The Failures of "New Atheism".
The Logic of Einstein
There have been no conscientious objections by 21st Century online atheism to Peter Singer's express policy of legalizing Infanticide and beastiality. By not objecting to these widely popular atheist trends they are assisting the agenda of Peter Singer.
Singer represents thousands of people and is not just one helpless man.
It seems that many online atheists haven't heard of Peter Singer and his famous graduates.
21st Century online atheism should be vigorously protesting against non scientific DE-evolutionary forms of atheism. It should also be embracing and building upon the rich cultural and historical heritage of religion not disparaging it.
It is De-evolutionary to reject all of the evolutionary roots of ethics which invariably stem from religion.
Rejecting the historical record or trying to rewrite it with fashionable platitudes is not part of the scientific method.
What 21st Century atheism should not be and could be.
Reasons why atheism has become rife with contradiction.
I. TOTAL RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE
Most Atheists accuse religious people of religious intolerance while they themselves practice total religious intolerance towards all religions.
Many excuse this by saying religious intolerance is a logical step for atheists to take (see 2 below).
There is a resultant refusal to acknowledge that atheism now comes with an enormous amount of social/ethical baggage. Religious and racial intolerance are obviously unethical practices.
This tendency to accuse religious people of intolerance while at the same time practicing it themselves is further exacerbated by the justification of the said practice by acrobatic, convoluted unethical reasoning.
2. A LACK OF BELIEF IN GOD?
In reference to 1 (above) most online Atheists claim that atheism is simply "a lack of belief in God" while at the same time deeply involving themselves in religious intolerance (and other current ethical issues) with a distinctly atheist philosophy. The old one line children's dictionary definition of atheism does not relate at all to the more scientific anthropological dictionary definitions.
It is taken for granted by the majority of atheists that possessing crude atheist beliefs somehow magically allows them to launch into tirades of mockery and insults from a supposed great intellectual height. Many atheists exhibit by such actions a claim to some kind of innate superiority in intelligence that is plainly not supported by scientific analysis.
3. LACK OF EMPATHY
Most online atheists claim that empathy is close to their hearts but they exhibit no empathy at all for religion or religious races. This includes harmless races such as Tibetans, fragile indigenous cultures, tolerant religions and ancient cultures: this list includes most of humanity past and present. Logically this means they have no empathy for the majority of humanity!
The atheist leaders in particular who espouse "empathy" are leading the charge on behalf of religious intolerance and complete lack of empathy to all religions.
They claim a belief in God is unscientific yet they label as nonsense any scientific proofs which are presented for logical discussion (such as Kurt Godel's "god theorem" ; the Observer Effect; Einstein's comments; the history of science as largely developed by early religion; the evolution of science). String Theory for example is entirely a theoretical philosophy and can't be proven, yet this theory receives serious attention from atheists. String theory is based on the same model of "necessity" that Godel and other scientists have used for hundreds of years. Many atheists will not ridicule the necessity of string theory but will mock its use by the eminent mathematician Godel; furthermore, they will not discuss the matter and try to stifle scientific discussion on this topic.
For the last several thousand years all scientists were deeply religious people. Modern atheism has been trying to change well documented history with fashionable platitudes such as "Da Vinci was an atheist" when the historical record shows he painted religious images, attended church, believed in God, prayed and helped to build religious edifices!
5. THE PRINCIPLE OF EVOLUTION
The majority regard all religions as useless and refuse to distinguish between any religion while at the same time ignoring their own scientific principle of Evolution which is applied to all other scientific, moral and ethical ideas. That is, they do not acknowledge the important role of religious evolution in the development of Law, Philosophy, Ethics , Art, Music, Architecture etc and are only obsessed with the alleged evils of all religions.
Most of the time they misinterpret and rationalize Buddhism as being godless when in fact Buddhism is based on concepts of "super god consciousness", reincarnation, religious practices, temples, chants, priests and all the other characteristics of religion. I find this to be contradictory and unethical as it attempts to try to give them a convenient way out of their hypocrisy by presenting a misinformed idea about Buddhism.
By ignoring their very own highly prized endemic Principle of Evolution they have selectively abandoned allegiance to the scientific method for the sake of moral expediency.
They refuse to acknowledge that atheism is now an extremely organized social tool for change in Law Making.
Such social atheist upheaval has many outspoken leaders and authors such as Richard Dawkins and Peter Singer. It is clear such persons are leaders : Dawkins' concepts of memes and empathy are preached by most online atheists. I have yet to meet a single online atheist who has yet heard of Peter Singer (!) or have dared to criticize him outright for his views on legalizing beastialtiy and infanticide.
Singer appears regularly in the media to support "softer" animal issues that slowly inch towards his "harder" agenda.
7.LACK OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH
They claim to hold freedom of speech as sacrosanct but exhibit zero tolerance to this online. This seems to be true of many forums and the people who run the forums (although I personally find Hub Pages to be about 90% better than most forums at tolerating criticism of atheism). They descend on religious Hubs like locusts and spend inordinate amounts of time stopping any logical criticism of atheism.
Organized packs and cliques of online atheists attack any other opinions using social media or any other tool available to quash scientific or dispassionate discussions which contradict the well organized atheist agendas.
8.FAITH IN SCIENCE
They refuse to acknowledge they have Faith in science while mocking religious people who have Faith in God. Stephen Hawking himself has a free online essay titled "Godel and the the End of Physics" which clearly points out the foolishness of having faith in science and its ability to answer all questions.
This obvious Faith in science has even lead to many atheist Scientology-style and quasi scientific religious phenomena often based on UFO's and interacting with higher UFO angelic-like beings.
The ethical problem again is the hypocritical denial of this growing scientific religiosity by the majority of online atheists.
They often "blame God" for tragic events while forgetting that their claim is a negative proof for God's existence.
Many atheist authors, leaders, essayists and on liners constantly make this classic atheist "Freudian slip" error repeatedly.
Negative world events, human tragedies and even accidents of nature are all immediately indirectly blamed on God. The epitaph "How could there be a God if this has happened?" is a constant theme in their wobbly premises. Pointing this out does no good and seems to only encourage their personal insults and attack.
Harmless Native Religions
Native American Religion always in the firing line
Almost totally Wiped Out
Do you think 21st Century atheism will wipe out traditional Native American Culture?
ALL art, culture and science evolved out of religion.
If you have ever marveled at the art and architecture of the Renaissance, the works of Van Gogh, the countless artworks of the Ancient Greeks and nearly all art from the entire history of humanity for its first 10,000 years or more, then you are admiring religion and the great art it has created.
Likewise all law, ethics and science evolved out of religion.
Simple "empathy" ideas of atheism are just dumbed down forms of anarchy that history has proved does NOT work.
I support Ethical Atheism which promotes the highest ethical standards in accordance with Laws tempered by compassion.
Ethical Atheism protects the weak and builds on the long process of cultural and ethical evolution started by religion. It does NOT condone bigotry towards religion, or beasitiality, or infanticide(so called "after birth abortion" of six month old babies) which are all heinous acts.
Infanticide in particular is of the worst category of premeditated homicide which affects the most vulnerable beings imaginable.
Ethical Atheism not only tolerates religion but promotes and celebrates cultural and racial diversity.
The relationship between ethics and religion
Art and Religion VS "McCulture".
By denigrating religion atheists are either intentionally or unintentionally denigrating historical and cultural variety. Recent history has shown what misguided results can occur from atheist inspired "cultural revolutions".
We are already in danger of developing a tasteless tacky atheist "McCulture" by denying humanity's deepest spiritual urges.
It is a moral crime to denigrate thousands of years of sacred religious art as the foolish misguided oddities of lesser beings.
Religious art is the result of truly inspired effort stemming from the best qualities of humanity.
Only by deliberately ignoring ALL historical knowledge and ALL scientific evidence could a person possibly come up with a "philosophy" of total religious intolerance and mockery. This also has the disastrous domino effect of leading others to believe in a soulless bland McCulture instead of appreciating cultural and artistic diversity.
What will the art of the atheist look like in the future? We see glimpses now via tasteless porn, cynical violence in movies and bizarre advertising gimmicks: all geared to make money as the main new atheist ethos.
It is the religious inner striving of humanity to understand the existential meaning of the universe that has been responsible for creating high ethical spiritual standards, art and culture.
Atheism at this point in history is not offering any functional alternatives except old, failed, nihilistic, anarchic, narcissistic, so called individual freedom which turns out not to be freedom at all but simple lazy self indulgence. The paltry artistic efforts of such atheism to date (if any) is a very dismal scene based on money, power, porn, cynicism, religious intolerance, and lack of effort. It seems that so called atheist art mainly parasites itself of its own religious intolerance.
All art evolved out of religion
Do you think destroying religious traditions could lead to a bland "McCulture"?
Law and Ethics
Do you think Law and Ethics EVOLVED out of religion?
Science and religion
Were the first scientific findings made by monks and priests?
Unless Atheism, the new philosophy, can rid itself of these contradictions and establish a coherent ethical backbone it is bound to fail in its obligation to society.
By relying on weak concepts of empathy (and other vague disjointed ways of providing an ethical framework) it is failing to come up with scientific guidance to its potential followers.
By denying the previous long spiritual evolution of ethics over the millenniums it is divorcing itself from the scientific method in relation to ethics. There are no excuses for a movement which has faith in science to simply jettison the scientific method when fashion dictates.
The prominent leaders are failing completely in their role by teaching total religious intolerance and forgetting the main tenants of the successful parts of religion which are based on compassion and protection of the weak. This opens the way for society to be even more obsessed with money, power, porn, lack of individual responsibility and lazy cynicism. It has been helping to create a tasteless "McCulture" all over the planet by not respecting differences of creeds and cultures. We now have a growth in an odd world wide culture that worships money, worships dysfunctional anarchic individual freedom, sees porn as normal and does not hesitate to insult other cultures: a disastrous side effect of this unscientific decoupling from the true history of ethical evolution is the growing distance between what is acceptable to both religion and atheism. This has directly and indirectly assisted a growth in extremism.
Once Atheism embraces scientifically formulated ethics and religious tolerance it could well turn into a beneficial force. However at the moment is it wreaking havoc on individual standards and commonsense basic human values.