[...]Saint Gasoline » Blog Archive » On Atheist “Extremism”[...]…

Ultimately unnecessary, to the strictly analytical mind. It’s why ‘soft sciences’ such as Psychology and ‘Why and How’ of such nebulous things such as the human mind is again, pointless.

I’m not a theist, and I don’t much care for atheism either because of their own dogma of analytical thought that stifles creative freedom.

I suppose what stands out as a food for thought, to me at least, is that Atheists have never had true political power. Certainly not on a national or global scale. Religion is deeply rooted in the human psyche, and has been since our most primitive cousins.

But what if they /did/ have a nation, a true political clout that translates to power and the means to control others.

Would they be above such terrible acts? Perhaps it is merely my cynicism but I don’t believe so. Money, Government, ‘Ownership’ are all things that have tempted men into doing horrible things, religious conviction isn’t the only symptom of the human condition.

But, I suppose I’m merely rambling at this point. – I hope I have at least communicated some of what I wanted to.

Also, I am not pretending that being an asshole is acceptable behavior. Rather, the problem is that mild questioning is frequently seen as “assholish” by theists, or characterized as “militant” and “extreme” when clearly these are exaggerations. You have misread this post if you think I’m saying “Two wrongs make a right: they’re assholes so we should be assholes, too.” My argument is that extremism in other social movements has typically been violent, and that is not the case for the New Atheism, and that if people want to try to silence atheists by characterizing their benign actions as “rude” or even “militant,” then I accept their false designations, knowing full well I don’t behave as badly as those words typically imply.

Reading comprehension, apple. It isn’t fucking rocket science. And for someone critical of people behaving like assholes, and that two wrongs don’t make a right, you sure have a funny way of showing it.

why think about that when you can just pretend that being an asshole is acceptable behaviour. it can get much worse.

are you trying to reach some sort of understanding, or are you just trying to start some shit because you’re unable to step down from your pedestal?

geez, criticise theists all you want, you guys are still blind to the real problem at hand.

why accept that people are shitty no matter what when you can get out all your frustration and anger on one DIVERSE group of people.

quit griping and acting like smug assholes. religious extremists aren’t going to stop their shit if you just act like assholes.

it pisses me off that everyone thinks “well, they’re asshole, so i have to be an asshole too”

two wrongs don’t make a right. i mean, goddamn it, this isn’t fucking rocket science.

This post made very clear something I’ve seen vaguely referenced on other atheist sites – the shift from nihilistic “old atheism” to scientific “new atheism.” While I, like most atheists I’ve spoken to, have a very analytical, scientific thought process, I find myself in both camps! My lack of belief in a god or afterlife has led me to the (I thought, logical) conclusion of the pointlessness of life. I’m also strongly morally relativistic, although I feel that’s unrelated.

It has been somewhat confusing to so strongly identify with the “new atheist” movement, until someone mentions nihilistic philosophy and it is essentially waved off as, “Oh, *those people.* Don’t worry, there’s none of *them* here.”

Would that be so awful? I have not suffered any from my philosophical standpoint, and I am certainly not the stereotypical “life is pointless so I can do terrible things with no consequences” nihilist. I even feel that my beliefs have made me happier and less judgmental than the average person.

Perhaps somebody here can help me. Am I misunderstanding my philosophy, and identifying with the wrong group? Am I misunderstanding the depth of the divide between atheism “types?” Or am I correct in feeling unwelcome?

I am one of the people that states that most of the problems of the world are, and always have been, caused by religion. Think of Northern Ireland, the Mid-East, Family Planning Clinic Bombings, Homophobia, and the suppression of women. Then there were the Crusades, Inquisition, witch burnings, and the dark ages. Get the idea? Tell us all now, which of these didn’t happen and name the ones not caused by religion?

At the end, you try to weasel out of having to back up your comments with verifiable facts by saying “this is just an opinion”. If you really knew anything about atheists, you would know that opinions are worthless if they are not backed by evidence. You provide no verifiable evidence for anything you have posted. You should not be disappointed when your words are met with derision and contempt.

Your experience of “new atheists” seems to have been very small, or your perceptions and memories of them are warped by bias.

The Web is full of writing by “new atheists” that undermines your list. The current article is a case in point, but you seem totally unable to comprehend this. Why is that, do you think?

but why i refrain myself from being called an atheist is because of the basic intolerance of altenrative ways to living lives that comes out when people like you present ourself.

maybe the very essense of your expression may not be as clear but how it comes off is extreme. i know comparing atheists with religious nut jobs is slightly unfair but i will tell you what they have in common

1) arrogance

2) delusion: most of the new atheist movement followers i have met are convinced that religion is the root of all evil and religion should be completly done with just like religious nut jobs believe their religion is the only way to go ahead. there isnt any mind way its my way or the high way.

3) they both claim tolerance while in reality they arent tolerable to any other opinion because both are convinced that they actually know it all.

4) both use the slippery slope and ad hoimenum attacks to justify themselves.

5) denial: they live in denial when they actually think they are listening to the other person when they actually totally convinced and cannot even see that.

6) Both are more concerned with convincing others that they are more moral and wise than in actually seeking the truth.

Again this is just a opinion