know them personally, but you know that they’re just not good people—I don’t think they believe in a higher intelligence! I don’t think they care—for some reason, people who believe tend to be better people, nicer people, they care about people.
George Noory is suggesting that ‘evil’ people—serial killers, murderers, Hitler and such—do not believe in God, and that is the precondition to their evil actions. If they were believers, they would be nicer, better, care more for others, become more “enlightened”.
If George had said the same thing about any other group of people, he would have lost his advertisers. It’s irresponsible and ridiculous to put an idea like that out there and think you’re going to get away with it.
Atheists are not evil. They are not more “likely” to be “evil” because an imaginary morality isn’t breathing down their neck. Evil is a concept in which they don’t believe; they ascribe actions—good and bad—to “personal responsibility”. People who don’t believe in bullshit are critical thinkers. That doesn’t mean they don’t have feelings, morality or judgment.
Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Weinberg writes in The New York Review of Books an essay on atheism: Without God. Dr. Weinberg identifies four tensions that put science and religion at odds:
1. Science removing the supernatural as required to understand the world;
2. Science revealing Earth and Man to have no special place in the universe;
3. Religion rejecting the establishment of natural laws as an arrogant constriction of God’s ‘infinite’ abilities, and
4. Science illuminating a paradigm that doesn’t include infallible knowledge.
An excellent read.
Science has been slowly explaining things that used to be God’s domain — lightening, pregnancy, crops, disease, the tide, the motion of the heavens. None of these have thus far turned out to be supernatural. The more sophisticated our measuring devices become, the more mysteries we’ll unravel. Sheer persistence will probably uncover the origin of life itself, and that too will turn out to be a natural process. We just don’t need the idea of God to explain the world around us any more.
We can live in a world without God.
Religion was invented before humanity was capable of adequately searching for and proving things true. It offered explanations (powerful gods) for significant phenomena (the sun rising) which led to ritualistic requests for consideration in the timing or severity of those phenomena (”please make it rain”; “please make my wife pregnant”, etc.). Embedded in our minds as the true cause behind all effects, Gods that you could ask to help you became forces to constantly be obeyed.
Religious “truth” made a great a construct to provide us with a reason to adhere to social rules (restrain your greed and urges to murder, rape, philander, steal) and work towards common social goals (marriage, families, cooperation). It served a purpose in dark ages.
Genuine knowledge—the product of science—strips away the supernatural impetus for prosocial behavior, but certainly not the need. Anyone with enough critical thinking skills to see past God can certainly agree that we benefit from living in a civil, healthy, cooperative society and can accept the social contracts necessary to make that happen.
They can live in a world without God.
The other best use of religion is as an anti-depressant; purposelessness is anathema to the human psyche and we’re highly susceptible to existential fear of there not being a bigger picture. Belief keeps your chin up when you’re not sure you’re on the right path, or whether there even is a path. Belief is also a crutch that obscures the need to assess your own priorities, and to arrive at a decision on how to live your life that’s based on personal reflection. Do we need meaning? Sure, or we go bonkers. But don’t take the easy way out. Reason out your own personal meaning, act on it, refine as your perspective widens.
You can live in a world without God.
P.S. Don’t be bummed about your new found purposelessness. Redirect your sense of wonder where it belongs. This is what science does for us all.
The letter that definitively dashes theist hopes of claiming Einstein’s allegiance, written by the scientist to philosopher Eric Gutkin in 1954, sold at auction Thursday for an astonishing $330 000. Four times the record price for an Einstein letter, it was expected to fetch $10-$16k.
“For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions,” wrote Einstein.
In a March /08 Gallup poll, Americans were asked their overall positive, negative, or neutral impressions of various prevalent religions and the Non-God set.
The same poll conducted in 2006 yielded higher results across the board, suggesting Americans are down on religion in general. Muslims took a serious hit, falling from -4 to -17 in the past 2 years (not blamable on Iron Man, which came out a month later at least). Mormons are at the top of the “bad” scale at -2, no doubt as a result of the recent news coverage of the largely unrelated FLDS scandal. Scientologists are the bottom of the barrel, their reputation also no doubt at the mercy of news coverage stimulated by Anonymous.
The real surprise to naive little me was that atheists are consistently negatively viewed. They dropped 2 points, but that’s within the margin of error for a poll. In any case, they’re viewed second only to Scientologists on the scumbaggery scale. Wtf, if I may ask? Theists, can you reply with a possible reason as to why atheists are thought poorly of? Potential reasons suggested to me include the idea that atheists aren’t moral creatures, which of course makes no sense. What did Einstein say…”If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed”? Word up. Atheists are good because it’s the right effing thing to do, not because Magical Dad will rain it down if we’re not. That strikes me as even more moral, because my tail isn’t on the line if I’m bad.
Spc. Jeremy Hall, 2-tour Iraq veteran, has refiled his lawsuit against the US Army, beefing it up with new allegations that he was denied a promotion because he is an atheist.
In his original suit, Hall alleged he was denied his constitutional right to hold a meeting to discuss atheism while he was deployed in Iraq with his military police unit; an officer threatened to file military charges against Hall and to block his re-enlistment.
On the basis of that bit of shit disturbing, Hall was deemed unfit for a promotion. He says the sergeant explained that Hall would be “unable to put aside his personal convictions and pray with his troops” and would have trouble bonding with them if promoted to a leadership position.
A UN investigation into religious trends in England reveals that almost 2/3 of Her Majesty’s subjects no longer identify themselves with any religion. A report released today counters a 2001 Census finding that nearly 72% of the population was Christian.
The report also calls for the “disestablishment of the Church of England. The role and privileges of the established Church are challenged because they do not reflect the religious demography of the country and the rising proportion of other Christian denominations”.
Discrimination against Muslims may be thwarting efforts to combat terrorism in England, the report goes on to say. Sharia (Islamic law) has become a contentious issue lately, with remarks from the Archbishop of Canterbury suggesting some aspects of it may be introduced to the British legal system.
Topic Agnostic is a place where you can explore and discuss religion with agnostics, atheists, and theists from around the world. Topic Agnostic is the site for you if you've ever wondered: "Does God exist?", "What happens to our consciousness after we die?", "What would society be like without religion?", and "How does religion impact the world we live in?"
Write for Topic Agnostic
Do you want to share your thoughts on religion, atheism, and agnosticism with thousands of people around the world? Then join the Topic Agnostic team and help promote intelligent conversation about one of the most important topics throughout history. We welcome all viewpoints and you can contribute as much, or as little, as you want.
Submit a Story Idea
Do you have a topic you want our writers to explore in blog post or features article? Send all story ideas to the Topic Agnostic inbox and we'll consider it for a future post. If we use your idea we'll give you credit on the post (unless you want to remain anonymous).
Recent Comments