5 0

I have a few friends who r atheists. Here is something we been talking about recently. Some expressed the view that the now new Atheists Dawkins harris dilahunty Aron ra and many others r now positioning themselves in similar ways as the Joel Osteens tj drakes pat Robertsons etc. going on tours and charging echorbitant entrance fees for their public speaking engagements as well as book sales etc.
while it is agreed that they r spreading truth as against the religious preaching lies ; one wonders if this will be misconstrued by the general public as a new form of exploitation and deception. Should these new atheists revisit this direction ? Ur views .............

By Greenheart
Options Favorite Like

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence, and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy

Create your free account

5 comments

2

I have bought a few "New Atheist" books, but have yet to go to a speaking engagement.

Frankly, I'm delighted that there are respectable, well spoken people who will stand up and say that religion is B.S.. It makes Atheism respectable, and they are starting to give some balance to this crazy religious world in which we live.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm sick of hearing the radio full of Christian Stations and the nightly news filled with the latest right wing republican party defunding Planed Parenthood, or not supporting a woman's right to choose, or even trying to restrict access to birth control! Doesn't that bother you? What century do we live in? Are we going back to the Middle Ages where we let the church run our lives and burn us as witches if we dare step over the line?

We should stand up and support those intelligent speakers who are leading the way forward! We need them, now more than ever!!!!!!!!

Al Worrell

Alw314 Level 4 Nov 25, 2018
Reply

You substitute government for religion. Another bad choice.

5

Speaking tours, no matter the subject, are paid for, somehow.

Doing thing similar to liars does not make one a liar.

Jacar Level 7 Nov 18, 2018
Reply
1

The general public thrive on exploitation and deception... shouldn't be a problem for them.

NoOathNoSpell Level 3 Nov 18, 2018
Reply
3

These people are teaching about facts that are congruent with reality. They are not teaching religious dogma that relies on "Faith". They are teaching that people should pay attention to the facts and make facts based decisions. They are not teaching to disregard reality for magical wishes.

They may be using some of the same methods such as speeches to get their messages across. The methodologies are not what can be deceitful it is the messages. Honest messages about facts are still honest messages no matter how they are delivered. If a person does it full time and makes a living doing so it makes the message no less valid.

DavidLaDeau Level 7 Nov 18, 2018
Reply
3

I think they are filling a new vacuum: civil intellectual discussion. My understanding is that most of their audience consists of young adults who are trying to figure out life. Some of them are members of what has become "The Intellectual Dark Web." Here is how they describe themselves:

"The first thing you will notice about this list of leading figures of the Intellectual Dark Web (IDW) is that they vary in gender, sexual orientation, race, and political affiliation. They do not form alliances based on their identities or tribal affiliation.

But they all share two distinct and (now) uncommon qualities. First, they are willing to disagree fiercely, but talk civilly, about nearly every meaningful subject worthy of public discourse: religion, abortion, gender identity, race, immigration, the nature of consciousness. Many of the opinions they hold on such topics can sometimes be in contrast with the orthodox opinion of their respective tribe. Second, they are intellectually honest and thus resist parroting what’s politically convenient or politically correct.

While most of these IDWers have been more-or-less roasted by the campfire by their "tribe" and the online public at large, they have been able to find a wide audience that resonates with what they have to say. Part of this may be the fact that they are willing to voice what others think, but are too willing to say publicly."

I think it is a very positive sign.

sfvpool Level 6 Nov 18, 2018
Reply

""The first thing you will notice about this list of leading figures of the Intellectual Dark Web (IDW) is that they vary in gender, sexual orientation, race, and political affiliation. They do not form alliances based on their identities or tribal affiliation."

Hmmm... if they are too be intellectually honest, they might start being honest with who they are. By this I mean that if we look at this article ([nytimes.com], we clearly see that there is not a single minority (they do not vary in race), and there are very few women (barely vary in gender), very few conservatives (they barely vary in political affiliation) and not gays or trans that I can see (they do not vary in sexual orientation).

Thus, if they truly are describing themselves that way, then they are describing how they'd like to be perceived and the fact that they welcome peoples of all race color and creeds... but it would not be honest that the IDW, as exemplified by it's most visible leaders, has as much diversity as they claim.

BTW, this is very much like our very own website: we are mostly middle to upper class liberal white males. And when you bring this fact to the attention to the website, not only do they dismiss this even though it's plain to see, but also confuse the fact that a.com welcomes all with the fact that all are not in fact represented equally on a.com.

@TheMiddleWay Here is a website that I think is "theirs": [intellectualdarkweb.site]

If you look into the information on the site, you'll see that some of the "members" are women, some are considered politically right, and some are non-white. One of the founding "members", Dave Rubin, is gay.

I have listened to some of Dave Rubin's videos and he is willing to discuss ideas with anyone he thinks will be civil and has enough value for his audience, regardless of their ethnicity, gender, or political persuasion.

@sfvpool
Thanks for the link.
Yeah, I've no doubt they have some in each category. My only minor pedantic quibble is that they seem to self-identify as having a lot more variety than they actually do.
As such, the views expressed within their members is predominantly the view from a upper-class white male perspective. Not that there is anything wrong with that, mind you... but being honest about the foundations for your views is an important step IMO to getting others to accept your views, especially others that are outside your own socio-economic experience.

@TheMiddleWay I understand your quibble. Although I get value from some of what they (the Intellectual Dark Web) do, I would actually have more respect for them if they left out, "gender, sexual orientation, race." Ideas should be judged on their merit, not on the gender, sexual orientation, or race of the one stating them. But, in today's culture, I understand why they made that statement.

@sfvpool
I'm the same way. Identity politics are fine for those that don't respect identity but for those of us that do, it becomes quite redundant and irksome to hear people overplay that hand as it were...

Write Comment
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content read full disclaimer
  • Agnostic.comis the largest non-profit community for atheists, agnostics, humanists, freethinkers, skeptics and others happy without religion!