Their works – Dawkins’s, The God Delusion, Harris’s, The End of Faith, Dennett’s, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, and Hitchens’s, God Is Not Great – were all essentially written as a blind reaction to the 9/11 terrorist attacks and all zoomed in on Islam and the Muslim world, demonstrating a remarkable ignorance of both.
Needless to say, none of the four was able to offer any serious historical understanding of this terror act, why it happened, what it meant, or how to prevent similar acts of wanton violence in the future. Nor did they make any intellectually challenging or noteworthy contribution to the millennia-old debate on belief and disbelief in God.
That publishers have chosen to resurrect, today, this 12-year-old Islamophobic backslapping session advertised as a “landmark discussion about modern atheism” is indeed quite telling. With white supremacy currently flourishing in the US and elsewhere, a book on “new atheism” – a pseudo-intellectual movement that has heavily contributed to its rise – would surely sell.
Before proceeding any further, let us be clear: Atheism as such is a perfectly healthy proposition and the world, including the Muslim part of it, has never been devoid of atheists – all the power to them.
Across religions and cultures, there are decent and reasonable atheists, as there are equally decent and reasonable believers, who can and should openly engage in debate about religion and the belief in God without succumbing to hatred and convictions in one’s supremacy. Such open and honest conversations are indeed healthy for any community or nation and should be encouraged.
So who are these four “new atheist” crusaders (yes, they may deny it, but they are indeed very much the product of the white Western Christian crusader tradition)? They are all white older men, who have never embarked on studying Islam, do not speak Arabic – the language of the Qur’an – and certainly have no special insight into any Muslim community on earth. They are, literally, illiterate.
If I’m trying to make a point with a single bolded sentence I would maybe choose my words carefully and not use the term for a broad group if I’m talking about a specific subset. They didn’t say ‘the new atheism movement’ they said ‘atheism’.
If I was ignorant on how fascism have been again entrenching itself in western society over the last 20 years, on how and through which pipelines ideologies were spread I would at least stay silent instead of trying to pull out semantics :v
So I guess by your logic it’s fair to say Islam is terroristic. Obviously distinguishing between the broader Islamic community and boko haram or al qaeda is just semantics.
*gotta wonder if the downvoters realize I was doing argumentum ad absurdum or if they think I was unironically saying that
Yeah surely broader islamic community congregated in millions on social media and forums between 2006 and 2016, mainly in western countries, mainly appealing to young disenfranchised men. To don’t know the context, you either got on to the internet in 2020’s or somehow, for 20 fucking years did not encounter an atheist from this batch, either irl or online. Or you’re deliberately bullshitting.
Your false dichotomy of every atheist is either a white supremacist or a communist is still completely batshit even if some fraction of new atheists fell into the far right pipeline.
Some new atheists went on to become fascist does not mean every person who followed r/atheism in 2010 is now a white supremacist or a communist, that’s fucking insane.
I’ve always read it as more of a warning. Warning as to what will happen when you leave out the fundamental issues, who’s interest will be then furthered, what will be ingrained in the conscious and subconscious of the masses.
And it’s not even mine, it’s a paraphrase of Chico Mendes.
This is actually really complicated because of the way Christian identity is woven into colonialism, white supremacy, and the west overall. I fully agree with you that there’s a sort of new atheism that can and has been a deadly pipeline to hate and Islamophobia, but also, the growth in the population of unbelievers especially in the United States and Europe is imo a positive trend to breaking so many people free from delusions that keeps them living in a separate reality and creates a different flavor of Islamophobia alongside other bigotries against the LGBTQ+ community and many other groups.
That’s not what illiterate means. If that was the case, every person on Earth who doesn’t speak Arabic and study Islam would be illiterate… which is of course completely ridiculous, and bigoted, for that matter.
It’s like becoming a “China critic” without speaking any Chinese or having any concept of Chinese culture but instead repeating racist stereotypes about Chinese people you saw on Fox News.
I don’t speak Chinese, know very little about Chinese culture or Chinese history. Am I therefore banned from criticizing the well documented and ongoing violations of human rights in China? The treatment of Uighurs, the death penalty, the lack of democracy, the suppression of women’s rights?
I know that you responded to me with insults, which is not only rude but also in violation of one of the rules of the channel.
That said, I don’t need to be an expert in any country’s culture or history to criticize them when they violate basic human rights. I didn’t think that was controversial, but aparently it is, at least to some.
Sure, lying isn’t adding to anyone’s credibility, but let’s say I claim to next to nothing about the previously mentioned Chinese culture or history, but know a lot about human rights? I don’t have to be an expert on China to know that their actions on human rights are terrible.
If by atheism you mean anti-islamism you might have a case. ‘lacking belief in a god is inherently white’ is a fucking wild take.
The resurrection of ‘new atheism’ - As white supremacy reigns supreme in the US, a new book seeks to bring back to the fore one of its ideological branches.
If I’m trying to make a point with a single bolded sentence I would maybe choose my words carefully and not use the term for a broad group if I’m talking about a specific subset. They didn’t say ‘the new atheism movement’ they said ‘atheism’.
This is about how Atheism can (and has) be used for colonialism, not that it necessarily follows or must be an integral part of it.
Ironically the New Atheist movement primarily just recycles crusader-age Christian propaganda
If I was ignorant on how fascism have been again entrenching itself in western society over the last 20 years, on how and through which pipelines ideologies were spread I would at least stay silent instead of trying to pull out semantics :v
So I guess by your logic it’s fair to say Islam is terroristic. Obviously distinguishing between the broader Islamic community and boko haram or al qaeda is just semantics.
*gotta wonder if the downvoters realize I was doing argumentum ad absurdum or if they think I was unironically saying that
Yeah surely broader islamic community congregated in millions on social media and forums between 2006 and 2016, mainly in western countries, mainly appealing to young disenfranchised men. To don’t know the context, you either got on to the internet in 2020’s or somehow, for 20 fucking years did not encounter an atheist from this batch, either irl or online. Or you’re deliberately bullshitting.
Your false dichotomy of every atheist is either a white supremacist or a communist is still completely batshit even if some fraction of new atheists fell into the far right pipeline.
Some new atheists went on to become fascist does not mean every person who followed r/atheism in 2010 is now a white supremacist or a communist, that’s fucking insane.
I’ve always read it as more of a warning. Warning as to what will happen when you leave out the fundamental issues, who’s interest will be then furthered, what will be ingrained in the conscious and subconscious of the masses.
And it’s not even mine, it’s a paraphrase of Chico Mendes.
This is actually really complicated because of the way Christian identity is woven into colonialism, white supremacy, and the west overall. I fully agree with you that there’s a sort of new atheism that can and has been a deadly pipeline to hate and Islamophobia, but also, the growth in the population of unbelievers especially in the United States and Europe is imo a positive trend to breaking so many people free from delusions that keeps them living in a separate reality and creates a different flavor of Islamophobia alongside other bigotries against the LGBTQ+ community and many other groups.
Not an easy subject to unpack
That’s not what illiterate means. If that was the case, every person on Earth who doesn’t speak Arabic and study Islam would be illiterate… which is of course completely ridiculous, and bigoted, for that matter.
It’s like becoming a “China critic” without speaking any Chinese or having any concept of Chinese culture but instead repeating racist stereotypes about Chinese people you saw on Fox News.
I don’t speak Chinese, know very little about Chinese culture or Chinese history. Am I therefore banned from criticizing the well documented and ongoing violations of human rights in China? The treatment of Uighurs, the death penalty, the lack of democracy, the suppression of women’s rights?
Yes, if you don’t know what you talking about shut the fuck up, free speech is not for telling the entire world how dumb you are.
Thanks for the respectful response. Always nice to talk to someone who knows how to behave themselves and treat strangers well.
You don’t know shit but are trying to be a smart ass and you’re surprised that your vanity doesn’t sit well with people?
I know that you responded to me with insults, which is not only rude but also in violation of one of the rules of the channel.
That said, I don’t need to be an expert in any country’s culture or history to criticize them when they violate basic human rights. I didn’t think that was controversial, but aparently it is, at least to some.
Now imagine you deleted that part of your comment and replaced it by saying you’re an expert on China and Chinese human rights.
Imagine I did, would that give more or less credibility to my disdain of how the Chinese government is behaving in regards to these issues?
Less because you’d be lying about that so the rest of the comment would be dubious as well.
Sure, lying isn’t adding to anyone’s credibility, but let’s say I claim to next to nothing about the previously mentioned Chinese culture or history, but know a lot about human rights? I don’t have to be an expert on China to know that their actions on human rights are terrible.