Support NeoGAF

[Oppo]

Dawkins alt-right, i think not. That's like saying Ricky Gervais is alt-right.

He loves to rile people up but you know he'd vote 100% along progressive lines with a huge chunk of NeoGAF on the big issues.

I will say, as an apostate myself, I really resent this New Atheism thing, but I have found it is useful to simply avoid the term, depending on context and company. 99% of the time you can get across "non militant atheist" by simply identifying as "I'm not really religious". People will oddly respect that. You say atheist, it's a challenge to some.

Heard my young niece lay out the whole "atheism is it's own church" thing lately and was bummed, I tried to walk that back as best I could. Because I know what she saw or read and I know why she came to that conclusion, erroneous as it is.

 

[DragonGirl]

That's why I'm not an Atheist. I'm a Humanist.

I'm still an atheist, that doesn't go away for all I've disassociated with most of movement atheism which has decided to fly the bigot flag. Secular Humanism is the movement I support. Of all of the notable atheists I used to follow, PZ Myers is the only one I still respect without a load of addendum. (well, not the only one, there are still a lot of good higher profile people in the community, the disgusting thing though is the disgusting people have floated to the top thanks to social media).

 

[Chmpocalypse]

This is why, as an agnostic atheist, I do not associate with that movement.

 

[Azoor]

This is why, as an agnostic atheist, I do not associate with that movement.

You can still be an atheist and no associate yourself with anything. Being an atheist does not imply support to the supposed movement or anything for that matter.

 

[minor effort]

This general trend has caused me to largely abandon the "atheist" identity.

If pressed, I describe myself as "not religious". I think I prefer being vague about it these days.

 

[BlackDoomShadow]

Literally no one in this thread has suggested Dawkins is a member of the alt-right. The linked article does not make this claim either. You've allowed some idiot who didn't read the article to derail the entire thread.

There is a discussion to be had about how the alt-right rejects the previously Christian doctrine of the right-wing and has embraced atheism and secularism in their war against Islam, but that might be for another thread.

 

[BocoDragon]

That Mythinformation atheist conference recently sounds like an alt-right shithole. The atheist movement is definitely compromised by filth.

 

[mario_O]

This is why, as an agnostic atheist, I do not associate with that movement.

Who does? I think that tag was created to attack atheism as a whole. They often name Dawkins, Krauss and Harris as part of the 'New Atheists', And it's bullshit. Krauss, for example, has a complete different view, when it comes to politics, from Harris. But hey, lets put all in the same basket and call it 'New Atheism'.

 

[Chmpocalypse]

You can still be an atheist and no associate yourself with anything. Being an atheist does not imply support to the supposed movement or anything for that matter.

I agree! Hence my comment.

I was an atheist long before I learned of such movements (because after all, lacking the mental ability to consider the question of gods, I like all humans was born atheist; I was just fortunate enough to never buy into magical claims).

No one needs a movement to be an atheist, because the only shared thought is 'I don't believe in gods'.

Edit: I also agree with the poster directly above.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

Geez why is literally every single poster in this thread without exception saying that Dawkins is a prominent key figure leading the alt right movement?

Spoiler

/s

I still define Dawkins entirely by that one tweet where he compared women getting date raped to drunk driving: https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/510314159503065088

 

[Slackbladder]

They aren’t mutually exclusive. Dawkins and those guys classify themselves as humanists too.

Dawkins is a patron of Humanists UK, annoyingly. But there are many others who balance him out. And ultimately individuals are free to express opinions we don't always agree on. I mean Humanism has been around for centuries and it has been expressed in multiple ways. But essentially modern Humanism is as much about equality, freedom and human rights as it is about science, rationalism and freedom from religious dogma.

 

[Azoor]

I agree! Hence my comment.

I was an atheist long before I learned of such movements (because after all, lacking the mental ability to consider the question of gods, I like all humans was born atheist; I was just fortunate enough to never buy into magical claims).

No one needs a movement to be an atheist, because the only shared thought is 'I don't believe in gods'.

Edit: I also agree with the poster directly above.

Yeah, Atheists are not a monolithic entity that could be judged as a whole.

 

[Chmpocalypse]

Geez why is literally every single poster in this thread without exception saying that Dawkins is a prominent key figure leading the alt right movement?

Spoiler

/s

I still define Dawkins entirely by that one tweet where he compared women getting date raped to drunk driving: https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/510314159503065088

He's just a douchebag given to whataboutism with his disgusting remarks to the woman who was sexually harassed, posted upthread. For that, he can fuck himself.

 

[boiled goose]

Racism and misogyny transcend religiosity. However, religions have in built racism and misogyny.

So the idea that not believing in deities should be associated with alt right because of a few idiots online is silly.

Also you can strongly disagree with any atheist for their views on anything unrelated to religion.

See hitchens and sam on foreign policy. (Right winger Bush interventionism)

Or Dawkins on matters related to social issues as shown in this thread.

Nothing to do with atheism.

 

[Cymbal Head]

As an atheist and a gamer, I am immensely resentful toward the inept public figures and the hordes of chan dinguses who have made me utterly embarrassed to call myself either.

 

[Aiustis]

New Atheism is toxic.

I always say I'm an atheist though.

I just avoid most of the atheist communities.

 

[Khaz]

You can still be an atheist and no associate yourself with anything. Being an atheist does not imply support to the supposed movement or anything for that matter.

The problem is labels matter to people. it would crawl up in an otherwise civil conversation about religions where, after being asked, you would simply say
"I don't believe in a god.
- Oh, so you're one of them".
If you label yourself as an Atheist, the comparison with other peoples behaviour will come even quicker, and assumption about your own mentality will be made.

I know who I am and what I believe, and I'm fine explaining it to people if they ask for it, but I'm super wary of labels, and will try to distance myself from them as much as I can. I don't want the actions of other people sharing some of my ideas stain me and my discourse.

 

[Aurongel]

New Atheism is basically as anti-intellectual as the movements they claim to be countering. There's nothing scientific or enlightened about them.

 

[boiled goose]

New Atheism is basically as anti-intellectual as the movements they claim to be countering. There's nothing scientific or enlightened about them.

This is a meaningless statement. Where's the new atheist pope or holy text that defines its dogma?

It was just a label for a handful of people how were outspoken about it

And lots of #both sides fallacy here. Two things can be wrong or disagreed with without being the same.

Being wrong on social issues is not the same type of wrong as believing in a magical personal deity

 

[Tatsumaki Senpuukyaku!]

As an atheist, I have no clue who any of the big atheist thinkers are anymore.

Sargon of akkad

 

[Azoor]

The problem is labels matter to people. it would crawl up in an otherwise civil conversation about religions where, after being asked, you would simply say
"I don't believe in a god.
- Oh, so you're one of them".
If you label yourself as an Atheist, the comparison with other peoples behaviour will come even quicker, and assumption about your own mentality will be made.

I know who I am and what I believe, and I'm fine explaining it to people if they ask for it, but I'm super wary of labels, and will try to distance myself from them as much as I can. I don't want the actions of other people sharing some of my ideas stain me and my discourse.

I understand what you mean, sometimes they spill the entire baggage they have against a label against you even if you don't share the same ideals.

Sargon of akkad

Sargon barely talks about Atheism, his content is purely political, so I wouldn't call him an atheist thinker.

 

[Slayven]

No problem with Atheists

The internet atheists/rational crowd is the worse. Not saying they are alt right but they having amazing amount of overlap with the alt right.

 

[Robaperas]

Sargon of akkad

I hate to correct people, but he's Carl of Swindon.

 

[Airola]

Richard Dawkins is alt right now? Anyone who exhibits creepy interpersonal behavior is too? Seems to be a term without a meaning anymore.

People like to put people they don't like in a certain group so it's easier to hate them all.

And then if a person has even one character trait or and idea or an opinion that they think is what the group thinks, the person will be part of that group forever in their minds.

That's why some republicans can't even think of having one same opinion than a democrat has, and vice versa. You are a leftist piece of shit if you go along with some of the leftist ideals and you are a right wing piece of shit if you go along with some of the right wing ideals.

It's insane.

 

[Dongs Macabre]

.

 

[Extollere]

It sucks being a member of anything these days. Not only do you have to combat ideas and worldviews you consider to be dangerous, but you have to combat the very people who should be helping the cause. It applies to almost everything.

 

[televator]

This is why, as an agnostic atheist, I do not associate with that movement.

Ditto. I was what people might describe as a “card carrying” atheist evangelist back then. Then everything changed after what happened to Watson. Granted, there was already a rift when it came to muslims, but once the sexism came into play, it was easier to see the shitlords for their true selves.

 

[boiled goose]

I really don't understand this kind of thinking.

I don't not call myself a feminist because TERFs exist. I don't see Christians not call themselves Christians because of extremists.

Just own it. If people judge you for being an atheist, that's their loss.

Yup. I'm a feminist. An atheist. An a man. Despite horrible people in those categories. There's no mechanism that leads from atheist to anything else. Unlike religion, there's no baggage to carry

 

[Westbahnhof]

Is New Atheism the right wing alternative to Atheism Plus? I'm sorry if that's not a thing anymore (or if it never really was), but there was this movement that tried to combine atheism with feminism or something?

Anyway, atheism is really really simple.
There should be nothing attached to it that's not directly related to belief in deities.

New (New) Atheism sounds terribly stupid.

 

[NullPointer]

Atheism doesn't need leaders.

Hell, even referring to it as "ism" is too much.

Not placing your faith in the unproven and unprovable isn't a 'practice'.

Anti-theism on the other hand is different, and it should be taken that way.

 

[Bronx-Man]

I associate internet atheists of 2017 with the dorks on Twitter with Greek statues as their avatars and names like Thesus the Wise or General Anaximander of Rhodes or some shit like that.

 

[Tatsumaki Senpuukyaku!]

Sargon barely talks about Atheism, his content is purely political, so I wouldn't call him an atheist thinker.

He became popular making atheism videos but now he's chasing those Trump dollars

 

[DragonGirl]

Is New Atheism the right wing alternative to Atheism Plus? I'm sorry if that's not a thing anymore (or if it never really was), but there was this movement that tried to combine atheism with feminism or something?

Anyway, atheism is really really simple.
There should be nothing attached to it that's not directly related to belief in deities.

New (New) Atheism sounds terribly stupid.

Atheism Plus was a reaction to New Atheism being overrun with misogyny and racism. It didn't really become a thing though because Secular Humanism already exists and that's basically what Atheism Plus is/was. Atheism Plus Social Justice. It just had a bit more emphasis on the atheism part.

 

[Azoor]

He became popular making atheism videos but now he's chasing those Trump dollars

I think you're thinking of The Amazing Atheist man.

 

[freethoughtbubble]

Every so often I get a "_ Atheist" YouTube recommendation and the title is usually some anti-feminist bullshit. Like what? What does that have to do with atheism, humanism, secularism, rational thinking?

I'm convinced there is nothing stupid assholes can't ruin in this world. Nothing.

 

[Violet_0]

these things didn't happen back when we were all simple and god-fearing people

personally, I subscribe to the post-atheist belief

 

[Zimmy64]

What's wrong is to put all atheists in the same basket. And most alt-rigth, right, and libertarians are Christian fanatics. It's a stupid falacy.

About 85% of Libertarian philosophers are atheists (that's higher than the percent for progressives). Your Right About The other groups.

 

[FiggyCal]

Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins have both directly contributed to this because of their Islamophobia.

 

[Tatsumaki Senpuukyaku!]

I think you're thinking of The Amazing Atheist man.

I'm thinking of amazing atheist, sargon, thunderbolt, and armored skeptic. They all had a similar path

 

[mario_O]

About 85% of Libertarian philosophers are atheists (that's higher than the percent for progressives). Your Right About The other groups.

Not talking about philosophers or economists. I dont know about the US, but here in Spain most of the people, and politicians, who call themselves liberterians are actually right or extreme-right catholics. It's easier to sell that to the public. Libertarian sounds good.

 

[FiggyCal]

Not talking about philosophers or economists. I dont know about the US, but here in Spain most of the people, and politicians, who call themselves liberterians are actually right or extreme-right catholics. It's easier to sell that to the public. Libertarian sounds good.

I feel like the church has made it clear time and time again that the free market ideology libertarians advocate is basically incompatible with what the Church teaches.

 

[WyndhamPrice]

We had Dawkins in our office to do interviews a couple months back and he really seemed bothered by the fact that all these alt-right douchebags were associating themselves with him.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

Critiques of Islam and the bad practices seen in the Middle East should not be equated to racism.

It's not the same to voice certains criticism of Islam in a general islamophobic context in the West and to do the same in KSA or Iran, especially when you defend military intervention in the arab world or racial profiling.

Muslims are getting racialized in the West, it's not "just a religion". When you are suspected to hold certains dangerous views only because of your religion, it's a racialization, it's the creation of a "metaphysic muslim". Exactly like certains criticism of the jewish religion are clearly racists and create animosity to actual jews. When you state, like Dawkins, that Islam is the most dangerous/backward religion, it's not that big of a stretch to turn this into "muslims are the most dangerous/backward people".

I don't understand how people can respect somebody like Dawkin, who have zero knowledge on the religion, and just make the kind of comment you can read on any comment section of any tabloids.

 

[BajiBoxer]

I don't know that being a smug jack ass, right wing nut, or any behaviour is "New" for Atheists. We've got nothing in common other than not seeing any reason to believe a deity exists. No central philosophy, book, creed, manifesto, code, etc.

 

[Azoor]

It's not the same to voice certains criticism of Islam in a general islamophobic context in the West and to do the same in KSA or Iran, especially when you defend military intervention in the arab world or racial profiling.

Muslims are getting racialized in the West, it's not "just a religion". When you are suspected to hold certains dangerous views only because of your religion, it's a racialization, it's the creation of a "metaphysic muslim". Exactly like certains criticism of the jewish religion are clearly racists and create animosity to actual jews. When you state, like Dawkins, that Islam is the most dangerous/backward religion, it's not that big of a stretch to turn this into "muslims are the most dangerous/backward people".

Doesn't mean people who are often critical of Islam should also be classified as racist, Islam should not be protected from criticism simply because some assholes use it as an excuse to be racist.

Your logic is not sound my friend.

 

[HStallion]

We had Dawkins in our office to do interviews a couple months back and he really seemed bothered by the fact that all these alt-right douchebags were associating themselves with him.

So he should do something about it. He's not afraid of speaking his mind so he should be loud and clear with these people if he doesn't want to be associated with them. If Eminem can do it I'm sure he can as well.

 

[BocoDragon]

So he should do something about it. He's not afraid of speaking his mind so he should be loud and clear with these people if he doesn't want to be associated with them. If Eminem can do it I'm sure he can as well.

Now I'm holding my breath for an angry Dawkins rap.

 

[mario_O]

I feel like the church has made it clear time and time again that the free market ideology libertarians advocate is basically incompatible with what the Church teaches.

Yeah, but many libertarians, at least here in Spain, are saying that there's nothing wrong about it, that it's not incompatible. They claim that the church provides spiritual content and social work for the community -and that the church is not political. It's bullshit obviously. Also, the catholic church is very close to these political figures and economists, at least a part of it.

http://www.liberalismo.org/bitacoras/1/2724/liberales/catolicos/

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

Doesn't mean people who are often critical of Islam should also be classified as racist, Islam should not be protected from criticism simply because some assholes use it as an excuse to be racist.

Your logic is not sound my friend.

Where do i said such a thing ?

It should be allowed and it's not racist to criticize Islam, like Judaism, Christianity or whatever, however, saying that Islam is the root of terrorism it's not "simply" a criticism, like saying that judaism is the root of usury, or like saying that coptic christians, for religious reason, are not loyal enough to the egyptian nation.

There is a lot of people who reject and criticize Islam and i don't consider them racist or bigoted. However, one critic of Islam should be especially careful in our current political climate, when laws are made specifically tailored to target and limit the rights of muslim worldwide.

 

[boiled goose]

It's not the same to voice certains criticism of Islam in a general islamophobic context in the West and to do the same in KSA or Iran, especially when you defend military intervention in the arab world or racial profiling.

Muslims are getting racialized in the West, it's not "just a religion". When you are suspected to hold certains dangerous views only because of your religion, it's a racialization, it's the creation of a "metaphysic muslim". Exactly like certains criticism of the jewish religion are clearly racists and create animosity to actual jews. When you state, like Dawkins, that Islam is the most dangerous/backward religion, it's not that big of a stretch to turn this into "muslims are the most dangerous/backward people".

I don't understand how people can respect somebody like Dawkin, who have zero knowledge on the religion, and just make the kind of comment you can read on any comment section of any tabloids.

I dont want to click on a link to the fucking blaze. What did he say?

Is that comment even controversial? Some religions have more explicitly violent texts (abrahamic religions) and others have more violent current mainstream dogma as practiced worldwide.

How is that untrue??

Could comments be used to drive hate towards people? Sure... But what's the alternative? Perhaps being more nuanced to try to prevent misinterpretations? Maybe.