"Old" atheism, "New"atheism, atheism 3.0, WTF?

[leo-rcc]

After listening to the Boston Atheist podcast where Atheism 3.0 was discussed I looked up some relevant articles on the topic.

Here I found this gem:

The old atheists said there was no God. The so-called "New Atheists" said there was no God, and they were vocally vicious about it. Now, the new "New Atheists" — call it Atheism 3.0 — say there's still no God, but maybe religion isn't all that bad.

First off, what the hell? "Old atheism" was just as vocal against religion as this so called "New atheism". When I read something from Percy Bysshe Shelley, Lord Bacon, or D'Holbach, I see no pussyfooting about religion, they are not saying anything different from a Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris or Guy P. Harrison. So what is this "New atheism" crap? Just because the so called new-atheists have 200 years of better information to base their findings on doesn't mean that the findings of these "old" atheists were any less vitriolic.

Here a quote from Shelley:

All religious nations are founded solely on authority; all the religions of the world forbid examination and do not want one to reason; authority wants one to believe in God; this God is himself founded only on the authority of a few men who pretend to know him, and to come in his name and announce him on earth. A God made by man undoubtedly has need of man to make himself known to man.

http://www.infidels.org/library/histori ... heism.html

Tell me that this could not have been written by the likes of Dawkins or Hitchens, all being worded differently.

Then, on to Atheism 3.0.

What a load of crap.

From the USA today article:

Atheists who insist that religion be removed from the public square are doing themselves a disservice, argues Austin Dacey, a former United Nations representative for the staunchly secularist Center for Inquiry and author of The Secular Conscience: Why Belief Belongs in Public Life. A godless public square not only shields religion from public criticism, it also circumvents a broader debate on morality, he argues.

If there is one thing religion does not need it is protection from public criticism. I would even go as far and say that when it comes to criticism, moderates should look a bit more to their own ranks and voice criticism from within their religion, and not rely on us "angry 2.0 atheists" to be confronted with the atrocities the hardcore literalistic fundamentalists undertake in name of the same religion the moderates claim to be in. But if these moderates stay quiet, I sure as shit will not.

If we as atheists would go the route of this so called 3.0 movement, we are just pandering to the religions we do not consider benevolent at all, just because we might offend some religious persons feelings. Well though shit. If you are not able to stand up for what you believe in, there is no reason for us to take your precious beliefs into consideration. Atheism 3.0 is a crock.

Rant over.

[Feck]

Not a rant Leo ,epic WIN

[Clinton Huxley]

So "Atheism 3.0" is the accommodationist position or faitheism or whatever they call it?

Cobblers and piffle, I say!

Besides, anyone who brands anything other than a computer system as x.y needs to be shot.

Yours,

Huxley2.5

[charlou]

A godless public square not only shields religion from public criticism, it also circumvents a broader debate on morality, he argues.

Because morality is solely the domain of the religious ...

[The Atheist]

Atheists who insist that religion be removed from the public square are doing themselves a disservice, argues Austin Dacey, a former United Nations representative for the staunchly secularist Center for Inquiry and author of The Secular Conscience: Why Belief Belongs in Public Life. A godless public square not only shields religion from public criticism, it also circumvents a broader debate on morality, he argues.

If there is one thing religion does not need it is protection from public criticism. I would even go as far and say that when it comes to criticism, moderates should look a bit more to their own ranks and voice criticism from within their religion, and not rely on us "angry 2.0 atheists" to be confronted with the atrocities the hardcore literalistic fundamentalists undertake in name of the same religion the moderates claim to be in. But if these moderates stay quiet, I sure as shit will not.

If we as atheists would go the route of this so called 3.0 movement, we are just pandering to the religions we do not consider benevolent at all, just because we might offend some religious persons feelings. Well though shit. If you are not able to stand up for what you believe in, there is no reason for us to take your precious beliefs into consideration. Atheism 3.0 is a crock.

Rant over.

Bit like your post, really.


See the bit I bolded?

I can't find where anyone you've quoted suggests that religion be protected from criticism. (Bolded again, so you do see the difference.)

He says that atheists who demand the removal of religion are wankers, a point on which I agree with him, which is a first, so there you go; strange bedfellows.

Nice, if completely baseless, rant, though.

[The Atheist]

So "Atheism 3.0" is the accommodationist position or faitheism or whatever they call it?

Cobblers and piffle, I say!

Besides, anyone who brands anything other than a computer system as x.y needs to be shot.

Yours,

Huxley2.5

I quite like that "accommodationist" - I think I might start using it - excellent, descriptive term. "Atheism 3.0" gives me the shits, but yours is pretty good.

[leo-rcc]

Bit like your post, really.


See the bit I bolded?

Yes I goofed on that one, That's what you get with rants.

Nice, if completely baseless, rant, though.

I wouldn't call it baseless though. My objection to this Atheism 3.0 stands. All it does is pussyfoot around sensitivities of theists, and I do not consider that to have any validity.

[Rum]

I think it is a load of old wank. I don't need or want my level of disbelief - which is very high (in the the 'almost certainly no god' category - to be actually categorised. The other bits to do with accommodation of religious insanity etc. are up to me.

Not joining anyone's club any day soon!

[Feck]

So state sanctioned promotion of a LIE is a good idea,because it provokes debate ? But Atheism 3.0 doesn't want the debate. If no Atheists demand the removal
of religious symbols where is the debate ?
How can a passive and mute acceptance that the state unconstitutionally supports religion be a good thing ?

[Thinking Aloud]

I think it is a load of old wank. I don't need or want my level of disbelief - which is very high (in the the 'almost certainly no god' category - to be actually categorised. The other bits to do with accommodation of religious insanity etc. are up to me.

+1

The problem is that they need categories for everything - to pigeonhole us into the kind of restrictive set of values they themselves hold dear, and to try to paint atheism to be just as schism-ridden as their own religions.

[floppit]

I think it is a load of old wank. I don't need or want my level of disbelief - which is very high (in the the 'almost certainly no god' category - to be actually categorised. The other bits to do with accommodation of religious insanity etc. are up to me.

Not joining anyone's club any day soon!

Yup to the second bit but not all the first!

As far as politics and power are concerned, whether rapped in religion or not, they are thing I decide on issue by issue and have bog all to do with that fact I don't believe in god. I don't believe in god, my certainty may fall short of perfect rationality but saying different would just add a lie.

[Trolldor]

Welcome to the modern world, Leo.
Please leave all reason, logic and common sense at the door. You WILL be required to adopt a new fad and name at least one new one before entry.

[Rum]

I think it is a load of old wank. I don't need or want my level of disbelief - which is very high (in the the 'almost certainly no god' category - to be actually categorised. The other bits to do with accommodation of religious insanity etc. are up to me.

Not joining anyone's club any day soon!

Yup to the second bit but not all the first!

As far as politics and power are concerned, whether rapped in religion or not, they are thing I decide on issue by issue and have bog all to do with that fact I don't believe in god. I don't believe in god, my certainty may fall short of perfect rationality but saying different would just add a lie.

I don't understand your point.

[floppit]

Simples...

I agree re not being pigeon holed or increasing the definition and reach of atheism, however it'd just be untrue for me to say I believe there is almost certainly no god, although that's the more rational approach, if I'm honest I don't really have that smidgen of doubt.

[Rum]

Simples...

I agree re not being pigeon holed or increasing the definition and reach of atheism, however it'd just be untrue for me to say I believe there is almost certainly no god, although that's the more rational approach, if I'm honest I don't really have that smidgen of doubt.

Thank you for the clarification.

I guess I take the ultra-logical approach. There universe is deeply weird and I don't think we understand it yet in any significant detail. So you never know is my approach. I see no evidence for a god, so I don't believe there is one but my level of 'certainty' is probably in the high 90% area, given that all the evidence may not be in yet.