Interesting editorial. Thoughts?
Godless grifters: How the New Atheists merged with the far right | Salon.com
Godless grifters: How the New Atheists merged with the far right | Salon.com
Post Reply
1 of 1
Godless grifters: How the New Atheists merged with the Far Right
1,117 Views |
9 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by Dilettante
This guy seems really hot and bothered that anyone might take a slightly right-wing position.
You read Salon.com?
I'm curious, what are your thoughts on this? Why did you post this? What sort of discussion were you hoping to generate?
The author writes that this isn't meant to be ad-hominem, but it's exactly what it sounds like. He takes Michael Shermer to task for referring to SJWs as "mealy-mouthed, whiney, sniveling, and obsequious," yet himself refers to new atheists as "self-aggrandizing, dogmatic, irascible, censorious, morally compromised people." He takes Lawrence Krauss to task for sexual assault, but beats the most-beaten dead-horse elevatorgate with Dawkins. He takes Harris to task for Islamophobic comments, but those comments shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who read the End of Faith back in 2005 or 2006, or he takes him to task for espousing a view he disagrees with. His stance against Islam is an intrinsic part of his claim fo fame. This article is so chaotic that it's hard to pin down anything in particular to respond to.
The purpose of this article seems to be for the author to express his frustrations with New Atheism, and if that's what he wants to do he is of course free to do so. And I can agree that some of the sexual misconduct has been bad. But he seems to want New Atheism to be some champion of the left, which it never was. I think it's silly to launch an ad-hominem attack on someone for taking a (perceived) right-wing position, when it was never their claim to do otherwise..
The author writes that this isn't meant to be ad-hominem, but it's exactly what it sounds like. He takes Michael Shermer to task for referring to SJWs as "mealy-mouthed, whiney, sniveling, and obsequious," yet himself refers to new atheists as "self-aggrandizing, dogmatic, irascible, censorious, morally compromised people." He takes Lawrence Krauss to task for sexual assault, but beats the most-beaten dead-horse elevatorgate with Dawkins. He takes Harris to task for Islamophobic comments, but those comments shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who read the End of Faith back in 2005 or 2006, or he takes him to task for espousing a view he disagrees with. His stance against Islam is an intrinsic part of his claim fo fame. This article is so chaotic that it's hard to pin down anything in particular to respond to.
The purpose of this article seems to be for the author to express his frustrations with New Atheism, and if that's what he wants to do he is of course free to do so. And I can agree that some of the sexual misconduct has been bad. But he seems to want New Atheism to be some champion of the left, which it never was. I think it's silly to launch an ad-hominem attack on someone for taking a (perceived) right-wing position, when it was never their claim to do otherwise..
Don't exactly have a specific discussion in mind. I posted it here because this forum, although far from perfect, does allow discussion more than any other forum, particularly F16. In addition, I know that several atheists post here and am interested in their reactions.Quote:
I'm curious, what are your thoughts on this? Why did you post this? What sort of discussion were you hoping to generate?
My reaction to the editorial is that the author was incredibly lacking in self-awareness. He seems to be as guilty of the close-mindedness and tunnel vision as those with whom he disagrees. In other words, he fits the stereotype that he disparages, although he may be their mirror image.
He also seems to like to use the word "fascist" a lot.
Jabin said:Don't exactly have a specific discussion in mind. I posted it here because this forum, although far from perfect, does allow discussion more than any other forum, particularly F16. In addition, I know that several atheists post here and am interested in their reactions.Quote:
I'm curious, what are your thoughts on this? Why did you post this? What sort of discussion were you hoping to generate?
My reaction to the editorial is that the author was incredibly lacking in self-awareness. He seems to be as guilty of the close-mindedness and tunnel vision as those with whom he disagrees. In other words, he fits the stereotype that he disparages, although he may be their mirror image.
He also seems to like to use the word "fascist" a lot.
Your last sentence is one reason I don't read salon. I used to read the Huffington Post back in the day but both are as self-absorbed in unchallenged left-think as Fox is in right-think.
It is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness- Sir Terence Pratchett
“ III stooges si viveret et nos omnes ad quos etiam probabile est mittent custard pies”
“ III stooges si viveret et nos omnes ad quos etiam probabile est mittent custard pies”
I think where the author of this article and I severely differ on our view of atheism is that he strangely expects it to be a comprehensive world view. It's not and it never will be. You can have far left atheists and centrist atheists and far right atheists because atheism itself is not a political position except in countries which mandate some specific religious belief.
Admittedly I don't keep up with the gossip on New Atheists authors because quite frankly I don't care. Sam Harris might be a complete P.O.S., so what? Even if I read his books and thought he makes a compelling argument on some point the validity of that point has nothing to do with him personally. It either stands on its own merits or it doesn't. Once you start thinking otherwise you begin to raise these figures up on to a pedestal that they don't deserve.
I have no expectation that the people I agree with on political views will also agree with me on religious views or vice versa. And a big part of that is why I always argue against people who claim atheism is a religion. Atheism is no more a religion than plain theism is. Just a belief that there are or aren't gods lacks the trappings of an actual religion which instructs its adherents on the implications of that belief for the believer.
Admittedly I don't keep up with the gossip on New Atheists authors because quite frankly I don't care. Sam Harris might be a complete P.O.S., so what? Even if I read his books and thought he makes a compelling argument on some point the validity of that point has nothing to do with him personally. It either stands on its own merits or it doesn't. Once you start thinking otherwise you begin to raise these figures up on to a pedestal that they don't deserve.
I have no expectation that the people I agree with on political views will also agree with me on religious views or vice versa. And a big part of that is why I always argue against people who claim atheism is a religion. Atheism is no more a religion than plain theism is. Just a belief that there are or aren't gods lacks the trappings of an actual religion which instructs its adherents on the implications of that belief for the believer.
I don't know why you expect this group to be super left anyways. This group is male dominated and white dominated those two demographics alone are going to align towards the right. All demographic categories are an overlap in influence. Just because you aren't a Jesus take the wheel republican doesn't really indicate too much about what you are.
I skimmed the article and felt like basically the author was be moaning the fact that not just unenlightened Evangelicals conservatives voted for Trump, but even some "intelligent" atheists aligned themselves with Trump.Jabin said:
Interesting editorial. Thoughts?
Godless grifters: How the New Atheists merged with the far right | Salon.com
Simply a liberal edification piece imho.
And the arrogance seeps from the sentences like water from damp ground.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
So let me get this straight. The New Atheists made their names by being controversial, free-thinking shock jocks are not aligning with the left's new cancel culture and hyper political correctness. Who could have seen that coming?
The rest is just ad hominems and the writer whining that they don't have his exact morality
The rest is just ad hominems and the writer whining that they don't have his exact morality
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
The term new atheism to me doesn't mean anything more than 4 guys who wrote angry books saying religion is dumb. I don't know of anyone who identifies much with that classification.
I don't care much about those guys or their movement, and I care even less about the Salon author's opinions. I think most atheists feel that way.
I don't care much about those guys or their movement, and I care even less about the Salon author's opinions. I think most atheists feel that way.