Are most New Atheists former fundamentalists?

I've noticed that a lot of New Atheists and anti-theists don't argue anything other than talking points against Biblical literalism, and a huge percentage of them don't seem very smart at all - they just think that they're an expert on science and religion because they know that the earth isn't 6,000 years old and that talking snakes don't exist. I've only studied religion and philosophy at an entry level and I can usually refute most of the New Atheist claims without trying too hard.

This makes me think a lot of them were ex-members of fundamental Baptist or evangelical churches who came to the realization that all of this literalist doctrine was false and are now disgruntled with religion but still have their critical thought repressed since they only learned to think in black and white.

That said, that's why I hate the New Atheist movement - since they just take the fundamentalist mindset and apply it to "atheism". They seem to be unaware that there are people who don't believe in literalistic mythology but still find religion and spiritual belief compatible.

 

Hey man. Would you be so kind as to provide a link to a new atheist making an argument, and then give us your stunning refutation of it? I've seen you make that claim a few times and I think it would be nice to see an example.

 

Am I a "new atheist"?

Born to a multi-generational atheist family, and atheist for pretty much my entire life. No closet fundies

 

Depends. Do you believe that religion needs to be actively countered or do you simply ignore it.

 

What do you mean by fundamentalism? The basic definitions I can find on google indicate that they're related directly to Christianity. If you use these words, it's not unlikely that the atheists in question will merely scoff at the idea and ignore it altogether (and as long as the words don't apply, they'd be right to).

There are several issues with some public types of atheism (I think focusing on what you call New atheism is also likely to miss the point, because many consider themselves unaffiliated with groups or people who they still take ideas from) but it needs to be really clear what the criticism is in order for them to take it in.

Calling atheism or new atheism "fundamentalism", or saying that it is a religion, will make a lot of people upset because the words are literally wrong. As such, they will meet resistance even before the actual points have been made clear. If you truly want to make points about ideological inbreeding in the public movement of atheism, then you will have to state exactly what your points are, who you are addressing and so on.

 

Some religion needs to be actively countered in my opinion. I think state funded faith schools and religious courts are wrong. In the UK Bishops in the House of Lords should be countered, but then so should the entire the entire House of Lords! As for the majority of the Church of England I do not think they are much of a threat to anyone's civil liberties and most CofE Vicars I have met are reasonable blokes and rather interesting to talk to. Some do not appear to have much of a belief in god if I am honest. Carol singers at Christmas in the streets I have no problem with and have to admit to enjoying some of them, I don't mind kids doing the Carol Singing thing, but hate Jehovahs Witnesses preying on the bereaved with a passion. Momans preaching in the street will get an argument from me.
On the world front fundamentalism should be countered, whether Muslim, Christian or Jewish(or any other). I think I am enough of a pragmatist to believe the best way to do that is by working with the moderates in the respective religions, ostracizing all will not help the situation so in my opinion ridiculing the moderates is a bad move.

So am I a New Atheist?

 

NOne of the more famous new atheists--Dennet, Hitchens or Dawkins come from Fundy backgrounds

 

I think your last sentence perfectly demonstrates the logic behind your thinking. Or perhaps you can provide any example where religion and spiritual beliefs are not compatible.

 

I don't "believe it must be actively countered", and I don't ignore it. Somewhere between the two.

 

Its not hard to understand: This is your religions holy book, we read said holy book first assuming its what you believe since if its not true then why use the thing. So logically doing so we properly analyze it as a book which should be read literally and then if we find it wanting - take a big mirror and show the flaws. Now I do read them as a book of moral stories to when you claim that and also criticize the book on those grounds where warranted.

 

Calling new atheism fundamentalism has been in vogue for a few years, by those who question new atheism, from the point of view of it being firmly grounded on a philosophical assumption, philosophical materialism which of course leads to reductionist scientific materialism. For the new atheism, like the old atheism has its foundation in materialism. Atheism in part is based upon the assumption that the brain creates consciousness, while those in the scientific community that think the brain is a receiver of consciousness, have used this as their primary argument against new atheism.

The zeal with which some of these new atheists like Sam Harris push their beliefs also reminds one of Christian fundamentalism, the emotions with which it is pushed upon the public. While I like Harris, and agree with him on many issues, Sam is firmly buying into the assumption that the brain is the creator of consciousness, and is intelligent enough to know he is assuming this, but doesn't speak to his own assumptions, while readily pointing out the assumptions of the fundamentalists he rails against. But one must remember that academia have bought into materialism for a very long time. Academia is very materialistic based when it comes to science, Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris are notable proponents.

And so if you want to write and argue against academic materialism, these Profs have had to wait until they retire, in order to do that, in order not to risk their livlihoods, or as Sheldrake did, wait until they leave academia as researcher/teachers.

I think it is a fact that if you want you write for a scientific journal, like Nature, you damn well better be a materialist, or your article, or a book you might get published will be deemed an article, or a book fit for BURNING. And what could be more fundamentalist? A book worthy of burning, as Sheldrakes book, Science Set Free was judged by academia?

And so, yes, new atheism has much in common on that level with Christian fundamentalism.

 

I agree with this.

 

But this still doesn't resolve the issue I bring up. "Reminds one", "has much in common" and so on, it's very hard to address. It should be so easy to pinpoint the issues and bring up ideas that actually hit home in the atheist community, but for some reason it's all "it feels like", which isn't persuasive to anyone unless it's further elaborated.

 

I'm from a fundy background and am agnostic/atheist, not a "new" atheist except that I come from a religious family.

I do not hate religion at all, I just find it impossible to believe the basic tenants (Christ was born of a virgin, and was crucified rose from the dead to absolve humans of sin). If my religious upbringing taught me anything, it taught me to try to avoid being a hypocrite. In that way maybe it effected my choice to honestly state my disbelief.

The atheist with religious backgrounds who really despise religion often have had a bad experience. I know a atheist whose mother was excommunicated from the catholic church when he was a child. She was still religious so they bounced around from one church to another, many of them providing strange unpleasant experiences for a little kid. He isn't openly hostile about religion, but its a good idea to avoid it as a conversation.

 

More like an 'old Atheist'. I also come from a long line of non religious folk. Nothing fundamental about us.

True story. When my family applied for Australian citizenship back in the 1960s, my father (who was filling out the forms) couldn't respond to the 'Religion' part. We just didn't have a religion. My father wrote 'Lutheran' because that is the major religion of norther Germany. With a stroke of a pen we became Lutheran.

 

I don't view you as a new atheist. You aren't a preacher for atheism, but more of an explainer. You are fairly reasonable, and don't obsess to much about telling theists how stupid you think we are.

 

The irony of this post is quite hilarious. I've been on this forum for years and have yet to see you refute any argument by an atheist. I've seen you completely miss the point or not understand the arguments presented to you though which is probably why this post of yours is so funny.

 

So you and Cricket are just making up terms and applying them to whoever you think fits the bill?

 

Funny, innit. My in laws instantly became things they weren't upon emigrating here in the early 70s . One gained a name, both gained religion

 

That's because you're not. Stupid, that is

You and Goomba are very different in approach (and faith, obviously), yet you both remain pretty objective, and are secure enough in your faith to be unruffled by the onslaughts.

Wanren and Prunepicker tend to bring out my 'new atheist'

 

Oh, yeah, when it comes to in-depth theology these guys don't even scratch the surface. Try to tell them about the Church fathers and they don't know who you're talking about. If you really want to see them go ballistic tell them you are both a Priest and a scientist and watch their heads explode.

 

Does this make the OP an example of "New Christianity"?

He is most certainly not "Ignoring" Atheism.

 

So much ego in the above. Is saying "and a huge percentage of them don't seem very smart at all" based on a source that you can link or your anecdotal evidence? What constitutes a smart person, one who agrees with you?

You say that you "can usually refute most of the New Atheist claims". Who gets to decide this... you?

Why assume when a simple question negates the need to do so?

All you have is anecdotal evidence. Look at the OP, you are lecturing based upon anecdotes and do not ask a single question. Are you really so blinded by your bias?

 

i see no reason to say so

 

You can take a religions holy books if they use them in two ways only either its all literally true and is the wishes of the divine power(s) as to their will on Earth OR a book of fables a moral play in stories which are the examples the divine power(s) encourage one to emulate. Islam's Koran is a literal document and one can argue more likely the Bible is the latter but either way once can criticize the respective faiths enough to make a case religion is immoral in both faiths cases on any perspective if you want to argue morality or facts in the books. And can go after other religions Buddhism, Hinduism and others are also ones I can find flaws in even accepting morality in stories that are to be guiding moral principles.