Jeff Sparrow on the need to save ourselves from the sickishness of the New Atheists

[Minimalist]

Yet, I take nothing on 'faith.'  The lack of evidence for something is not 'faith.' 

This fellow:

The doctrine that future happiness depends upon belief is monstrous. It is the infamy of infamies. The notion that faith in Christ is to be rewarded by an eternity of bliss, while a dependence upon reason, observation and experience merits everlasting pain, is too absurd for refutation, and can be relieved only by that unhappy mixture of insanity and ignorance, called "faith." What man, who ever thinks, can believe that blood can appease God? And yet, our entire system of religion is based upon that belief. The Jews pacified Jehovah with the blood of animals, and according to the Christian system, the blood of Jesus softened the heart of God a little, and rendered possible the salvation of a fortunate few. It is hard to conceive how the human mind can give assent to such terrible ideas, or how any sane man can read the Bible and still believe in the doctrine of inspiration.
-- Robert Green Ingersoll, The Gods

preceded Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris by over a century.

[Ivan Denisovich]

I think religion offers something to believers - it offers them brainwashing and god blanky which supposedly will shield believer in question from ills of the world. It's just delusion forced onto people; it may dull the pain of existence but in the end I deem it harmful cause it make one accept one lot in life by promising some wondrous afterlife. Religion is perfect excuse for not striving to make one life better.

[Alex K]

I think he has a cartoon picture of New Atheists like Richard Dawkins in his head that doesn't really correspond to reality, and argues against that (the classic xkcd 774 case or just osculating the rump of faith a bit?) . I think he's full of it, to be honest. It's a very common syndrome, the "Richard Dawkins is so strident strident and mean and thinks everything about religion is bad bad bad" syndrome, which is a form of mild brain rot. Are we talking about the Richard Dawkins who waxes on about how he likes to sing Carols in church and who is friends with the Bishop of Oxford and cooperated with him on various occasions?

Apart from that, there is a reason why Richard Dawkins became a superstar after 2006. You think it's because no one cared about the issues he raised? Ridiculous, he really spoke to a lot of people suffering from religion who got courage and inspiration from him.

[abaris]

So you're unaware of any "sea change" in the attitude/posture of atheists before and after Dawkins and company?

There's one, and only one point, he's got right in my opinion. And that's in the last sentence of your quote in the OP. They're preaching from the Ivory tower. A less polite definition would be jacking off in front of a mirror. They won't convince anyone to become an atheist.

As for the delusional part, yes, I would subscribe to that definition. There's something like a positive delusion. I for one was rather disappointed when I finally noticed that christianity simply doesn't compute. It was a mild disappointment, but nonetheless, religion had offered some kind of delusional comfort. And I never was a fervent believer to begin with.

Marx? Well, I guess he refers to the one and only quote associated with Marx and religion. Often quoted out of context and shortened to "opium of the people". Penned down in 1843 in A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

So, Marx offers understanding of religious people and only explains his point of view instead of attacking.

[Alex K]

They won't convince anyone to become an atheist.

Are you sure of that? Because I've heard different.

[abaris]

Are you sure of that? Because I've heard different.

Sure, what means sure?

Maybe they are the final straw for some intellectuals to swing, but do you really think, any ordinary church goer even looks at their writings? The terminology they're using isn't exactly catered to the masses.

[Whateverist]

They won't convince anyone to become an atheist.

Are you sure of that? Because I've heard different.

It is at least a fair question.  And if they have convinced people to abandon religious beliefs, two questions.  What was the basis of the conversion and do they feel they are better off for it?

[Alex K]

Are you sure of that? Because I've heard different.

It is at least a fair question.  And if they have convinced people to abandon religious beliefs, two questions.  What was the basis of the conversion and do they feel they are better off for it?

I remember seeing some stuff here

https://richarddawkins.net/community/convertscorner

though I haven't frequented the RDF site for years.

[Minimalist]

Are you sure of that? Because I've heard different.

Sure, what means sure?

Maybe they are the final straw for some intellectuals to swing, but do you really think, any ordinary church goer even looks at their writings? The terminology they're using isn't exactly catered to the masses.

I don't think they are writing for "ordinary church goers" at all.  For one thing, they use too many big words.  Yes, there is a bit of 'preaching to the choir' to borrow the metaphor that religious assholes have used for millennia to keep their sheep in a nice tight little pack.

[JesusHChrist]

This seems to be a variant of the subject I file under "Accommodationism" - i.e., "Leave Poor Jeebus Alone!"

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Accommodationism

Some atheists don't think the more aggressive approach is in society's best interest.

I suppose that makes me an anti-accommodationist. Has a nice ring to it at parties -

Q: So, JHC, what are you all about?

A: I'm an anti-theist, anti-accommodationist, militant atheist, into devil music, long walks on the beach and doing it in front of the fireplace. You?