Does New Atheism Hurt Atheism?
New-Atheism- Believes Religion has done great harm to the world and wants to get rid of it....
Famous New-Atheist's Include Richard Dawkins and Famous Youtuber JaclynGleen and TheAmazingAtheist
Yes
Side Score: 8
|
 |
No
Side Score: 31
|
|
|
|
|
The New Atheists are the radicals of the atheist movement. The New Atheists, though, have generally been characterized as the perceived intellectual elite by the masses, but the actual intellectual laughing stock by academics. So, atheism is only hurt, since they are "converting" many people to atheism under the guise of "logic," who are then ignorant of actual logic. Hoi polloi ouk eisi sophoi. Side: Yes
2
points
As an anti-theist/new atheist who has spent time in academia and observed a considerable number of ivory tower debates on (a)theism, your claim that new atheism is the "intellectual laughing stock by academics" perplexes me. To which academics might you be referring? Side: No
Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens are all New Atheists. They may be good in their respective fields, but when they get into the real world and start dealing with religion, they are not intellectually bright; people think they are because they have good rhetoric. Side: Yes
-1
points
I think in general when someone is extremely aggressive about their beliefs it tends to turn people off. The intense fan girl makes you hate a band, the extremely partisan individual makes you look for flaws in their party. At least in my experience, when someone strongly asserts that their way is correct, over all others, then its only affect is to make me look for flaws in their argument, or just begin to dislike their point altogether. Side: Yes
You assume that being a new atheist necessitates being "extremely aggressive". I think it is quite possible for a new atheist to think that religion has done more harm than good to the world throughout history and to seek its widespread decline while still being smart about how they express themselves and not being overbearing. Side: No
|
Atheism by itself has no cause. Atheists simply don't believe in God. New Atheists are people that tend to dislike religion in many aspects and also criticize believers for being irrational in their beliefs. I don't necessarily agree with most of what they have to say, but I don't really see them as a problem. They will tend to be more highlighting of the issues that the religious can present, while I only go after religious problems after I've come to notice them in the first place. New Atheists may be a bit extreme for my taste, but they're a bit useful. Side: No
4
points
3
points
Atheism is not a belief system, a philosophy, or religion. Atheism has no dogma nor does it have a "cause". The only thing any two atheists can be said to have in common is that they don't believe in gods. "New Atheism" is just atheists finally being able to openly criticize religion without being burned at the stake. The religious have openly denounced and demonized atheists for several millennia, and yet now we are not allowed to even voice a critical examination of religion without people getting up in arms. Side: No
1
point
1
point
1
point
What? How could it hurt Atheism? I'm not an obnoxious Atheist that bitches about the word God being on money and I'm not trying to get rid of religion but the minority of Atheists that are like that can't hurt Atheism... I'm not going to convert to religion because of them. Side: No
1
point
That's just separate from the Atheism's foundation. - It's same as saying Satanists decapitate goats and do vandalism to show their hate towards churches on purpose . Satanism isn't like that. - Atheism got misconceived that Atheists hate god, and it followed on from there. It isn't even said that Atheism got renewed, that's just bullshit said by others. Side: No
Not inherently. A view of religion as a largely negative influence upon society throughout human history, and a desire for its dissolution does not necessarily make the new atheist loudly militant on the matter. Where that is the case, however, I would argue that while there is likely some harm done on an individual level there is some inherent utility to extreme atheism at the social level. Extreme atheism makes average atheism seem more moderate and less counter-culture by pushing the boundaries of what is extreme and unacceptable. Throughout history, the extreme view rarely prevails (particularly in the short term) but instead makes way for the advancement of the more moderated version of their ideology. (e.g. The Black Panthers and MLK) This of course is contingent upon a visible and vocal moderate population. Side: No
1
point
Religion is like herpes,you cannot get hid of them. I have never advocated getting rid of religion. I have done my best to educate people as to the stupidity in believing in the supernatural. Religion prevails because religion wrongly thinks that death is a mystery or contest. When you die you are dead. End of story. Side: No
1
point
Atheism isn't an organization or anything to that effect that can be 'hurt' by others. This is the main reason that arguments that atheism is just another religion fall flat (although some atheists can certainly be rather religious about it!). If we look at religions in general, they can be 'hurt' by other individuals tarnishing their image, but there isn't an 'image' that atheism attempts to maintain. Perception of atheism in that way is pretty much limited to religious individuals who are either undereducated in general or are simply making assumptions as to what atheism is; as this crowd isn't amongst those likely to become atheist anyway, I don't see how it harms it. Atheism is a blanket term for numerous worldviews that simply don't include a god or gods. So some of those under this blanket are being jackasses and blatantly attacking the religious views of others- so what? It's not as if that is going to be the trigger for a bunch of people suddenly deciding to believe in a god or gods when they previously didn't. Even if it did, I don't see how that hurts atheism any... Side: No
1
point
|
