I think you're on to something with this video. There is an all-or-nothing approach many of the neo-atheists take that bothers me, which makes their approach feel quite narrow.
While I don't agree with them on all things, I will throw something out I understand they may say in response to the question of them being fundamentalist: in the face of evidence, they say they will change their views according to the new information. Thoughts? (I don't see exegesis changing their minds, though.)
awesome! I've been saying this for years because back before everyone left myspace for facebook, I used to run into these anti-theists all the time in philosophy groups as well as the largest Muslim Group and some of the Baha'i groups where they would seriously preach something that sounded strikingly like evangelical Christians that want to save my soul; only the term they would use is that they wanted to "de-program" me and others from our indoctrinations
I liked very much the video. I'm a christian and I received a comment in my channel from an atheist saying "I'll murder your ass"... I erased it, but I think I should first have recorded it someway and denounced the guy for youtube to cancel his account, but now it's not possible anymore... Only argumentation is valid, for sure!
Upvoted, although I'm atheist, I understand where you're coming from. I have a migrane right now, so I'm sorry if you've been obvious with saying this already, but not all atheists are assholes :/. I only come out of my shell with my beliefs and get peeved off when an xtian or other religious person is blatantly berating other religions or non-religions, or shoving their beliefs down other's throats. It's good to know theres other people out there who see both sides of this thing.
I agree with Reza Aslan on this. In my dissertation I had a section dealing with the similarites between the religious fundamentalists and the secular fundamentalists. Professor David Ford (Cambridge) has rightly described the new atheists as mirror opposite fundamenatlists, in that they share the same basic assumptions as religious fundamentalists. The Bible contains scientific information, religion and science are incompatible, etcetera. Both are unsophisticated and naive.
if you say that Communism, Nazism, Nationalism are Religions, than you also have to say not all ppl. who belive in god are religious
it is that totalitarinism - which many (but surly not all) religious ppl. have that is worrysome - and which can transform it self to a totalitarian praxis - like nazism and communism - it is not the belief in a god in itself - if you define it as practice you could even with lesser extent then call new atheism as a religion - which is more then just disbelif in g
I find that new atheists make metaphysical claims just as theists do, and cannot avoid doing so. This is why I alternately call myself an Atheist, Agnostic, or Ignostic. Anti-theists can exhibit gruesome intolerance and advocate indiscriminate violence (although Nazism is so incoherent that its atheism is in question) in the name of fighting religion. Whether or not that makes them fundamentalists is moot: it makes them bad people. I don't think the term is helpful.
I think what atheists do is that they use science as a religion , what if science proves that the world has a creator, what will the atheists do , I think you know ,they have their religion !
We are continually trying to keep up with this world around us with science “science is a tool” and the universe will continue to surprise us with marvels, theories of today are nullified tomorrow e.g “Newton Laws “. And I don’t think evolution is against the existence of God , I mean Darwin himself was a believer of God.
All the "new atheists" have said ideology is what drives people. None of them have said religion is to blame for every conflict, so you're just making stuff up now.
You don't get to have a different view about scientific findings like evolution. You can't say "I don't believe in evolution" and expect people to respect that. That's not simply a disagreement but factually wrong. To what degree did religion influence the 9/11 hijackers? That's an area where people could respectfully disagree.
Uh, no. Reza Aslan is sorely mistaken here - Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett repeatedly state time and time again that they acknowledge the presence of a plethora of intelligent people who believe in an afterlife or a higher being. A class example they all give is Francis Collins, the head of the HGP.
Sloppy work... The differences between fundamentalist Believers and Atheists is fundamental by definition. To call them both "fundamentalists" is to obscure obvious differences. What you mean to say is "Outspoken atheists aren't nice to me". The point about Atheists calling believers "stupid and themselves smart" was actually argued against by Christopher Hitchens, and this atheist happens to disagree with that unsophisticated tagline as well.
What has Islam really done for humanity? Really? Look at the state of the Islamic world - war, corruption, murder, discrimination, poverty, backwardness, oppression (especially of you are gay or a woman) but hang on.....this is all the fault of the west right? Or the media? Or America? Islam = filth.
You just don't see atheists beheading people because their religious views are different. You don't see them trying to pull people away from religious views. The same cannot be said about ISLAM!
It really doesn't take a genius to figure that out.
Yes we see fundamental atheists beheading, blowing buildings up, raping, torturing, terrorising, rioting all in the name of atheism every single day. Oh actually, hang on, I made a mistake....I seem to have gotten it mixed up with ISLAM.
Keep dreaming of Islamophobia, just like your fairy man, it doesn't exist :)
your absolutely right if there was a machine lets call it fundamentalometer i should say that you could measure the score of amount of fundamentalism based on amount of hate comments that you have recieved sofar when you stimulated the nerves of those fellows at the very core of their belief system .
actually if you want to descriminate a fundamentalist it is enough to shake its believe system and then score the fundamentalometer based on how angry he gets the more hate you recieve actually push the score of fundamentalo meter up higher
False equivocation - if I say that the Koran must be read literally to be a true Muslim, that does not make me a fundamentalist atheist, since I am not commenting on any holy book revered by my own religion, or any follower of that religion (or non-religion). Atheists have no holy book by definition, and therefore CANNOT be fundamentalist.
Such a comment would make me a fundamentalist Muslim, if I were indeed a Muslim. Since I am not, I am not a fundamentalist of any kind.
The "New Atheists" are claiming that a better way can be derived from scientific discovery and inquiry, which quite obviously yield very beneficial results for all of humanity. Without their ideologies, you wouldn't be able to broadcast your views to the world with that camera, computer, microphone, and internet connection (among other things). What technologies or immensely beneficial aspects of our lives have been the direct result of religions like your own?
The problem is that all the major religions are no longer pure. They have literally become, quite obviously, politically driven ideologies. You have to divide the part that is a spiritual and moral teaching from the politicians who are claiming to adhere to one spiritual practice or the next. The secularist movements like the National Socialist Party, Stalinism, and Leninism were also very destructive to human life. They didn't yield anything very progressive or lasting.
minor point of philosophical inquiry: you seem to imply in your comments on literalist readings of scripture that one can defensibly believe in only a part of the qur'an. either the book in question came from god or it didn't, no? consequently, it would seem that the only 2 logical possibilities are to believe in its authenticity in its entirety or to reject it in its entirety. please explain if you disagree.
p.s. you have some great scholarship and you are a handsome man
Mr. Aslan you got it all wrong You now nothing about psychology and motivation. Stalin was an atheist, but also a Marxist/communist. He was not MOTIVATED by atheism to kill, Marxsim MOTIVATED him. Further Hitler was a catholic, and he was motivated by Nazism, not atheism or Christianity. Hitler and Lenin all had moustaches, but that doesn’t mean there is a correlation. I hope you can see the differences.
Give me one example where an atheist has killed someone because of his "atheists believes"
acutally the threats and bitter comments that you recieved is a very good indicator of the fact that you did not waste your time writting about this topic . many thanks
What's the point of this piece? Do wrong deeds of atheists/believers prove the existence of god? Does branding atheist fundamentalists answer the question? I think you are making this whole thing up!
Atheists should look to Socrates, Confucius, and others for ethics.The Analects provide an ethical system and a learning system through philosophy and is much more useful then religion.The Religious have to tie themselves in knots to make what they believe ethical, but being an Atheist does not guarantee a high standard of ethics. Atheists should go out of their way to develop ethics. Anyone who makes threats of violence is evil and unethical.
In America Biology classes are under siege by a concept known as Intelligent Design. Astronomy is being attacked in the same manner.Evolutionary Biology has nothing to do with fundamentalism as it does with genetics and the process of natural selection.If atheists are sending such threats that is a shame. For my fellow atheists it is important to develop ethics that would prevent any kind of absolute certainty.If you are an atheist sending death threats that is a kind of fundamentalism
Atheism is a religion, the courts have ruled so, and it is ( in my opinion ) common sense. The belief that there is no God is a belief about God, and if one makes said belief a core principle in how one views the world, that in my book is a religion. If one holds that their religious views are the only valid truths, that makes you a fundamentalist . Ergo, it is possible to be an atheist and a fundamentalist
sam harris, chris hitchens, richard dawkins and bill maher are all anti-religious atheists, but they are somewhat similar in their view that islam is the most problematic religion in our times compared to relatively benign judaism and christianity. i think this creates the dilemma you are in. you have to defend yourself against left-wing anti-christian intellectuals where you think you should belong.
Reza it is obvious you are obssessed with these guys?? you offer nothing in this article that adds to the debate nor detracts at all from the validity of the atheists positions. The reason why atheism is growing in popularity, whether the religious apologists (like yourself) want to admit it or not, is that their arguments are more convincing than yours for religion/ god or Islam for that matter.
Atheists get mad at religious believers because trying to get any sense out of them is like smashing your head into a brick wall. Religion is stuffed down our throats on a daily basis. If you guys want to believe in fairy tales then by all means do so, you are only deluding yourselves but for fuck sake leave us out of it, we don't care for your illusions.
...as for the "vitriol" you speak of. Imagine living in a world, where the majority of people believe in an invisible being, a mythic figure, who supposedly intervenes on everyday affairs. Any "vitriol" that New Atheists have is a direct response to the overwhelming superstition of our day. The earth is not flat. God heals the sick. Prophets ascended into heaven. These things are not true. There is no proof.
Reza, although it might be true that "the most heinous acts" of the last century have been committed by the likes of Stalin and Hitler (not the most religious), that does not make religion true. It DOES NOT MAKE RELIGION TRUE!!!!! This is something you need to think about. This is something believers don't get. There is no proof for god and if there is no proof we should not believe in something.
Since "fundamentalism" comes from "fundamental," which is a word used to describe many things, I don't believe it is a word that stems from, and is usable on in, a religious context. On the other hand, when "fundamentalist" is used to describe someone in a religious group, it typically implies that the religious person in question is going back to the "fundamentals" of their religion, or taking their religious scripture literally. Atheists don't seem to have anything to be "fundamental" about.
Your article wasn't insulting at all. But people got mad because Harris and Hitchens represent figureheads people flock to. You critique them, and people take it personally.
I couldn't help but think of the book by Chris Hedges "I don't believe in Athiests", which was pretty much all about what you have written in your WaPo article.
I'd have to say that yeah, there are certain atheists who can be zealous in their beliefs, just as i know a lot of atheists who are more relaxed and less judgemental. I would hold atheism equal to other theisms, since they all encompass personal belief.
Interesting. This is the kind of tactic that the New Atheists are (quite wrongly) accused of using. Point out the whackos (there are whackos in any group) and conflate them with the entire group of atheists. After all, mocking ridiculous ideas is clearly on the same level as threats of violence.
Your attempts to make religion seem like an intellectually respectable position may convince the credulous, but they aren't in the least compelling to anyone who understands that religions are man-made.
I agree with you 100% Mr. Aslan. Fundamentalism isn't exclusive to religion, but to any ideology. There are Republican fundamentalist, Democrat fundamentalists, Constitutional fundamentalists, etc, all of these groups strive for a strict adherence to the "fundamental" values/goals/rules etc that they were based on. Anything can turn into or produce fundamentalists, not just religion.
@IslamRocksMySocks The problem with this dishonest little video is that Aslan thinks that disbelief in he supernatural or the belief that science is our best tool for understanding nature also classifies as an ideology.
The truth is, there is no scientific dogma, there is simply good science. There is no atheist fundementalism, there is just a lack of belief in the claims made by religious people. Nuff said.
@IslamRocksMySocks :by saying that, you are admitting that religion is nothing but a theory and may I say that you are suggesting that this is entirely man made. im not sure how the believers would respond to that let alone the fundamentalists. peace.
hm,i continue to find the term "new atheist" idiotic.
i do not think holding an intellectually bankrupt idea makes one inherently stupid.smart people have been possessed by any number of very bad ideas,racism,extreme nationalism,Ect.but being smart certainly does not make all the ideas one holds smart or rational.
as for the issue of fundamentalistic readings of scripture,the issue seems more to me the dishonesty of the criteria used to determine which passages are to be read literally.
Atheism can absolutely be fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is not solely a religious phenomenon. Fundamentalism is can apply to any belief system which makes a claim to truth. The parallels are striking and ironic - to deny them is completely unreasonable.
I think you're on to something with this video. There is an all-or-nothing approach many of the neo-atheists take that bothers me, which makes their approach feel quite narrow.
While I don't agree with them on all things, I will throw something out I understand they may say in response to the question of them being fundamentalist: in the face of evidence, they say they will change their views according to the new information. Thoughts? (I don't see exegesis changing their minds, though.)
scutopus 3 days ago
awesome! I've been saying this for years because back before everyone left myspace for facebook, I used to run into these anti-theists all the time in philosophy groups as well as the largest Muslim Group and some of the Baha'i groups where they would seriously preach something that sounded strikingly like evangelical Christians that want to save my soul; only the term they would use is that they wanted to "de-program" me and others from our indoctrinations
virtuousvandal 2 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
I liked very much the video. I'm a christian and I received a comment in my channel from an atheist saying "I'll murder your ass"... I erased it, but I think I should first have recorded it someway and denounced the guy for youtube to cancel his account, but now it's not possible anymore... Only argumentation is valid, for sure!
synergyzer07 1 month ago
Upvoted, although I'm atheist, I understand where you're coming from. I have a migrane right now, so I'm sorry if you've been obvious with saying this already, but not all atheists are assholes :/. I only come out of my shell with my beliefs and get peeved off when an xtian or other religious person is blatantly berating other religions or non-religions, or shoving their beliefs down other's throats. It's good to know theres other people out there who see both sides of this thing.
NinjaScenester 2 months ago
@NinjaScenester Again, sorry if I don't make sense haha.
NinjaScenester 2 months ago
I agree with Reza Aslan on this. In my dissertation I had a section dealing with the similarites between the religious fundamentalists and the secular fundamentalists. Professor David Ford (Cambridge) has rightly described the new atheists as mirror opposite fundamenatlists, in that they share the same basic assumptions as religious fundamentalists. The Bible contains scientific information, religion and science are incompatible, etcetera. Both are unsophisticated and naive.
bayreuth79 3 months ago
if you say that Communism, Nazism, Nationalism are Religions, than you also have to say not all ppl. who belive in god are religious
it is that totalitarinism - which many (but surly not all) religious ppl. have that is worrysome - and which can transform it self to a totalitarian praxis - like nazism and communism - it is not the belief in a god in itself - if you define it as practice you could even with lesser extent then call new atheism as a religion - which is more then just disbelif in g
wildhias 3 months ago
I find that new atheists make metaphysical claims just as theists do, and cannot avoid doing so. This is why I alternately call myself an Atheist, Agnostic, or Ignostic. Anti-theists can exhibit gruesome intolerance and advocate indiscriminate violence (although Nazism is so incoherent that its atheism is in question) in the name of fighting religion. Whether or not that makes them fundamentalists is moot: it makes them bad people. I don't think the term is helpful.
TimdeVisser86 4 months ago
I think what atheists do is that they use science as a religion , what if science proves that the world has a creator, what will the atheists do , I think you know ,they have their religion !
las933 6 months ago
We are continually trying to keep up with this world around us with science “science is a tool” and the universe will continue to surprise us with marvels, theories of today are nullified tomorrow e.g “Newton Laws “. And I don’t think evolution is against the existence of God , I mean Darwin himself was a believer of God.
las933 6 months ago
communism and marxism are secular?
hashpuppy101 6 months ago
This is like saying civil rights activists are fundamentalists.
kennegun 9 months ago
Whats the fundamentalism in zero?
kennegun 9 months ago
All the "new atheists" have said ideology is what drives people. None of them have said religion is to blame for every conflict, so you're just making stuff up now.
You don't get to have a different view about scientific findings like evolution. You can't say "I don't believe in evolution" and expect people to respect that. That's not simply a disagreement but factually wrong. To what degree did religion influence the 9/11 hijackers? That's an area where people could respectfully disagree.
EhDkay 11 months ago
1:23 "but they're stupid."
Uh, no. Reza Aslan is sorely mistaken here - Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett repeatedly state time and time again that they acknowledge the presence of a plethora of intelligent people who believe in an afterlife or a higher being. A class example they all give is Francis Collins, the head of the HGP.
Talk about stretching the truth, Reza.
Jabbowhaa 11 months ago
Sloppy work... The differences between fundamentalist Believers and Atheists is fundamental by definition. To call them both "fundamentalists" is to obscure obvious differences. What you mean to say is "Outspoken atheists aren't nice to me". The point about Atheists calling believers "stupid and themselves smart" was actually argued against by Christopher Hitchens, and this atheist happens to disagree with that unsophisticated tagline as well.
ReadingMostly 1 year ago
What has Islam really done for humanity? Really? Look at the state of the Islamic world - war, corruption, murder, discrimination, poverty, backwardness, oppression (especially of you are gay or a woman) but hang on.....this is all the fault of the west right? Or the media? Or America? Islam = filth.
Toughndeadly 1 year ago
You just don't see atheists beheading people because their religious views are different. You don't see them trying to pull people away from religious views. The same cannot be said about ISLAM!
It really doesn't take a genius to figure that out.
Toughndeadly 1 year ago
Hi Reza,
I agree with you! One thing, Hitler was Roman Catholic and his soldiers also,
solysoly89 1 year ago
Although Stalin, Hitler & Mao never claimed immortaility, they did claim inerrancy.
For all practical purposes, that makes them religious leaders...
23021955 1 year ago 3
Yes we see fundamental atheists beheading, blowing buildings up, raping, torturing, terrorising, rioting all in the name of atheism every single day. Oh actually, hang on, I made a mistake....I seem to have gotten it mixed up with ISLAM.
Keep dreaming of Islamophobia, just like your fairy man, it doesn't exist :)
Toughndeadly 1 year ago
your absolutely right if there was a machine lets call it fundamentalometer i should say that you could measure the score of amount of fundamentalism based on amount of hate comments that you have recieved sofar when you stimulated the nerves of those fellows at the very core of their belief system .
alitinam 1 year ago
your absolutely right reza
actually if you want to descriminate a fundamentalist it is enough to shake its believe system and then score the fundamentalometer based on how angry he gets the more hate you recieve actually push the score of fundamentalo meter up higher
alitinam 1 year ago
I think you are making evangelical atheism up
LimenSpirit 1 year ago
False equivocation - if I say that the Koran must be read literally to be a true Muslim, that does not make me a fundamentalist atheist, since I am not commenting on any holy book revered by my own religion, or any follower of that religion (or non-religion). Atheists have no holy book by definition, and therefore CANNOT be fundamentalist.
Such a comment would make me a fundamentalist Muslim, if I were indeed a Muslim. Since I am not, I am not a fundamentalist of any kind.
Slossius1983 1 year ago
The "New Atheists" are claiming that a better way can be derived from scientific discovery and inquiry, which quite obviously yield very beneficial results for all of humanity. Without their ideologies, you wouldn't be able to broadcast your views to the world with that camera, computer, microphone, and internet connection (among other things). What technologies or immensely beneficial aspects of our lives have been the direct result of religions like your own?
11889music 1 year ago
The problem is that all the major religions are no longer pure. They have literally become, quite obviously, politically driven ideologies. You have to divide the part that is a spiritual and moral teaching from the politicians who are claiming to adhere to one spiritual practice or the next. The secularist movements like the National Socialist Party, Stalinism, and Leninism were also very destructive to human life. They didn't yield anything very progressive or lasting.
11889music 1 year ago
I wonder who is financing this Reza attention whore , this sophistic piece of shit...
entropia34332 1 year ago
What a load of bullshit.
LuckyLukeNZ 1 year ago
"Proof"? You are an idiot, that is why you received the response that you did.
kanjizaibosatsugyo 1 year ago
minor point of philosophical inquiry: you seem to imply in your comments on literalist readings of scripture that one can defensibly believe in only a part of the qur'an. either the book in question came from god or it didn't, no? consequently, it would seem that the only 2 logical possibilities are to believe in its authenticity in its entirety or to reject it in its entirety. please explain if you disagree.
p.s. you have some great scholarship and you are a handsome man
lax80684 1 year ago
Mr. Aslan you got it all wrong You now nothing about psychology and motivation. Stalin was an atheist, but also a Marxist/communist. He was not MOTIVATED by atheism to kill, Marxsim MOTIVATED him. Further Hitler was a catholic, and he was motivated by Nazism, not atheism or Christianity. Hitler and Lenin all had moustaches, but that doesn’t mean there is a correlation. I hope you can see the differences.
Give me one example where an atheist has killed someone because of his "atheists believes"
natsidrukdruk 1 year ago
beautifully written article Dr.Aslan
no wonder that it bothers fundamentalist atheist
acutally the threats and bitter comments that you recieved is a very good indicator of the fact that you did not waste your time writting about this topic . many thanks
alitinam 1 year ago
Give it a rest, Aslan. Jesus Christ.
F33bs 1 year ago
Communism (and its Nazi heresy) ARE religions. Although Stalin, Hitler, Mao, etc. never claimed immortality, they did claim inerrancy.
Sorry, but anyone incapable of error ain't human...
23021955 1 year ago
What's the point of this piece? Do wrong deeds of atheists/believers prove the existence of god? Does branding atheist fundamentalists answer the question? I think you are making this whole thing up!
bhigr 1 year ago
Even Ayn Rand a more militant atheist would agree that using the threat of force against opposition or a person of differing opinion is evil.
arcticmint 1 year ago
Atheists should look to Socrates, Confucius, and others for ethics.The Analects provide an ethical system and a learning system through philosophy and is much more useful then religion.The Religious have to tie themselves in knots to make what they believe ethical, but being an Atheist does not guarantee a high standard of ethics. Atheists should go out of their way to develop ethics. Anyone who makes threats of violence is evil and unethical.
arcticmint 1 year ago
In America Biology classes are under siege by a concept known as Intelligent Design. Astronomy is being attacked in the same manner.Evolutionary Biology has nothing to do with fundamentalism as it does with genetics and the process of natural selection.If atheists are sending such threats that is a shame. For my fellow atheists it is important to develop ethics that would prevent any kind of absolute certainty.If you are an atheist sending death threats that is a kind of fundamentalism
arcticmint 1 year ago
It definately exists.
TheMuziekmann 1 year ago
Communism, Nazism, and nationalism are religions. The faith aspects are the same, although the conduits of those faiths are different.
firemarshall007 1 year ago
Atheism is a religion, the courts have ruled so, and it is ( in my opinion ) common sense. The belief that there is no God is a belief about God, and if one makes said belief a core principle in how one views the world, that in my book is a religion. If one holds that their religious views are the only valid truths, that makes you a fundamentalist . Ergo, it is possible to be an atheist and a fundamentalist
quamobrem 1 year ago
sam harris, chris hitchens, richard dawkins and bill maher are all anti-religious atheists, but they are somewhat similar in their view that islam is the most problematic religion in our times compared to relatively benign judaism and christianity. i think this creates the dilemma you are in. you have to defend yourself against left-wing anti-christian intellectuals where you think you should belong.
idunoful 1 year ago
Comment removed
idunoful 1 year ago
Reza it is obvious you are obssessed with these guys?? you offer nothing in this article that adds to the debate nor detracts at all from the validity of the atheists positions. The reason why atheism is growing in popularity, whether the religious apologists (like yourself) want to admit it or not, is that their arguments are more convincing than yours for religion/ god or Islam for that matter.
perplexed411 1 year ago
Atheists get mad at religious believers because trying to get any sense out of them is like smashing your head into a brick wall. Religion is stuffed down our throats on a daily basis. If you guys want to believe in fairy tales then by all means do so, you are only deluding yourselves but for fuck sake leave us out of it, we don't care for your illusions.
CompleteSinner 1 year ago
...as for the "vitriol" you speak of. Imagine living in a world, where the majority of people believe in an invisible being, a mythic figure, who supposedly intervenes on everyday affairs. Any "vitriol" that New Atheists have is a direct response to the overwhelming superstition of our day. The earth is not flat. God heals the sick. Prophets ascended into heaven. These things are not true. There is no proof.
SafariStevo 1 year ago
Reza, although it might be true that "the most heinous acts" of the last century have been committed by the likes of Stalin and Hitler (not the most religious), that does not make religion true. It DOES NOT MAKE RELIGION TRUE!!!!! This is something you need to think about. This is something believers don't get. There is no proof for god and if there is no proof we should not believe in something.
SafariStevo 1 year ago
Since "fundamentalism" comes from "fundamental," which is a word used to describe many things, I don't believe it is a word that stems from, and is usable on in, a religious context. On the other hand, when "fundamentalist" is used to describe someone in a religious group, it typically implies that the religious person in question is going back to the "fundamentals" of their religion, or taking their religious scripture literally. Atheists don't seem to have anything to be "fundamental" about.
Apelynn 1 year ago
Your article wasn't insulting at all. But people got mad because Harris and Hitchens represent figureheads people flock to. You critique them, and people take it personally.
AAAhmed46 1 year ago
I couldn't help but think of the book by Chris Hedges "I don't believe in Athiests", which was pretty much all about what you have written in your WaPo article.
I'd have to say that yeah, there are certain atheists who can be zealous in their beliefs, just as i know a lot of atheists who are more relaxed and less judgemental. I would hold atheism equal to other theisms, since they all encompass personal belief.
Bluestarhand 1 year ago
Interesting. This is the kind of tactic that the New Atheists are (quite wrongly) accused of using. Point out the whackos (there are whackos in any group) and conflate them with the entire group of atheists. After all, mocking ridiculous ideas is clearly on the same level as threats of violence.
Your attempts to make religion seem like an intellectually respectable position may convince the credulous, but they aren't in the least compelling to anyone who understands that religions are man-made.
blueleadpot 1 year ago
I agree with you 100% Mr. Aslan. Fundamentalism isn't exclusive to religion, but to any ideology. There are Republican fundamentalist, Democrat fundamentalists, Constitutional fundamentalists, etc, all of these groups strive for a strict adherence to the "fundamental" values/goals/rules etc that they were based on. Anything can turn into or produce fundamentalists, not just religion.
IslamRocksMySocks 1 year ago 8
@IslamRocksMySocks The problem with this dishonest little video is that Aslan thinks that disbelief in he supernatural or the belief that science is our best tool for understanding nature also classifies as an ideology.
The truth is, there is no scientific dogma, there is simply good science. There is no atheist fundementalism, there is just a lack of belief in the claims made by religious people. Nuff said.
spacecowboy95 1 year ago
@IslamRocksMySocks :by saying that, you are admitting that religion is nothing but a theory and may I say that you are suggesting that this is entirely man made. im not sure how the believers would respond to that let alone the fundamentalists. peace.
hashpuppy101 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
let's get married!
lionsrose 1 year ago
hm,i continue to find the term "new atheist" idiotic.
i do not think holding an intellectually bankrupt idea makes one inherently stupid.smart people have been possessed by any number of very bad ideas,racism,extreme nationalism,Ect.but being smart certainly does not make all the ideas one holds smart or rational.
as for the issue of fundamentalistic readings of scripture,the issue seems more to me the dishonesty of the criteria used to determine which passages are to be read literally.
NemoUtopian 1 year ago
reza, ignore them. focus on your work. I wish you all the best.
rahulkhanna0091 1 year ago
Atheism can absolutely be fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is not solely a religious phenomenon. Fundamentalism is can apply to any belief system which makes a claim to truth. The parallels are striking and ironic - to deny them is completely unreasonable.
ldsc3652 1 year ago