How Did New Atheism Fail So Miserably?

[Walter]

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.

shakes head and holds face in hands

[Maeght]

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.

So many words to say so little. More muddying the waters?

[Sebastian Toe]

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.

Not a candidate for post of the week.

[Stranger]

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.

You seem to be struggling to describe a group of independent thinkers who share some similar views about some things.

The point is that (as far as I know) there is no canonical set of beliefs that define 'new atheism' so it remains a vague description of people whose views are broadly in line with those of the authors who were first labelled as such (Harris, Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, et al.)

It is only to be expected that individuals who are so labelled don't always agree about everything.

The term atheist has a specific and accepted meaning - new atheist, not so much. Get over it.

[ProfessorDavey]

The term atheist has a specific and accepted meaning - new atheist, not so much. Get over it.

New atheist, new Atheist and New Atheist even less so.

[wigginhall]

Yes, exactly.   I'm not sure why Vlad wants to see a monolithic collection of people, which obviously isn't.   In fact, I think the famous image of herding cats has often been used about atheists.     I suppose the idea of a canon is being projected from Christian doctrines onto areas where it is not suitable. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You seem to be struggling to describe a group of independent thinkers who share some similar views about some things.

The point is that (as far as I know) there is no canonical set of beliefs that define 'new atheism' so it remains a vague description of people whose views are broadly in line with those of the authors who were first labelled as such (Harris, Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, et al.)

It is only to be expected that individuals who are so labelled don't always agree about everything.

The term atheist has a specific and accepted meaning - new atheist, not so much. Get over it.

I'm not on about atheists here but New Atheists the characteristics and behaviour of whom have been identified.
You talk about canon. Terms introduced by the four horsemen and lesser New atheists frequently surface in New Atheist argument vis The leprechaun thing, courtiers reply, extraordinary claims etc. That isn't limited to quotes but full blown ideas and vocabulary. A simulator of a simulated universe is always a spotty teenager working out of a basement for instance. AC Grayling I believe has fashioned atheist readers. It all fits in IMHO with the stealth religion theory of D. Sloan Wilson. Therefore Independent rather than increasingly collective thinking is now for many becoming less of an option.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm not on about atheists here but New Atheists the characteristics and behaviour of whom have been identified.

Identified by whom, accepted by whom?

I have never heard of anyone self defining as a New Atheist - it seems to be a pejorative term used by those who want to disparage atheism and atheists.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, exactly.   I'm not sure why Vlad wants to see a monolithic collection of people, which obviously isn't.   In fact, I think the famous image of herding cats has often been used about atheists.     I suppose the idea of a canon is being projected from Christian doctrines onto areas where it is not suitable.

As I read this I am visualising a certain professor going ''ooh ooh please don't accuse us of being a monolithic collection of people, that's our schtick on the religious''

What is AC Grayling with his collected works from the 'saints' of New Atheism up to?
Are there no 'greats' of popular science.

I would not expect New Atheism to be any more monolithic than any other 'stealth Religion'.

[Shaker]

Sriram's confusion is only that cultivated by New atheists

Not at all. Like some people with rare orchids and bonsai trees, he seems to enjoy cultivating it himself.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Identified by whom, accepted by whom?

I have never heard of anyone self defining as a New Atheist - it seems to be a pejorative term used by those who want to disparage atheism and atheists.

I have never heard of a Privet hedge self identifying as Privet.
Or the earliest followers of Jesus self identifying as Christians.

[Shaker]

It all fits in IMHO with the stealth religion theory of D. Sloan Wilson.

DSW definitely seems to be ousting Prof. Dawkins as the focal point of your monomania these days.

[ProfessorDavey]

I have never heard of a Privet hedge self identifying as Privet.

A privet hedge is incapable of self defining as anything as it is a plant! Are you somehow suggesting that atheists are somehow non human.

Or the earliest followers of Jesus self identifying as Christians.

I've no idea whether they did or didn't, and nor do you as there isn't enough evidence either way - but that is beside the point - most now do.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

A privet hedge is incapable of self defining as anything as it is a plant! Are you somehow suggesting that atheists are somehow non human.

A privet is a privet whether it self identifies as one or not.
Am I suggesting that atheists are somehow not human? First of all I am talking about New Atheists not atheists. Secondly I have not said that atheists are not human. Thirdly this brings us round nicely to some epithets used New Atheists. Some people of religion do not self identify as sheep some do not self identify as Just sophisticated apes and yet that is foisted on them.

If one identifies then those as sheep and just sophisticated apes are you then suggesting that religious people are somehow non human?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

DSW definitely seems to be ousting Prof. Dawkins as the focal point of your monomania these days.

Really? What is Doctor Sloane Wilson's hair like? Does he have hair? Is it ''great'' hair?

[ProfessorDavey]

A privet is a privet whether it self identifies as one or not.

A privet hedge has no capacity for high consciousness and therefore is unable to self define as anything. But the definition of a privet is clear and accepted - unlike New Atheist.

Am I suggesting that atheists are somehow not human?

you made the comparison between the two

First of all I am talking about New Atheists not atheists.

New Atheist - a term used pretty well exclusively by you and one that has no accepted definition - it is a meaningless term that you use to try to promulgate your ill informed and negative view of atheists, to try to portray them as some kind of organised group - which they are not. Atheists are people who do not believe god or gods exist - no more, no less. New Atheists aren't a thing.

[Shaker]

A privet is a privet whether it self identifies as one or not [...] Some people of religion do not self identify as sheep ...

Some people of religion are sheep whether they self identify or not, then 

[jeremyp]

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

We do indeed, but unless you can demonstrate that there are some objectives that are not being met that the people you label as new atheists have subscribed to, everything you are saying is utter bollocks.

So put your mouth where your arsehole is and tell us which new atheist objective, Richard Dawkins has explicitly signed put to an then demonstrate why that objective is less likely to be achieved now than ten years ago.

[Shaker]

So put your mouth where your arsehole is [...]

Too late was the cry!

[jeremyp]

But how do you know that all atheists reject fairies and magic and flying saucers?

I don't. I'm not entirely sure how you came to the conclusion that I do.

From what all of you are saying ...atheists are just people who do not believe in a God!

Bingo!

They might very well believe in spirits, after life, ghosts, magic, flying saucers etc. etc.

Yes they might.

But the thing is that most atheists are atheists because there's no evidence for gods. you seem to think that being atheist is the cause of being sceptical about all sorts of phenomena. You have it exactly backwards.

[jeremyp]

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.

The chance is 100% because I just provided it. Note to Vlad: that you don't like what a post says is not evidence that it is unbalanced and grudging.

[Sriram]

I don't. I'm not entirely sure how you came to the conclusion that I do.
Bingo!
Yes they might.

But the thing is that most atheists are atheists because there's no evidence for gods. you seem to think that being atheist is the cause of being sceptical about all sorts of phenomena. You have it exactly backwards.

Does that mean that some atheists have evidence for spirits, magic, leprechauns  and flying saucers?

It can't all be about evidence only....in which case materialism and atheism will not be different (are they?). 

I know that atheism is not the cause of skepticism. Rather, I think  habitual skepticism born of an adolescence mindset that many people have not outgrown, results in scorn for all sorts of things including religious beliefs and God. This scorn is also towards science and scientists whose thinking may not match with their own.   

In fact, if patron saints like Dawkins and Harris suddenly change their stand and express sympathy towards spiritual or religious thinking...most atheists will disown them.

Atheism and skepticism are not really about evidence but about a mindset that is difficult to change.

[Gordon]

Does that mean that some atheists have evidence for spirits, magic, leprechauns  and flying saucers?

No (but then neither does anyone else).

It can't all be about evidence only....in which case materialism and atheism will not be different (are they?).

Atheism is simply having no beliefs in God or Gods: whatever 'materialism' is, if there is such a stance, is presumably different, 

I know that atheism is not the cause of skepticism. Rather, I think  habitual skepticism born of an adolescence mindset that many people have not outgrown, results in scorn for all sorts of things including religious beliefs and God. This scorn is also towards science and scientists whose thinking may not match with their own.   

In fact, if patron saints like Dawkins and Harris suddenly change their stand and express sympathy towards spiritual or religious thinking...most atheists will disown them.

You seem to be channelling your inner Vlad.

Atheism and skepticism are not really about evidence but about a mindset that is difficult to change.

No - they are about there being no good reasons to believe certain propositions.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No (but then neither does anyone else).

Atheism is simply having no beliefs in God or Gods: whatever 'materialism' is, if there is such a stance, is presumably different, 

You seem to be channelling your inner Vlad.

No - they are about there being no good reasons to believe certain propositions.

I think Sriram has pointed that while it is your opinion that there are no good reasons to believe in God or gods that is an inadequate defence for someone who doesn't believe in God and gods but entertain all manner of supernatural ideas.

That brings us to the failure of New Atheism since it is reasonable to suppose that most atheists entertain some or many of these ideas. A case in point is the interest in ghost hunter shows on TVs in a supposedly majority non religious country.Materialism therefore is what these people aren't and you are.

Dawkins then has failed to bring his brand of New Atheism into the nation. Yes he will have gained some converts but I suspect that New Atheism was latent in many people on this board.

Finally NDG Tyson has supplied "good reason". I watch therefore the antitheist careers around here with interest.

[Gordon]

I think Sriram has pointed that while it is your opinion that there are no good reasons to believe in God or gods that is an inadequate defence for someone who doesn't believe in God and gods but entertain all manner of supernatural ideas.

Who are all these woo believing atheists? Would be interesting to know on what basis they reject Gods but accept other supernatural claims - name some names here and we'll ask them.

That brings us to the failure of New Atheism since it is reasonable to suppose that most atheists entertain some or many of these ideas.

Not sure it is reasonable, Vlad - so you need to back-up this assertion.

A case in point is the interest in ghost hunter shows on TVs in a supposedly majority non religious country.

It's called entertainment, Vlad - people go to see horror films without being worried about demons etc being real.

Dawkins then has failed to bring his brand of New Atheism into the nation. Yes he will have gained some converts but I suspect that New Atheism was latent in many people on this board.

Finally NDG Tyson has supplied "good reason". I watch therefore the antitheist careers around here with interest.

Perhaps you should squeeze your 'New Atheism' thought onto a sandwich board and wander around your local shopping centre seeking your own converts.