Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“The appeal of New Atheism is that it offered non-believers a muscular and dogmatic form of atheism specifically designed to push back against muscular and dogmatic religious belief. Yet that is also, in my opinion, the main problem with New Atheism. In seeking to replace religion with secularism and faith with science, the New Atheists have, perhaps inadvertently, launched a movement with far too many similarities to the ones they so radically oppose. Indeed, while we typically associate fundamentalism with religiously zealotry, in so far as the term connotes an attempt to “impose a single truth on the plural world” – to use the definition of noted philosopher Jonathan Sacks – then there is little doubt that a similar fundamentalist mind-set has overcome many adherents of this latest iteration of anti-theism.“

I think it’s interesting that Reza thinks New Atheism is much like fundamental Christianity, in that zealots have overtaken both movements. I don’t see how this article is “propaganda.”

Propaganda is biased or misleading. This is not.

Oh yes it is.

Atheism, of "New Atheism" whatever the hell that is (not really a thing IMHO, Atheists have been around forever), is nothing like fundamentalist Christianity.

There is no dogma.
There is no bible.
There is no hierarchy.
There are no commandments.
There are no (real) churches.
There are no priests or ministers.

Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a god. That's it.

That is why Azlan's old article is 100% propaganda.

New Atheist voices denounce religion as “innately backward, obscurantist, irrational and dangerous,” and condemning those who disagree as “religious apologists.”

On the contrary, polls show that only a small fraction of atheists in the U.S. share such extreme opposition to religious faith.

Can you give an example of or link to such a poll? I'm having a hard time understanding the kind of question that could show how "extreme" atheists are in their opposition to religious faith. "So, by definition, you think that what believers believe isn't true. But are you mad about it? Like, mad mad, or just regular mad?"

Anonymous wrote:
New Atheist voices denounce religion as “innately backward, obscurantist, irrational and dangerous,” and condemning those who disagree as “religious apologists.”

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

― Epicurus (341–270 BC)

So... I guess "New Atheism" is over 2200 years old.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reza Aslan is smart enough to know his propogandist article is total bullshit and a feeble attempt at a false equivalency.

And he was smart enough to know that 7 years ago when he published it, too.

Really? How do you know that? Any supporting info? Putting words in someone’s mouth and speaking for them w/o any evidence of their words or thoughts is disingenuous and generally wrong.

Sigh... you can't even fricking read. I didn't say what he thought. I said he was smart enough to know it. That's my opinion. Jeebus on a cracker you people are dense.

Reza is smart enough to know your opinion? That would not be intelligence, that would be psychic ability on his part.

You really can't read, at all.

MY.
OPINION.
IS.
THAT.
REZA ASLAN.
IS SMART ENOUGH.
TO KNOW.
HIS ARTICLE.

(stop here, take a breath, drink some juice from the box, the last one matters)

CREATES A FALSE EQUIVALENCY.

Got it now?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“The appeal of New Atheism is that it offered non-believers a muscular and dogmatic form of atheism specifically designed to push back against muscular and dogmatic religious belief. Yet that is also, in my opinion, the main problem with New Atheism. In seeking to replace religion with secularism and faith with science, the New Atheists have, perhaps inadvertently, launched a movement with far too many similarities to the ones they so radically oppose. Indeed, while we typically associate fundamentalism with religiously zealotry, in so far as the term connotes an attempt to “impose a single truth on the plural world” – to use the definition of noted philosopher Jonathan Sacks – then there is little doubt that a similar fundamentalist mind-set has overcome many adherents of this latest iteration of anti-theism.“

I think it’s interesting that Reza thinks New Atheism is much like fundamental Christianity, in that zealots have overtaken both movements. I don’t see how this article is “propaganda.”

Propaganda is biased or misleading. This is not.

Oh yes it is.

Atheism, of "New Atheism" whatever the hell that is (not really a thing IMHO, Atheists have been around forever), is nothing like fundamentalist Christianity.

There is no dogma.
There is no bible.
There is no hierarchy.
There are no commandments.
There are no (real) churches.
There are no priests or ministers.

Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a god. That's it.

That is why Azlan's old article is 100% propaganda.

New Atheist voices denounce religion as “innately backward, obscurantist, irrational and dangerous,” and condemning those who disagree as “religious apologists.”

On the contrary, polls show that only a small fraction of atheists in the U.S. share such extreme opposition to religious faith.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reza Aslan is smart enough to know his propogandist article is total bullshit and a feeble attempt at a false equivalency.

And he was smart enough to know that 7 years ago when he published it, too.

Really? How do you know that? Any supporting info? Putting words in someone’s mouth and speaking for them w/o any evidence of their words or thoughts is disingenuous and generally wrong.

Sigh... you can't even fricking read. I didn't say what he thought. I said he was smart enough to know it. That's my opinion. Jeebus on a cracker you people are dense.

Reza is smart enough to know your opinion? That would not be intelligence, that would be psychic ability on his part.

Anonymous wrote:“The appeal of New Atheism is that it offered non-believers a muscular and dogmatic form of atheism specifically designed to push back against muscular and dogmatic religious belief. Yet that is also, in my opinion, the main problem with New Atheism. In seeking to replace religion with secularism and faith with science, the New Atheists have, perhaps inadvertently, launched a movement with far too many similarities to the ones they so radically oppose. Indeed, while we typically associate fundamentalism with religiously zealotry, in so far as the term connotes an attempt to “impose a single truth on the plural world” – to use the definition of noted philosopher Jonathan Sacks – then there is little doubt that a similar fundamentalist mind-set has overcome many adherents of this latest iteration of anti-theism.“

I think it’s interesting that Reza thinks New Atheism is much like fundamental Christianity, in that zealots have overtaken both movements. I don’t see how this article is “propaganda.”

Propaganda is biased or misleading. This is not.

Oh yes it is.

Atheism, of "New Atheism" whatever the hell that is (not really a thing IMHO, Atheists have been around forever), is nothing like fundamentalist Christianity.

There is no dogma.
There is no bible.
There is no hierarchy.
There are no commandments.
There are no (real) churches.
There are no priests or ministers.

Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a god. That's it.

That is why Azlan's old article is 100% propaganda.

I think the article is weak but Dawkins and Harris are the worst kind of atheists. They truly don’t even know what atheism is and they think they are soooooo smart for having figured out that religion can be bad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reza Aslan is smart enough to know his propogandist article is total bullshit and a feeble attempt at a false equivalency.

And he was smart enough to know that 7 years ago when he published it, too.

Really? How do you know that? Any supporting info? Putting words in someone’s mouth and speaking for them w/o any evidence of their words or thoughts is disingenuous and generally wrong.

Sigh... you can't even fricking read. I didn't say what he thought. I said he was smart enough to know it. That's my opinion. Jeebus on a cracker you people are dense.

“The appeal of New Atheism is that it offered non-believers a muscular and dogmatic form of atheism specifically designed to push back against muscular and dogmatic religious belief. Yet that is also, in my opinion, the main problem with New Atheism. In seeking to replace religion with secularism and faith with science, the New Atheists have, perhaps inadvertently, launched a movement with far too many similarities to the ones they so radically oppose. Indeed, while we typically associate fundamentalism with religiously zealotry, in so far as the term connotes an attempt to “impose a single truth on the plural world” – to use the definition of noted philosopher Jonathan Sacks – then there is little doubt that a similar fundamentalist mind-set has overcome many adherents of this latest iteration of anti-theism.“

I think it’s interesting that Reza thinks New Atheism is much like fundamental Christianity, in that zealots have overtaken both movements. I don’t see how this article is “propaganda.”

Propaganda is biased or misleading. This is not.

Anonymous wrote:o.k., they're anti-theists. So what? I doubt even they would disagree. I think this viewpoint suffered a terrible blow when Hitchens passed away.

Because atheist and anti-theist are two separate and distinct thought movements.

Anonymous wrote:Reza Aslan is smart enough to know his propogandist article is total bullshit and a feeble attempt at a false equivalency.

And he was smart enough to know that 7 years ago when he published it, too.

Really? How do you know that? Any supporting info? Putting words in someone’s mouth and speaking for them w/o any evidence of their words or thoughts is disingenuous and generally wrong.

o.k., they're anti-theists. So what? I doubt even they would disagree. I think this viewpoint suffered a terrible blow when Hitchens passed away.

Anonymous wrote:Reza Aslan is smart enough to know his propogandist article is total bullshit and a feeble attempt at a false equivalency.

And he was smart enough to know that 7 years ago when he published it, too.

+1

Reza Aslan is smart enough to know his propogandist article is total bullshit and a feeble attempt at a false equivalency.

And he was smart enough to know that 7 years ago when he published it, too.

Renowned scholar calls Harris, Dawkins anti-theists, and as dogmatic, fundamentalist as true believers

https://www.salon.com/2014/11/21/reza_aslan_sam_harris_and_new_atheists_arent_new_arent_even_atheists/

“Not long ago, I gave an interview in which I said that my biggest problem with so-called New Atheists like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins is that they give atheism a bad name. Almost immediately, I was bombarded on social media by atheist fans of the two men who were incensed that I would pontificate about a community to which I did not belong.

That, in and of itself, wasn’t surprising. As a scholar of religions, I’m used to receiving comments like this from the communities I study. What surprised me is how many of these comments appeared to take for granted that in criticizing New Atheism I was criticizing atheism itself, as though the two are one and the same. That seems an increasingly common mistake these days, with the media and the bestseller lists dominated by New Atheist voices denouncing religion as “innately backward, obscurantist, irrational and dangerous,” and condemning those who disagree as “religious apologists.

To be sure, there is plenty to criticize in any religion and no ideology – religious or otherwise – should be immune from criticism. But when Richard Dawkins describes religion as “one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus,” or when Sam Harris proudly declares, “If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion,” it should be perfectly obvious to all that these men do not speak for the majority of atheists. On the contrary, polls show that only a small fraction of atheists in the U.S. share such extreme opposition to religious faith.

In fact, not only is the New Atheism not representative of atheism. It isn’t even mere atheism (and it certainly is not “new”). What Harris, Dawkins and their ilk are preaching is a polemic that has been around since the 18th century – one properly termed, anti-theism.“

Rest of article at link.


Reza Aslan’s article is a bit long, but worth the read. Extremely informative and interesting information.