Are the "New Atheists" fundamentalists?

[evangelicalhumanist]

Or a gay nirvana Chinese are not as homophobic as Westerners I think.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself!

Just because there are more men than women doesn't increase the percentage of men who are gay. And it ain't nirvana to contemplate making love to some you don't want, or who doesn't want you! (There is a myth that gay guys all want to seduce straight men. We don't. They're boring, uninterested and unresponsive!)

As to whether the Chinese are more or less homophobic, I suspect that has more to do with a lack of monotheistic dogma, and a lot of realism.

[Baruch]

I put my point too strong. So please accept my apology. All men groups who have no means of escape ... pirate societies and prison inmates ... have a high incidence of at least involuntary stress relief. And of course I knew, that gay men don't have an interest in straight men (at least after they find out we are straight)

Shalom

[evangelicalhumanist]

No apology necessary, I wasn't railing against you! I was trying to be slightly tongue-in-cheek myself. Must've missed it a tad.

[Baruch]

Your emoticon in both cases, looks like it is having a schizoid episode ... I was afraid for it

Shalom

[Greatest I am]

The author Chris Hedges (among others), in his new book "I Don't Believe in Atheists," makes the claim that the so-called "New Atheists" (Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, as well as Daniel Dennet, Michel Onfrey and others) do not make moral arguments about religion. Rather, they have created a new form of fundamentalism that attempts to permeate society with ideas about our own moral superiority and the omnipotence of human reason.

Although there is much that seems to ring quite true in the various books written by the New Atheists, I can't help but feeling that Hedges has a legitimate point.

Any thoughts?

I did not read all the posts but I did note that you said that the above authors do not make moral judgements or arguments. Not so with Hitchens at least as I have heard him say much about the immorality of the concept of Jesus dying for the sins of his followers. I happen to agree with his moral view.

On the basic idea of fundamentals, it is my view, that all of us are fairly fundamental to our own way of thinking be we religionists, atheists or whatever.
one has to work fairly hard at changing the minds of anyone who has a firm belief in whatever world view or paradigm he or she has created.

In various debates that I have had, very few opponents have ever flat out come back after a issue winning post to admit that they have switched sides.
They just mostly drop out. It seems that for them to actually say, you win, is one of the hardest things for them to do even when 3 o4 4 of those watching the debate come down on them en mass, so to speak.
Even in person, the same seems to hold true as I have won on some issue against a group and some will know when they are beat while others, even at the urging of their once supporters, will not bow to a winning point.

Am I wrong then if I say that even you, whoever would like to comment, are loathe to change your minds on an issue once you have taken a position. I admit that I am strongly fundamental to the paradigm I have created and I will put money on the fact that most here are the same.

Thoughts.

Regards
DL

PS. Hi Baruch, we meet again in a better format than OCRT. I assume that you are he.

[Baruch]

Here is only one me, they broke the mold after the first copy ... and I am everywhere, Super Chicken Little Man ... fear my crow!

Yes, this is a less public, more mature, more serious forum. You are forgiven for not having read at least all of my posts here, since there are over 1000 now

While I agree that people are unlikely to change their minds, that is because a win is usually against some axiom, not against some theorem, that they have mistakenly deduced from their own axioms. Axioms die hard. The American Dream for instance.

I also agree that on the face of it, the idea of any man, let alone the one and only god-man, to have died for anyone's sins, is morally objectionable, I did want to defend animal sacrifice, whether prehistoric or Jewish. Presently quite a few animals and plants die for my hunger and my convenience ... not for so noble a purpose as my sin. Though a few Jews, still celebrate kapparah, the sacrifice of a male chicken for a man or a female chicken for a woman, around the time of Rosh HaShanah, the Jewish New Year. In rabbinic Judaism, prayer is substituted at Yom Kippur (a few days after Rosh HaShanah) as atonement, in place of the Temple animal sacrifice, and no chickens are harmed in the making of those prayers, which basically are an extended apology for the failings of the past year.

In primitive society such as Plains Indians, or in more advanced ones like the Jewish Temple cult, think of the animal sacrifices as a sacred barbeque. In many cases, part of the animals sacrificed were provided as food for the Temple priesthood. It is better to have a religious ritual where atonement is sought (from the animal's clan if Plains Indian or from G-d if Jewish) as part of the consumption of meat? Or just our banal industrial process where the animals are treated without any respect at all? I think, unless one is a vegetarian, the more traditional religious ritual is more civilized than the modern one.

Shalom

[evangelicalhumanist]

I did not read all the posts but I did note that you said that the above authors do not make moral judgements or arguments. Not so with Hitchens at least as I have heard him say much about the immorality of the concept of Jesus dying for the sins of his followers. I happen to agree with his moral view.

Actually, no. I said that Chris Hedges likely had a legitimate point to make, and that the "New Atheists" are making judgments and arguments that I don't think are fully justified.

On the basic idea of fundamentals, it is my view, that all of us are fairly fundamental to our own way of thinking be we religionists, atheists or whatever.
one has to work fairly hard at changing the minds of anyone who has a firm belief in whatever world view or paradigm he or she has created.

Whenever we have a belief, and that belief is important to us and our world-view, certainly that belief is going to be hard to dislodge. And almost as certainly, we're going to want others to share it -- there is a certain comfort in knowing that what you believe to be true is also believed by others.

But as to whether I would change my mind? I've changed my views on any number of issues over the course of my life, or so I imagine. I can be just as dogmatic as anyone I know, but when I am finally presented with contrary evidence or rationale, I will not discount it. Like everyone else, I may be somewhat reluctant, but I will look. I'm not afraid to look. And if what I see is compelling, well then, I am compelled...

[Baruch]

Compelled? Truth comes from the barrel of a gun ... Mao Tse Tung. One paradigm succeeds another (per recent science philosophy) because all the academic defenders of the old order have died off. It is not known if Red Guards are still used for this purpose in Chinese academia.

I share, you share. Both of us are subtly changed.

Shalom

[evangelicalhumanist]

I share, you share. Both of us are subtly changed.

Very nicely said. My respects on your precision and wisdom, sir!

[Baruch]

A toast to GIA aka DL ... since I know him from OCRT. I respect him, because he is his own man. Everyone here is ... at that level of maturity, or gerontocracy Not knocking the dependent or immature ... they are the future whether we like it or not! Time was when I could only parrot some expert myself.

Shalom