New Atheism in the UK

[mannaka]

With regards to: this

New Atheism, as I understand it, is the pro-active criticism of religion on the basis that it is detrimental to/limiting society.

A recent survey by the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (UK) reveals that whilst Christianity as a whole is in decline, a majority of those that have labeled themselves Christian do not do so because they believe in a God. It is a shame that whilst this survey has been widely championed, less effort has been put into why people would call themselves Christian without necessarily believing in the existence of a God (The reasons behind this may constitute an argument against New Atheism practice).

The outcome though is the same, less and less people are actively believing in a God. Subsequently, my question posed to New Atheists out there is:

Is there a real need for New Atheism in the UK where people are happily coming to their own conclusion with respects to the existence of a God? If so, why?

[NoMoreFaith]

Let's rephrase that;

Is there a need for secularism in the UK when people are already coming to the conclusion that the church and the state should be separated.

Clearly yes, because the church will continue to try and insinuate its beliefs into law, which needs to be constantly defended against, both reciprocally through arguments against, and pro-actively, through the promotion of education.

EDIT: Gay marriage controversy is a clear example of this.

The same goes for New Atheism (which is basically an anti-theist rebrand), it means very little, but religion is pernicious and constant, it doesn't come and go, but requires constant attention to prevent additional harm.

[mannaka]

I don't necessarily disagree with what you have written, and it is certainly related to my question, but I think your rephrased version has digressed from the exact one I posed with particular attention given to New Atheism.

Using your example, have pro-active New Atheists played a significant role in the gay marriage debate so far? I'd argue that a far more substantial amount of support for gay marriage has come from the general public who do not actively criticize religion. Indeed, whilst I have no evidence to back this up, I'd suggest that a very significant proportion of those Christians surveyed that do not necessarily believe in a God, support gay marriage.

In short, the public seems more than capable of standing up for these principles by themselves without the need to criticize, aggravate and ridicule.

[Napoléon]

What the fuck's this about 'New Atheists?'. Is it some kind of political party or what? Never heard of 'New Atheists'.

[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.

[mannaka]

I'll decline to argue any points besides that relating directly to the initial question. If you'd like to hear my views on anything else you've posed, I'd be happy to do so in a separate topic, or PM.

If anyone should disagree purely with the term New Atheist, then perhaps they may state so as NoMoreFaith has, but argue based on its views.

With regards to your war comparison, I'd suggest that the world on all levels has not become more peaceful in recent times. Therefore pro-active anti-war demonstration is justified, just as anti-religion demonstration is justified in countries where it is heavily imposed.
That, in my opinion, is not the case in the UK.

[NoMoreFaith]

With regards to your war comparison, I'd suggest that the world on all levels has not become more peaceful in recent times. Therefore pro-active anti-war demonstration is justified, just as anti-religion demonstration is justified in countries where it is heavily imposed.
That, in my opinion, is not the case in the UK.

Irrelevant. Its an analogy, if there was a trend towards becoming more peaceful, your argument is that you should stop all anti-war protests.

Like I said, its nonsensical.

If you drive a car with a large caravan behind, and an accident occurs ahead, you apply the brakes in an effort to stop yourself being pushed forward by the caravan.
Once the caravan is trending towards slowing down.. should you take your foot off the brake?

[mannaka]

If you drive a car with a large caravan behind, and an accident occurs ahead, you apply the brakes in an effort to stop yourself being pushed forward by the caravan.
Once the caravan is trending towards slowing down.. should you take your foot off the brake?

And if you're going at great pace do you jerkily press hard down on the break?
And if you've practically stopped, is there a a need to suddenly break hard and risk agitating the contents of your smart caravan?

Completely hypothetically, if the world became practically peaceful, i.e. the trend was coming to an end, my argument is efforts made in anti-war protests, would be better spent elsewhere.

[NoMoreFaith]

And if you're going at great pace do you jerkily press hard down on the break?
And if you've practically stopped, is there a a need to suddenly break hard and risk agitating the contents of your smart caravan?

No. How does this prove your point? Unless you think Religion is somehow on its last legs despite evidence to the contrary.

Completely hypothetically, if the world became practically peaceful, i.e. the trend was coming to an end, my argument is efforts made in anti-war protests, would be better spent elsewhere.

Same fallacy, you moved the analogy from current to nearly expired which is not the same thing.

How do we judge that? Its difficult, but we can certainly say, that we are neither getting close to being non-religious, nor close to being non-peaceful, and therefore, the caravan is by no means close to stopping.

I understand what you're trying to say, that, anti-theists should be more conciliatory rather than aggressive, I've actually said similar myself, in certain instances, it hurts the argument more than progresses it in certain cases.

The problem is that religion has a pedestal of complete assertion, and by validating respect for a belief, you validate the pedestal. You can't bring religion down, without taking it off the pedestal.
This does not imply lack of respect for the person, merely the belief system they hold, and try to keep on the shelf away from prying hands and eyes. Hence this funny tag of "New Atheism" or more precisely, "Lack of Respect for your Religion-ism".

[pgrimes15]

To continue the caravan analogy (before it starts to get a bit silly) your aim is to come to a complete stop, so you must keep breaking. Inappropriately hard breaking would be like having a confrontational Hitchenesque debate with your elderly aunt at a family Christening. Not breaking enough would be like . . . er . . . I think that's enough of this analogy.

Regards

Grimesy