Meliorism - The rise of neo-atheism and the fall of reason

[Esquilax]

I don't want colorful, flowery prose. Stating a position should be done in accordance with maximum effort at clear and concise communication, not what sounds pretty.

Speaking as a writer, I submit to you that it's more fun to be clear and eloquent.

[thesummerqueen]

Speaking as a writer, I submit to you that it's more fun to be clear and eloquent.

Speaking as a voracious reader, I submit that it's possible to be both and NOT purple your language.

[Esquilax]

Speaking as a writer, I submit to you that it's more fun to be clear and eloquent.

Speaking as a voracious reader, I submit that it's possible to be both and NOT purple your language.

True. I got enough of the purple stuff in my university classes anyway.

[JesusHChrist]

After all of this, I'm still not clear what point the OP was trying to make.

I'm a half-wit neo-atheist science-lovin' meliorist, so I don't have much hope of parsing through the purple prose.

Can someone (the OP?) summarize the point(s) attempting to be made here, in terms even a back-woods, neanderthal-type can understand?

Hint - I like bullet points with supporting statements.

[paulpablo]

The danger with Neo-atheism, as I see it, is that it has absorbed pseudoscientific anthropocentrism and the delusion of progress, and has rapidly become fundamentalist in its defence of these mistaken beliefs.

Why would an atheist promote pseudo scientific anthropocentrism?

[Cato]

Neo-atheism is just another label, and is the same as New Atheism. To give this perspective, consider that wikipedia has no neo-atheism entry, but conservapedia does.

[Mister Agenda]

Putting a prefix in front of atheism doesn't generate a new kind of atheism any more than putting a prefix in front of theism would. There is not a new way to hold the position of not believing any gods are real. And I've never been able to find a characteristic common to the 'new' atheists that distinguishes them from the old ones.

If there are a group of people with the characteristics the OP complains of, I submit that a more descriptive term be coined. Theological pseudoskeptics, maybe. We could call them TPs for short.

[thesummerqueen]

What characteristics? It sounds like he's strawmanning his idea of atheism for his own masturbatory amusement.

---

Also, I don't understand this notion of "anthropocentrism". Seems to me that theists with their idea of being god's special creatures have a more anthropocentric view. Meanwhile, most atheists know that we're evolved from animals and while we are sentient and sapient...we're not *that* sort of special.

[downbeatplumb]

There is a tendency of american theists to have a go at atheist s for all kinds imagined things.
Over here in europe it is much more civilised, (for the most part).
There are people over here who I have known well for ages who I have no idea what faith if any they have.
We do not wear our beliefs (or not) on our sleeves and it shocks us when amercans brandish their beliefs as if they are showing off.
A Naval Captain who I worked with was greeted by a brash Yank with the phrase "are you sharp for the lord?" with an outstretched hand waiting for a hand shake. This was the first thing that the american had ever said to him!
Why would you put someone in that position, if the yank had done that to me it would have led to an awkward moment as I explained to him the probable non-existence of his lord. I seem to remember the Captain just smiled and nodded, nice chap that he is.

My point is that atheism is just a reaction to theism and all the bad things that people put onto atheists is beause the atheists are reacting to theism in someway or another.

[Faith No More]

I must be an "old atheist," because I don't seem to fit any of that description.

Anyways, from what I can tell, the OP is alluding to the beliefs that any scientific progress is positive progress for the human race, which I agree is a dangerous belief. One need only to watch an episode of "Dark Matters" on the Science Channel to see that.