Enter your email address here to receive updates from the team.
This new movement has an energy that makes it hard to ignore.
Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12
I don't think you got your point across. I think you should post it a few more times.
He, he, he....
great snakes! I missed the most obvious line:
give a monkey a brain he'll swear he's the center of the Universe.
Well, I suppose humanity is technically a monkey with a brain.
Well, technically an ape...
Just when you think NS can't go any lower?
So, there's widespread sexism throughout the athiest movement because a blogger got hit on in an elevator (and, of course, recieves waves upon waves of death and particularly rape threats to this day, because that's what men do when we get rejected) and someone who willingly dressed like a slut to make a political statement/get attention, and was shocked to find that men enjoy the sight of scantly clad women. Who would've guessed????
So you're evidence of misogyny throughout the atheist movement is entirely based on the implanted memories of the typical sexist, idiotic attention seeking sociopaths who populate Tumblr and think they've been raped when someone asks if they can take their spare seat at Starbucks. And on top of that, you cite one of the groups responsible for giving these idiots the credence they think they have as some sort of social paragon of the entire atheist movement (which has apparently long lost its way), when it's simply another idiotic "social justice" movement made by these exact idiots that plague websites like Tumblr.
This was apparently deemed "worthy of a repost" on your Twitter profile. That was the only reason I'm even aware of the garbage your passing for journalism these days, so consider yourself down a follower.
I'm sure Nelson is heartbroken. Who will he swap his Commando comics with now?
This article has mistaken a few bloggers for a movement. What evidence is there, beyond their own claims, that this is a movement?
Is conservatism a movement, then, consisting as it does of bloggers etc? Or is there just the Conservative Party?
Atheists are wrong to claim that they can disprove god’s existence through hypothesis. Christians and Muslims are equally wrong to preach that their gods could be proven through hypothesis. A rational person does not look at god from the prospective of rewards or punishment.
The absence of divine intervention to relieve suffering is not evidence of the real GOD’s non-existence.
The absence of divine intervention to relieve suffering, of gods, who claim to be “all willing and all knowing”, is the evidence of the non-existence of these gods.
In summery,there is a real GOD but not in the way he is decsribed by Christians, Muslims and others.
How come He loves me then?
Maybe he is gay?
@ David small Wislon
The love is all in you head, no where else. if you see a docter he/she will tell you the same thing.
"Atheists are wrong to claim that they can disprove god’s existence through hypothesis."
We don't. We merely claim that, despite the efforts of millions of people over many thousands or years, no one has ever proved that he/she/it DOES exist.
What age are you? Where is your research on Spiritualism? There's plenty of evidence to "prove" existence of spirits in the Afterlife. Sceptical surgeons have had their non-belief changed to utter belief when they are faced with out-of-body experiences of the people they were operating on. So many testimonies. No, the effort NOT to BELIEVE is strong in people who take their "Atheism" seriously. One day you will be forced to acknowledge the truth of eternal spirit, that we are all spirit encased in a body. You're here on this earth to learn that. So far, you've failed. Why don't you take the leap, and go to your nearest Spiritualist Church- you might learn something! If you don't learn in this life, you may have to keep re-incarnating until you do! You'll certainly be aware of it when you return to the spirit world eventually. To deny your spirituality is to be like a child not wanting to stop playing with it's toys. You'll have to grow up eventually, take responsibility, not just for yourself, but for others. Help to stop the injustices, the greed, the selfishness, the hypocrasy, the self-delusion.
@ Irish Libertarian
Ask for proof of god from someone who uses god as a tool for an ideology. The absence of proof is not evidence of non-existence. By the way I do not have any religion, not even when I was a child.
Can you list some atheists that actually claim that absence of proof is evidence of non-existence? If you can I suspect it will be a short list, and that there will be a massively longer list of atheists pointing out their mistake.
@ Ron Murphy
What I mean so say was, if someone can not prove the existence of “something” then that does not mean that "something" does not exist, it means that person is either lying or has no means to prove his claim. For me there 3 way to prove the existence of god, one is to have equal capabilities of the god, the second, to be superior to god or lastly the god himself makes a direct contact with someone and empower him/her to provide objective and demonstrable evidence of god's existence. I am happy to report that I am none of the abovementioned. In any case, I am convinced that a god can not proved or disprove through hypothesis.
Can you list some atheists that actually claim that absence of proof is not evidence of non-existence? If you can I suspect it will be a short list, and that there will be a massively longer list of atheists pointing out their mistake.
Actually, the original quote from Carl Sagan is:
"The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
Not only is it wrong but the longer one looks for evidence without finding it, the more certain one can be that whatever one is looking for doesn't exist.
'Not only is it wrong but the longer one looks for evidence without finding it, the more certain one can be that whatever one is looking for doesn't exist.'
Just as true for the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence. Can we now admit that we are more certain after the failed SETI experiments that Dr. Stephen Hawking is wrong: that extra-terrestrial life does not exist? Or are we just happy to pick on easier targets, like religious faith?
Just as true as the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence. Can we now admit that we are more certain after the failed SETI experiments that Dr. Stephen Hawking is wrong: that extra-terrestrial life does not exist? Or are we just happy to pick on easier targets, like religious faith?
Just as true as the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence. Can we now admit that we are more certain after the filed SETI experiments that Dr. Stephen Hawking is wrong: that extra-terrestrial life does not exist? Or re we just happy to pick on easier targets, like religious faith?
But religion is an easier target.
The idea that there might be other life out there is based on the fact that life is nothing more than animated complex chemistry evolved into biology. The distinction between life and non-life is one of categorisation that we humans make. There is nothing known in science that would suggest life could not form elsewhere. Some of the components of life are found in space debris that lands here. Life might be very common.
SETI on the other hand is looking for life that has evolved to some stage were it might communicate - we might be rare in that sense. This in itself has other difficulties, because it also presumes that we would recognise their methods of communication and their signals. But you have to start somewhere. It's a bit like loosing a key on a dark night and choosing only to look under the lamp light. If SETI can get funding to do their thing then good luck to them. Money is spent on far worse. It would be interesting if they did actually stumble across another civilisation.
The hypothesis that there is a God, some entity as a creator of the universe, is as good as any other, in the business of universe creation. The problem with religion is that it heaps tons more hypothetical nonsense on top of that, making out that this God thing has personal interest in each and every one of us; oh, and only those of us that are human; oh, and only those on this planet; oh and only those of this religion and not that one. Yes, religion as a target is dead easy.
Which is why man-made religions are a con, and have been for hundreds of years. Why doesn't the Pope, and all the Archbishops, Mullahs, Rabbis and other religious "dignitaries" hold their hands up and say, "Fair cop"? It's too lucrative for them, that's why! Someone else to pay for their expenses, just like the filthy bankers and politicians siphoning off the hard-earned wages of others. Almost anyone in a position of power is riding on the backs of others. Where's the philanthropy, the genuine caring? Only among those who give, of their time and money and live a modest life, can be trusted, in my opinion. Ghandi was a great example. So is Mandela. How many Ghandis or Mandelas can be counted among the religious leaders, politicians or bankers today? There's one banker ... a Yorkshire man (I think) called Dave, who is sick of banker's greed, and has started up a "bank" called "Bank on Dave" although he can't legally call it a bank, and says any profits he makes go to charity. Perhaps the rich leaders can take a leaf out of his book.
Why do you need to justify the existence or non-existence of god if you are not using it justify your particular ideology?
I have never heard of Carl Sagan and I was not copying anyone either. I am simply taking part in a discussion.
Whole bunch of squabledygook!
There are many atheists out there who value the constitution. We see a recent trend in which citizens overthrow their government and all of a sudden they're after our guns? Interesting.
We don't need some educated old fart Wittering on and on writing book after book
scooping up the dosh ...to know that god the great man in the sky is a load off bollocks he should get a proper job and shut the f** up
I'm an "Old Atheist", I simply don't believe in god and that's it. I don't need to go on Dawkins style "crusades" or invent something like this A+. Those folks are only strong when bashing Christians anyway. How many of them will point at the open fascism, oppression and misogyny that is islam? They scream and moan at the Vatican while ignoring that a "religion", that is built around military conquest, is about to bash their door in.
These people are a joke.
I can respect an atheist who isn't on a crusade. Give me the "Old Atheist" any day. I happen to be a Catholic.
Even though they focus mostly on Christianity, prominent Atheist-speakers like Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris are never afraid to criticize Islam as well.
Not half as well as Christians do.
but which Christians? there are so many competing sects, it seems at best a rather hollow victory.
"How many of them will point at the open fascism, oppression and misogyny that is islam?"
All of them, as far as I've seen. This is an uninformed comment.
"I don't need to go on Dawkins style "crusades" or invent something like this A+"
No one needs to. Everyone is free to proudly and passively not believe in all gods and to stay silent except when the see other atheists getting uppity. That is one option.
Or, you could support an actual movement that has actual goals other than quietly being right.
The A+ movement is simply an attempt to saddle atheism with a radical feminist agenda.
"radical feminist" yet another guy who can't get a date .... that's sad.
You have identified one obvious camp in this debate. Do you have anything at all to support this claim?
"aligned with" rather than "identified."
As somebody else stated above, Atheism+ is a glorified ideological purge, led by a bunch of people who have simply taken a highly ideological form of feminism and elevated that to a quasi-religion. The claim that this is some kind of great fight for "social justice" is entirely laughable. There are many atheists on all sides of the debate who support what can be called social justices causes. The more intelligent among them don't reduce it to a party line or political laundry list, unlike the "A+" folks.
A+ is the Tea Party of atheism, with all the implications about intellectual parity.
"Atheism+ is a reaction against the "New Atheism" of Richard Dawkins."
That is also a rather accurate assessment, even if the description of "Atheism+" doesn't lend itself to it. If you are looking to gain some cred among the "Atheism+" movement, there's no better way than to trash Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris for whatever charges of misogynism, sexism, rape apology, torture apology, GENOCIDE APOLOGY, etc. The more insane and outlandish accusation you can come up with, the more credibility you accumulate.
This, I would argue, is a rather peculiar difference between Atheism+ and a lot of other movements. Instead of venerating their predecessors they basically compete on who can take the biggest dump on them.
If you're a white, heterosexual male and don't admit to being the problem, you're the problem. And if you do... well you get the idea; it's heads they win tails you lose. Atheism+ is an ideological purge; nothing more and nothing less. And it has fuck all to do with atheism.
I feel like the first commentator: wtf has atheism to do with other -isms? In deed: nothing. Of course often people who claim to be atheist have a anti-other-isms attitude as well, but you can't generalize that. You can be an atheist AND a racist - as well as you can be an atheist and a communist or an atheist that has no other political interest as well. In fact, many atheists I know don't care about politics...
Atheism, and maybe this what all those "Atheism+" people don't understand is just another -ism that doesn't include any other position than "there is no god". Calling a (or whatever) movement with clear political (if you want: left) views Atheism+ shows, that they didn't understand what atheism means or that they just want to use a "brand" for their own purpose.
It's, even if this doesn't fit exactly, like Stalin calling his reign "Communism+"...
Belief, disbelief and beyond belief