Are New Atheists Really That Different From Social Justice Atheists?

Because of the arguments between the New Atheists and the Social Justice atheists (the Id Atheists), it’s tempting to think that at least the New Atheists are the reasonable ones when it comes to things like free speech.  But be careful.  I don’t think many New Atheists truly believe in some universal principle of free speech.  I think it’s more about them worrying that they won’t be freely able to criticize and mock religion.

In other words, I think at their core, most New Atheists are social justice atheists and the debate is simply about the target of social justice retribution and aggression.  In fact, the whole blow up triggered by Elevatorgate seems to be about the Social Justice Atheists not agreeing to restrict their attacks to Christians and Jews.   When the SCA’s broadened their attacks to include secular white men, that’s when things derailed.  Things became even more heated when the SCA’s decided to take Islam off the table when it came to bashing religion.

The New Atheists have the same basic id-based attitude as the social justice atheists.  While the latter view “cis straight white males” as The Problem with the world, the former views “religious males and females” as the Problem.  Both sides like to accuse the “problem tribes” of sexism, racism, homophobia, and transphobia.   Both sides think the “problem tribes” must be stripped of cultural influence as the means to bringing about some wonderful utopia and rely on aggressive methods to bring about their agenda.  After all, both are quite supportive of censoring and deplatforming the “problem tribes”  and creating safe spaces free of the “problem tribes.”  Both the New Atheists and Social Justice atheists embrace extremism because they view themselves as Good and their problem tribe as Evil.

The difference is that the New Atheists (here in the United States) have a tool thanks to historical contingency – a particular Supreme Court’s interpretation of the First Amendment.   Thus, they can use the courts to create safe spaces for the secular approach while trying to censor public expressions of religiosity.   To facilitate this, atheists posture as snowflakes who are being psychologically traumatized by public expressions of religious behavior and/or thought. As the government grows in size and reach, the atheist activists are there to ensure it pushes religion further and further into some corner.  Since the SCA’s don’t have a court ruling (yet) that can empower their censoring ways, they must rely on public shaming , protests, witch hunts and even violence.  But you can count on the SJA’s to support the atheist activists push to completely secularize culture as long as a sizable safe space is created for…….Islam.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in atheism, New Atheism, social justice atheism, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to Are New Atheists Really That Different From Social Justice Atheists?

  1. pennywit says:

    As far as “posturing as snowflakes,” do you see any situations where atheists have a point?

  2. stcordova says:

    “culture as long as a sizable safe space is created for…….Islam.”

    Spot on!

    Many atheists are at the core Christ-haters. Their priorities are against Christianity, and are only token anti-religionists. In candid moments, some of them will openly confide if the Christian God existed, then they’d rather go to hell because they hate Him so much.

    As noted on this blog, the behavior of people in this world is evidence that Christianity describes the roots of human nature more clearly than any other view, and therefore it suggests Christianity is of divine, not of purely human origin. The SJA’s are an example of a belief system of a purely human origin, deep within the Id. Christianity in contrast seems to proceed from divine origin.

    SJAs are chummy with Sharlia-loving, female mutilating muslim terrorists. Why? They share a common enemy, Christians and Israel.

    “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you.” John 15:18

  3. Ilíon says:

    … do you see any situations where atheists have a point?

    ‘Atheists’ — *all* ‘atheists’ — are liars, by (anti-)virtue of their God-denial. It isn’t merely that they tell lies about this fact or that, it’s that they lie about the very nature of truth and of reality. *All* ‘atheists’ know that their God-denial is false — they *know* that God IS (*) (**) — and still they assert that he is not.

    So, do to-the-core liars ever “have a point”? Who can tell? Who can care?

    (*) Among other things, if God is not, then there is no such thing as right or wrong (nor can be), there is no “way things ought to be”. ‘Atheists’ will assert that this is how reality really is — when that assertion suits them — and then, they will turn right around and assert that Thus-and-Such ought not be, that it is wrong, or that Something-Else ought to be, that it is right.

    (**) Among other things, if God is not, then there is no such thing as a rational embodied being (nor can be), for “matter-in-motion” is a matter of cause-and-effect grounded in immediate material physicality, not of reason grounded in immaterial-and-transcendent logic. When it suits them, ‘atheists’ will assert that this is how reality really is — despite that their very existence shows the assertion to be false — and then, they will turn right around and assert that Thus-and-Such true or that Something-Else false, and that the truth or falseness can be known, and that it can be known via logical reasoning.

  4. pennywit says:

    So, do to-the-core liars ever “have a point”? Who can tell? Who can care?

    I care.

  5. TFBW says:

    I tend to think that the core similarity between New Atheists and the Neo-Marxists (which is how I’m inclined to classify the SJWs or “Id Atheists”) is authoritarianism. They differ on the details of who should have authority over whom, but share Christians as a common enemy. I would go on to add that there are numerous atheists that I’m aware of (on YouTube in particular) who don’t fall neatly into either camp — a third way. One might mistake them for New Atheists on the basis that they are also anti-SJW (the key common ground between the two camps), but they have the distinction of being more libertarian-leaning, particularly with regards to the fundamental importance of free speech. They also don’t obsess over Christianity so much, and even give it some credit from time to time — a useful touchstone for making the distinction.

    I suspect that there are further useful subdivisions to be made within that category, but that kind of analysis can wait. What’s more immediately interesting is the little public spat on YouTube right now, with Thundef00t (whom I consider representative of New Atheism) publicly disowning the “sceptic community” (whom I consider representative of the third way) over a matter of how a recent “atheist feminist shoots his own girlfriend” incident has been handled. As Jon Haidt has pointed out, libertarians are hard to disgust, and this has become the major point of difference: Thunderf00t is disgusted with the behaviour of the “sceptic community” in this instance; said community has described their actions as simple “dark humour”.

    That’s just a brief sketch, obviously, but the distinctions are interesting.

  6. Michael says:

    As far as “posturing as snowflakes,” do you see any situations where atheists have a point?

    I’m sure there are examples where they have a point, just as I am sure the social justice warriors sometimes have a point. The problem is that when they don’t have a point, they behave with the same level of intensity and certainty.

  7. pennywit says:

    They differ on the details of who should have authority over whom, but share Christians as a common enemy.

    I think Western atheists focus heavily on Christianity simply because it’s the dominant religion in the West, so it comes in for more criticism. In majority-Muslim countries, atheists criticize Islam heavily. But I’d say Raif al-Badawi has more stones than your average Christopher HItchens wannabe.

  8. Michael says:

    One might mistake them for New Atheists on the basis that they are also anti-SJW (the key common ground between the two camps), but they have the distinction of being more libertarian-leaning, particularly with regards to the fundamental importance of free speech. They also don’t obsess over Christianity so much, and even give it some credit from time to time — a useful touchstone for making the distinction.

    This third way might be the accomodationists (the Gnus old arch enemies).

    One potential litmus test for detecting someone who thinks there is a fundamental right of free speech might be examples like this:

    https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2017/05/13/professor-tries-to-impose-censorship-on-students/

    I might have missed it, but I didn’t see any of the atheist champions of free speech showcasing this particular example of social justice.

    Those who merely pose as serious advocates of free speech can often become suddenly squishy in its defense when it comes to certain topics.

  9. TFBW says:

    I think Western atheists focus heavily on Christianity simply because it’s the dominant religion in the West …

    That might be true of New Atheism, since they are somewhat egalitarian in their condemnation of religion, and might even come down harder on Islam for its greater association with violence and illiberal social norms. The Neo-Marxists, however, are anti-Christian, but also tend towards Islamophilia. That’s not just a focus on Christianity: it’s a vast difference in attitude between one religion and another.

  10. Ilíon says:

    I care.

    Do you not pay attention? IF atheism is the truth about the nature of reality, THEN there is no *you* to care or not to care.

  11. Ilíon says:

    pennywit:As far as “posturing as snowflakes,” do you see any situations where atheists have a point?

    Michael:I’m sure there are examples where they have a point, just as I am sure the social justice warriors sometimes have a point. The problem is that when they don’t have a point, they behave with the same level of intensity and certainty.

    Moreover, if one limits one’s analysis to this level (*), the problem is that point or not, they are making moral assertions. BUT, if atheism is the truth about the nature of reality, THEN there are no moral facts upon which to make these assertions. So, even if thay “have a point”, it is intrinsically incoherent and/or they are deliberately engaging in intellectual dishonesty.

    So, once again, who — who in his right mind — cares about any alleged “points” they may have?

    (*) that is, if one insists upon overlooking the fact that IF atheism is the truth about the nature of reality, THEN there are no selves to “have points” in the first place

  12. pennywit says:

    The Neo-Marxists, however, are anti-Christian, but also tend towards Islamophilia. That’s not just a focus on Christianity: it’s a vast difference in attitude between one religion and another.

    See, this is part of the trouble I have. I think religion takes hold among people in part because of the social aspect. People like belonging to a community with common values. I’ve always been loner, so church’s social aspect never had much hold on me. And … well, the atheist community doesn’t have much hold on me, either. I support some of the causes and agree with criticisms of organized religion and religious doctrine. And I occasionally pipe up in an online atheist community when it suits me. But I’ve never attended any of the protests, meetings, or other atheist-oriented social events. And I honestly have no interest in getting embroiled in intra-atheist spats, which appear as interesting as a meeting of the local Sewer & Water Board.

    So honestly, I have no idea how to identify the various breeds of atheist, unless they are willing to get easily recognized tattoos on their faces.

  13. pennywit says:

    So, once again, who — who in his right mind — cares about any alleged “points” they may have?

    Ilion, if you are incapable of recognizing atheists as fellow human beings, possessing the same rights, responsibilities, and privileges, as you, then you, not the atheists, are the problem.

  14. pennywit says:

    TFBW:

    That’s not just a focus on Christianity: it’s a vast difference in attitude between one religion and another.

    Quick question … you elided my reference to al-Badawi. Are you familiar with his situation?

  15. goy says:

    The goy guide to world history is a good start to understand all the anti-religious, anti-white, SJW, feminist, media bias etc. nonsense.

  16. FZM says:

    As far as “posturing as snowflakes,” do you see any situations where atheists have a point?

    Not if they are acting with the goal of eliminating religion from the public sphere and making it as marginal as possible in what is left of the private one; this would be trying to use the power of the state to impose their ideals and beliefs on everyone. I guess it is what they complain about religions doing.

  17. TFBW says:

    @pennywit:

    So honestly, I have no idea how to identify the various breeds of atheist, unless they are willing to get easily recognized tattoos on their faces.

    If you lack observational and analytical skills, there’s not much I can do about it, but here are some easy tips on distinguishing the Neo-Marxist variety atheists from others, since that’s the easiest distinction to spot. (Note: you have to identify “an atheist” first, then apply these tests.) If they’re wearing all black and obscuring their faces while protesting Trump or a pro-Trump rally, then they’re Neo-Marxists. If they mock social justice warriors and feminism, then they’re not Neo-Marxists. If they talk (or chant) about “patriarchy”, “transphobia”, or “white supremacy” as though these are the issues that define our times, then they’re Neo-Marxists. If they consider criticism of Islam, or the suggestion that some terrorism is Islamic to be “Islamophobia”, then they’re Neo-Marxists. If they assert that biological sex is a bi-modal distribution of male and female correlating to sex chromosomes, then they’re not Neo-Marxists. If they still have any respect for Bill Nye after seeing his recent Netflix show, “Bill Nye Saves the World”, they’re Neo-Marxists. If they use words like “privilege”, “oppressed”, “marginalised”, “heteronormative”, or “intersectional” (and they’re not criticising social justice warriors while using them), then they’re Neo-Marxists. If their idea of “equality” means granting women, ethnic minorities, and LGBT+ people positions at the expense of straight, white men, then they’re Neo-Marxists.

    I could go on, but hopefully you can pick up the general idea from the examples.

    Quick question … you elided my reference to al-Badawi. Are you familiar with his situation?

    The name doesn’t ring a bell.

  18. Ilíon says:

    I don’t concern myself with the opinions, nor condemnations, of fools and liars.

  19. Ilíon says:

    TFBW:If you lack observational and analytical skills …

    I don’t think it’s so much that ‘pennywit’ lacks observational and analytical skills as that ‘pennywit’ *is* one of the Special Juicebox Warrior / Cultural Marxist variants of “atheist”, as evidenced by this termination of that exchange — “Ilion, if you are incapable of recognizing atheists as fellow human beings, possessing the same rights, responsibilities, and privileges, as you, then you, not the atheists, are the problem.

    That is such a stereotypically Cultural Marxist insinuation and refusal-to-comprehend what was said.

  20. pennywit says:

    If you lack observational and analytical skills, there’s not much I can do about it,

    As I said above, it’s more that I never deal with the atheist activists or their squabbles.

    I could go on, but hopefully you can pick up the general idea from the examples.

    I get the general idea, although I think that neither the activists nor those who condemn them really understand the real meaning behind the buzzwords, their application, or the consequences of some policies they advocate. And honestly, I lump most of the groups you mention under the labels “tiresome” and “not worth my time.” I occasionally pick apart one of their arguments, and I sometimes agree with them, but they don’t like my style of agreement … or disagreement.

    I think that the “White people step down from your jobs” lady was venting her frustration with academia with the Swiftian “white people step down” demand. I think her real agenda is to make people aware that there are qualified minority candidates applying for jobs as well.

    That said, she seems focused on superficial diversity. There is merit to making those in power aware of bias, including unconscious bias. But in her paradigm, “diversity” seems more like checking off the boxes (“gay,” “trans,” “black,” etc.) than evaluating whole persons.

    I’m far more impressed with data. This study, for example, found that employers discriminated in hiring based on religion. If an entry-level resume listed either religious or atheist extracurricular activities (as opposed to generic extracurriculars), the resume was more likely to be rejected.

    Raif al-Badawi, by the way, is a Saudi Arabian atheist activist. The man faces extended prison terms and the Saudi government has flogged him for criticizing Islam. This man impresses me far more than most Western flavors of atheist activist. He’s actually put his life on the line for his beliefs.

  21. pennywit says:

    Ilion sounds like I struck a nerve.

    For the record — I understand everything Ilion had to say … but most of it was boilerplate. Chaff. A wall of text to distract from the question I asked — do atheist “special snowflakes” ever have a point when they argue something? Most commenters here simply dismissed those questions as minor. Ilion, on the other hand, assaulted the very notion that atheists possess rights at all. That is, Ilion’s reasoning goes something like this; “All rights flow from God. All reality flows from God. Atheists don’t believe in God. That means they deny reality, and they deny their own rights. Therefore, they have no credibility to argue when their rights are violated, and I don’t believe they have any rights.”

    That’s a tortured way to approach the issue, to say the least.

    It seems to me if you’re evaluating a rights claim, it ought to be based on your own beliefs and on an evaluation of facts around the claim. For example, if an atheist demands that a city take down a Nativity display, you ought to evaluate his demand based on your beliefs about freedom of religion and your assessment of the harm (if any) caused by the display.

    In Ilion’s tortured reading, the analysis begins and ends with “Hey, he doesn’t believe in God, so I don’t care about him.”

  22. TFBW says:

    @pennywit:

    And honestly, I lump most of the groups you mention under the labels “tiresome” and “not worth my time.”

    Next time, be more up front about this, and I won’t waste time explaining things that you’re not interested in.

    I think that the “White people step down from your jobs” lady was venting her frustration with academia with the Swiftian “white people step down” demand. I think her real agenda is to make people aware that there are qualified minority candidates applying for jobs as well.

    Also, if you’re genuinely uninterested in folks like this, quit projecting your own mindset on what they say, because that’s what you’re doing here. It’s a fatal mistake to take what someone else is saying, and analyse it under the light of, “if I were saying this, what would my intention be?” It makes for very poor analysis because it is built on a fundamentally flawed premise: namely, that your way of thinking is similar to their way of thinking. You have to understand what a Neo-Marxist is saying in terms of the ideological framework it embodies. To do otherwise is to virtually guarantee misunderstanding.

  23. Dhay says:

    pennywit > For example, if an atheist demands that a city take down a Nativity display, you ought to evaluate his demand based on your beliefs about freedom of religion and your assessment of the harm (if any) caused by the display.

    If an atheist demands that a city take down a Nativity display (or permit a atheist display alongside), the demand is normally based on the law, the city’s response likewise based on the law. You seem to be out of touch with the real world.

    > I think her real agenda is to make people aware that there are qualified minority candidates applying for jobs as well.

    I rather think the people on the selection committees will be aware of that, because … because they have received those applications.

  24. pennywit says:

    Next time, be more up front about this, and I won’t waste time explaining things that you’re not interested in.

    Thought I’d been pretty clear with my cavalier dismissal of them earlier.

    Also, if you’re genuinely uninterested in folks like this, quit projecting your own mindset on what they say, because that’s what you’re doing here. It’s a fatal mistake to take what someone else is saying, and analyse it under the light of, “if I were saying this, what would my intention be?”

    Actually, I drew that conclusion from her own edit to the piece:

    This is a blog post, an opinion piece, and a provocation to think. As Piper says, it is about “shifting perspective”. It is not being written by a university president, nor is it something we are acting upon. We are not actually firing anyone. A common argumentation device is to take something to the extreme to really help us do the shifting (and often with things regarding race and gender, this is an effective device, albeit upsetting for some). [Emphasis mine] This also does not necessarily represent the opinions of the AMS and its members, it represents the point of view of the editors of this particular blog.

    On to a new Dhay:

    If an atheist demands that a city take down a Nativity display (or permit a atheist display alongside), the demand is normally based on the law, the city’s response likewise based on the law. You seem to be out of touch with the real world.

    Not sure what you’re saying here. I think that in thinking about the case, it’s worth considering not just the law, but ethical/moral perspectives.

  25. Ilíon says:

    If an atheist demands that a city take down a Nativity display (or permit a atheist display alongside), the demand is normally based on the law …

    … for a very peculiar meaning of ‘the law‘, as it has been progressively twisted by ‘atheists’ and other anti-Christians over the past 60-70 years.

  26. Ilíon says:

    Meanwhile, the rest of you boys have fun trying to reason with ‘pennywit’, as he continues to demonstrate to you that *all* God-deniers are intellectually dishonest. Regarding that for any specific God-denier, the only question is how how large the “umbra” is; that is, how close to the Central Question can you get before the ‘atheist’ *must* retreat into illogic and indeed irrationality so as to avoid admitting that God is.

  27. TFBW says:

    @pennywit:

    Thought I’d been pretty clear with my cavalier dismissal of them earlier.

    Sorry, you expended so many words on explaining how little interest they hold for you that I completely missed the point. You could probably make your position much more clear and succinct by summarising it in the word “bah”, hyperlinked here for context.

    Actually, I drew that conclusion from her own edit to the piece:

    That isn’t her. Between the word “ADDENDUM” and the signature line “Adriana Salerno, Editor-in-Chief, May 18, 2017,” it’s actually someone else. Guess who.

  28. pennywit says:

    Sorry, you expended so many words on explaining how little interest they hold for you that I completely missed the point. You could probably make your position much more clear and succinct by summarising it in the word “bah”, hyperlinked here for context.

    *Shrug*. I got carried away. When I’m having fun, I get verbose. Tell you what, to aid my ability to tell the variety of atheists apart, why don’t you and I sneak into the next atheist convention. You classify them. Then, we get them all rip-roaring drunk, and I’ll apply tattoo needles so I know which is which in the future.

    That isn’t her. Between the word “ADDENDUM” and the signature line “Adriana Salerno, Editor-in-Chief, May 18, 2017,” it’s actually someone else. Guess who.

    Missed that bit.

    Piper (the author) has only one other piece on the blog. After paging through it and reading through the comments, I’m not sure where she’s coming from. I get that she believes there aren’t enough women or minorities in the sciences and she feels that sexism and racism continue to hold those populations back. But the vocabulary is nearly impenetrable.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s