We've talked about atheism before (see earlier posts), but we haven't directly talked about the New Atheists who speak directly against religion and base their claims in science. Here's an article about them, which addresses their apparent collective dislike for Islam. Comments?
http://www.salon.com/2013/03/30/dawkins_harris_hitchens_new_atheists_flirt_with_islamophobia/
Their hate should be directed at how the media for how they reacted towards 9/11. To me they are blaming the small percent of Muslims that are extremist.
ReplyDeleteThe writer of the article has very strong apparent views. Though I do not know exactly what is said by the New Atheists because this is written by the opposition of New Atheism, it doesn’t sound as if they are attacking the people of Islamic faith and calling them stupider than Christians. To me it sounds like the extreme actions that come from those of Muslim faith are merely used as primary examples in their accusative arguments against religion. The author of the article quotes Dawkins, a New Atheist, in the 7 paragraph- “Those people [the terrorists] were not mindless..blah blah.. [their violent acts] came from religion.” But in the next paragraph the author claims the New Atheists think Muslim people are uneducated.
ReplyDeleteI didn’t particularly like this article. I didn’t like it because the author presented one view and basically addressed the New Atheists attack on Muslims by attacking them. The author specifically points out that Dawkins has not read the Qur’an and therefore Dawkins claims are extraordinarily backwards, the equation “insists on a conclusion before even launching an initial investigation” says the author. What came to my mind is that it is common to hear Muslims act violently or oppressive (towards women) “in the name of Allah” or “in the name of Islam.” So I think Dawkins doesn’t have to personally read the Qur’an himself to understand why Muslims act violently. Besides, the Qur’an is notorious for being ambiguous and having different and opposing interpretations.
Bottom line I disliked this article because the author was not open and argued from one side with biased perceptions. “Look at situations from all angles, and you will become more open” –Dalai Lama
I completly agree with you Emilee. I thought the author of this article did not do a good job explaining what exactly the "New Atheists" were all about in a bias manner. Instead he only attempts to make their claims sound uneducated and rediculous. Although, I do not agree with the atheist belief I do not attack their claims. If that is what they want to believe in then so be it.
Deletelive and let live!
DeleteI am so confused on what the New Aetheism is about because it doesn't even talk about it in the article. I agree with Emily that the article is talking about the exact opposite, but, because the author was so biased on his claims that are completely ridicuous and uneducated. I had to laugh a little bit becuase this man is supposed to be very intelligent, yet posts stuff like that on Twitter, for the world to see, and he sounds like a total uneducated A**.
DeleteHere are some essays for background:
ReplyDelete* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_atheism
* http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/sep/19/new-atheism-meaning
* http://philosophynow.org/issues/78/New_Atheists_and_Old_Atheists
I think that atheism is alright. Whether or not we choose to embrace a religion or science, I think that the journey of which we come to terms and stand by these beliefs is important to being human. If a person invests and believes in something wholeheartedly, then it is the truth. Since it is not your or my truth, who is to say it’s not that person's truth? In their world, that is the way they see it, but it does not make what you or I believe in any less of the truth either. Being human is about being able to go on a journey to explore in search of these things and then live life accordingly to the belief we hold true. This said, every religion or idea of thought would reign true. So why does the “new atheist” denounce even the idea of religion? They say religions cause problems like war and greed…
ReplyDeleteI think its fine that they believe that, but I disagree. All religions and beliefs would be compatible and exist harmoniously if we all did. The issue lies in instances when certain individuals, like these new atheists and other religious extremists, totally degrade or denounce other's beliefs. In my opinion, as long as someone is to come to their religious or non-religious understanding of life through their own process and without influence of others, then go for it because human growth and attainment of philosophy is what is important. I think it is a huge part of the life process and idea of "self-actualization" that we are to determine, but we must achieve this alone. My truth is represented by all religions and science, because human interaction and the relationships that we have are the basis to human nature. Even though I conform to most Christian traditions in terms of sharing experiences with my family and with my community, I embrace all religions. And so, I guess I have to acknowledge the ’new’ atheist also.
I agree with Jackie. Every individual has there own beliefs which they are entitled to. Many have faith and are religious while others believe in science and evolution. There are a number of individuals who don't know what to believe or have mixed emotions. My immediate family is not very relious and I have always been unsure of the truth growing up, but I do have beliefs in a higher power. I belief that someone is responsible for creating such an amazing world and the miracles that come with it. I also believe that different cultures, races, and religions could be compatible but it is important to realize and accept the differences in people. Unlike the atheists in this situation try not to push your beliefs but express them. Talking about different views may help those who do have questions and are unsure of what to believe.
ReplyDeleteI definitely think that one should read that article with the understanding that it has a definite tone on the matter at hand. You must be sensitive to that before you "buy into" or condone anything--and that goes for all articles. It's pretty apparent that the author frowns upon the way that "new" atheists are confronting Christianity.
ReplyDeleteWith that being said, I respect atheists and Christians alike. My own personal beliefs wobble somewhere in the "agnostic" area, with a tendency to claim Catholicism because of my own upbringing and the nostalgia that accompanies smelling burning incense and seeing light streaming through stained glass windows.
I will always condone free speech and practice. I think this new "brand" of outspoken atheists are being criticized, when in reality Christians speak out against atheism all the time.
However--what did upset me in this article was the stereotyping of the religion of Islam. I do believe that Muslim extremists are a very small percentage of a vast nation of people. There are extremist christians--ones who have committed ghastly acts of violence as well (anyone ever heard of the crusades??). So, typecasting a huge percentage of our population like that is deplorable and inherently wrong to me.
This article really confused me. I believe that it was mainly because I am not that familiar with all aspects of atheism. But I see this article as very biased and controversial.
ReplyDeleteAtheism is bologna. This article is crap. This is a blog so I feel I can speak my opinion. I know there are many people out there who do not believe in God. But like I have always said, and probably like many other students at Thomas More since it is a Catholic College, I am Catholic and was born and raised that way. So when reading this article, I just thought it was dumb and made no sense. In my opinion, it was just a controversial POS. But that's just me.
ReplyDeleteHonestly I didn't this article at all. It was very clear to me that the author was just bashing three men who label themselves new athiests and then stereotyping other athiests into that group. I for one am agnostic and lean more towards the athiest side and I personally have no problems with other religions and the people who practise them. I do however have a problem with hypocritical and disrespectful authors who bash on others for their own personal views and opinions. If he really wanted to get his point across he as an author should of set a better example himself. By seemingly lowering himself to their level by the type of language he used in this article made it almost painful to read and made the author come off uneducated and immature. Whether or not you agree with the actions and opions of those three men you do need to respect the fact that they have the same freedoms to express themselves and what they believe in the same way christians and muslims do. Unless they are causing public panic or direct physical harm to people I don't see why they can't say what they said. Do I think the way they conducted themselves seem rather offensive? of course. The author of this article to me did the same thing though! If the author of the article really disapproved of what these gentlemen were saying then why was he following their tweets? Just don't associate yourself with those kinds of people then. Sticks and stones. Also the author shouldn't make assumptions if he wants to sound credible and should not imply that science and evolution are opposing religion. There are many scientists that are devout religious followers and if he really new anything about the theory of evolution then he would know that it doesn't have to conflict with religious views unless the person is opposed to alternative interpretations of the bible. For someone who mocked the fact that these three men were intelligent in the field of science, he obviously was lacking in his own realm of knowledge of the subject. Overall it was B.S on both parts. The author needs to find something else to do with his free time then waste it by looking like a total jerk by writing offensive articles on the internet.
ReplyDeleteI used to tell everyone I was atheist but never knew what it meant; I thought atheism was just that you didn't believe in Jesus. That was stupid. However I have a better grasp on it now, it is not a view I really support because I'd like to believe more is to come in the afterlife but who knows. The author sounds like he threw this together and wished to confuse everyone intended to read this article. It will always be disputed, however, I think it's somewhat ridiculous this group was going off assumptions because it makes their case much less credible.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jackie, I believe that science and religion do not make a difference. I may be Catholic, however I also have an extreme interest in Science and I understand how it works. There are things in the religion that I do not believe and things that I cannot be convinced to believe because of significant knowledge in science. There are also things I believe because of my religious education. I also agree with Cooper (and everyone else above it looks like) and believe that this article doesn't address what they seem to think it will. It is very confusing and gives no information on the atheist beliefs.
ReplyDeleteTo me, religion is not real. I do not believe that there is a god. I do not believe that a woman was able to conceive a child from the holy spirit. I do not believe in miracles. I do not believe god had a son, who was nailed to a cross, killed, but then rose from the dead several days later. I think that religion is not realistic. However, I do not condone what the New Atheists are doing. It is not okay, in my opinion, for them to chastise others for their belief, and to openly speak out against religion. Personally, I keep my religious beliefs, or lack there of, to myself. I was raised catholic, my entire family is catholic. And the trouble of explaining to them that I do not share their beliefs simply is not worth it. Anyway, I believe that people are entitled to believe whatever it is that they wish to believe. While I do not necessarily believe in religion, I think that it is good. I chose to view religion as a social construct. Religion brings people together. It unities people with similar beliefs. For some, a scientific explanation for everything is pessimistic. They like the ideal of there being a god, a creator, because they believe it gives a meaning to life. It allows them to believe that life has a purpose. It gives them hope. So yes, while I would not consider myself religious (at this point in my life), I think that religion does serve a purpose, and I would never seek to take that away from people.
ReplyDelete