Godless grifters: How the New Atheists merged with the far right

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one cares any more or less about some random dudes who happen to not believe in gods. We already covered that.

Well, no one except atheist haters.

So discussing this article is hate? These men are the “heavy hitters” of atheism. They are above examination or accountability or criticism?

They are not random dudes.

There are no heavy hitters of atheism. For you to try to organize atheism into its own religion based on this article is a bit disingenuous, no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one cares any more or less about some random dudes who happen to not believe in gods. We already covered that.

Well, no one except atheist haters.

So discussing this article is hate? These men are the “heavy hitters” of atheism. They are above examination or accountability or criticism?

They are not random dudes.

There are no heavy hitters of atheism. For you to try to organize atheism into its own religion based on this article is a bit disingenuous, no?

That is to say that NEW ATHEISM is different from all atheism. Do you understand?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one cares any more or less about some random dudes who happen to not believe in gods. We already covered that.

Well, no one except atheist haters.

So discussing this article is hate? These men are the “heavy hitters” of atheism. They are above examination or accountability or criticism?

They are not random dudes.

There are no heavy hitters of atheism. For you to try to organize atheism into its own religion based on this article is a bit disingenuous, no?

That is to say that NEW ATHEISM is different from all atheism. Do you understand?

Agree, I'm somewhere between agnostic and atheist and none of the atheists I know (which are a lot of people) are rw. Some belong to small local organizations or UU congregations and are liberal, others don't belong to those groups for the most part but are libertarian in their politics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one cares any more or less about some random dudes who happen to not believe in gods. We already covered that.

Well, no one except atheist haters.

So discussing this article is hate? These men are the “heavy hitters” of atheism. They are above examination or accountability or criticism?

They are not random dudes.

There are no heavy hitters of atheism. For you to try to organize atheism into its own religion based on this article is a bit disingenuous, no?

That is to say that NEW ATHEISM is different from all atheism. Do you understand?

NP. I understand that your statement is 100% false.

Atheism is the lack of a belief in god. Old, new, borrowed or blue, that's all it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one cares any more or less about some random dudes who happen to not believe in gods. We already covered that.

Well, no one except atheist haters.

So discussing this article is hate? These men are the “heavy hitters” of atheism. They are above examination or accountability or criticism?

They are not random dudes.

There are no heavy hitters of atheism. For you to try to organize atheism into its own religion based on this article is a bit disingenuous, no?

That is to say that NEW ATHEISM is different from all atheism. Do you understand?

Agree, I'm somewhere between agnostic and atheist and none of the atheists I know (which are a lot of people) are rw. Some belong to small local organizations or UU congregations and are liberal, others don't belong to those groups for the most part but are libertarian in their politics.

You can't be "between" agnostic and atheist as they are not on a continuum.

If you don't believe in a god, you are atheist.

If you don't believe you absolutely know whether there is a god or not, you are agnostic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can believe that the people who go around trying to convince other people to not believe in god are mostly jerks. Especially the ones that organize around it.

I'm not going to read the article because I'm not particularly interested in the beef between two groups of people I have no interest in. But if it's in the article, can someone tell me why the atheists feel the need to organize around their atheism in the first place? I don’t get the whole concept of "practicing" atheist. Tbh it does sound like a grift, just as much as some organized religions. Which makes this a dispute between grifters whose grifts conflict.

Atheist groups, like most groups of like-minded people, are formed for people with similar beliefs/interests to have an opportunity to know each other and to present their views or beliefs in general. Such groups do not exist to tell other people that they are wrong if they don't share their views.

Some churches do that, however.

There is no such thing as a "practicing" atheist, because atheists have nothing related to their atheism to practice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one cares any more or less about some random dudes who happen to not believe in gods. We already covered that.

Well, no one except atheist haters.

So discussing this article is hate? These men are the “heavy hitters” of atheism. They are above examination or accountability or criticism?

They are not random dudes.

There are no heavy hitters of atheism. For you to try to organize atheism into its own religion based on this article is a bit disingenuous, no?

That is to say that NEW ATHEISM is different from all atheism. Do you understand?

Agree, I'm somewhere between agnostic and atheist and none of the atheists I know (which are a lot of people) are rw. Some belong to small local organizations or UU congregations and are liberal, others don't belong to those groups for the most part but are libertarian in their politics.

You can't be "between" agnostic and atheist as they are not on a continuum.

If you don't believe in a god, you are atheist.

If you don't believe you absolutely know whether there is a god or not, you are agnostic.

When shedding their God-beliefs, some people make a sharp distinction between agnostic (not knowing) and atheist (not believing).

This may be because there is no religious body or catechism defining the terms and because "Atheism" has gotten a bad name from religious groups.

Agnostic sounds better. It sounds like you're still thinking about it and may return to believing. And for some people, that may be true. Many people will say they are both - not knowing and not believing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one cares any more or less about some random dudes who happen to not believe in gods. We already covered that.

Well, no one except atheist haters.

So discussing this article is hate? These men are the “heavy hitters” of atheism. They are above examination or accountability or criticism?

They are not random dudes.

There are no heavy hitters of atheism. For you to try to organize atheism into its own religion based on this article is a bit disingenuous, no?

That is to say that NEW ATHEISM is different from all atheism. Do you understand?

Agree, I'm somewhere between agnostic and atheist and none of the atheists I know (which are a lot of people) are rw. Some belong to small local organizations or UU congregations and are liberal, others don't belong to those groups for the most part but are libertarian in their politics.

You can't be "between" agnostic and atheist as they are not on a continuum.

If you don't believe in a god, you are atheist.

If you don't believe you absolutely know whether there is a god or not, you are agnostic.

When shedding their God-beliefs, some people make a sharp distinction between agnostic (not knowing) and atheist (not believing).

This may be because there is no religious body or catechism defining the terms and because "Atheism" has gotten a bad name from religious groups.

Agnostic sounds better. It sounds like you're still thinking about it and may return to believing. And for some people, that may be true. Many people will say they are both - not knowing and not believing.

I would hope that since there is no empirical evidence and the claim of a god is unfalsifiable, both believers and atheists claim agnosticism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one cares any more or less about some random dudes who happen to not believe in gods. We already covered that.

Well, no one except atheist haters.

So discussing this article is hate? These men are the “heavy hitters” of atheism. They are above examination or accountability or criticism?

They are not random dudes.

There are no heavy hitters of atheism. For you to try to organize atheism into its own religion based on this article is a bit disingenuous, no?

That is to say that NEW ATHEISM is different from all atheism. Do you understand?

Agree, I'm somewhere between agnostic and atheist and none of the atheists I know (which are a lot of people) are rw. Some belong to small local organizations or UU congregations and are liberal, others don't belong to those groups for the most part but are libertarian in their politics.

You can't be "between" agnostic and atheist as they are not on a continuum.

If you don't believe in a god, you are atheist.

If you don't believe you absolutely know whether there is a god or not, you are agnostic.

When shedding their God-beliefs, some people make a sharp distinction between agnostic (not knowing) and atheist (not believing).

This may be because there is no religious body or catechism defining the terms and because "Atheism" has gotten a bad name from religious groups.

Agnostic sounds better. It sounds like you're still thinking about it and may return to believing. And for some people, that may be true. Many people will say they are both - not knowing and not believing.

I would hope that since there is no empirical evidence and the claim of a god is unfalsifiable, both believers and atheists claim agnosticism.

I'm agnostic about leprechauns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one cares any more or less about some random dudes who happen to not believe in gods. We already covered that.

Well, no one except atheist haters.

So discussing this article is hate? These men are the “heavy hitters” of atheism. They are above examination or accountability or criticism?

They are not random dudes.

There are no heavy hitters of atheism. For you to try to organize atheism into its own religion based on this article is a bit disingenuous, no?

That is to say that NEW ATHEISM is different from all atheism. Do you understand?

NP. I understand that your statement is 100% false.

Atheism is the lack of a belief in god. Old, new, borrowed or blue, that's all it is.

"New atheism" is a term made up by the media to describe the recent upsurge in atheists being upfront about their lack of belief and openly challenging religious beliefs.

What's new about it is that people are talking about their lack of belief openly. It used to be considered something to keep to yourself or be ashamed of. This may be why people have been more open to calling themselves "agnostic" -- it suggests they are really trying to believe in god. Maybe some of them are.

"The 4 horsemen of New atheism" is another made-up term - you can bet they didn't call themselves that! They were already prominent in their fields of neuroscience, philosophy, zoology and journalism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one cares any more or less about some random dudes who happen to not believe in gods. We already covered that.

Well, no one except atheist haters.

So discussing this article is hate? These men are the “heavy hitters” of atheism. They are above examination or accountability or criticism?

They are not random dudes.

There are no heavy hitters of atheism. For you to try to organize atheism into its own religion based on this article is a bit disingenuous, no?

That is to say that NEW ATHEISM is different from all atheism. Do you understand?

Agree, I'm somewhere between agnostic and atheist and none of the atheists I know (which are a lot of people) are rw. Some belong to small local organizations or UU congregations and are liberal, others don't belong to those groups for the most part but are libertarian in their politics.

You can't be "between" agnostic and atheist as they are not on a continuum.

If you don't believe in a god, you are atheist.

If you don't believe you absolutely know whether there is a god or not, you are agnostic.

When shedding their God-beliefs, some people make a sharp distinction between agnostic (not knowing) and atheist (not believing).

This may be because there is no religious body or catechism defining the terms and because "Atheism" has gotten a bad name from religious groups.

Agnostic sounds better. It sounds like you're still thinking about it and may return to believing. And for some people, that may be true. Many people will say they are both - not knowing and not believing.

I would hope that since there is no empirical evidence and the claim of a god is unfalsifiable, both believers and atheists claim agnosticism.

I'm agnostic about leprechauns.

As you should be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one cares any more or less about some random dudes who happen to not believe in gods. We already covered that.

Well, no one except atheist haters.

So discussing this article is hate? These men are the “heavy hitters” of atheism. They are above examination or accountability or criticism?

They are not random dudes.

There are no heavy hitters of atheism. For you to try to organize atheism into its own religion based on this article is a bit disingenuous, no?

That is to say that NEW ATHEISM is different from all atheism. Do you understand?

Agree, I'm somewhere between agnostic and atheist and none of the atheists I know (which are a lot of people) are rw. Some belong to small local organizations or UU congregations and are liberal, others don't belong to those groups for the most part but are libertarian in their politics.

You can't be "between" agnostic and atheist as they are not on a continuum.

If you don't believe in a god, you are atheist.

If you don't believe you absolutely know whether there is a god or not, you are agnostic.

When shedding their God-beliefs, some people make a sharp distinction between agnostic (not knowing) and atheist (not believing).

This may be because there is no religious body or catechism defining the terms and because "Atheism" has gotten a bad name from religious groups.

Agnostic sounds better. It sounds like you're still thinking about it and may return to believing. And for some people, that may be true. Many people will say they are both - not knowing and not believing.

I would hope that since there is no empirical evidence and the claim of a god is unfalsifiable, both believers and atheists claim agnosticism.

I'm agnostic about leprechauns.

As you should be.

That's why I always lucky charms. Just in case.

[Anonymous]

Theist: Belief in a God or Gods.

Atheist: Lack of a belief in God or Gods.

Agnostic: Belief that it is impossible to know, with an absolute degree of a certainty whether or not a God or Gods exist.

Gnostic: Belief that it is possible to know, with an absolute degree of a certainty whether or not a God or Gods exist.

Anti-theist: Against a belief in God or Gods i.e. you think that believing in God is not good thing.

Anti-religious: Against the organised belief in God i.e. you think that churches and their followers negatively impact on society etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Theist: Belief in a God or Gods.

Atheist: Lack of a belief in God or Gods.

Agnostic: Belief that it is impossible to know, with an absolute degree of a certainty whether or not a God or Gods exist.

Gnostic: Belief that it is possible to know, with an absolute degree of a certainty whether or not a God or Gods exist.

Anti-theist: Against a belief in God or Gods i.e. you think that believing in God is not good thing.

Anti-religious: Against the organised belief in God i.e. you think that churches and their followers negatively impact on society etc.

NP. This is useful, thanks. Based on these definitions i'm "anti-religious". Where do I sign up?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Theist: Belief in a God or Gods.

Atheist: Lack of a belief in God or Gods.

Agnostic: Belief that it is impossible to know, with an absolute degree of a certainty whether or not a God or Gods exist.

Gnostic: Belief that it is possible to know, with an absolute degree of a certainty whether or not a God or Gods exist.

Anti-theist: Against a belief in God or Gods i.e. you think that believing in God is not good thing.

Anti-religious: Against the organised belief in God i.e. you think that churches and their followers negatively impact on society etc.

How about Deist? Wasn't Thomas Jefferson a Deist?