Fundamentalist Atheists Resolutely Resist New Ideas

Issue anathemas against fellow atheist for failing to be as shrill, bigoted and close-minded as the Soviet politburo of Truly True New Atheists.

It really does remind one of a) a small fundamentalist Church drumming somebody out over some bizarre minor disagreement or b) the sort of ideological purity show trials one saw under Stalin.

Scratch a New Atheist, find a fundamentalist.

"From Jonathan Liedl's piece:Hittinger defines malignant technology as “the systematic application of tools to culture, ..."

Is Technology Morally Neutral?
"Hmmm... I'm having a difficult time deciding the right way to reply because I think ..."

Is Technology Morally Neutral?
"Lewandowski, another sociopath Catholic who flaunts his faith - like Paul Ryan, Steve Bannon, Kellyanne ..."

Our Post-Satire Age
"Comment keeps getting deleted. Will try one last time...See Russell Hittinger's essay "Christopher Dawson on ..."

Is Technology Morally Neutral?

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Brian Westley

    And your writing on atheists always reminds me of Joe McCarthy.

    • Dale Price

      So…did you read the link? Any thoughts on that?

    • Are you sure? It seems to me it’s the New Atheists who are on the crusade.

    • Dennis Mahon

      Since McCarthy was right (there were Communists agents in the Federal Government), you’re basically saying Mark is right.

    • Mark Shea

      Illiteracy on your part does not create an obligation on my part.

  • MountainTiger

    You will have to point me to the anathemas. Also the drumming out of anything. Or the place where anyone is under threat for ideological purity. Good reporting from the Chronicle, but you seem to be finding things that just aren’t there.

    • Dale Price

      But the shrill, bigoted close-mindedness is there in abundance. A veritable cornucopia, as it were.

      As it usually is in any discussion in which Coyne and Myers are contributors, but be that as it may.

    • Irenist

      B/c he dared to look at religion as an example of eusociality, D.S. Wilson deserves, quoth P.Z. Myers, “a kick in the balls.” Myers and Dawkins do atheism no favors with their attention-seeking coarseness.

  • Dale Price

    From the Times of London, back in 2006:

    Scientists all over the nation must hold their heads and groan whenever Richard Dawkins appears on television, as he did in The Root of All Evil? (Monday, C4). He is such a terrible advertisement, such an awful embarrassment, the Billy Graham of the senior common room. His splenetic, small-minded, viciously vindictive falsetto rant at all belief that isn’t completely rooted in the natural sciences is laughable. Dawkins is a born-again Darwinist, an atheist, so why is he devoting so much blood pressure and time to arguing with something he knows doesn’t exist? If it’s not there, Richard, why do you keep shouting at it? He looks like a scientific bag lady screaming at the traffic, and watching him argue with a fundamentalist Christian, you realise they were cut from identical cloth, separated at birth.

    • Billy Graham? I guess some saw him as the same as Richard Dawkins. Maybe in his early years. But really?

      • Good point. Billy Graham is awesome.

  • Ted Seeber

    Halfway through the article was a discussion on culture and honesty. This reminded me of the Honest Tea Experiment conducted a few days ago. The results are in:

    Apparently, if we were to sterotype cities, homosexuals and Mormons are so honest that they inspire honesty in others. My own metro area is decidedly lefty, and scored 92% honest (for every 100 bottles of tea set out in the self serve kiosk, $92 was collected).

    Even Brooklyn scored 61%, which indicates to me that any group wanting to raise money should be able to set a 100% markup as a suggested donation on a product and leave out a self-serve kiosk, anywhere in the United States.

  • Sven

    Having an open mind does not mean accepting any new idea as true as soon as it is presented. If you consider an idea, and then reject it based on evidence or similar criteria, you do not have a closed mind. Lack of an “open mind”, based on the misunderstanding between consideration and acceptance of new ideas, is a common but groundless criticism of skeptics.