How Did New Atheism Fail So Miserably?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fallacy of the excluded middle. Both could be true.

I'm almost certain, btw that all of the people on this thread claiming New Atheism has failed are talking bollocks. For one thing, I doubt if any of them could find any person who describes themselves as New Atheist. The whole concept is a colossal straw man.

''I am not a New Atheist said the New Atheist''.
A New Atheist Jeremy is as described in the Wikipedia article based on  observed behaviour with regards to Secular Humanism, scientism, Antitheism and partially overlapping Magisteria. It is as does therefore.

Criticism from atheists provides enough satisfaction. But aside from criticism from atheists and the religious most people have not seriously criticised The four horsemen.  This is a worry I would imagine because it might be because they haven't been taken seriously.

[Walter]

Fallacy of the excluded middle. Both could be true.

I'm almost certain, btw that all of the people on this thread claiming New Atheism has failed are talking bollocks. For one thing, I doubt if any of them could find any person who describes themselves as New Atheist. The whole concept is a colossal straw man.

TBH I rarely exclude the middle , generally it's where most fun can be found 😂👍

[jeremyp]

''I am not a New Atheist said the New Atheist''.
A New Atheist Jeremy is as described in the Wikipedia article based on  observed behaviour with regards to Secular Humanism, scientism, Antitheism and partially overlapping Magisteria. It is as does therefore.

Criticism from atheists provides enough satisfaction. But aside from criticism from atheists and the religious most people have not seriously criticised The four horsemen.  This is a worry I would imagine because it might be because they haven't been taken seriously.

So if New Atheism is a descriptive term based on certain traits that certain people display, it's a bit hard to claim it is failing since it can have no objectives.

[Maeght]

''I am not a New Atheist said the New Atheist''.
A New Atheist Jeremy is as described in the Wikipedia article based on  observed behaviour with regards to Secular Humanism, scientism, Antitheism and partially overlapping Magisteria. It is as does

That's not quite what it says on Wikipedia is it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So if New Atheism is a descriptive term based on certain traits that certain people display, it's a bit hard to claim it is failing since it can have no objectives.

Simple anthropology and psychology Jeremy.We behave in order to achieve objectives.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's not quite what it says on Wikipedia is it?

I'm afraid all these areas of New Atheist activity are discussed in the Wikipedia article.

[Sriram]

Correlation is not causation. Being an atheist does not make you less susceptible to other mumbo jumbo, rather being atheist is just one consequence of a sceptical World view that leads you to reject leprechauns, fairies, flying saucers and magic.

But how do you know that all atheists reject fairies and magic and flying saucers?  From what all of you are saying ...atheists are just people who do not believe in a God!  Simple!  They might very well believe in spirits, after life, ghosts, magic, flying saucers etc. etc.

The problem is that you people are defining atheists both as a single set of people and also as a very diverse group of people. Both can't be true. 

[SusanDoris]

Thank you, JeremyP, and Maeght, for a positive and interesting start to Friday!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But how do you know that all atheists reject fairies and magic and flying saucers?  From what all of you are saying ...atheists are just people who do not believe in a God!  Simple!  They might very well believe in spirits, after life, ghosts, magic, flying saucers etc. etc.

The problem is that you people are defining atheists both as a single set of people and also as a very diverse group of people. Both can't be true.

Post of the week.

[Gordon]

But how do you know that all atheists reject fairies and magic and flying saucers?  From what all of you are saying ...atheists are just people who do not believe in a God!  Simple!  They might very well believe in spirits, after life, ghosts, magic, flying saucers etc. etc.

The problem is that you people are defining atheists both as a single set of people and also as a very diverse group of people. Both can't be true.

Leaving aside flying saucers, which if demonstrably encountered would be natural, the rejection of supernatural claims in general (of gods or fairies) is on the basis that there are no good reasons to think they exist, given that the arguments offered to date by those claiming they do exist are all flawed.

[Gordon]

Post of the week.

Then you are easily pleased, Vlad.

[Sriram]

Leaving aside flying saucers, which if demonstrably encountered would be natural, the rejection of supernatural claims in general (of gods or fairies) is on the basis that there are no good reasons to think they exist, given that the arguments offered to date by those claiming they do exist are all flawed.

So...according to you...do all atheists reject all paranormal/supernatural claims besides not believing in God?!!

[Gordon]

So...according to you...do all atheists reject all paranormal/supernatural claims besides not believing in God?!!

No idea, since I can't speak for all atheists. However, if the arguments for ghosts are intrinsically the same as arguments for gods then I'd imagine, like me, they'd reject both - else they'd be inconsistent in their thinking.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Then you are easily pleased, Vlad.

I think the chance of Sriram getting a sensible balanced ungrudging response is small but I applaud incisive critique which I suspect hits the spot.

[Gordon]

I think the chance of Sriram getting a sensible balanced ungrudging response is small but I applaud incisive critique which I suspect hits the spot.

Why I am not surprised that you think Sriram's post is 'incisive critique'.

[Walter]

I think the chance of Sriram getting a sensible balanced ungrudging response is small but I applaud incisive critique which I suspect hits the spot.

you highlight your inability to think critically if you think that

[Shaker]

Post of the week.

Though not for the reasons you're thinking of.

[Stranger]

So...according to you...do all atheists reject all paranormal/supernatural claims besides not believing in God?!!

Is this 'debate' still going on? It really isn't rocket science, you only need a dictionary and a few functioning neurons.

jeremyp's reply #49 should have ended it.

Atheism is, according to Oxford Dictionaries, disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

So, if you don't have a belief in the existence of any gods you are an atheist - regardless of any other beliefs you may hold about anything else.

There is a correlation between atheism and disbelief in other woo-woo because gods are a type of woo-woo and people who generally require reasoning or evidence in order to believe something, tend to reject gods along with all the rest. In other words, a general rejection of woo-woo is a sufficient but not necessary reason to be an atheist.

However, atheism itself is just not believing in any gods.

This is really, really, really simple!

[Walter]

Though not for the reasons you're thinking of.

this is a good example of two totally different ways of thinking which appear to be innate and unchangeable in my experience over the years and arguments between the two will continue ad infinitum. From my own experience there are very few converts either way , only poor thinking on one side and critical thinking on the other
I've been wondering why that is for many years now !

[Maeght]

Nowhere here does it say atheists don't believe in flying saucers, leprechauns and the like.

[Sebastian Toe]

Is this 'debate' still going on? It really isn't rocket science, you only need a dictionary and a few functioning neurons.

jeremyp's reply #49 should have ended it.

Atheism is, according to Oxford Dictionaries, disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

So, if you don't have a belief in the existence of any gods you are an atheist - regardless of any other beliefs you may hold about anything else.

There is a correlation between atheism and disbelief in other woo-woo because gods are a type of woo-woo and people who generally require reasoning or evidence in order to believe something, tend to reject gods along with all the rest. In other words, a general rejection of woo-woo is a sufficient but not necessary reason to be an atheist.

However, atheism itself is just not believing in any gods.

This is really, really, really simple!

Post of the month!

[Maeght]

I'm afraid all these areas of New Atheist activity are discussed in the Wikipedia article.

You said that the article gave a definition of New Atheism. It does in that it says 'advocate the view that superstition, religion and irrationalism should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticised and exposed by rational argument wherever their influence arises in government, education and politics.' This seems to me to bea fair definition of New Atheism. It then goes on to refer to New Atheism lending it self to and overlapping secularism and antitheism particularly in its criticism of indoctrination of children. This isn't a definition of New Atheism but an observation of some
overlap in behaviour. Your post shows you paranoia about New Atheism by lumping all that and more into a definition which is not reflected in the Wikipedia article.

[Sebastian Toe]

Your post shows you paranoia about New Atheism by lumping all that and more into a definition which is not reflected in the Wikipedia article.

Insightful observation of the week.

[Enki]

Is this 'debate' still going on? It really isn't rocket science, you only need a dictionary and a few functioning neurons.

jeremyp's reply #49 should have ended it.

Atheism is, according to Oxford Dictionaries, disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

So, if you don't have a belief in the existence of any gods you are an atheist - regardless of any other beliefs you may hold about anything else.

There is a correlation between atheism and disbelief in other woo-woo because gods are a type of woo-woo and people who generally require reasoning or evidence in order to believe something, tend to reject gods along with all the rest. In other words, a general rejection of woo-woo is a sufficient but not necessary reason to be an atheist.

However, atheism itself is just not believing in any gods.

This is really, really, really simple!

Hopefully the above post will have cleared up Sriram's confusion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hopefully the above post will have cleared up Sriram's confusion.

Sriram's confusion is only that cultivated by New atheists who wish to avoid identification and responsibility for their utterances by coalescing, Slime Mould like, into a single entity which  ''Merely has disbelief in Gods'' when conditions get tough for them or dispersing as lone amoeboids which ever is most useful.