New Atheism, Worse Than You Think

[rug]

January 29, 2016
by David Hoelscher

In the years since the so-called “New Atheism” burst onto the scene in the mid 2000s, the movement has not lacked for critics among nonbelievers and agnostics. Until recently, however, few of them wrote books on the subject. Of those who did, apparently the only ones who focused on the cultural and sociopolitical aspects of the movement were Chris Hedges (When Atheism Becomes Religion: America’s New Fundamentalists, Free Press, 2009—first published as I Don’t Believe in Atheists: The Dangerous Rise of the Secular Fundamentalist, Free Press, 2008) and Terry Eagleton (Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate, Yale University Press, 2009). As those dates suggest, it’s been a good while since we’ve seen anything new in this vein.

All of a sudden, though, two new titles have recently hit the market. In September, Dangerous Little Books released CJ Werleman’s The New Atheist Threat: The Dangerous Rise of Secular Extremists (280 pages). In October, Oxford University Press published Stephen LeDrew’s The Evolution of Atheism: The Politics of a Modern Movement (262 pages). Although differing dramatically in style and tone, these studies have much in common both thematically and in terms of sharing one hugely important flaw (discussed below) likely to go unnoticed by most readers. Both books are essential reading for anyone seeking to better understand the waywardness of a large chunk of the atheist movement.

CJ Werleman

CJ Werleman is an Australian journalist, polemicist, and political columnist currently living in the United States. Author of several anti-religion books, formerly a speaker in demand on the atheist conference circuit, Werleman was for a time a popular figure within the atheist movement. Recently though, after realizing that New Atheism is itself a dangerous species of fundamentalism, he became a staunch and vocal critic.

Werleman defines New Atheism as “evangelical atheism,” or, as he emphasizes elsewhere “evangelical anti-theism.” It is the conviction that religion is the leading source of problems around the world, and thus “is an obstacle to creating human perfection and a Western civilization utopia.” Werleman insists, as Hedges did before him, that the New Atheists are “secular fundamentalists.” They display a cultish commitment to science, a childishly simplistic view of religion, a severely bigoted stance toward Islam, and a slavish faith in what they take to be “the beneficent U.S. secular state.”

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/01/29/new-atheism-worse-than-you-think/

[Cartoonist]

1. Human perfection

Utopia

No atheist, New or Old, claims those things. That's religion.

[TreasonousBastard]

2. I'm about halfway through the article...

and it is well worth finishing when I get back later.

I suspect the mentioned hatred of religion is a peculiarly American thing among nonbelievers. I've been told that Japanese are largely secular, but tend to have Shinto weddings and Buddhist funerals. (Or is it the other way around?) In most of Europe the great cathedrals remain as museums and tourist attractions while the religion that inspired them is tolerated but not overly embraced.

Here, though, the ever-expanding Bible Belt and the histrionics coming from it more than likely shove our domestic atheists into overdrive, not that they aren't perfectly happy to fight religion to the bitter end to begin with.

Atheism is no more based on hard science than any emotions or ethics are. It is every bit as much a social invention as the religions it denies are. These New Atheists who insist on forcing non-belief on us are no different, and no better, than their religious forbears.

[AtheistCrusader]

4. Are you sure it's his article?

Odds are, might not be.

^ Jump up to: a b c "CJ Werleman: Misrepresentation, Dubious Ethics and Unoriginal Hackery". Godless Spellchecker's Blog. 14 Oct 2014. Retrieved 3 Apr 2015.
2.^ Jump up to: a b Cara, Eddy (23 Oct 2014). "When did plagiarism become journalism's status quo?". The Daily Dot. Retrieved 3 Apr 2015.
3.Jump up ^ "Is CJ Werleman a Plagiarist?". Godless Spellchecker's Blog. 17 Oct 2014. Retrieved 3 Apr 2015.
4.Jump up ^ Luciano, Michael (17 Oct 2014). "New Atheist-Basher Is Apparent Plagiarizer and Thinks It’s No Big Deal". The Daily Banter.
5.Jump up ^ "Special Note to Readers: AlterNet Regrets Author's Plagiarism". AlterNet. 20 Oct 2014. Retrieved 3 Apr 2014.
6.Jump up ^ "Corrections". Salon. Retrieved 3 Apr 2015.
7.Jump up ^ "Haters Caught Manipulating Video to Cast IDF as Child Abusers". Jewish Press. 27 Dec 2015. Retrieved 29 Dec 2015.

Werleman will sell you anything. Even other people's original works.

[TreasonousBastard]

47. It's not-- he just quotes Werleman.

[AtheistCrusader]

67. I know.

Hence, my not saying anything about the other main author that I know nothing about.

[edhopper]

5. Yes, all the same

The modern Atheist Inquisitions and atheist crusades are exactly the same. the Atheist Jihadist are equally dangerous.

I don't know about "based on hard science" only that modern science has provided no evidence for God and no need for God in any explanations of the Universe.

[Lordquinton]

8. Someday they might be as terrible as the RCC

I mean, probably not, but it makes good copy.

[cpwm17]

11. How about Western imperialism supported by the "New Atheists"?

Does that count: or are crimes committed by third parties (the US Government and military) not countable?

Perhaps that is a Western privilege: supporting and committing all kinds of horrible acts through the military and governmental policy, but no one is allowed to hold it against you.

[edhopper]

12. Some support it, some don't

It has nothing to do with atheism. Was Viet Nam about Christianity because of who took us there?

Blaming atheism for Imperialism. What an incredible non-sequitor.

[cpwm17]

17. No, this is about the "New Atheists", not atheists.

New Atheists are generally rather right-wing. They only represent themselves, not atheists like me.

They tend to be privileged white males that support the power of the state to maintain their privilege, hence they often support wars against those they consider inferior.

Sam Harris is a major offender, but he is not the only one, and his positions have a lot of support within the movement.

Here's where Sam Harris blamed the Iraqis for the failure of the unprovoked war against them, because we are "civilized human beings" and they are suffering from "religious delusion":

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/bombing-our-illusions_b_8615.html

The war in Iraq, while it may be exacerbating the conflict between Islam and the West, is a red herring. However mixed or misguided American intentions were in launching this war, civilized human beings are now attempting, at considerable cost to themselves, to improve life for the Iraqi people. The terrible truth about our predicament in Iraq is that even if we had invaded with no other purpose than to remove Saddam Hussein from power and make Iraq a paradise on earth, we could still expect tomorrow’s paper to reveal that another jihadi has blown himself up for the sake of killing scores of innocent men, women, and children.

The outrage that Muslims feel over U.S. and British foreign policy is primarily the product of theological concerns. Devout Muslims consider it a sacrilege for infidels to depose a Muslim tyrant and occupy Muslim lands—no matter how well intentioned the infidels or malevolent the tyrant. Because of what they believe about God and the afterlife and the divine provenance of the Koran, devout Muslims tend to reflexively side with other Muslims, no matter how sociopathic their behavior. This is solidarity born of religious delusion, and it must end—or a genuine clash of civilizations will be unavoidable.

[AtheistCrusader]

16. In this case, you're talking about a 'couple of guys', not 'new atheism'.

[cpwm17]

18. It goes much deeper than those 'couple of guys.'

"New Atheists" are consistently right-wing, including their fans.

[AtheistCrusader]

19. Bull. Fucking. Shit.

[AtheistCrusader]

20. Go ahead and list out all the right-wing new atheists. I'll wait.

Let's see how many right-wingers you can come up with.

Harris identifies as right-of-center.
Hitchens was right of center on several issues, several VERY big issues, like Iraq.

aaaaand?

Of the Four Horsemen of the Counter-Apocalypse, that's half. Dennett isn't a conservative. Neither is Dawkins. Both solidly liberal.

so you've got 50% (half of them, dead, and not exactly a conservative) of the four generally media-recognized 'new atheists'.

Expanding our scope a bit, Shermer. He was a Christian libertarian, now he's an agnostic. No clear indicator if he's left or right of center. (Libertarians swing both ways, ask an An-Com and an An-Cap.)

[edhopper]

21. Exactly

If you read "Free Inquiry", a major "new atheist" publication, it is largely liberal. And definitely not right wing.

[cpwm17]

26. I used to subscribe to that magazine years ago.

It was an alleged humanist magazine back then. I wasn't particularly impressed with the magazine when Paul Kurtz, the editor back then, wrote that he supported the Palestinian Nakba – typical "humanist."

[cpwm17]

24. First thing, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens are not bit players.

They are (were) major players in the "New Atheist" movement.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a darling among the New Atheists, a total right-wing nutcase.

I don't follow Daniel Dennett, but I was under impressed with him in the "Four Horsemen" video when I watched as much as I could tolerate years ago. Daniel Dennett went along with Sam Harris' and Christopher Hitchens' sociopathy.

Dawkins is no neocon, but he does have many of the same prejudices as the other New Atheists.

Dave Rubin started a political talk show The Rubin Report after splitting with The Young Turks due to disagreement with Cenk Uygur over Sam Harris and the New Atheists, and over the Palestinian/Israel conflict. It's dominate by topics related to New Atheism, with the usual liberal bashing that dominates much of the movement.

Cenk Uygur, and other liberals, get in a lot of battles with the New Atheists. New Atheists don't like liberals.

[AtheistCrusader]

28. I didn't say they were bit players.

They are half of the four you also identified for the same reason I identified.

Politically, Dawkins is left of center. Hitchens was sexist and right of center on the war and a few other things, but could hardly be called a conservative.

Of the four figureheads we both covered, Harris is the furthest right, on the most issues, and also the least influential. He may exceed Hitchens in influence simply by surviving longer, but I doubt it. Harris does doodley-squat compared to Dennett and Dawkins in terms of real science.

[cleanhippie]

42. But that's what "New Atheism" is, a couple of guys.

But they need something rally around in order to show that non-belief is just like belief.

[Leontius]

60. P U

[cleanhippie]

62. T Z

[LiberalAndProud]

43. Nobody is forcing nonbelief on you.

If you think that asking you to examine what you believe and why you believe it is force, you need to consider what atheists in theocracies face even today, for Cry^st's sake.

[TreasonousBastard]

48. The evangelical atheists are certainly trying...

In case I haven't mentioned it, I'm a soft atheist myself. I don't believe in any particular god and I doubt there's any god at all.

However, I don't insist there is no god-- it's an enormous universe out there, and the possibility of a god somewhere in it has a higher probability than unicorns in a German forest. So, I resent anyone who tells me I'm an idiot for accepting the possibility of a god. Those are the evangelicals that I despise. Not all atheists, to be sure, but enough to be an annoyance.

[LiberalAndProud]

49. I think we can insist that

people who not only believe, but also know god's mind should have their beliefs called into question. Elsewise we'll end up with nutjobs like Ted Cruz in power.

Like you, I suppose there might be something out there, but I'll not believe in it until there's evidence for it, and I'll not pretend to know its nature, either.

[muriel_volestrangler]

64. Maybe it's the meaning of 'force' that you're having trouble with

Pol Pot, Mao and Stalin may have 'forced', but present-day people in the West are not forcing people to give up belief. Your claim that New Atheists "insist on forcing non-belief on us" is so wrong that I'm amazed to find anyone on DU suggesting it.

[AtheistCrusader]

3. Oh good, here you are trotting out racist, plagarist Werleman again.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218212202


Edit: From the Wikipedia

Plagiarism[edit]

In October 2014, atheist author and philosophy professor Peter Boghossian brought Werleman's plagiarism of Vali Nasr's The Dispensable Nation to the attention of Stephen Knight of the Godless Spellchecker's Blog.[1] Subsequent investigation by both Knight and Boghossian revealed that Werleman had repeatedly plagiarized the work of numerous writers including Fareed Zakaria, William Broyles Jr., Robert Pape, and Eduardo Porter.[1] Whole sentences and passages from Werleman's published articles in Salon Magazine and AlterNet were found to have been copied or adapted from previously published works without any citation or attribution.[3]

Upon learning of this discovery, reporter Michael Luciano of The Daily Banter began searching for more instances of plagiarism, unearthing over a dozen additional examples drawn from a wide range of sources including works by attorney and secular activist David Niose, author Hedrick Smith, reports by Pew Research Center and by People for the American Way, a speech given by U.S. President Barack Obama, and Wikipedia.[4] Werleman responded to the allegations in a Facebook post, admitting some instances of plagiarism.[2]

AlterNet went on to remove all of Werleman's articles from their archives and issued an apology to readers and those who had been plagiarized.[5] Salon also addressed Werleman's plagiarism in their "Corrections" section under 2014, telling readers that plagiarized passages would be marked with bold text and hyperlinks to the original sources.[6]

Falsified video[edit]

In a December 2015 tweet, Werleman falsely cited images of Guatemalan soldiers "roughing up" a teenager as being "...Israeli soldiers beating and torturing Palestinian detainees in occupied West Bank." The original video of the Guatemalan soldiers was first posted by Al Jazeera and shown on Yahoo! News.[7]

Good job, Rug. Good show old bean.

[rug]

7. A link to your post, which links to something called "Godless Spellchecker's Blog",

hardly proves anything. At least nothing you intended.

Surely you have a similar cesspool of a site where you can find something about Chris Hedges, Terry Eagleton, Stephen LeDrew, Michael Ruse, Dan Fincke, Mitchell Stephens, Sikivu Hutchinson, Thomas Piketty, Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart.

If you don't recognize those names it's either because you clearly have not read the article or were driven by apologetic apoplexy to dumpster dive the internet at the mere mention of Werleman.

Shitty job, AtheistCrusader. Fortunately there are others who are far more capable of living up to that name.

[AtheistCrusader]

13. Wikipedia has a list of references to sites like Salon REMOVING his articles and APOLOGIZING.

But you won't click that because it doesn't fit your narrative.

[rug]

31. Lol. You are a poor mindreader.

And your capsLock key is stuck.

[AtheistCrusader]

33. It's the shift key, and I apply it as needed.

As you ought be able to tell, since the entire sentence wasn't in caps.

You're also a fine one to be critiquing spelling, grammar, and capitalization.

[cleanhippie]

45. Pretty standard tactic when is agenda gets demolished in one or two posts.

[rug]

55. Yo have no clue what demolished means.

Oh, wait, you do. You're reduced to hurling rocks from behind a fence.

[AtheistCrusader]

6. An interesting question will be, 'can you defend this racist author without getting a hide?'

Because you failed last time.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218212156#post66

[rug]

9. Here's a lesson in honesty for you.

Here's the hide:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218212156#post66

Not even remotely for what you typed.

Another interesting question will be, 'can you continue to post ad hominem bullshit without getting a hide?'

I know how you love to troll with alerts.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1089292

How many of those seven were yours?

[AtheistCrusader]

15. The entirety of that thread became an activity in deflecting and defending for Werleman.

So, inclusive of that post.

[rug]

27. Actually, no.

That thread became a concerted attack on him by you and a dozen of your colleagues in a frenetic denunciation of the messenger rather than the message.

But that's what passes for "discussion" among you.

To be fair, though, you were responsible for only twelve of the posts.

[AtheistCrusader]

30. When I look for sources to back up a view/analysis, I look for people with credibility.

Werleman isn't credible. And his 'I used to be a strong atheist' schtick is based purely upon his credibility.

He's actually LESS credible than the other right wing stalking horse, S.E. Cupp. ("I aspire to faith" derp)

[rug]

34. Ah, yes, "Godless Spellchecker's Blog"/

I bow to your scholarship and intellectual honesty.

[AtheistCrusader]

35. And there you are, pretending there was no independent discovery, verification, etc.

AlterNet is in the habit of retracting publications and apologizing, based on 'Godless Spellcheker's un-sourced opinion.' and nothing more material than that.

You got me.

[rug]

37. Don't get me started on alternet.

It's spotty - at best.

[AtheistCrusader]

39. And Salon.

[Leontius]

10. Character attacks and ridiculous strawmen, well done anti-theists.

I almost forget the mandatory RCC is evil post.

[AtheistCrusader]

14. Werleman IS a character attack.

[Leontius]

25. He is also not the author of this article just one of several mentioned.

[edhopper]

22. from Wikipedia

Plagiarism

In October 2014, atheist author and philosophy professor Peter Boghossian brought Werleman's plagiarism of Vali Nasr's The Dispensable Nation to the attention of Stephen Knight of the Godless Spellchecker's Blog.[1] Subsequent investigation by both Knight and Boghossian revealed that Werleman had repeatedly plagiarized the work of numerous writers including Fareed Zakaria, William Broyles Jr., Robert Pape, and Eduardo Porter.[1] Whole sentences and passages from Werleman's published articles in Salon Magazine and AlterNet were found to have been copied or adapted from previously published works without any citation or attribution.[3]

Upon learning of this discovery, reporter Michael Luciano of The Daily Banter began searching for more instances of plagiarism, unearthing over a dozen additional examples drawn from a wide range of sources including works by attorney and secular activist David Niose, author Hedrick Smith, reports by Pew Research Center and by People for the American Way, a speech given by U.S. President Barack Obama, and Wikipedia.[4] Werleman responded to the allegations in a Facebook post, admitting some instances of plagiarism.[2]

AlterNet went on to remove all of Werleman's articles from their archives and issued an apology to readers and those who had been plagiarized.[5] Salon also addressed Werleman's plagiarism in their "Corrections" section under 2014, telling readers that plagiarized passages would be marked with bold text and hyperlinks to the original sources.[6]
Falsified video

In a December 2015 tweet, Werleman falsely cited images of Guatemalan soldiers "roughing up" a teenager as being "...Israeli soldiers beating and torturing Palestinian detainees in occupied West Bank." The original video of the Guatemalan soldiers was first posted by Al Jazeera and shown on Yahoo! News.[7]

You call this a strawman? You defend such a man? Says volumes about your priorities.

[Leontius]

23. I guess you forgot you are the author of post #5.

It happens, sometimes selectively.

[edhopper]

32. what doesm that have to do with

this author?

[guillaumeb]

29. Atheism like theism, should not be defined by the words or actions of a few of its

advocates.

I am a Christian, but I have seen a lot of Christian hate directed toward non-believers. Hate simply because of the non-belief.

I have also seen non-believers mock and attack believers.

The same tactics used by both sides. Tolerance is by far the better approach.

[Promethean]

36. I'm with ya on your opening.

I prefer to judge ideologies based on the ideas they represent. Atheism has no codified ideology but a few ideas an easy majority share (skepticism, et. al.). Religion has a codified ideology that it claims comes from an ULTIMATE AUTHORITY WITH ULTIMATE POWER. It is safe to assume a follower of a religion follows the dogma until they clearly demonstrate they do not.

It is unfortunate that followers of dogmatic ideologies are often willing to throw away their ethics and integrity to defend the dogma. For example there is a clear and present example of a religionist touting the words of and defending a proven plagiarist just to score points against his perceived enemies. Hes so blinded by his dogma and hatred that he doesn't care that it is clear to everybody that he has effectively flushed his ethics and integrity just to score these points. This is why bad ideas must be mocked and attacked. I am sure outside of his hate bubble the floor textile is just as reasonable and personable as anybody else.

[edhopper]

38. Or defending a pedophile organization

and always deflecting from those who enabled the crimes.

[rug]

56. Oh, go post those links, ed.

[guillaumeb]

40. I agree with you in spirit, not in tactics.

Beliefs are personal things, and it seems to me that as long as believers are respectful of the beliefs of others there would be far less conflict.

Belief is never provable. Neither is non-belief. Belief simply is. I can no more prove the existence of a creator than you can prove the non-existence of a creator. So I personally accept that you believe one thing and I believe another. The concepts of right/wrong or correct/incorrect do not apply.
==================================
But your second paragraph veers into ad hominem. Do you have particular studies and statistics to support your assertion that:

followers of dogmatic ideologies are often willing to throw away their ethics and integrity to defend the dogma.

What percent of believers?
What percent by their actions demonstrate a willingness to discard ethics and integrity?
You talk of one, nameless religionist. One religionist out of how many believers?

Mocking and attacking rarely win converts to any cause.

[Promethean]

41. I admit I don't have an overwhelming proponderance of evidence

for you there. Though its not hard to find examples. Just look for apologists on youtube. Though I admit the mention in the previous post was intended as a jab at rug and I am not ashamed of it. He is a genuinely hateful person and is guilty of what I described with the OP of this thread and in many of his other posts on DU.

As for the efficacy of mockery and attack. Atheism has been using those tools to tremendous effect. There are actual studies on this one as well as an organization that can provide information demonstrating how effective their tactics are. Silverman and American Atheists takes a lot of heat for being "rude" but they can show you spikes in interest in atheism and higher amounts of self identification as atheist coinciding with their billboards and other tactics. Also to call what George Carlin said about religion anything but mockery would be dishonest and you can bet your ass he won hearts and minds.

[guillaumeb]

44. Was your title an example of channeling your inner Herman Cain?

Do you remember the "I don't have facts to back this up" quote?

But to your second point, a spike in interest is not proof that the tactic is effective, just that it is noticed. Similar to Pamela Geller and her well covered hate events. Does she really convince anyone, or is she acting the fool for publicity and donations?

Also similar to the Fred Phelps church of Hate. The Westboro Church receives much publicity, but does this translate into support, or disgust?

George Carlin was entitled to his opinion. So are you.

[Promethean]

50. And here I was thinking I could have a conversation with you.

The first time I interacted with rug he insulted me to my face and played childish word games. That and a long continuation of obvious hate towards myself and other atheists is why I do not hide my negative opinion of him anymore. Now you compare me to Herman Cain. I don't need to say anymore. You burned that bridge.

[rug]

53. So, you prefer to insult people not to their face.

[guillaumeb]

61. My reference to Cain was a reference to your saying that you did NOT have substantiation.

As to your interaction with another poster, that is between the two of you.

[rug]

52. I see I hit your nerve.

Tsk, tsk.

[Humanist_Activist]

46. The big flaw is that this author and the authors he cites make New Atheism out to be a lot...

bigger and more cohesive than it really is.

For one, New Atheism should be done away with, at best its visible atheism, and outside of that, there is no consistency. For example, while the author of this piece was more than happy to claim that Harris' support for Israel points to New Atheism as being pro-imperialist, he failed to mention Dawkins' pro-Palestinian bent and outspoken opposition to the Iraq war.

I have noticed a trend here of a simplification of criticism of the "New Atheists" by making them out to be something they're not, another example is the example of "authoritarianism" by citing Dawkins critique of labeling children the religion of their parents, remarking that its not logical and can be child abuse in many circumstances. His example, Northern Ireland and the labeling of children as Protestant or Catholic, which would serve to restrict their choices in friends and opportunities later in life. Of course, the authors cited completely misunderstood this rather clear example.

I also really am puzzled by the hyperbole and over the top nature of the critiques, especially of the so called "Secular Extremism" and its tie-in as being "pro-imperialist" or "pro-western civilization". I truly don't understand this, are we not supposed to advocate for secular societies worldwide? After all, by all metrics, people in more secular societies are largely freer, have higher happiness indexes, more peaceful, and are more egalitarian than those who aren't. There is little value to cultural and religious practices that oppress believers and non-believers alike.

Not to mention the unrelated stuff going into the critiques of Atheism in general that make no sense, saying beliefs have been added on since the discovery of the theory of evolution, etc. It seemed the author of the article and the authors of the two books, were just piling in everything they don't like under this umbrella of Atheism they concocted for no better reason than they don't like those things. Including things like Social Darwinism and Marxism. It just is incoherent.

ON EDIT: In addition, a pet peeve, this term "scientism" which is used as a critique of empiricism in general, from what I can tell, its popular with some philosopher types and pseudo-scientists. I have yet to see an actual critique of it that is consistent.

ON EDIT2: Not to mention that the author of the article goes on an unrelated tangent about economic policy, racism, etc. that has nothing to do with atheism, and then criticizes New Atheism and its purported leaders for failing to mention them. It makes no sense. Yes I finished reading the article, the author is nuts.

[muriel_volestrangler]

66. Economic policy isn't a tangent for the author; he is annoyed no prominent 'New Atheist' is Marxist

and that is his fundamental problem with them. I can see it would be disappointing for a Marxist, but it's not as if many religions are particularly Marxist either.

[Humanist_Activist]

71. This article is literally the author attributing every awful thing he can think...

Of with "New Atheism". This is the very definition of a hit piece. Facts or truth be damned.

[Binkie The Clown]

51. I guess I'm just as apathetic about this controversy as I am about religion itself. n/t

[Humanist_Activist]

54. The controversy itself is rather non-existent as far as relation to the larger secularism...

movement.

Rather its a bunch of philosophy majors who don't like their chosen major/occupation being attacked by a few people, so they decide to broad brush attack every idea they don't like and tried to associate it with their chosen boogeyman "New Atheism".

[MisterP]

57. they're codependent with the fundies: the moment we stand up to both of them

they do their famed "raisin on an Egyptian sidewalk" impersonation

[rug]

58. You see it on display in this very thread.

[MisterP]

59. as someone a phone call away from a cardinal and whose work touches the various

interactions of religion and disbelief I can't bring myself to care anymore about the types numbly pawing at each other's faces and saying "there difference between Protastant and Cath-uh-lik?"

[muriel_volestrangler]

65. What 'standing up' to New Atheists is needed? You don't have to read their articles

Religious people, on the other hand, fund anti-LGBT laws. They are not in any way an equivalent.

[Goblinmonger]

68. I find this comparison silly and, ultimately, harmful.

So atheists that speak out are just exactly the same as RW fundies. Really?

And, more importantly, how are outspoken atheists affecting laws like the fundies are? Even if we were to agree that Harris is bigoted against Muslims, how are his beliefs in that regard going to become anywhere near law in comparison to President Ted Cruz? Isn't Cruz a lot more dangerous? Are abortion laws, laws that take rights from women and gays, and a great deal of other harmful laws the result of religious fundamentalists? What harmful law was put into place because of a "New Atheist."

I'll wait for just one that you can give me so we can actually compare fundies to atheists.

[goldent]

63. I don't expect a lot of growth in the New Atheism "movement"

They aren't doing themselves any favors.

[Goblinmonger]

69. You have seen the rising numbers of atheist among millennials, right?

The number of non-religious in this country is growing at a pretty nice rate. Apparently religions aren't doing themselves any favors either.

[rug]

70. Nonbelievers do not equal antitheists.

That's why many atheists and agnostics are disassociating from "New Atheists".

[goldent]

72. I was referring to "New Atheists"