Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
lotharson

The Hate Of The New Atheists

Recommended Posts

I do not care what another calls themselves.

I saw the tube vid of Christopher Hitchens and it sure was not as you say. A liberal Christian from the audience mentioned that she did not agree with biblical infalliblity and CHristopher Hitchens scolded her by saying she then had no right to call herself a Christian. I am not saying that this therefore means Christopher Hitchens is all wrong but I am saying I beleive he was wrong on that moment.

I will try and find the Your tube vid again. Trouble is there is so much to wade through now.

Edited by Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not care what another calls themselves.

 

In one sense I do not care either, but in another I do ... If I care enough then the labels and definitions they use matter to me, especially if I want to understand them.

 

I saw the tube vid of Christopher Hitchens and it sure was not as you say. A liberal Christian from the audience mentioned that she did not agree with biblical infalliblity and CHristopher Hitchens scolded her by saying she then had no right to call herself a Christian. I am not saying that this therefore means Christopher Hitchens is all wrong but I am saying I beleive he was wrong on that moment.

 

 

 

I think this could be a case where Hitchens was too attached to a definition. But at some point we have to agree on the word Christian. For Hitchens it had two specific requirements. I suspect the vast majority of Christians would agree with Hitchens. And this is in line with the overall Episcopal reaction to Spong's view of where Christianity should be going. (based on the little I have read).

I will try and find the Your tube vid again. Trouble is there is so much to wade through now.

 

 

I'd appreciate that.

Edited by romansh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know some would not say I am a Christian. I know of some fundamentalists who have directly accused me of this but I do not agree that they have the right to define the faith for everyone or of me. Yet, in one sense I think they are right in that the word "Christian" refers to Jesus being a Messiah and I guess I do not. I personally see myself more closely defined as a Jesus inspired person. Not to say I agree with all that is said as being the word of Jesus and I suspect we may not agree on everything if Jesus lived his life as a Jewish judaic preacher nowadays but his life and values do inspire me. Trouble is if you say your a Jesus inspired person then people only seem to understand that as a "Christian". So I put a handle on it as a Liberal Christian which for me allows me the view of being able to challenge things and to personally value the inspirations I do.

On the vid:-

I seem to have waded through loads of vids but not found the one yet. There are so many. Christopher was talking to people I beleive at a University and argued against Christianty. He used conservative views as examples of why he did not think much of Christianity and one lady said that she was a liberal Christian and did not agree with the conservatives views either. Christopher snapped back that if she did not believe in those views then she had no right to call herself a Christian. I included the video above as circustancial proof that it was said rather than some full agree with that speaker.

I respect much of Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins but I suspect they would not of liked me or agree with all I think. So there it is again. That is life in my experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going off topic here ...

Being Jesus inspired ...

While I might not be directly I may be indirectly ...

 

I personally prefer Christ inspired ... although I understand Christ is mythical character and probably a composite of real people and various traditions. Incidently ... you may enjoy this a compilation of what Weyler thinks can be actually ascribed to Jesus.

 

I accept that Hitchens disagreed with the lady. Not overly preoccupied on the how, but more on his reasons for him doing so.

Edited by romansh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rom said...

"In one sense I do not care either, but in another I do ... If I care enough then the labels and definitions they use matter to me, especially if I want to understand them. "

 

It seems to me doubtful that there is any real meaningful understanding discerned from a label. In the label we think we know the other because we have applied a name. Perhaps we will find that we limit people by our labels and any personal understanding it can contain or that a person may think they might have of that label?

 

How can i even be sure by the mere sentence you have used to understand the implications it contains without further dialog and then still will i not be found lacking?

 

Joseph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can i even be sure by the mere sentence you have used to understand the implications it contains without further dialog and then still will i not be found lacking?

 

Joseph

 

I agree, we can't be sure. Sure we can be wrong. Take the title of this thread ... it can be read in two ways... New Atheists that exhibit hate or it could be about the hate that is exhibited towards New Atheists. I guessed it was the former and the post clarified it for me.

 

I have no problem with labels so long as there is a clarification that goes along with them. But quite often it is the underlying emotion that is embedded with label that we should watch for. On some fora (some people's minds) a New Atheist is a derogatory term that reflects the mind set. And of course the converse is also true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going off topic here ...

Being Jesus inspired ...

While I might not be directly I may be indirectly ...

 

I personally prefer Christ inspired ... although I understand Christ is mythical character and probably a composite of real people and various traditions. Incidently ... you may enjoy this a compilation of what Weyler thinks can be actually ascribed to Jesus.

 

I accept that Hitchens disagreed with the lady. Not overly preoccupied on the how, but more on his reasons for him doing so.

Sorry Romansh for not responding to your post right away. I had to get ready for work.

I liked your link very much.

Bart D Ehrmam also states this line "Even before he was born, it was known that he would be someone special. A supernatural being informed mother the child she was to conceive would not be a mere mortal but would be divine. He was born miraculously, and he became an unusually precocious young man. As an adult he left home and went on an itinerant preaching ministry, urging his listeners to live, not the material things of this world, but for what is spiritual. He gathered a number of disciples around him, who became convinced that his teachings were divinely inspired, in no small part because he himself was divine. He proved it to them by doing many miracles, healing the sick, casting out demons, and raising the dead. But at the end of his life he roused opposition, and his enemies delivered him over to the Roman authorities for judgment. Still, after he left this world, he returned to meet his followers in order to convince them that he was not really dead but lived on in the heavenly realm. Later some of his followers wrote books about him.

From :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonius_of_Tyana

 

The point was Dr Ehrman was not refering to Jesus but Apollonius. Which goes to show that myths can grow as many did.

Edited by Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the quote a few post back about identifying with the belief. The New Atheist and the fundamental Christian are the same. They identify with the belief, but they don’t believe it so they are trying extra hard to convince themselves through their dialogue. I think it is not hate coming through, but fear that they might be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The New Atheist and the fundamental Christian are the same.

 

I would disagree with this statement.

 

They have a common cause (as in effect) but then we all do.

 

They might have common traits (strident perhaps)

 

They might both debate (for and against) a literal interpretation of the Bible. For example I can't think of one prominent New Atheist who suggests a metaphorical interpretation is not more reasonable than a literal one.

 

Atheism itself is not wholly characterized by belief, but more so by a lack of belief.

 

Hope this helps Soma

Edited by romansh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think anyone who fights for a belief non-belief are starting from the same point, fear. The quest to know is the learning to doubt. Faith, Belief and Non-Belief contain doubt because one does not know so has faith in it or a belief in it. The religion or ideaology that does not have doubt is dead because the followers are not growing or learning without entertaining doubt. I feel it takes courage to look again and again at one's beliefs and nonbeliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think anyone who fights for a belief non-belief are starting from the same point, fear. The quest to know is the learning to doubt. Faith, Belief and Non-Belief contain doubt because one does not know so has faith in it or a belief in it. The religion or ideaology that does not have doubt is dead because the followers are not growing or learning without entertaining doubt. I feel it takes courage to look again and again at one's beliefs and nonbeliefs.

Well as an avowed agnostic I would advocate for at least strong caution to belief,, are you suggesting I am fearful?

 

The faith that I have seen from fundametalists does no openly contain any doubt and uncertainty. That to me is a more fearful response. To openly admit and see areas of doubt and uncertainty, is that not a strength?

 

As a scientist I do not fear uncertainty, I maesure it.

 

I think we might be using nonbelief slightly differently.

 

Now on a pragmatic level, everyday I make choices, I wonder if I fill after the fact the reasons for the choices and they pass as beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is going to be a very controversial post but I do hope we will be able to dialog in a spirit of respect and love.

 

As I made it clear at other places, I have a huge respect for many modern and past atheistic philosophers such as Nietzche, Sartre, Camus, Macky or Comte-Sponville.

They are or were great and honest thinkers having had a tremendous contribution to the advancement of philosophy.

 

I do, however, strongly despise the New Atheists (like Denett) who are to atheism what fundamentalism is to Christianity: a shame and an embarrassment.

 

 

The New Atheists (also called anti-theists or militant atheists) are a particular group of atheists who advocate the use of emotional bullying, mockery and ridicule towards every religious believer.

 

I think we have strong grounds for concluding they are a hate group with a far right ideology.

 

We also have good evidence that they are people who have had a very bad (often traumatic) experience with religious fundamentalists.

 

Did you yourself had interactions with them?

 

....................................................

I do not interact with them. Sometimes I wish that the new atheists who hate only interact with the Christians who hate. (My bad to say that.)

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find Daniel Denett and Sam Harris to be interesting, informative, and sometimes charming fellows. Dawkins and Hitchens most definitely rub me the wrong way. I can only assume, because of my belief in humanity, that their provocative styles are coming from a place of hurt or fear.

 

Comparing them to Nietzsche et al is comparing apples to oranges. Had Nietzsche possessed knowledge of quantum physics or a theory of consciousness that could boil down to mere chemical reactions, he would probably come off in the same manner as Denett.

 

In any event, if Hitchens were to have told me I'm not a Jew because I don't believe in the divine origins of the Torah or the historical accuracy of the exodus, I wouldn't care. He's certainly not my peer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I visited an atheist message board for a while years ago.I found different groups. Some felt hurt by Christian privilege in our society. Some hurts were more personal. Some were glad to have found others with similar experiences. There was also a front line ready to do battle. That was not a place for the weak.

 

The struggle against Christian privilege is motivated by being marginalized, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New atheism is as hateful as any fundamental religious movement. They may have been hurt or see problems with some organised religion and then stigmatise all those of faith. I champion independant choice but new atheism simply changes the direction of the hate that people have for each other. In order to help them the answer of course is not to fight them as this will perpetuate the hate. But to love and accept them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this stigmatizing new Atheists? New atheism is as hateful as any fundamental religious movement..

 

Can you find an example of this so called New Atheist hate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hate is the word used in this thread so it is the one used in the argument. The meaning behind this word of course cannot be applied to everyone as it is a word to which everyone would have a different definition. Furthermore, proving such a thing would be impossible as proving someone's emotional state is of course impossible. Hateful intention may work better, or intolerance, I feel the point is purely somatic as the message behind the statement remains the same.

 

In addition I said it was as hateful as any other fundamentalist religious movement. Not hateful per say.

 

I'm cirtainly tarnishing fundamentalist christianity and new atheism with the same brush. If that is stigmatisation than so be it. However you're missing my meaning so I shall rephrase.

 

Intolerance is intolerance. It doesn't matter which group it comes from.

Edited by The Rhino

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Intolerance is intolerance. It doesn't matter which group it comes from.

 

True

The question remains ... do we tolerate the intolerant?

And if we think of someone as intolerant what is the point of pointing the intolerance out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I deal with intolerance within myself. It seems that is the only person I can change so when I deal with someone who I feel might be intolerant I observe my behavior and if I am also doing the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I deal with intolerance within myself. It seems that is the only person I can change so when I deal with someone who I feel might be intolerant I observe my behavior and if I am also doing the same thing.

 

While this is a useful way of looking at things, I think ultimately this has to be false.

 

Why? Because I don't think I am a self made man. Any tolerance or intolerance has ultimately come from outside of my self.

My environment still pressures me to be tolerant or intolerant as the occasion arises, My biochemistry still does its stuff that can be seen or interpreted by others as tolerant or intolerant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel the Germans who hid and protected the Jewish people from Hitler would disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soma

Looking at these sort of things emotively might point to such a conclusion.

 

So you think these Germans would actually believe that their behaviours are generated by mirror neurons for which they themselves consciously grew?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you think these Germans would actually believe that their behaviours are generated by mirror neurons for which they themselves consciously grew?

 

No, I think tolerance or intolerance comes from background: one's origin, education, or experience in relation to one's present character and status. Other factors that would stimulate the neurons could be the social, historical, and other causes of an event or condition or the complex of physical, cultural, and psychological factors that serves as the environment of an event or experience. I think all these factors and the way they are perceived have an effect on a persons choices, attitude and psychological stand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×