The startling inability of some to look at the complexities and the need to makes this only about religion have been pervasive.

It has unleashed a depth of islamophobia which is pretty horrifying and intensified the false belief that were it not for religion, the world would be a nirvana.

Some have felt they can now attack not just religious ideas but religious people with impunity.

Never have I seen the line between arch conservatives and some liberal/progressives so blurry. This is particularly disturbing because it is a coalition that could launch another holy war.

This article is going to create a firestorm, I am sure, but I think that what he calls New Atheists and I call Atheists with specific beliefs need to be challenged and challenged forcefully.

I just have to point out this part because I find it humorous, although I don't' agree with it.

to save people from their beliefs.

It is truly a Laurence of Arabia fantasy.

of the notion of the white man's burden: "If only those little brown people were exactly like us!"

My very existence offends many of my neighbors if they but know who I really am. I don't like being offensive and I definitely hate being preached to so I keep my mouth shut because I know any hint that I'm not really a believer will unleash an onslaught of amazingly poorly thought out Christian apologetics.

I had someone tell me in all seriousness a couple of days ago that they have the gift of prophecy and have since they were a child, not a stupid person, someone with more formal education than I have. Not rolling my eyes and uttering nothing beyond a noncommittal hmmm.. required extreme effort on my part. Anything else would have ended up in an argument and hurt feelings and then the usual simple minded arguments such as Pascals Wager (although they have no idea it's called that).

Y'all really don't seem to realize that many atheists are exhausted with pandering to the religious sensibilities of theists in real life and often come online to blow off some frustration.

You have the great misfortune to live in a place where your atheism isn't tolerated.

I don't know Y'all is, but I think there is a great deal of empathy and support for atheists who struggle like you do on this site. I also think that a lot of theists and supporters of theists are sick of being punching bags and having the responsibility for your troubles laid at their feet.

Blowing off frustration is fine and I think you could get a lot of support here, but some are equally exhausted by the constant beating up, bullying and harassment that occurs by some just because someone is a believer or a supporter of believers.

It's no better than what you experience in real life. Neither is excusable. It's bullshit both ways.

Claiming that Republican ideology is stupid is not the same thing as claiming all Republicans are stupid. It's OK to hate Christianity. It's OK to hate Islam. It's OK to hate atheism. Those things are all ideas. It's not OK to hate people because they are Christians or Muslims or atheists. Some seem to either be incapable or unwilling to make those distinctions.

and some claim ignorance as an excuse.

European colonialism was often done in the name of religion. But I suspect there were more measurable interests at work than souls.

invisible gods and demons.
Then teach that same stupidity to their children.

The gestational period of a non sequitur is considerably shorter.

Maybe another one is about to emerge.

Welcome to the forum, don't let the mean people scare you away!

It's way to early on a Sunday for this.

over the loss of the polo ponies. But really, where would you put them on a boat? I couldn't take them either--two Arab mares and two Frisians already in foal. A pity, but one must be realistic.

but right now we are keeping some shetlands for the children. That little rink we built just thrills them.

I could ship him a few of those special geese that NYC_SKP sent over for fresh foie gras. Do you think that would cheer him up?

but we had to put in to Vallarta and send her to the San Miguel ranch via trailer. The fact she was in foal may have been what made her so seasick, though.

The geese might do the job. Perhaps rug could throw in a few truffles, too..

and I have Banksy here to do a sketch of me. He is quite the dear.

Tata for now!

I've been here for about thirteen years now. DU always had a contingent of atheists but that was fine, we didn't proselytize them and they didn't proselytize us. But in recent years, it all seems to boil down to "you're too dumb to see that we're right". They remind me of the sci-fi cliche (now thankfully, rather dated) of aliens who are told about religion and respond that they've outgrown such silly superstitions. It's all so shallow. The diversity and complexity of religious thought is ignored, substituted for the mindless pablum of literalism so they can dismiss faith as being about talking snakes and suchlike. There's no attempt to engage with or understand belief or believers, their fans are simply exhorted to go forth and sneeringly dismiss believers as just stupid. One can almost hear the strains of Onward Atheist Soldiers in the background.
In seeking to establish a place for atheism in the public psyche (laudable in itself), they seem to have adopted the worst excesses of theistic attitude (although, thankfully, not the worst excesses of theistic actions). They speak of believers in the same tone and often with the same words as Bryan Fischer speaks of atheists.

And when someone brings this up, the responses are predictable. I predict that if there are responses to this, them will be either A) childish reversals, "we're not x, you're x"; B) tiresome claims to not knowing who the "New Atheists" are; C) claims that the theists drive them to it ("she made me so angry&quot ; D) pointing out that many theists are jerks (which is true but missed the point) or E) simple flat denial and/or insults.

People can be rude and insensitive. I am not innocent in this regard. Nevertheless, there is a feeling that the tide is turning. As more people respond to religious polls with "not affiliated", and more churches close due to low attendence, religion is clearly in decline. When religious fueled horrors like the Paris Massacre happens, religion loses any imagined holiness its adherents claim, and things like the Spanish Inquisition are remebered and Christianity is shown that they are no different.

Here (UK), something like 50% of the country checks the box marked "no religion" on the census but that doesn't necessarily make them atheists. Many Britons call theemselves Christian but are functionally Deists.

Some religious believers have done terrible things, no one is denying that. But some atheists have done terrible things as well. Evil is a human problem, not one that's specific to any religion or lack thereof.

Maybe I'm just tired of the hostility and rudeness. But I'm not sure if I, being a man of faith, feel welcome here anymore.

While it doesn't excuse the harsh tone, we have been subjected to religious privilege, a form of bigotry. This recent incident shows that this feeling of privilege is still strong. We resent it, and thus respond in anger.

But there is a difference between simply not believing on the one hand and going out of your way to call believers delusional, compare our beliefs to Santa, post a thread in the Religion group just to say you don't respect religions, etc. In the wider world, religion might be priveleged (although not on DU, atheists are teh majority here) but a major tenet of the privelege theory is that it's pointless to attack the priveleged since we didn't ask for privelege. It just got handed to us. Also, as a follower of an extremely minority faith, I'm not sure how priveleged I am. I've been physically attacked in teh street for my faith before now.

I'm training in psychology. One of the major theories (that's "theory" in the scientific sense) of social psychology is Social Identity Theory. SIT says (and it's developer, Henri Tajfel proved) that humans will instinctively favour their ingroup (people like them or who they aspire toward) and discriminate against their outgroup (everyone else). That's been shown to operate even in the very young and even where group assignment is explicitly random.

Discrimination and evil are human problems, not religious ones. Yes, religion has been used as an excuse many times. So has atheism (the USSR imprisoned many people simply for believing). And if it wasn't religion, it would be oil, or land, or power, or skin colour, or freckles. Because what SIT shows us is that humans will always divide themselves into groups and will always discriminate against their outgroup. It's simply human nature, sadly.

I agree that evil will exist without religion. Religion, however, adds an unreality to the mix. This element usually ups the ante. I think we would be better off without it.

Here's the thing: I cannot prove to you that god and Lucifer exist and I wouldn't try. You cannot prove to me that they don't. But you choose to describe your lack of belief as "reality" simply because you think it is. You can't prove it's true and I wouldn't ask you to do so. It is your opinion, your beliefs, that my beliefs are "unreality". When you say "I don't believe in god", you are making a statement about the self which doesn't require any belief. But when you say "there is no god", you are making a statement about the universe, that requires belief. It is your belief that my beliefs are untrue and you are priveleging your beliefs simply because they are yours. That's fine, we all do that and have to in order to get through the day. But it is still simply your belief.

Soviet Russia locked people up simply for not being atheists. Am I asking you to carry the can for that? No, but I am making the point that an explicitly atheistic state acted just as badly as a theistic one, that it imprisoned people simply for not believing the same thing as those in power. If atheism as a faith position (i.e. a position on faith, not a faith in itself) isn't responsible for those people being locked up then it is a complete double standard to claim that theism must carry the can the evils committed by believers. Either both theism and atheism have to answer for the crimes of their followers or neither do.

That's why it is such a blunt and juvenile instrument that is used.

You are thoughtful and add a perspective to this group that no one else does. Your observations of the dynamic are correct.

I would encourage the number gatherers to address that oversight. Even so, many people who don't count themselves as faithful also eschew the atheist label. An "Atheist" check box might lead to higher accuracy, but maybe one that reads "spiritual but not affiliated" would be equally revealing.

I would prefer that we could have these discussions without hostility. On a perfect forum we would be able to discuss religious ideas without attacking the character or intelligence of religious people. Without exception, the kindest. most loving and intelligent people that I know in my personal life are religious. Having said that, I am acquainted with less than a handful of open atheists, and they're really good, really smart people too.

Here, being an atheist is no big deal so I know quite a few atheists personally. Hell, our Deputy PM (similar to a Vice-President) is openly an atheist. The vast majority of them were very nice people and the ones who are dicks would be that way whatever their faith position was. Maybe it's an extension of GIFT that makes some of the atheists here so eager to insult faith and people of faith.

Growing In Faith Together
Government Information Finder Technology
God Is Forever There
God Is Faithful Today
Giving In Faith Together
Global Integrability of Field Theories and Applications
God Is Forever True
Gas Insulated Flow Tube

I could probably make any one of those definitions of your acronym fit your assertion. It would help, though, if I understood your meaning.

Greater internet Fuckwad Theory

Normal Person+Anonymity+Audience=Total Fuckwad

the theory that people act like jerks because they want attention and can't be caught.

I'm appropriating that immediately.

Here's the toon:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/22/herbs-and-spices

As for the rest of your post, I can't tell whether its recitation of history or religion is more simplistic.

He left out religious apologist, That is still what his article is about. His definition of new atheist, despite quoting Wikipedia is BS too.

Do you deny the Church's complicity in Hitler's rise to power? It's OK if we disagree. I know we disagree about the Iraq war as well. It doesn't make my recitation simplistic, just your understanding.

I don't believe the church actually supported what Hitler was about, but their fear of Communism caused them to side with his party. The only real opposition to Hitler were the Communists and the Socialist Democrats. The Church couldn't ally with either because of their Godlessness. I actually place more blame on those two parties for not uniting against Hitler. If they had, Hitler would never have been able to gain power.

Never more appropriate.

BULLSHIT!

And no, I won't explain what is so self obvious.

But I am glad it gave so many of the atheist bashers joy.

Enjoy.

tsk.

Ok, it's more an interjection than a word but it will do.

BTW, if you read it, you'd realize he's not bashing atheists at all.

"And he's going to torture you forever until you agree with me" then these little apologistic articles will mean something.

Did someone say that to you or are you speaking for the unnamed "us"?

It's never too early for a morning glass of hyperbole.

serial plagiarist and misrepresenter.

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/email-exchange-between-sam-harris-and-c.j.-werleman

Wikipedia:

Documented charges of plagiarism

In October 2014, Werleman was shown to have plagiarized the writing of Fareed Zakaria, Vali Nasr, William Broyles Jr., Robert Pape, Eduardo Porter, and others as was documented on The Godless Spellchecker Blog.[9][10] Whole sentences and passages from Werleman's published articles in Salon Magazine and AlterNet[11] were published previously without any citation or attribution.[9] Upon learning of this discovery, reporter Michael Luciano of The Daily Banter and atheist author and philosophy professor Peter Boghossian began searching for more instances of plagiarism, unearthing several examples.[12] Werleman addressed the allegations in a Facebook post, admitting some instances of plagiarism.[8]

AlterNet went on to remove all of Werleman's articles from their archives and issued an apology to readers and those who had been plagiarized.[13] Salon also addressed Werleman's plagiarism in their "Corrections" section, telling readers that plagiarized passages will be emboldened and hyperlinks to the original material will be included.[14]

The stuff about the sock-puppets on twitter was particularly distasteful.

What you post here about him, I believe is true. He tends toward hyperbole, exaggeration and plagiarism has been a problem as well.

I think he makes some good points here, even though they are more provocative than is necessary, imo.

Perhaps a Wanker, but some of what he says about the anti-muslim sentiments voiced by some "New Atheists" reigns true.

he paints the "New Atheist" as mostly anti-Muslim, when in fact they were first and still foremost anti-JudeoChristain. Did he read their books? That Islam inspired terrorist are bringing out some comments about Islam is to be expected. Have they been silent about the Pope, or or the push for "Religious Liberty" here? No.

His self aggrandizing "My atheism is the best atheism" Is the height of wankery.

some pretty anti-Islamic sentiments that have even exceeded their anti-JudeoChristian sentiments.

I know that there is disagreement on this, but imo they have. It's not just "comments about Islam". Some of it is pretty blatant bigotry and I fear that they call for a holy war. In this way, they are way too close to the right for my comfort.

I do agree that "My atheism is the best atheism" stinks of fundamentalism and a "one way" philosophy.