New Atheism: A new religion?

 
 
Avatar
 
 
Julioet
Total Posts:  16
Joined  17-08-2010
 
 
 
17 August 2010 10:26
 

There are some people who say that atheism is the new religion, mimicking how established religion like Islam and Christianity is mocking “non-believers” as ignorant, anti-science and irrational.  The media have already painted people like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins as “fundamentalists”. 

Some has likened the “revived Atheism movement” to the “crusaders” and those who “carry out jihad” and have labeled them “evangelists”. Note that I am using quotation marks here as I am using words that are not my own.  How would you respond to this?

 
 
Avatar
 
 
Skipshot
Total Posts:  1589
Joined  20-10-2006
 
 
 
17 August 2010 14:04
 
Julioet - 17 August 2010 02:26 PM

Some has likened the “revived Atheism movement” to the “crusaders” and those who “carry out jihad” and have labeled them “evangelists”. Note that I am using quotation marks here as I am using words that are not my own.  How would you respond to this?

I would respond with the Bill or Rights and the 14th Amendment, the same rights the accuser uses to make accusations.  In the market place of ideas nothing is sacred or immune.

 
 
 
Avatar
 
 
SkepticX
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  24-12-2004
 
 
 
17 August 2010 14:24
 

There is no “belief system” behind atheism. As many have said, atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

 
 
Keep The Reason
 
Avatar
 
 
Keep The Reason
Total Posts:  1183
Joined  07-08-2007
 
 
 
18 August 2010 15:09
 

Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color.

The problem is, of course, that the definition of atheism is rooted in its nemesis’ control.  Theism defines atheism inherently—the “rejection of theism”.

If I’m going to be accused of adopting a position (and that would be a true accusation—I do adopt a position), then it’s going to make me a Reasonist.

I believe in and operate under and embrace a worldview supported by reason.  I’m not defined by what I’m not, I will be defined—as we should all be—by what I *am* (we are).

The only way to change the concerns of the OP is to market what we are boldly and without apology, and to educate.

 
 
 
Avatar
 
 
Julioet
Total Posts:  16
Joined  17-08-2010
 
 
 
18 August 2010 19:59
 

Hi thanks for the insights. I agree with you Keep the Reason that the only way we could address such accusations is to educate.  And this is what I am doing now.  I am educating even myself as to what I don’t understand and what I don’t know.  Believe it or not, I am reading the bible and some atheism texts from Dawkins, Harris and Wilson.  I have to be honest that I am a bit biased, but even if you’re not, you can easily see who’s right.

 
 
Avatar
 
 
hollis
Total Posts:  21
Joined  26-06-2010
 
 
 
27 August 2010 15:40
 

i don’t think you can have a religion without ritual, and nontheism has no ritual.  i like to say that i’m an “evangelist” for nontheism, only because the word evangelist means “(bringer of) good message.”  we here have a good message to bring to the table, but currently there is no chair for us.  it’s like musical chairs—we have to scramble.  that tends to make religious people label us as “fundamentalist” or similar terminology.  we do have a moral sense, but its base is in reason, not in faith.  thus, it’s a truer morality than that practiced by actual religion.  but a good moral sense does not a religion make; in fact, it’s probably the antithesis of religion, because religious morality is mostly mud disguised by icing.  wink