A Proletarian critique of 'New' Atheists

[Hermit]

It's hard to take critique based on ideology seriously.

LOL. Please tell me of a critique that is not based on one ideology or another.

Don't be dense. Critical analysis of facts or events can be and often is shorn of ideology. Accepting the existence of mental filters when analyzing an argument is permitting the installation of bias into what ought to be objective.

Thanks for the compliment. I have not encountered a social analysis yet that has no ideological underpinnings, be they capitalist, communist, liberal, humanitarian, libertarian, religious, or some other, but I guess you'll be able to provide some.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Arguing for an ideological analysis because that's the only analysis you can conceive is not strong reasoning.

[Hermit]

Arguing for an ideological analysis because that's the only analysis you can conceive is not strong reasoning.

I asked if you can provide a social analysis that has no ideological underpinnings. No can do?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

As soon as someone uses the word bourgeois I dismiss them as a wanker.

Well, here, the class struggle still is kicking a little... but bourgeois atheism? I mean, it's the bourgeois establishment that keeps the church in funds and whatever position of moral authority it has... if only because it helps contain the great unwashed (or used to).

Bourgeois atheists are called "accommodationists", I think.

[jaycee]

hi. I actually wrote this 'article' a couple of years back now. I was told it was being discussed here but I seem to remember I had trouble starting an account and then forgot about it. I just came across it again and thought it might be interesting to revive this thread now.

I find it funny I've been slagged off for writing too academically, I always got the other criticism while at uni. Anyway... if anyone is interested in discussing this that would be cool

[laklak]

Anytime I see the words "proletarian" or "bourgeois" my eyes glaze over.

[jaycee]

I agree with Thumpalimpacus that there is no such thing as a social analysis that is completely free of some ideological underpinnings.

In terms of the use of the term bourgeois in this article it to me is basically a more accurate way of saying 'modern'; as the ruling ideas in any epoch are the ideas of the ruling class this encompasses most thought in the bourgeois/capitalist era with expressions here and there of other classes and societies points of view. These have by their nature either been sporadic expressions of rebellion or doomed to be co-opted or destroyed by capitalism.

One of these 'ruling' ideas in the bourgeois age is 'objectivity'. that is not to say that objectivity is bad or always bourgeois but that the raising of it to an ideal is in some ways unique to the bourgeois worldview. this objectivity is largely a false kind of objectivity(I think Buddhism took objectivity to a higher level in many ways but in a different way) because it does not question its own basis and treats capitalist society and its ideas as unquestionable and 'natural'.

[DaveDodo007]

Anytime I see the words "proletarian" or "bourgeois" my eyes glaze over.

I actually wouldn't mind the left going back to class issues as it made more sense than 'intersectionality.' Having middle class lefty liberals saying how oppressed they are is retarded to the max.

[pErvinalia]

Only to a retard.

[pErvinalia]

Regarding the article, I just couldn't read it. Once Marx and his tortuous quotes were being discussed, I just switched off. Same as I do when trying to discuss anything with Marxists. Marxism is basically religion, mainly because of it's pseudo-scientific underpinnings. But no less so because it's proponents seem SO focussed on tortuous historical rhetorical utterances. And I'm afraid your article (well, the first handful of paragraphs) read exactly the same way. Perhaps it improves and starts to deal with facts and reality, I don't know. Maybe you can give me the executive summary... I might take an interest then.

[DaveDodo007]

Regarding the article, I just couldn't read it. Once Marx and his tortuous quotes were being discussed, I just switched off. Same as I do when trying to discuss anything with Marxists. Marxism is basically religion, mainly because of it's pseudo-scientific underpinnings. But no less so because it's proponents seem SO focussed on tortuous historical rhetorical utterances. And I'm afraid your article (well, the first handful of paragraphs) read exactly the same way. Perhaps it improves and starts to deal with facts and reality, I don't know. Maybe you can give me the executive summary... I might take an interest then.

Both my twin brothers are Marxist (that's what happens when you have a sociology rather than a STEM degree), they call themselves economic Marxists to set themselves apart from cultural Marxists. They do make some good points but I don't believe you can have a one size fits all economy.

[Svartalf]

what's STEM in a STEM degree?

[Animavore]

Regarding the article, I just couldn't read it. Once Marx and his tortuous quotes were being discussed, I just switched off. Same as I do when trying to discuss anything with Marxists. Marxism is basically religion, mainly because of it's pseudo-scientific underpinnings. But no less so because it's proponents seem SO focussed on tortuous historical rhetorical utterances. And I'm afraid your article (well, the first handful of paragraphs) read exactly the same way. Perhaps it improves and starts to deal with facts and reality, I don't know. Maybe you can give me the executive summary... I might take an interest then.

Both my twin brothers are Marxist (that's what happens when you have a sociology rather than a STEM degree), they call themselves economic Marxists to set themselves apart from cultural Marxists. They do make some good points but I don't believe you can have a one size fits all economy.

Both your twin brothers...

[pErvinalia]

what's STEM in a STEM degree?

Science Technology Engineering Maths??

[pErvinalia]

Regarding the article, I just couldn't read it. Once Marx and his tortuous quotes were being discussed, I just switched off. Same as I do when trying to discuss anything with Marxists. Marxism is basically religion, mainly because of it's pseudo-scientific underpinnings. But no less so because it's proponents seem SO focussed on tortuous historical rhetorical utterances. And I'm afraid your article (well, the first handful of paragraphs) read exactly the same way. Perhaps it improves and starts to deal with facts and reality, I don't know. Maybe you can give me the executive summary... I might take an interest then.

Both my twin brothers are Marxist (that's what happens when you have a sociology rather than a STEM degree), they call themselves economic Marxists to set themselves apart from cultural Marxists. They do make some good points but I don't believe you can have a one size fits all economy.

Both your twin brothers...

I assume that means he's one of triplets.