thoughts on the term "new atheism"?
Offline I know this discussion came up not too long ago but we got distracted by candle wax on the derriere...I'm interested to hear other atheists' thoughts on the term "new atheism."
I was asked by a secular organization to write an article that talked about, amongst other things, the need for new atheism. While I do think there is a need to be vocal, I don't like the term... sounds like we're 'born again' or came up with some new way to package lack of belief as ...i don't know... lack of belief, perhaps? I also don't like the impression it gives that atheism is a fad when atheism has been around longer than religion. I'm pretty much going to say this in the article but before doing so it crossed my mind that perhaps I'm the only one that thinks this way.
Does anyone here feel comfortable with the term? Use it to personally describe themselves?
- Login to post comments
By this term "new atheism" what they really mean is atheists with balls. No offense to the female atheists here. For the record, I think you all have balls.
er....
movingrightalong
Since 9/11 atheism has truly been raising it's voice and raising a little hell. I think the change in demeanor among atheists is what prompted this relabeling.
I would never call myself a "New Atheist", even though I've only been an atheist for a little over 3 years.
I am perfectly fine with atheist, agnostic atheist, or secular humanist for the personal label of my beliefs or lack thereof.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
I'm just surprised that the (presumably) religious turds who coined this phrase didn't opt for "Neo-Atheist" instead, so as to psychologically associate the term with "Neo-Nazi".
But to answer your question: No, I don't like the term "New Atheist", nor do I like the term "Atheist". Both are used by said turds to marginalize non-believers by creating a false "Us vs. Them" dichotomy.
I don't like the term at all, because it is inaccurate. The phrase "new atheism" implies that there is something 'new' about the 'atheism' itself. Being as that there are no tenets of atheism to change, and non-belief has been around for as long as belief, there is nothing about atheism itself that is, or even could be, new. It seems like it is just an attempt to paint atheism as a belief system.
What is new is the way in which atheism is being discussed, or the way in which theism is being approached, debunked, ridiculed, what have you. It seems that it would be much more appropriate to call it a "new approach to confronting theism" than "new atheism" (though that is a little long).
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
It's a very American specific term where atheists have generally been a minority who are now politically active.
Outside the US in the Western World people who are non-religious/atheist/agnostic/dont care is probably well over 90%.
More people are openly gay in the UK than admit to reguarly going to church which pretty much says it all
I don't like the term because there IS no new atheism. Atheism is the same thing that it ever was, it's just that more people are doing it now, and they are less afraid of being ostracized.
The term is absurd to begin with, but it's also a ploy to make atheists sound like rebellious teenage goths who are just going through a phase or something of that sort. It's an attempt from the opposition to paint atheism as something that shouldn't be taken seriously.
When an old novel, ahead of its time, suddenly becomes popular with a later generation of readers, we don't say that the novel is new. It's ridiculous to do that with atheism. There is no "new" atheism. There is only a "new" society, a society which just so happens to be receptive to the atheist view.
Some know that society changes and can deal with it.
Some know and can't.
Some are clueless.
"new atheism" is a term used by the latter two groups.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
I shudder every time I hear the term "new atheism". I loathe it.
Thee is nothing new about atheism. Yes there's new atheistic movements, but atheism itself is still the same it has always been. The only difference is that atheist movements are now becoming louder and more obvious than they have been in the past. This does not make them new. It is simply a response to theists getting louder and attempting (often succeeding) to enforce their beliefs on others. If they weren't being so loud or pushy with their insanity, we wouldn't have felt the need to solidify and become loud in opposition and support of sanity.
Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/
the thing is , is that it is new in the perception of the public,
The term atheist has definately changed from old references that I read,
Even our atheist buddy Tom Jefferson used the atheist word much differently than we do.
Like so many say , use adjectives etc with the Atheist word, so people will respect it.
"Old Atheism" , is maybe better, and hey wasn't that jesus / buddha ?
Fucking 'Tower of Babel' ....
Atheism Books.
It doesn`t bother me, I kinda like it since it seperates us from the older,humanist,ivory tower type of atheist.
Morte alla tyrannus et dei
I'm just thankful they use new rather than radical or extremist, but I have to say 'new atheist' is an obvious attempt to make it look like a passing fad. Really we're the same old atheists who have just been pushed too far by religious extremists and we've realised if we do nothing it will only get worse.
Labels for humans(other than names that we use to identify people with) just plain suck!
"Realistic Human" sounds more adequate than "New Atheist.." but what do I know, i'm only human.
It could always be worse. At least it isn't refered as 'atheism 2.0'. Now that would be really obnoxious.
Readiness to answer all questions is the infallible sign of stupidity. Saul Bellow, Herzog
If new atheism is a "belief system" than I don't like it either. As a metaphor for an atheist who is ready to confront religion head on, I can't help but like it a little. I have no problems calling myself a "new atheist" and think the idea of it sounds refreshing, progressive, and hip.
I see flaws in it as well. Atheists have been speaking out against religion for many years, there's nothing new about that.
I actually like adding a term to the mix: "Old atheism." Old atheism is for old people that don't understand what is necessary to appeal to the 13-35 year olds browsing the web for information on religion. "New Atheism" is for people that get it, people that know what sorts of conversations are neccesary to insert into society in order to make the world a better place.
With that said... it currently seems to be a preference issue. I like the word, I recognize that there is no such thing as "new atheism" but I don't mind getting my hands muddy with the terms.
Agreed on that point, can we condense it to "new atheism?"
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Well, since you asked so nicely.
You know, I actually don't have any problem with "new atheist/s" as that denotes the person/group in particular and not the 'ism' aspect. It is just the ideological collectivism that "new atheism" seems to denote that I dislike. Perhaps its the extreme literal scrutiny with which I dissect these type of terms that is the problem. Naw, that couldn't be it.
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
I don't really think there is a new atheism. Seems like we ran out of innovative ways to state "I don't believe in god" a long time ago. If anything "new atheism" is simply the fact that our PR tactics are better, our evidence is stronger, and science has plugged so many gaps in the last few years that its almost mind-boggling. So in a way its not a new atheism at all, just atheism with lots of shinny new toys that makes theism jealous.
Really it just seems like when a theist says "new atheism" they are really saying "I have no constructive rebuttal, so I will try to create an argument from seniority by declaring your statements to be too young to be solid".
The Regular Expressions of Humanistic Jones: Where one software Engineer will show the world that God is nothing more than an undefined pointer.
I don't like the term. Atheists have been vocal since 1770 at least. I hope it hasn't become too widespread to prevent us from shoving it in the verbal garbage disposal.
Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!
How very ageist. I guess I should be grateful to find out what you (as a site co-founder) think of us "old people" before I invest much energy into participating on this site.
Susan
I think Sapient is simply recognizing the generation gap, and poor communication between young and old.
I realize I am an odd OLD atheist here with my style of trying to de-convert the "god of abe followers". I give my suggestions because they work for me. Chat rooms are very different than personal encounters.
I use a "sneaky" approach. I start by being seriously curious with nearly all questions and follow by saying thanks for your ideas. Eventually my questions get more elaborate.
"What about the buddhists who say jesus presents the same atheist buddhist message that all is one, all is connected, that this is god/heaven now, and all energy/matter is recycled, and so in this sense we are eternal, or is yesterday dead?
"And what about the sincere, caring, unbiased, hard working bible scholar historians that have proven beyound any logical doubt that jesus is another mythical story?"
"If there is a "god", is it really that freaky god of abe in the bibles?"
I find teaching by asking questions most productive.
Consider that you had to go door to door with your atheist message with the goal of actually getting people not only interested but agreeing with it.
Obviously this would take some practice, and each of us would refine our method. We would also learn from the successes of more gifted atheist teachers. The TV needs fixing asap.
Hitting friends and neighbors over the head with logic, while sometimes successful, more often drives them away. These chat rooms are different because religious people that come here are already curious and questioning and can remain invisable. That silent audience I speak to most.
As far as these chat rooms go, butting heads is xlint medicine and practice, but converting the neighbors is a bit different.
Thanks for all your ideas and suggestions, I learn alot at RRS.
I am an old re-newed atheist.
Atheism Books.
I AM GOD AS YOU, what did you stop smoking?
Watcher, no, it's only 5:21 here,
having my first beer now , I will being getting to that shortly, CHEERS !
Atheism Books.
id call my self a new atheist if it ment a more aggresive stance on disproving theistic beliefs and fighting for rational and logical truths not superstition where as previous generations of atheists where not as vocal about it
i dont see the point in the name, a atheist is a atheist strong or weak still doesnt change that fact personally\
Great Moriarty
CP
Evolved Morality
its just words... i have a hard time telling if i like it as long as the word atheist is considered to mean devil worshiper by some ppl.
that doesnt limit itself to atheism, i was once asked what im doing, so i said im a graphics designer.
The other person then answered that he doesnt approve what i do because its vandalism.
YES he actually confused graphic design with GRAFITTI!
>_<
So ill call myself a neo-progressive para-modern recycled post-deistic agnostic on wheels.
Ppl dont know what that means either.
Later, AdamTM
- I'm the guy that gets called when the other guy is not around-
- I didnt feel the love! ...Wait...was that something? ...no, no its gone -
TWATWAFFLE FOREVER
I'd personally be more comfortable with the term 'assertive atheist' or assertive atheism than 'new atheism'. As in one who assertively takes the default position that there is no proven 'sky god' existence for anyone to deny. Asserting there is not a 'god' existence to deny for the atheist, the agnostic or any home sapien to be considered a 'thinking' human - hence the sub hominiod species of 'homo religious' ;- ]
If there was a God, Man wouldn't have had to invent him [reversing Voltaire's famous quote].
Can we conversely define a "New Theist" as someone that continues to believe even though they've been proven wrong and have ignored facts from the "New Atheist Movement" over and over again?
Born again stupid!
You mean that's not what that movie "Dumb and Dumber" was about? I missed the preview.
And I should be grateful that I've weeded out a supporter that makes stupid assumptions. We need people around here who aren't going to knee jerkingly react in a negative and ignorant manner to what the "co-founders" are saying. We're not gonna sell out for a dollar, the fight against religion is predicated more on the ability to persuade others on an idea, not get your money.
Be gone, you're old, and I hate all old people as everyone can see from my post above. You can also see how much I hate the 57 year old Margaret Downey at the website that I don't pay for, didn't create, and don't maintain right here: www.margaretdowney.com
Asshole.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Hmm. I don't like it. I think "New Atheism" sounds like a novelty, or a fad. Atheism is exactly what it is, lack of belief in a god or gods. Or angels. Or demons or whatever. Adding "new" doesn't really change a thing. Because atheists are being honest about themselves and standing up for themselves doesn't mean they should be labelled as "new". But, hey, thats just my opinion.
Atheists agree: Adults should not have imaginary friends.
I've never cared for the label of atheist as I've always thought of it as a label the theists came up with to catagorize us. I don't want to play their game so why should I use their words? As if I have a choice. Mr. Harris's words concerning there not being a label for a non astrologer really strikes a chord with me.
All of the many labels for "people who don't believe in imaginary deities" drive me crazy. I think it's a major reason why we have such a hard time organizing ourselves.
"New Athiest" is a label the media have come up with to sell their product. I don't care for it as a label either. If I had to find a term or label to identify my desire to not just be quiet about my non belief in an imaginary deity it would be: I'm a card carrying member of the Rational Response Squad. You may provide me with proof of your deity or you may shove your delusion up your ass sideways. Thank you. Have a nice day. Of course I'm still waiting for my membership card :p
R/
Lenny
www.kaosium.org
Respectfully,
Lenny
"The righteous rise, With burning eyes, Of hatred and ill-will
Madmen fed on fear and lies, To beat and burn and kill"
Witch Hunt from the album Moving Pictures. Neal Pert, Rush
I am not sure to what conclusions you came last time but for me new atheism doesn't exist.
What we can see in modern times is development of science and its popularization, democracy, freedom of speech. Because of these facts Church is losing political and social influence in modern societies.
More and more people no longer are afraid to think for themselves and came to obvious conclusion
“There is NO God and I live in times then nobody will burn me if I will say what I really think”.
Things like fundamentalism,problems with fund Muslims in Western communities and religious terrorism just add fuel to fire.
However I think you can say that it is time of atheism popularization.
Ecrasez l'infame!
Like most people, I don't like it either. Although I really could care less about what people want to call it. I take my definition of atheism straight from the dictionary--no god. Whether they want to call it "new atheism," "neo-atheism," or whatever, I really don't care. Atheists are atheists, period. What surprises me is that they haven't formulated a "politically correct" term for "atheist" like "spiritually challenged" or "suffering from a temporary loss of spiritual guidance" or something like that.
www.friendster.com/darthinky