A New Breed of Atheist: The Anti-Theist

Breakpoint with Chuck Colson ^ | 8/2/2007 | Chuck Colson

[Mr. Silverback]

Atheism has nearly always been with us in one form or another, but the atheists we’ve been hearing the most from lately—chiefly Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris—are a new breed. Unlike the old-school humanists, the new atheists—or anti-theists, as some of them prefer to be called—don’t want to just deny the existence of God, they want to wipe religion off the map.

Christopher Hitchens follows this pattern with his new book, belligerently titled God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. In his first chapter, called “Putting It Mildly,” Hitchens writes, “I will continue to [respect my friends’ religious traditions] without insisting on the polite reciprocal condition—which is that they in turn leave me alone.”

But this is something that religion is ultimately incapable of doing. “People of faith,” Hitchens continues, “are in their different ways planning your and my destruction, and the destruction of all . . . hard-won human attainments. . . . Religion poisons everything.”

The way Hitchens lumps all religions and all believers into one category here is typical of his tone throughout the book, and typical of anti-theists in general. They don’t argue; they yell. They’ve decided that, simply because they dislike religion, there is no reason to respect it. In their minds, it’s stupid, dangerous, and that’s all that needs to be said.

That’s why I believe the anti-theist movement, as hot as it is right now with books like Hitchens’s topping the bestseller lists, is doomed to fail. The moment you take it seriously and start to study it, it falls apart. There’s no substance, just anger and a lot of hot air. Because anti-theists simply ignore evidence and arguments they don’t like, they’re ill-equipped to deal with them rationally.

The old-guard secular humanists are questioning this new trend, and rightly so. Most traditional atheists simply had their own belief system, and if we wanted our belief system that was okay. The new breed reflects the death of truth. They’re like the communists who feared religion more than anything else because it was a competing truth claim. The Star of David and the cross have been scandalous to every totalitarian leader.

Many traditional atheists and humanists seem to recognize the parallel and feel uncomfortable about it. As Gary Wolf writes in Wired, “The New Atheists have castigated fundamentalism and branded even the mildest religious liberals as enablers of a vengeful mob. Everybody who doesn’t join them is an ally of the Taliban.”

“Even those of us who sympathize intellectually,” he writes, “don’t want the New Atheists to succeed.”

When you think about it this way, you have to wonder if the anti-theists, in their heart of hearts, are a little uncomfortable with their own beliefs. After all, if you really believe that truth will win out—and to Hitchens and company, their idea of truth is so obvious that it cannot fail to win—you can let other people make their own claims and live by their own beliefs without feeling the need to destroy everything they stand for.

Because Hitchens and the others cannot do this, their polemics are destined to lead not to the end of religion, but to the collapse of their own movement. Not before, of course, they have gotten very rich. It’s not irrelevant to the debate that Dawkins, Hitchens, and Sam Harris sold one million copies of their angry diatribes last year. At two dollars a book for royalties, that’s not bad.

[Mr. Silverback]

Actually, I withdraw my earlier post, so I won't be a big fat hypocrite. Let's not hijack this into a crevo thread. This article is about the hateful morons trying to ruin science and society by eliminating religion, so let's keep it in those bounds.

:-)

[dr_lew]

What did he use, then? ... Harry Potters wand ? ... Magic?

This is what you are left with.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

In his first chapter, called “Putting It Mildly,” Hitchens writes, “I will continue to [respect my friends’ religious traditions] without insisting on the polite reciprocal condition—which is that they in turn leave me alone.”

But this is something that religion is ultimately incapable of doing.

Not true. Leaving non-believers alone is something most of the world's religions do. The notable exceptions are Christianity and Islam, both of which make conversion a major part of their religious practices.

[redpoll]

By their fruits you shall know them.

That’s good enough for me.

[Blind Eye Jones]

Atheists want to dance with God and because they have their powerful science they figure they should lead the dance. Sometimes both are discoing and thatcoing, sometimes both are ignominiously kicked off the dance floor, sometimes a big woman in a big red jump suit shows up and starts singing the national anthem and they decide to go to the ball game, sometimes they go to the circus and volunteer each other for the knife throwing act or the sawing-in-half act, sometime they just get bored with each other and quietly read detective novels... but, bottom line, they can never let each other alone for long. Ah, love!

[Sergei Andropov]

I wasn’t referring to people like Sagan and Gould.

[AndyTheBear]

Sorry, but I’m not sure if your kidding or not.

[GOP Poet]

Tactics. Tactics. Satan keeps workin’ every angle. God keeps on keeping on. :-).

[cowdog77]

Dear Atheists of the World....

I’m right, you’re wrong. Go to hell, do not pass Go.

[Victoria_R]

“People of faith,” Hitchens continues, “are in their different ways planning your and my destruction, and the destruction of all . . . hard-won human attainments. . . . Religion poisons everything.”

Someone should send this guy that two part episode of South Park where Cartman goes to the future.

[mtnjimmi]

so I’m curious if “god” doesn’t exist, why not laugh at those who believe since fighting to prove a null is not possible?

as for me i read the “God delusion” by Richard Dawkins, i found it to be less than convincing, using fallacies to prove his point.

[beachdweller]

Wow, that is just ridiculous. There is no contradiction between Christianity and whatever method God chose to bring about creation.

[GiovannaNicoletta]

That just about sums it up.

[Robert Lomax]

It takes more faith to be an atheist then to be a Christian.

[meowmeow]

“People of faith,” Hitchens continues, “are in their different ways planning your and my destruction, and the destruction of all . . . hard-won human attainments. . . .

Hmmm. I'll have to bring up this topic at the next church counsel meeting, right after we discuss our other diabolical plans of painting the nursery and scheduling visits to our members in nursing homes.

[rickdylan]

Bone isn't the MOST porous stuff in the world but it IS porous. For that stuff to be 68M years old it would have to have never rained in Montana and the Dakotas for millions of years. They found soft tissue including some which looks pretty much like raw meat inside the one trex bone and other dinosaur bones of several types have yielded up soft tissue since then. That's aside from the question of finding good images of known dinosaur types on petroglyphs and ancient carved stones. There was never any good proof of or way to demonstrate the millions of years associated with dinosaurs. They were always assumed because evolution NEEDED them.

Tyrannosaur soft tissue.

[Mr. Silverback]

I see your point, really, but my point is that Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris are currently the face of atheism. Though the bitter psycho atheist types have been with us for a long time, the public face of their movement has (with the exception of O’Hair) always been a person who disagreed with people of faith intellectually but respected their rights. The fact that three guys have made millions publishing the same crap in less than a year about how Christianity should be wiped out means something has changed.

[Mr. Silverback]

What did he use, then? ... Harry Potters wand ? ... Magic? This is what you are left with.

Though I did say that I wanted to avoid this becoming a crevo thread, I feel I should answer this one here.

Atheists and evolutionists: At some point billions of years ago, an infinitely dense and hot singularity exploded and the entire Universe resulted.

Me: Oh? Well, where did the material for that singularity come from in the first place? Did Harry Potter create it with his wand? And what caused the explosion? Magical Teletubbies lighting their flatulence?

This is what you are left with.

[Mr. Silverback]

The notable exceptions are Christianity and Islam, both of which make conversion a major part of their religious practices.

1. Conversion by love and conversion by the sword are very different things.

2. You are ignoring or unaware of the evangelical aspect of many Eastern religions, especially their more recent offshoots. I can't tell you how many times a Buddhist friend of mine has tried to convince me that Buddhist practice is consistent with my faith. Sure, he's doing that because he thinks I'll be happier, but how is that any different from me wanting someone to become a Christian because i think they'll be happier and Jesus told me to?

[Mr. Silverback]

Someone should send this guy that two part episode of South Park where Cartman goes to the future.

I don't watch South Park...what does he find?