RE: New Atheism in the UK
March 16, 2012 at 8:17 am
(This post was last modified: March 16, 2012 at 8:19 am by NoMoreFaith.)
I digress because the meaning New Atheist is completely meaningless. Atheists existed before, some were anti-theist, some weren't, some were offensive, some were conciliatory.
Recently, most through growth of the media through the internet and access to information have been allowed greater exposure (Dawkins, Hitchens et al) but someone calling it "New Atheism" does not turn it into a movement.
The fundamental error is the preconception of New Atheism as a group entity rather than a description of individuals views. You speak of "practice" as if there are some governing rules.
Hence why I used the example of Secularism, that is a viewpoint about how the country should be ordered, not an attack on religion itself.
To return to your point, what is the point of arguing against religion if people are slowly becoming less religious?
You may as well say, why is New Pacifism arguing against war, if people are slowly becoming more peaceful.
It's not a coherent viewpoint, because there is no "New Pacifism" movement, but there are plenty of INDIVIDUALS who will directly criticise war in its entirety. Does not make it a movement nor does it mean efforts to reduce suffering caused by war should cease because its trending.
As a side point, the majority of effort behind that survey WAS why people identify themselves as christian.
The survey very specifically targeted the REASONS they called themselves christian. I don't see how you can claim less effort was put into it, when it was the purpose of the survey in itself.
Recently, most through growth of the media through the internet and access to information have been allowed greater exposure (Dawkins, Hitchens et al) but someone calling it "New Atheism" does not turn it into a movement.
The fundamental error is the preconception of New Atheism as a group entity rather than a description of individuals views. You speak of "practice" as if there are some governing rules.
Hence why I used the example of Secularism, that is a viewpoint about how the country should be ordered, not an attack on religion itself.
To return to your point, what is the point of arguing against religion if people are slowly becoming less religious?
You may as well say, why is New Pacifism arguing against war, if people are slowly becoming more peaceful.
It's not a coherent viewpoint, because there is no "New Pacifism" movement, but there are plenty of INDIVIDUALS who will directly criticise war in its entirety. Does not make it a movement nor does it mean efforts to reduce suffering caused by war should cease because its trending.
As a side point, the majority of effort behind that survey WAS why people identify themselves as christian.
The survey very specifically targeted the REASONS they called themselves christian. I don't see how you can claim less effort was put into it, when it was the purpose of the survey in itself.
Self-authenticating private evidence is useless, because it is indistinguishable from the illusion of it. ― Kel, Kelosophy Blog
If you’re going to watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo. That show was so cool because every time there’s a church with a ghoul, or a ghost in a school. They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
The f**king janitor or the dude who runs the waterslide. Throughout history every mystery. Ever solved has turned out to be. Not Magic. ― Tim Minchin, Storm
If you’re going to watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo. That show was so cool because every time there’s a church with a ghoul, or a ghost in a school. They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
The f**king janitor or the dude who runs the waterslide. Throughout history every mystery. Ever solved has turned out to be. Not Magic. ― Tim Minchin, Storm
