9 Reasons why new atheism seems so unattractive

http://reasonsforjesus.com/9-reasons-why-new-atheism-seems-so-unattractive/

OLAADEGBU:


9 Reasons why new atheism seems so unattractive

http://reasonsforjesus.com/9-reasons-why-new-atheism-seems-so-unattractive/

9 Reasons Why New Atheism Seems So Unattractive
By James Bishop - March 14, 2017

Despite the number of book sales and media attention of New Atheism and its front-runners, atheism still remains a vast minority in the world. Why this is true for a variety of reasons, one can hardly ignore the nasty stench atheism (and especially militant atheism) gives off to the public.

At times, it leaves Christians and other religious people with a very bad taste in their mouths. This is not because the arguments are so overwhelming and strong, but because of the lack of conversational decency that has a pattern of reemergence. What is the cause of this?

Here are 9 reasons why New Atheism seems so unattractive.

1. It seeks to mock the religious

Richard Dawkins, in a Reason Rally, urges his followers to "Mock them, ridicule them." The small crowd attending cheers and claps thus affirming his MO to mock the religious. In an interview Dawkins even admits that he is "a fairly militant atheist, with a fair degree of active hostility toward religion.

I certainly was hostile toward it at school, from the age of about sixteen onwards. I mellowed a bit in my twenties and thirties. But I'm getting more militant again now."

People can see this for themselves. And what one might see is that a leading figure of New Atheist incites hate and prejudice against those who have religious convictions. One would be correct to point out that this is full blown intolerance. The New Atheist evidently doesn't want to share the world with those who do not hold the same views about reality.

This surely wouldn't go far for making atheism an attractive prospect as most people do not want to be associated with bigots. The irony is that no-one will win converts by mocking those they are trying to convert, which is essentially what the New Atheists are doing.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPqqp8KVuQU

2. It enjoys ridiculing as much as actually arguing

A quick visit to an atheist fundamentalist's website, or any YouTube video concerning atheists for that matter, will present one with a host of nasty, derogatory statements dished out against the religious and their religions.

Again, one will find it hard to convert those of whom they mock, but surely these atheists who think of themselves as rational freethinkers should be aware of this?

3. It is intolerant

New Atheist’s clearly do not wish to coexist with any religions and worldviews that isn't their own narrow, dogmatic one. This view remains no matter how much benefit a given worldview has provided humanity. It is this sort of intolerance that led the atheists Stalin & Mao to butcher millions of their countrymen.

In our Western culture, however, there is a huge shift of mind that attempts to avoid coming across as intolerant, and often it is viewed to be intolerant to possess a monopoly on truth. And if this is the case, the New Atheists aren't going to make many friends.

4. It is vindictive

The atheist Richard Rorty is known to have said that "we are going to go right on to discredit you in the eyes of your children, trying to strip your fundamentalist religious community of dignity, trying to make your views seem silly rather than discussible."

This kind of logic parallels the likes of Dawkins, Harris and Dennett. It also clear to everyone that there is no respect for those who hold to other beliefs. It comes across as vindictive; it wishes pain and misery. One only wonders the consequences if Rorty directed such a claim at Islam instead of Christianity.

5. It is arrogant.

One new atheist urges those who do not agree with his opinions "to pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass."

This may come over as humorous, and would probably explain why atheist debaters get the loudest laughs from audiences. But it remains bigotry. It reeks of arrogance. And because the atheist who made this claim was a prominent leader within their community it only causes one to question the followership.

Individuals, masquerading as leaders, who say things like this are not the kind who make quality leaders. It also wouldn't serve the purposes of the New Atheists since people, more often than not, orientate themselves away from those they deem to be arrogant.

6. Adherents think that their thoughts are golden.

An annoying feature for any onlooker is that the New Atheists think that their thoughts are golden simply for being atheists (this would tie in with point 5 above). One doesn’t have to look very far to see atheists regularly referring to themselves as "freethinkers," "brights," "reasonable" and so on as if no other worldview has any right to these traits.

The point being is that people calling themselves things (probably to make themselves feel better & stronger than they really are) doesn't actually make them any of those things. This intellectual cockiness seems to be adopted for no other reason than that they are atheist and try to think skeptically.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14YM7MP6HzY

7. It is ignorant and uneducated about religion

People have the right to believe what they want but at least respect the people of other worldviews. When critiquing the logic of other worldviews, religious or not, at least show that you have slightest clue what the other person actually believes. One needn't respect the beliefs but at least respect those who hold those beliefs.

A great many atheists I've interacted with over the last few years show huge concern for their comrades. Atheist historian Tim O'Neill, for example, claims that his atheist brethren are "historically illiterate… they tend to be about as historically illiterate as most people."

O'Neill concedes that these atheists "try to use history in debates about religion, they are usually doing so with a grasp of the subject that is stunted at about high school level… all too often many atheists can be polemicists when dealing with the past, only crediting information or analysis that fits an argument against religion they are trying to make while downplaying, dismissing or ignoring evidence or analysis that does not fit their agenda" (1).

Another atheist historian has noted that far too often atheists

"EAGERLY EMBRACE A POSITION WHICH CONTRADICTS AN ALMOST UNIVERSAL CONSENSUS AMONG THOSE WHO HAVE DEVOTED THEIR LIVES TO THE ACADEMIC DISCIPLINE WHICH CONCERNS ITSELF WITH THESE MATTERS. WE OF ALL PEOPLE SHOULD KNOW BETTER" (2).

Lets not mention some scathing reviews of Richard Dawkins by the likes of atheist philosopher Michael Ruse. Here is an article going through what scholars and professional philosophers have to say about New Atheism.

8. Popular Atheists contradict themselves

Leaders that contradict themselves far too often give the impression that they lack intellectual consistency. Richard Dawkins has done this frequently. In one book he pens that "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference" (3).

But in a subsequent book he calls religious indoctrination evil, and also argues that "Faith is an evil precisely because it requires no justification and brooks no argument" (4). So, what is it then. Does evil exist or doesn't it? Dawkins can't answer you.

Elsewhere Dawkins praises the "why" question, saying that he "wanted to know why we’re all here. What is the meaning of life? Why does the universe exist? Why does life exist? That’s what drew me to science" (5). Then in one of his public debates he declares that the "The why question is just a silly question" (6). So what is it? Is the "why" question an important one or not?

But what can really rub the onlooker the wrong way are the large doses of arrogance and conceit that Dawkins and co. possess when making these inconsistent statements.

9. It solely accuses religion of violence

No one can deny that religion has had (and still does have) a hand in violence. Crusades, witch hunts, Jihad, they're all there in the history books. However, the New Atheists will use all their effort to convince you that all religion is cut from the same cloth. They don’t draw boundaries; they simply haul religions into the same boat as if they all promote the same ethical systems and values.

They will, however, promote their secularism as the idyllic utopia hoping that onlookers overlook barbaric acts on behalf of governments possessing atheistic ideologies. Soviet Russia, Mao, Pol Pot? Revolutionary France? What links them all? Simply that they were all atheists and they massacred millions of people to promote their godless agendas.

Of course the New Atheists will overlook all the good done in the name of religions. Universities, human rights, relief efforts, orphanages, medical care all done in the name of religion appears not to ever count for anything. But what gives? Surely evil is part of the human condition.

Some have used religion to justify it, others atheism. People have used sports, politics, relationships, poverty etc. to justify all kinds of evil acts. Evil is part of the human condition, and not intrinsic to religions though religions can, and do, promote immoral laws. When these obvious reflections are willfully missed by the New Atheists, they only seem to lack intellectual responsibility.

If that is so then what else can we doubt? If so, then how can we trust their diagnosis of reality and the purposes of human life?

http://reasonsforjesus.com/9-reasons-why-new-atheism-seems-so-unattractive/

ATHEISM IS NONSENSE.

OP is filled with nonsense meant to keep the flock rather than reach out to the outsiders, that's what apologists do anyways this is why the author of the thread dishonestly pretended to refer to "New Atheism" but a look at the article shows that he's actually referring to "Militant Atheism"

and its funny Dawkins was critiqued many times by the author, I guess the author is butthurt by the huge number of defeats Dawkins has handed to apologists over the years

now, let's get down to business

OLAADEGBU:

1. It seeks to mock the religious
2. It enjoys ridiculing as much as actually arguing
4. It is vindictive
5. It is arrogant.

1, 2, 4 and 5 are similar but I guess "9 reasons" is better than "5 reasons" or less

Mocking and Ridiculing is needed in healthy doses and a Christian should be last person to complain about ridicule

Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal on mount Carmel in the bible, u don't condemn it but when atheists do it it's evil; did I add that Elijah even killed them all for not proving their god exists?

Ridicule and mocking happens even in Christendom check this thread https://www.nairaland.com/3615455/does-new-covenant-abolish-ten/10 and see how "Christians" were mocking and ridiculing "Christians" even to the extent of placing curses and insults upon each other with the aid of "hole-ly spirit" of course

I did meet former theists who departed from their beliefs not because of calm well-reasoned argumentation and friendly guidance (even though they were presented one), but because they were hectored and mocked and considered fools by their peers. Those people reported that the traditional gentle approach was wholly ineffective on them, and if that was all that was attempted they may well still be theists today.

Truth is, some people respond better to analysis, some to empathy, some to logic, and, yes, some to invective and ridicule. There is no silver bullet for deconversion, and many disparate approaches are successful some of the time.

I'm an expert at mocking and ridiculing "beliefs", note that I emphasised belief cuz I don't mock the believer, mocking belief hits the spot pretty fast compared to sidestepping and soft pedalling it

I mocked Jesus many times https://www.nairaland.com/3525229/what-does-name-jesus-mean#52033131

Mohammed too https://www.nairaland.com/3675633/why-quran-revealed#54471194
I ridicule and mock the Abrahamic gods and religions BUT you would hardly see me ridicule or mock the believer

your belief mocks itself from 2 different orders of creation in the first two chapters of your book, to your god endorsing slavery and even gives slave owners right to beat a slave to death so long the slave survives for more than two days after the beating; it also mocks itself by mandating Rape victims to marry her rapist
Anyone who looks to the bible as a source of morality will be sadly disappointed. Any book that condones genocide, slavery and doesn't punish the rape of young girls except by forcing the rapist to marry his victim should be held in contempt by anyone with even a smidgen of moral fiber
but we have to give your god a lot of credit because he actually straight up condemned eating of shellfishes; we all know eating shellfish those days is worse than owning another human as property and passing them as inheritance to your children and children's children; that explains why our colonial masters took your forefathers as property, put padlocks in their mouths and forced them to work on plantations while defending their acts by the bible after all your god didn't abolish it

my good friend Wirinet said the below

We mock you people because you people have mocked other's for centuries without any reaction. You people have desecrated other peoples religions without remorse. You people have shoved (sometimes forcefully) your stupid belief of a dying god or is it a dead but resurrected god down our throats. So naturally people who are tired and sick of you guys will respond.

3. It is intolerant

New Atheist’s clearly do not wish to coexist with any religions and worldviews that isn't their own narrow, dogmatic one. This view remains no matter how much benefit a given worldview has provided humanity. It is this sort of intolerance that led the atheists Stalin & Mao to butcher millions of their countrymen.

this is nonsense, the author needs to prove Stalin and Mao's murderous rampage were carried out because they were atheists and they killed only religious people, the author also needs to prove there was a creed directing them to kill

Hitler killed millions too and was a Christian, even the Catholic church celebrated his birthday every year till he died and the church then went on a mission to distance themselves from Hitler as much as possible

Mother Theresa fought hard against providing condoms in AIDS ravaged Africa. I'd argue she's directly responsible for the deaths of millions and no better than Hitler. The conditions and level of squalor in her missions and health centers were (are) deplorable because her sick doctrine was that suffering was a spiritual good. Evil in my book and certainly not a saint (not that there is such a thing).

Moses, Elijah, Joshua, Jephthah, David, Saul received direct instructions from Yahweh to kill people and even Yahweh helped my making a stationary sun to "stand still" (rubbish!) so they can kill more

6. Adherents think that their thoughts are golden.

An annoying feature for any onlooker is that the New Atheists think that their thoughts are golden simply for being atheists (this would tie in with point 5 above). One doesn’t have to look very far to see atheists regularly referring to themselves as "freethinkers," "brights," "reasonable" and so on as if no other worldview has any right to these traits.

atheism is a form of freethinking just like Christianity is a form of Abrahamic god

atheists never claimed sole ownership of freethinking but I guess its okay to lie as long as you're doing it for Jesus and/or Yahweh

7. It is ignorant and uneducated about religion

People have the right to believe what they want but at least respect the people of other worldviews. When critiquing the logic of other worldviews, religious or not, at least show that you have slightest clue what the other person actually believes. One needn't respect the beliefs but at least respect those who hold those beliefs.

wrong!!?
most Christians turned atheist know more about Christianity than most Christians

8. Popular Atheists contradict themselves

Leaders that contradict themselves far too often give the impression that they lack intellectual consistency. Richard Dawkins has done this frequently. In one book he pens that "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference"

But in a subsequent book he calls religious indoctrination evil, and also argues that "Faith is an evil precisely because it requires no justification and brooks no argument" (4). So, what is it then. Does evil exist or doesn't it? Dawkins can't answer you.

Elsewhere Dawkins praises the "why" question, saying that he "wanted to know why we’re all here. What is the meaning of life? Why does the universe exist? Why does life exist? That’s what drew me to science" (5). Then in one of his public debates he declares that the "The why question is just a silly question" (6). So what is it? Is the "why" question an important one or not?

But what can really rub the onlooker the wrong way are the large doses of arrogance and conceit that Dawkins and co. possess when making these inconsistent statements.

Dawkins is really killing this guy from inside

most apologists contradicts themselves

9. It solely accuses religion of violence

No one can deny that religion has had (and still does have) a hand in violence. Crusades, witch hunts, Jihad, they're all there in the history books. However, the New Atheists will use all their effort to convince you that all religion is cut from the same cloth. They don’t draw boundaries; they simply haul religions into the same boat as if they all promote the same ethical systems and values.

They will, however, promote their secularism as the idyllic utopia hoping that onlookers overlook barbaric acts on behalf of governments possessing atheistic ideologies. Soviet Russia, Mao, Pol Pot? Revolutionary France? What links them all? Simply that they were all atheists and they massacred millions of people to promote their godless agendas.

Of course the New Atheists will overlook all the good done in the name of religions. Universities, human rights, relief efforts, orphanages, medical care all done in the name of religion appears not to ever count for anything. But what gives? Surely evil is part of the human condition.

Some have used religion to justify it, others atheism. People have used sports, politics, relationships, poverty etc. to justify all kinds of evil acts. Evil is part of the human condition, and not intrinsic to religions though religions can, and do, promote immoral laws. When these obvious reflections are willfully missed by the New Atheists, they only seem to lack intellectual responsibility.

If that is so then what else can we doubt? If so, then how can we trust their diagnosis of reality and the purposes of human life?

No rational atheist holds religion accountable for every idiotic or unethical thing religious people do. We blame (and RIDICULE) a religion only for what its adherents do as a direct result of its doctrines, such as opposing gay marriage or killing apostates, or science denialism (antievolution teaching for example AKA "creation"...Atheism has no doctrines. It does not demand that a person do anything, or refrain from doing anything, on the basis of his unbelief. Consequently, to know that someone is an atheist is to know almost nothing about him—apart from the fact that he does not accept the unwarranted claims of any religion. Atheism is simply the condition of not believing in Poseidon, Thor, or any of the thousands of dead gods that lie in the graveyard we call mythology. To that extent, everyone knows exactly what it is to be an atheist—he has simply added the god of Abraham to the list of the dead. If a belief in astrology were causing people to go berserk—to deny medical care to their children or to murder unbelievers—many of us would speak and write about the dangerous stupidity of astrology. (WE WOULD AND SHOULD RIDICULE THESE POSITIONS!)This would not be bigotry or intolerance on our part. Also, it would not be any sort of "logical fallacy" either. It would be a plea for basic human sanity. And that is all that an atheist’s criticism of religious tribalism and superstition ever is... You should accept that logical ridicule be accepted and encouraged. The internet has made information sharing and communication easier than ever before; you should get use to having your religion ridiculed. Its not going to stop anytime soon.

might need this too

GloriaNinja:


ATHEISM IS NONSENSE.

I agree with you there.

hopefulLandlord:


might need this too

Sure.

OLAADEGBU:


9 Reasons why new atheism seems so unattractive

http://reasonsforjesus.com/9-reasons-why-new-atheism-seems-so-unattractive/

The thought process of an atheist is a list of irrational beliefs and a way to put off God. Watch the www.atheistmovie.com for details.