My Problems with New Atheism

Having been interested in the four horsemen of the new atheist movement, I once found their criticisms very direct and empirical. However, after some time I've become rather bored of the rhetoric used to disvalue religion.

Much of what came out of the movement is harsh criticism of literal interpretation of reglious text. Since I am not a religious person this comes off as pointless to me and I find the vehement disregard of religious thought to be counter productive to their goals.

To fight against literalism would be more effectively fought by reinterpreting the text to find the philosophical core and create an understanding that is more nuanced and provocative in our daily lives.

 

I think that Dawkins and those other guys are so 2005. A lot of those big atheist figures have declined while secularism has gained a more mainstream presence and now a quarter of the population is non-religious.

 

Yeah, it's not at the height of it's popularity, but I still find the message to be very shallow.

 

What's the message?

 

Literalist theism is it's own worst enemy and it is doing more to drive people away from religion than anything that atheists are doing.

 

The new atheist movement was put together by con men in order to sell rubes their books. It is nothing more than circular logic and phony arguments.

 

Ironic given that describes theism exactly.

 

LOL! How so?

 

Message of my post?

I feel it is incredibly direct.

 

I remember when being an Atheist was easy because there was literally "Nothing" to it. Now it would seem Christians have made in complicated by calling it religion and making us defend nothing.

I suppose this is purposeful for some of reason.

 

`
`
In regards to philosophy and religion, when one uses the term "literalist", I immediately think of the Evangelical, Fundamentalists, Charismatic, Baptist and Pentecostal Christian sects. They interpret their bible "literally", as opposed to"figuratively." I don't understand how a literalist can apply to an atheist though.
`

 

Much of the criticisim from atheism delves in using a literal interpretation of religious text. Since I find literal interpretations of books such as the holy bible to be retarded. This criticism holds no merit.

 

I literally lack belief.

As much as I am no fanboy of the whole Four Horsemen thing they did at least start me thinking about how I facilitate the entitlement culture among theists and they were at least 1600 years more up to date.

 

Easier to just make the Christians defend their false allegations about atheism.

Ask Christians to provide the locations where atheists congregate to worship nothing?

Ask Christians to provide the hymnals and holy books that atheists revere?

Ask Christians to provide the sacred relics of atheism and name the holy places that atheists make pilgrimages to visit?

 

Those that consider the bible to be metaphorical don't have any problem with atheists.

Those who consider the bible to be literal do have a problem with atheists because the literal bible has thousands of contradictions, fallacies, myths and superstitions that are indefensible.

 

As you already know, asking a Christian to supply facts to back up their claims is akin to asking a mermaid to juggle chainsaws...it never existed for them to begin juggling and they don't know how anyway.

 

I went to an obscure French village in the Alps once and witnessed nothing, I went back and did the same over many days. It was an atheist miracle and I think I should be canonised by the International Atheist Conspiracy Committee for witnessing nothing, several times. The experience literally brought no tears of joy to my eyes and I felt an inner rush of nothing coursing through me. It was a miracle, praise be to nothing!

 

Praise be to nothing above!

I prayed to nothing for nothing to happen and when nothing happened my prayers to nothing were answered. I had nothing to thank for that so I did nothing and was rewarded by nothing.

 

I have a bare empty cupboard in my house, it's my secret shrine to nothing. My little homage to the object of my devotion.

 

You just describes your average television evangelists as well. Scare or guilt people into sending you money and buying cheap crap, including books.

Plus, Christian evangelists make up the vast majority of people in prison for embezzling from religious donations.

 

Atheism has abandonned the logic of pointing out the textual and philosophical contradictions of religious doctrine and adopted their own doctrine of denegrating spirituality in general.

Knowing for certain that there is no God or Soul takes just as much faith as knowing for certain that there is.

Faith + Doctrine = Religion.

Gratz, atheists. You're religious

(Im speaking generally, of course. Theres plenty of atheists not actively prosiltyzing atheism and sticking to their intellectual roots... they're just not making much noise)

 

Non-Facts plus lack of proof = religion.

Had t fix that one.

 

potato potato

Either God might exist, atheists can prove it doesnt, or atheists have 'non-factual, lack of proof' (faith) that it doesnt.

 

Having been interested in the four horsemen of the new atheist movement, I once found their criticisms very direct and empirical. However, after some time I've become rather bored of the rhetoric used to disvalue religion.

Much of what came out of the movement is harsh criticism of literal interpretation of reglious text. Since I am not a religious person this comes off as pointless to me and I find the vehement disregard of religious thought to be counter productive to their goals.

To fight against literalism would be more effectively fought by reinterpreting the text to find the philosophical core and create an understanding that is more nuanced and provocative in our daily lives.

t's a bit subtle for me apparently. But from reading the thread it looks like you're referring to four, can I call them, "celebrity" atheists? You were engaged with their arguments but now you find them somewhat stale and uninteresting. It seems that those critics of religion (assuming Christianity) critiqued literalist interpretations of texts. You find that unhelpful. Combatting literalism is best done by interpreting (exegesis?) in order to understand the sacred texts. Do I have that right?

 

That's the gist of it.

To further clarify, I don't find ancient texts to be sacred, but literal interpretations are a non starter for me as I don't feel they were ever meant to be taken that way. I feel that addressing the issues many have of fanatic religious groups would be more effectively pursued by approaching the texts philosophically rather than attempting to debunk them.