The New Atheism vs. Atheism 3.0
(Editorial Comment from the American Heathen® radio show – Air Date 11/06/09)
Atheism 3.0. They call it a kinder, gentler Atheism, devoid of malice, anger, and confrontation, but prominent and open. It’s a form of Atheism that embraces religion as a positive contributor to the human condition and the world. On the other side of the godless fence stands the New Atheism. It is bold, confrontational, relentless, and calls religion out, holding it responsible for its hypocrisy, self-righteousness and bigotry. Some are calling these two different views a schism, a fracture in the foundation of non-belief. I call it bullshit.
I ascribe to the New Atheism ideal. I refuse to allow religion a free pass. For centuries, religion has run roughshod over political and social justice. It has denigrated the human spirit and ripped reason and logic from their rightful place in human endeavor. Religion terrorizes, conquers and destroys in the name of mythology. It does so with malice and contempt. It knows no bounds in its totalitarian crusade to rid human beings of independent thought and action.
Yes, there are two ideals here. But, they aren’t the only ones. It has been said many times before, Atheists are like cats. Trying to get us together on any issue is like trying to herd cats. We’re far too independent and skeptical to follow a single train of thought. Indeed, it is the very nature of non-belief that pushes us away from a single, static thought process, and that keeps us just outside of arms reach of one another both politically and socially. There are plenty of ideas, as many as there are Atheists, Humanists, Agnostics. While we may share a few points of interest with one another, by no means do we share much more than that. There is one ideal that is shared by all though. And that is independent thought.
The so-called “fracture” within Atheism is an aberration. It’s an attempt to define and categorize the already basic human behavior of fight or flight. As I see it, the Atheist either chooses to stand and fight against repression, aggression, discrimination, and the lies and misinformation of religion, OR the Atheist chooses to capitulate, endear themselves and surrender to religion under the utopian notion of perfect peace and harmony. It really is that simple. Stand and fight, or Stockholm Syndrome.
The New Atheism is not really new. The war against religious tyranny has been raging for quite some time. It wasn’t until some prominent men and women opened their mouths in the public square that the war came into full public view. Madalyn Murray O’Hair, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Penn & Teller, Bill Maher, and a whole host of others, stepped out and spoke openly about non-belief. Others have since followed, and the truth about non-belief has become front page news. This New Atheism is not new. It’s simply louder, prouder, and more open than its earlier renditions. No longer contained in the dark corners of the individual’s mind, it has escaped from the cell of religious bigotry and fear. This so-called “New Atheism” is calling religion out to account for its claims. It’s standing toe to toe, face to face, against religion’s fables and demanding evidence. It’s exposing long-standing religious bigotry and showing itself as more ethical and humane than any religious ideology.
Standing tall is not a bad thing. Standing proud and demanding evidence is the right thing. Exposing the fraud of religion is a good thing. These ideals are not new to Atheism. They are a time-tested antibiotic to the bacterium that is religion. But religion, unlike real bacteria, doesn’t evolve. It cannot stand against the assault of science, reason and logic. It merely changes shape, but never function. It does not adapt.
New Atheism? No. But, it is time for a re-issuance. It’s time for the Evolution of a Godless Revolution. And, I’m here to tell you… Religion cannot hide.
Atheism 3.0 is a fad, a brief, unrealistic utopian dream. It is the raising of the white flag by a few, fearful of reprisal, destined to serve, to be enslaved by religion’s dominionist crusade. It is ignorance for ignorance sake. Turn the other cheek, only to be whipped more severely than before under the lash of religion’s crop. It’s appeasement from fear. It will not last. Confrontation is truly the only way to purge religion’s designs for conquest of humanity. Confrontation and demand for proofs of divine existence must dominate our discourse with religion. The time for diplomatic gestures has passed. Blasphemy, heresy, mockery, disdain, fact over fiction, evidence over faith, these are the weapons that will enlighten the weak in faith, and force others to question their faith. These are the tools that will free the human mind to embrace the intrinsic human entitlement of liberty for all.
November 7, 2009 at 11:43 pm
Great editorial, RJ.
Hey, I wanted to clarify my comment in the chat room this past Friday. I said something to the effect of AU protecting religious freedoms but not necessarily protecting the full effect of the First Amendment.
I’ve posted there for some time, as you know, and have been exasperated at times, not understanding why a post of mine has been put into moderation, or even thrown into cyber oblivion to forever be gone for no apparent reason. I generally don’t swear, and I am usually not vulgar (nor do I appreciate it, as you might recall! I know, I know – vulgarity is a matter of opinion, right?). AU has done nothing to remove the word socialist from the filter, as if this is a dirty word.
I understand it is a fine line for maintaining decency and civility, but I also think there’s a fine line between stifling (or “moderating”) expression. It is Barry Lynn’s blog, but his disclaimer stating that the posts belong to the posters’ and not him, nor do they necessarily express AU’s views should suffice, leaving us free to speak without always curbing our tongue, or fingertips.
Also, the edit feature that all of us have wished for could work wonders as well! People often type the first thing to come to mind, and then think twice – within seconds of hitting submit.
I notice you have no edit feature…
November 8, 2009 at 1:06 am
Thanks Alba for the clarification. I appreciate it. As far as an edit feature here for comments… From what I can tell, the only editing available in this section is through my administrator account. WordPress doesn’t seem to have the option for me to set with regard to posters. Sorry.
November 8, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Atheist 3.0 sounds like a fad as you said but I can see why someone would label me under the 3.0 title. I don’t give a shit anymore about the statements opinions or beliefs of the religious. At one time I would get angry and offended with religious or political leaders who were saying dumb ass comments promoting their moral and religious ideologies . At one time I would get into debate with Christians trying desperately to show them how ridicules it was to have belief in god and how I thought they wasted their lives worshiping their imagination . But now I have come to the conclusion that its just to entertaing having these folks around and that I actually want religion to succeed so that I have more to laugh at . I want people to tell me think the world is 6000 years old, I want to hear some bible thumper to go off on how god hates homosexuals, fornicators and rock and roll , I have come to relish being told I will go to hell for my opinions and lifestyle, even if a Christian came to me for advice on leaving his or her religion I would encourage them to “stay with Christ “ just because I enjoy laughing at them so much . So I say long live religion I hope it has more success now then it has ever had .
“The whole universe is one vast morbid sense of humour” and that’s how I like it.
November 9, 2009 at 9:34 am
I’m somewhere in the middle between the two, I guess.
I’m in your face with my Atheism and certainly proud of it. I like your style, RJ. I also agree that it is more than past time to stand and fight and that we must. When they’re trying to make blasphemy illegal around the globe, it is time to stand and fight. It is time to blaspheme all the time and fight for your right to do so. The time to refrain out of respect is when there is no law that says you can’t and that is the only time to show that respect.
I am, however, mindful of individuals. There’s bad and good in any group and I’ve known too many good people who happen to be Christian to paint them with the same stripe as the hypocrites who hunger only after power, not the opiate of the masses. I do not want to go on some rampage against ALL Christians and punish the good with the bad. If my Christian friends respect me enough not to preach at me, then I’m, likewise, going to show them the same respect and not blaspheme to them. If they don’t tell me to live by their rules, I’m not going to tell them not to follow them. That’s they’re lifestyle choice.
The only time I’m going to take issue with any religion’s rules is when they threaten my safety and/or freedom. When the want to force the tenents of their religion into law — such as making blasphemy illegal — then, hell, yes, I’m going to object; I’m going to fight it any way that I can.
I’m not going to sit still for them teaching my grandson the nonsense of creationism as if it were something that should be taken seriously and considered science giving him a false impression of what science is.
If they’re going to make divorce difficult to obtain, I’m going to stand up and fight against that oppression. Hell, I’m of the opinion, divorce shouldn’t even have to be justified. If someone wants out of a marriage, they should be able to leave it. Point blank. Anything else is slavery or, at the very least, indentured servitude.
If they continue to put down single mothers, if they deny women abortion, if they wage holy wars, if, if, if, if….
Individual Christians, hell, I don’t even believe belief is a choice, live and let live. But the key there is live and let live. I’m content to let them live their way as long as they are content to let me live my way and leave the judging up to who they are supposed to trust to do it. Hell, why would I object to that? (More importantly, why would they?) I’d never be judged. If, however, they want to have me judged for disobeying biblical commandments and post such in our courtrooms even though they’re unconstitutional, I’m going to freaking well stand up and fight.
Individuals I take as I find them, including individual churches (though churces I don’t trust) but religious organizations are, for lack of a better word, evil and need to be fought.
Plain and simple.