You spend enough time with New Atheists, and you very quickly discover why the movement tripped over its own dick and died back in the '00s.
Christopher Hitchens secularizing the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, Sam Harris secularizing Islamophobia, Richard Dawkins secularizing misogyny. Joel Osteen juice and crackers seem far more attractive than some greasy, hollow-eyed Objectivist preaching nihilism and genocide in the name of corporate profits.
The leaders of the New Atheist movement are not heroes; they are certainly imperfect. I agree with all of your criticisms, but you say nothing of the bulk of their work.
Hitchens’ God is Not Great will stand the test of time; his Islamophobia will not.
Dawkins’ The God Delusion is still correct, despite his late-in-life transphobia and “cultural Christianity”.
If we take “atheism” to mean the vague “lack of belief in any deities”, then atheism is still on the rise by a significant amount.
It is, however, a hilariously ironic notion that atheism fails where Christianity succeeds: being appropriated by the far-right to spread bigotry and fascism.
I guess there’s a far bigger gap in intelligence between the atheists and the religious than the religious would ever be comfortable acknowledging.
It is, however, a hilariously ironic notion that atheism fails where Christianity succeeds: being appropriated by the far-right to spread bigotry and fascism.
I would argue that it’s not funny or ironic. The right is defined by their pursuit of consolidating power and authority at all costs. Anything and everything is a resource to exploited toward advancing their selfish misanthropic ends. They will appropriate anything and vilify what they can’t successfully appropriate. This isn’t irony, it’s a core tenet of rightism.
I tend to think that any conclusion that could be reasonably summarized as “I (or a group I belong to) am smart and everyone else is stupid” is not an opinion rooted in objectivity and is therefore very likely to be heavily biased.
You spend enough time with New Atheists, and you very quickly discover why the movement tripped over its own dick and died back in the '00s.
Christopher Hitchens secularizing the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, Sam Harris secularizing Islamophobia, Richard Dawkins secularizing misogyny. Joel Osteen juice and crackers seem far more attractive than some greasy, hollow-eyed Objectivist preaching nihilism and genocide in the name of corporate profits.
The leaders of the New Atheist movement are not heroes; they are certainly imperfect. I agree with all of your criticisms, but you say nothing of the bulk of their work.
Hitchens’ God is Not Great will stand the test of time; his Islamophobia will not.
Dawkins’ The God Delusion is still correct, despite his late-in-life transphobia and “cultural Christianity”.
At least in the US, younger generations are still increasingly nonreligious
If we take “atheism” to mean the vague “lack of belief in any deities”, then atheism is still on the rise by a significant amount.
It is, however, a hilariously ironic notion that atheism fails where Christianity succeeds: being appropriated by the far-right to spread bigotry and fascism.
I guess there’s a far bigger gap in intelligence between the atheists and the religious than the religious would ever be comfortable acknowledging.
I would argue that it’s not funny or ironic. The right is defined by their pursuit of consolidating power and authority at all costs. Anything and everything is a resource to exploited toward advancing their selfish misanthropic ends. They will appropriate anything and vilify what they can’t successfully appropriate. This isn’t irony, it’s a core tenet of rightism.
You’d never know it when you listen to YouTube Atheists talk. It’s all the same reactionary clickbait bigotry we’ve come to expect from the Internet.
Well how else will they get the algorithm to promote their videos
I tend to think that any conclusion that could be reasonably summarized as “I (or a group I belong to) am smart and everyone else is stupid” is not an opinion rooted in objectivity and is therefore very likely to be heavily biased.