Do you feel (new) Atheist culture?

[Alex K]

To me, New Atheism is a combination of the following: the increased media presence of a certain crop of atheist spokespersons (especially Dawkins and Hitchens, Harris and Dennett to a smaller extent), a newly found unapologetic display of one's atheism, and a habitual reference to and reverence towards an idealized concept of "science" as the remedy against the oppression dealt out by religion.

That's close to what I've gathered it meant, except for the fact that many people appear to use the term "new atheist" as a pejorative as if it comes with the connotations of being the angry, foaming-mouth type.   Do you think this is just a reaction of frustration by the religious, or is there something legitimate to the claim that atheists that identify with the four horsemen tend to be more hostile?

I guess maybe not as a rule, but there is that personality type who will latch onto hero figures and then ferociously and irrationally defend them against all criticism, and we've probably all seen enough of that online. Dawkins himself appears to me often more heartless than I would consider myself when dealing with believers. In his judgement of people, it seems to me that he leaves little room for the human factor. People who also use his less agreeable traits as an inspiration for their activism will probably tend to come across as hostile.

[robvalue]

I'm happy when I meet someone who has things in common with me, anything really, and atheism is one of those things. It's bound to give us something to talk about, and it's probably safe to blast religion etc.

This forum is currently my biggest social life, in real life I don't see a lot of people. Most of them are atheists, most likely, even if I'm not sure.

[BrokenQuill92]

I'm not sure what to call myself other  than Alaina.  I've never liked Richard Dawkins he's always seemed a bit of a pompous prick to me.

Oh, he most definitely is a pompus prick, but he and his attitudes towards religion have also been an incredibly important life boat for atheists who felt isolated in mostly conservative theist societies - whether we like all of his actions and attitudes or not.

 I'm not saying he doesn't have a few good points, but he really shouldnt make it seem like he's the voice of all atheists.  I like Christopher Hitchens, but again he's like the drunk uncle who's really fun but needs to be let away from the party occasionally.  As both someone with a disability and a woman of color I have to work very hard to compartmentalize my views on Darwin.  Well he's for all intents and purposes the keystone of modern evolutionary biology my brain still has to get around his other views which are quite scary.

Can you elaborate? Do you perceive Darwin as unusually racist and ableist (or possibly a proponent of eugenics), or do you simply feel queasy about elevating any 19th century figure to hero status because of the zeitgeist?

 And which some people still believe in.  I do tend to feel a sense of camaraderie with other atheists,  being stuck in the south it's hard to remember sometimes that I'm not up shit creek without a paddle.  But I am also just myself.

Darwin just had the usual 19th century views on blacks and the disabled. The usual we are underbred, and blighting the gene pool tripe. And so it's rather scary to me that some people are all for eugenics where me reproducing is concerned.

[Alex K]

Darwin just had the usual 19th century views on blacks and the disabled.  The usual we are underbred, and blighting the gene pool tripe. And so it's rather scary to me that some people are all for eugenics where me reproducing is concerned.

You got some quotes?

[Faith No More]

I guess maybe not as a rule, but there is that personality type who will latch onto hero figures and then ferociously and irrationally defend them against all criticism, and we've probably all seen enough of that online. Dawkins himself appears to me often more heartless than I would consider myself when dealing with believers. In his judgement of people, it seems to me that he leaves little room for the human factor. People who also use his less agreeable traits as an inspiration for their activism will probably tend to come across as hostile.

I think you've touched upon my real criticism with people like Dawkins, which is that they fail to understand that there are human beings behind the beliefs. They like to pompously approach people as if they are simple input/output machines that when given the proper information, they will come to the conclusion that god doesn't exist otherwise they are a defective model. This "every issue is a nail and I'm a hammer" approach belies the way human beings actually form beliefs and doesn't take into account the numerous factors that determine a person's reasoning capability.

For as much as Dawkins loves science, he seems disinterested in the science behind reasoning and how our brains form beliefs.

[BrokenQuill92]

"At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla"

[BrokenQuill92]

Darwin just had the usual 19th century views on blacks and the disabled.  The usual we are underbred, and blighting the gene pool tripe. And so it's rather scary to me that some people are all for eugenics where me reproducing is concerned.

You got some quotes?

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.
Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

[BrokenQuill92]

I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilised so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.
Charles Darwin

[BrokenQuill92]

http://youtu.be/Nshj9rCTPdE

[BrokenQuill92]

Well carry on, no need for me to clog up the thread!