Angry Atheism is a ‘Boys Club’, and a Religion

First

In November 2006, Wired magazine identified Richard Dawkins, Daniel C Dennett and Sam Harris as a “band of intellectual brothers”, whose bestselling books on atheism, published between 2004 and 2006, heralded an era of 21st-century nonbelief. The media quickly dubbed this “the New Atheism”. What differentiates this movement from more old-school atheism (besides the mainstream media’s ever-present need to anoint, brand and categorise thought leaders) is that New Atheists take a vehemently zero-tolerance approach to faith, mysticism and even agnosticism. Though the basics are the same – non-belief in a god or gods – the new system also calls for pushing non-belief on others, almost to the point of abject proselytisation.

Anyone who evangelizes and proselytizes is a member of a ‘religious organization as far as I’m concerned.  Hence, these angry atheist are hypocritical in that they too are religious.  It’s just that their religion is their own intellect (and what a sorry, weak, pale, empty, silly god they serve!).  If these angry sad-sacks weren’t religious, why would they care so much what others believed and why are all the loudest angry atheists (like Hitchens and Dawkins and Avalos and Ehrman and the rest of the merry band of god-haters) men?

Tom Flynn, editor of the secular humanist journal Free Inquiry and executive director of the Council for Secular Humanism, agrees that there’s a strong gender skew in the atheist movement. Though organisations like his have worked to recruit and retain female members – with mixed results – he’s aware that more men are recognised as atheist leaders. That said, he won’t necessarily concede that there’s sexist intent behind that recognition, saying:

“The numbers [of atheist authors] are so small, it’s largely coincidence that these authors who are all men emerge as superstars.”

Felicity, however, doesn’t fully explain female atheists’ under-sung presence. 

Read the remainder of the essay.  It’s quite interesting, and it makes the point quite well that the problem with angry atheism is its practitioners sense of impotence and hence their need to express themselves more rambunctiously than normal folk.  Or in other words, if these insipid droolers would just buy a sportscar, they wouldn’t feel so impotent and they would abandon their silly ‘let’s rid culture of God’ ignorance.

Tagged: ,

5 thoughts on “Angry Atheism is a ‘Boys Club’, and a Religion

  1. Rob El 29 Sep 2011 at 9:18 am

    Hi, for whatever it’s worth, I had some thoughts, you don’t like em, I never said em…

    You said: “Anyone who evangelizes and proselytizes is a member of a ‘religious organization as far as I’m concerned. Hence, these angry atheist are hypocritical in that they too are religious. It’s just that their religion is their own intellect (and what a sorry, weak, pale, empty, silly god they serve!)”

    Reply: Not to be too sassy, but wouldn’t this definition mean that advertisment is religion, and by extension advertising companies their ‘church’? My point is: doesn’t this relitavistic definition make the word mean absoultely nothing…?

    You said: “If these angry sad-sacks weren’t religious, why would they care so much what others believed and why are all the loudest angry atheists”

    Reply: Firstly.. haha, are the religious allowed to use the word ‘sad-sacks’? Either way, kudos on the great word!

    I think they would say that there is real harm done by religion, on a personal and global level (not meaning the world is in tatters due to religion, just that religion effects lives, negatively, worldwide), perhaps?

    Like

    • Jim 29 Sep 2011 at 9:28 am

      see- the very fact that you have a sense of humor means that you dont fall into the category of the ‘angry atheist’. atheist, ok. fine. your choice. but for me angry atheists are completely worthy of all the scorn and contempt they find heaped upon themselves.

      Like

  2. Rob El 29 Sep 2011 at 9:49 am

    Thanks 🙂 But it has more to do with polite conversation than how I feel as an atheist. Attacking you, is not going to gain either of us anything, especially when I don’t know you, conversation however? Hey, we just may find some middle ground.

    You said: “but for me angry atheists are completely worthy of all the scorn and contempt they find heaped upon themselves.”

    Reply: I’m not so sure, but I can understand why you feel that way, to elaborate my point: what about ‘angry theists’? Do they deserve scorn and contempt heaped upon themsleves? Simply for being polemical? Perhaps, but they serve a purpose too, yes? Polemics sell books, raise consciousness and awareness (which Dawkins describes himself as: a ‘consciousness raiser’) which might possibly explain the reason for the rise in apologetics books written and sold about the “Gnu Atheism”?

    Like

    • Jim 29 Sep 2011 at 9:50 am

      i dont know any angry theists. but i normally only associate with people i like

      Like

  3. Rob El 29 Sep 2011 at 9:51 am

    You said: “i dont know any angry theists. but i normally only associate with people i like.”

    Reply: Then we’re off to a great start 🙂

    Like

Comments are closed.