One Agnostic's View of the New Atheists

[Randy Carson]

Since many of you are British (and most of you are atheists), I thought you might enjoy reading agnostic BBC personality, John Humphrys' assessment of the New Atheists (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens). Speaking of this same anti-theist movement within the atheist community, Atheist Paul Kurtz, founder of the The Center For Inquiry (a secular humanist organization), observed:

“I consider them atheist fundamentalists,” he says. “They’re anti-religious, and they’re mean-spirited, unfortunately. Now, they’re very good atheists and very dedicated people who do not believe in God. But you have this aggressive and militant phase of atheism, and that does more damage than good.” (Barbara Bradley Hagerty, “A Bitter Rift Divides Atheists”).

In an article posted at StrangeNotions.com, Matt Freyer summarizes Humphrys' assessments of the New Atheists taken from Humphrys' book, In God We Doubt:

1. Believers are mostly naive or stupid. Or, at least, they’re not as clever as atheists.

To which Humphreys responds:

“This is so clearly untrue it’s barely worth bothering with. Richard Dawkins, in his best selling The God Delusion, was reduced to producing a “study” by Mensa that purported to show an inverse relationship between intelligence and belief. He also claimed that only a very few members of the Royal Society believe in a personal god. So what? Somebelievers are undoubtedly stupid (witness the creationists) but I’ve met one or two atheists I wouldn’t trust tochange a light-bulb.”

2. The few clever ones are pathetic because they need a crutch to get them through life.

To which Humphrys responds:

“Don’t we all? Some use booze rather than the Bible. It doesn’t prove anything about either.”

3. They are also pathetic because they can’t accept the finality of death.

To which Humphrys responds:

“Maybe, but it doesn’t mean they’re wrong. Count the number of atheists in the foxholes or the cancer wards.”

4. They have been brainwashed into believing. There is no such thing as a “Christian child”, for instance—just a child whose parents have had her baptised.

To which Humphrys responds:

“True, and many children reject it when they get older. But many others stay with it.”

5. They have been bullied into believing.

To which Humphrys responds:

“This is also true in many cases but you can’t actually bully someone into believing—just into pretending to believe.”

6. If we don’t wipe out religious belief by next Thursday week, civilisation as we know it is doomed.

To which Humphrys responds:

“Of course the mad mullahs are dangerous and extreme Islamism is a threat to be taken seriously. But we’ve survived monotheist religion for 4, 000 years or so, and  I can think of one or two other things that are a greater threat to civilisation.”

7. Trust me: I’m an atheist.

To which Humphrys responds:

“Why?”

He adds:

“I make no apology if I have oversimplified their views with a little list: it’s what they do to believers all the time.”

Taken from:

An Agnostic’s Assessment Of New Atheist Attitudes
By Matt Nelson
http://www.strangenotions.com/an-agnosti...attitudes/

Moderator Notice
Edited to place quoted material in quote box.

[abaris]

You get no argument from me on them being fundamentalists. The rest is rather dubious in nature, I would say.

I never went by what Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens say or said. They had no part in me being an atheist. I despise Harris, not for his atheism, but for other reasons, mostly his support of wars and torture and blanket statements he made. I like Dawkins for his tongue ion cheek attitude and I don't know a single word Hitchens said in his lifetime.

[Jackalope]

Not sure what point the OP is trying to make, or rather the person OP borrowed that from, but OK. So? There are atheists who are dicks. Granted. Now what?

[brewer]

Pssst, I think we're suppose to be the dicks.

[Salacious B. Crumb]

Not sure what point the OP is trying to make, or rather the person OP borrowed that from, but OK. So? There are atheists who are dicks. Granted. Now what?

That's exactly what I was thinking. I have no idea what the point of this thread is.

And, what the hell is a New Atheist?

There have been good and bad atheists for a long time. There have been strong anti-theists for a long time. What is a new atheist? The only thing that seems to fit the description is someone who just became an atheist. Are new atheists more vocal about atheism Randy? Is that what's new about them?

[abaris]

Pssst, I think we're suppose to be the dicks.

Of course. But it isn't a secret that I don't give a shit about atheist role models. They never interested me. Apart from Dawkins, because he's funny and charming. And AronRa, out of the same reason.

[Jackalope]

Pssst, I think we're suppose to be the dicks.

Wait, you aren't seriously suggesting the OP is passive-aggresively trying to tar all of is with a broad bruah, are you?

[SteelCurtain]

No! Not Randy! He might at least do that with his own words and ideas, wouldn't he?!?

[Iroscato]

I admire Dawkins, Hitchens and co. in some respects...and am repelled by them in others. I see dickheads in all walks of life, but religion has a certain ability to let groups of dickheads gravitate towards each other and combine like a...a...Dickazord.

I forgot where I was going with this.

Oh yeah.

I don't want religion to be eradicated. I want it regulated and structures put in place in society that keeps check of those who think that not only are they 100% right, they are sanctioned by the supreme ruler of the universe. I want to live in a society that does not force religion of any kind of any person, where the most devoutly religious person can break bread with the most stern of atheists.

I do not take pleasure when Muslims are killed in stampedes at their holy sites, or when Christians are killed for their beliefs in the Middle East. I do not hate the religious - but by God, I hate religion.

[Bob Kelso]

---

Since many of you are British (and most of you are atheists), I thought you might enjoy reading agnostic BBC personality, John Humphrys' assessment of the New Atheists (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens). Speaking of this same anti-theist movement within the atheist community, Atheist Paul Kurtz, founder of the The Center For Inquiry (a secular humanist organization), observed:

“I consider them atheist fundamentalists,” he says. “They’re anti-religious, and they’re mean-spirited, unfortunately. Now, they’re very good atheists and very dedicated people who do not believe in God. But you have this aggressive and militant phase of atheism, and that does more damage than good.” (Barbara Bradley Hagerty, “A Bitter Rift Divides Atheists”).

In an article posted at StrangeNotions.com, Matt Freyer summarizes Humphrys' assessments of the New Atheists taken from Humphrys' book, In God We Doubt:

1. Believers are mostly naive or stupid. Or, at least, they’re not as clever as atheists.

To which Humphreys responds:

“This is so clearly untrue it’s barely worth bothering with. Richard Dawkins, in his best selling The God Delusion, was reduced to producing a “study” by Mensa that purported to show an inverse relationship between intelligence and belief. He also claimed that only a very few members of the Royal Society believe in a personal god. So what? Somebelievers are undoubtedly stupid (witness the creationists) but I’ve met one or two atheists I wouldn’t trust tochange a light-bulb.”

2. The few clever ones are pathetic because they need a crutch to get them through life.

To which Humphrys responds:

“Don’t we all? Some use booze rather than the Bible. It doesn’t prove anything about either.”

3. They are also pathetic because they can’t accept the finality of death.

To which Humphrys responds:

“Maybe, but it doesn’t mean they’re wrong. Count the number of atheists in the foxholes or the cancer wards.”

4. They have been brainwashed into believing. There is no such thing as a “Christian child”, for instance—just a child whose parents have had her baptised.

To which Humphrys responds:

“True, and many children reject it when they get older. But many others stay with it.”

5. They have been bullied into believing.

To which Humphrys responds:

“This is also true in many cases but you can’t actually bully someone into believing—just into pretending to believe.”

6. If we don’t wipe out religious belief by next Thursday week, civilisation as we know it is doomed.

To which Humphrys responds:

“Of course the mad mullahs are dangerous and extreme Islamism is a threat to be taken seriously. But we’ve survived monotheist religion for 4, 000 years or so, and  I can think of one or two other things that are a greater threat to civilisation.”

7. Trust me: I’m an atheist.

To which Humphrys responds:

“Why?”

He adds:

“I make no apology if I have oversimplified their views with a little list: it’s what they do to believers all the time.”

Taken from:

An Agnostic’s Assessment Of New Atheist Attitudes
By Matt Nelson
http://www.strangenotions.com/an-agnosti...attitudes/

---

So you thought it'd be interesting for us to read an assessment on the Four Horseman, as they're called, a list of somewhat offensive blanket statements and gotcha responses. 

Cool beans man. 

Not sure what point the OP is trying to make, or rather the person OP borrowed that from, but OK.  So?  There are atheists who are dicks.  Granted.  Now what?

That's exactly what I was thinking. I have no idea what the point of this thread is.

And, what the hell is a New Atheist?

There have been good and bad atheists for a long time. There have been strong anti-theists for a long time. What is a new atheist? The only thing that seems to fit the description is someone who just became an atheist. Are new atheists more vocal about atheism Randy? Is that what's new about them?

Those that have broken the silence evidently.