The Richard Dawkins Dilemma: New Atheism Got Old But Never Grew Up
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 มิ.ย. 2021
- ▶Chrisiousity's video, "Dawkins vs. Humanism": • Dawkins vs Humanism
▶Eiynah's recent episode of Polite Conversations on New Atheism and the far right: / newatheism
▶Phil Torres's Salon article, "Godless Grifters: How the New Atheists Merged With the Far Right": www.salon.com/2021/06/05/how-...
▶Join this channel to get access to perks:
th-cam.com/users/steveshivesjoin
▶Patreon: / steveshives
▶PayPal: www.paypal.me/SteveShives
▶Twitter: / steve_shives
▶Facebook: / thatguysteveshives
▶Instagram: / steve.shives
Listen to the Late Seating podcast:
▶RSS: / sounds.rss
▶Soundcloud: / late-seating
▶Website: www.lemmelistenpodcasts.com/la...
Listen to The Ensign's Log podcast:
▶RSS: / sounds.rss
▶Soundcloud: / the-ensigns-log-podcast
▶Website: www.lemmelistenpodcasts.com/th... - บันเทิง
![🎮เกมยิงปืนใหม่ ภาพสวย และ สมจริงที่สุดในโลก [ BODYCAM ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/My3l1owRY9I/mqdefault.jpg)
As an atheist, this absolutely hits on why I never became part of any kind of organized atheist community. Thanks for sharing your honest anger and frustration in critique of sacred cows.
I'd argue organized community is pretty much what's wrong with religion in the first place. When I hear "atheist groups" I have to wonder how long till we have "atheist missionaries" and "atheist holy wars". Religion, or the lack of it, should be a private thing, not an organization. (EDIT: "private" in the sense of individual, not taboo)
(I'm not saying there are no good bits, just that they aren't worth the cost.)
Going to atheist church does seem a little oxymoronic.
I pretty much broke with the atheist community when I realized they pushed for conformity as much as any religious community I'd seen.
I much prefer people like Steve and George Carlin that talked about religion occasionally, but had stuff to say about other things as well.
I find most of the prominent atheists tiresome one-trick ponies and have little interest in what they have to say as a result.
@@himdel That's why I'm agnostic
The answers are unknowable and thus irrelevant
@@himdel oh, there are plenty of atheist missionarries and preachers. Pretty much any tuber that has it high on their list of topics is extremely dismissive, often downright hostile or insulting, of differing views.
When discussion turns into debate is where you get missionaries.
The first time I questioned the integrity of the atheist "community" was when a prominent atheist TH-camr went on a self righteous rant about how bullied kids who committed suicide deserved what they got because they were weak. Later, in a local atheist FB group, not one but SEVERAL people started "debating" if it was actually okay to have sex with kids if the kids consented. Later, I witnessed people in that same group try to argue with a woman who had been cheated on, that cheating was "natural" and her pain was invalid because fuck her feelings because "science" somehow. The entire Debate Mentality is just really off-putting and relentlessly exhausting, especially when emotions are viewed as a weakness that proves you are wrong.
@Frances Snowflake A lot of atheists I see on TH-cam just want to show how much cleverer they are than other people, it seems to me. There is a real undercurrent of smug superiority.
@@uapuat and funnily enough its the same thing that conspiracy theorists do, they believe they have realized a truth that the majority doesn't and that gives them (and my younger self) their reason for behaving as shitbags.
The face of atheism is co-opted by christian-raised Americans exercising their privilege to reject stuff. They don't represent the low-key majority of atheists worldwide.
Well, I have even seen atheists in support of eating Human meat and cannibalism. I seriously don't know why but they are immoral for real.
Funny how whenever someone is "just asking an innocent question" it's without fail a horrible, insulting question that derides a certain group, even though the answer is usually a matter of public record.
It’s the Tucker Carlson method of questioning.
I see where this is coming from but I dislike that stance. It creates a fear of even asking questions to the point that only very few even do, and those are usually the ones not afraid to insult someone.
It's the replacement of:
"im not racist, but..."
Or
"I'm not racist! I have [insert race/gender etc.] friends, and..."
Exactly! It’s like when someone says, “let me play devil’s advocate” for a minute. They always are about to say something awful! BTW, I’m Christian but I like to watch this channel for the Star Trek content 😉
It's called JAQing off.
Oh man, as a Christian, I will be the first one to tell you that I totally understand and empathize with the "I wish the most visible representatives of my belief system would stop acting like bigoted knuckleheads" sentiment.
You and me both, friend... you and me both...
@@lotrofan5 I've been wishing that since around 1980. Someone on Quora asked about the two 'Adam & Eve' endings on The Twilight Zone, and if they caused any controversy. They didn't, and neither did no less than BUGS BUNNY citing a scientific origin of life on Earth ("This Is A LIfe?" WB short) because these folks weren't yet organized. I have always opposed them, though at the start I sort of understood their stances, but they went over the cliff so often, they came back around and went over it again and again. My biggest dispute with modern atheists comes from the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which seems to have morphed from a parody of unthinking fundamentalism to being a slam on all belief systems. How did I, who support and know full well why we have separation of Church and State (Or Had) get lumped in with the geniuses behind the new House majority?
Absolutely. 👏🏻👏🏻 A friend and I were saying this same thing a decade ago. Dawkins is such a smug, repugnant, bigoted prick that he is essentially a gate keeper.
and its coming together
This is the kinda christian Im hoping sohard that my birth father's family is... this is gunna be a ride I tells ya what bud. ~from a apprehensive Pagan reconnecting with lost family
"Just because someone is your hero, doesn't mean you've sign up for a life time of defending them" - CC: Elon Musk fanboys
Dude revolutionized the electric car industry and private space travel... but he's a complete asshat in every other aspect of his life.
Eugh, I hate Elon Musk with a passion.
Teslas are the greatest cars in the world and it's not close (i own two of them). They really are more than a decade ahead of the rest of the industry.
Elon Musk really sucks though.
@@gerrye114 I mean, he bought his way into the company, he didn't do any of the engineering.
@@BrowncoatFairy the quality of the cars is wholly irrelevant so why even bring it up?
Rational Warrior pointed out that when he performed at the reason rally in 2012, he didn't get paid, but other musical acts did. So the black rapper got nothing, they told him he was exposure, but the white artists and most speakers got paid. Tells you everything you need to know about why a lot of black atheist activist don't run in the same circles anymore.
I am an atheist but I have never felt the need to deconvert religious folks. Loosing my religion was a long and painful process for me and it is not something you can bully someone else into. Harris and Dawkins were steps on this journey but my admiration for them are long gone.
That's exactky how I feel about Seth Andrews and Matt Dillahunty.
In High School I was a Christian coming to terms with being gay, and fearing eternal damnation and having no one to talk to, and a lot of times Christians hearing this assume that I left the faith out of resentment, but resentment didn't come until after I realized I had been lied to and caused to suffer alone over nothing. The thing that tipped me off that god wasn't real was when I realized that before I knew what the bible said about gay people god felt like a warm and loving force, and after I found out god felt cold and distant, and the only way a change in my psyche could change an eternal perfect entity was if it was all in my head, took months for me to get to a point emotionally where I could allow myself to question my beliefs on that level. My friends and family were Christian, and I wasn't ready to come out as an atheist or gay, and then I came across the new atheist movement, and I was for the first time hearing people say things about the world that many any amount of sense. I gravitated to it instantly and I didn't even realize how many racist, sexist, and at times even homophobic things I was willing to turn a blind eye to or come up with excuses for until much later. And now when I see young white men gravitating towards men like Jordan Peterson or Ben Shapiro, I feel so much cringe, not only because I disagree with them fundamentally on so much, but because it reminds me of how I placed Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens on an undeserved pedestal.
The big problem in the atheist movement is that we effectively canonized particular people much in the way religion does, then as a group failed to hold them accountable anymore, take everything they say as gospel without critically and skeptically evaluating them. It goes to show that it takes more than just not believing in gods, one needs to stop believing in popes, be they sectarian or secular. Religiosity and Not Mere God belief, is the root problem, an atheist don't seem to have escaped that part yet.
We don't have gods but we do seem to have demigods
I'm not sure "religiosity" is the problem, but I think I get your point.
I have religious friends who have quit church for a similar reason: Religion (as a private matter) is great, they say, but the church has fucked up. The atheist movement has turned into a church, with all the negative consequences.
>The big problem in the atheist movement is that we effectively canonized particular people much in the way religion does
That's something I noticed years ago, especially with Christopher Hitchens. I even mentioned it on You had to Ask way back when whether we had Canonized Hitchens. The reverent way people call him "the late Christopher Hitchens" is reminiscent of the way people say Mohammed PBOH.
Glad I'm not the only one who noticed. It's a problem.
And mainstream youtube Atheism certainly has a god-emperor called Donald Trump.
@@ahouyearno *and mainstream youtube atheism certainly has a god-emporer called Donald Trump*
Oh god no... thats not true, right? I hope you're being facetious, but I have a feeling I've had my head in the sand... yuck.
@@tortenschachtel9498 it is, but you can tell there’s a difference when someone says it once when introducing the person, and when someone says it every. Single. Time.
Reminds me of what Albert Speer wrote of Alfred Rosenberg in Speer's "Spandau Diaries." I don't have the book anymore but he mentioned how Rosenberg became a rabid Roman Catholic after the fall of Nazi Germany, that he needed that extreme belief to live and it didn't matter who or what was at the center of that belief.
I am not glad that Christopher Hitchens is dead, just relieved that he never had a chance to morph into another Twitter troll.
When I started watching this video that was one of the first things I thought
I agree:). I definitely think he would have been one of those...
Is it not ironic that a community "leader" who embraces and defends evolution refuses to evolve? 😒
You confuse intellectual evolution with the evolution of life. And it is equally certain that those who do not believe in the evolution of life also "refuse to evolve".
@@darrellhanning5068 Yeah no...
While it is true the 2 are not the same, and indeed:
"A person who refuses to change his mind"
doesn't disprove "The facts of multigenerational biology"
It is still "funny, in a bordering on poetic kind of way":
- That a person who not only has the skill to explain "circumstances can change, species either change along with them or go extinct", but is even famous for being able to analyze such a situation and can explain it even (especially) in a room where the common understanding, is the wrong one.
Improving has not yet ended
and holding the belief that a rational argument can change minds
- Fails (possibly by choice) to consider the possibility there are arguments he has not considered, the circumstances may have changed,
*blindly assumes* the other person must be wrong and instead of listening to the argument to understand instead listens only as far as is needed to discredit.
Case in point:
A person who rightfully points out the latter.
Gets shouted down on with basically "You idiot a word can mean 2 things",
despite that not actually engaging with the actual point.
9:13 “We don’t have gods…we have rid ourselves of those vestiges of religious thought. But we damn sure still have idols, don’t we?”
Best quote.
Dawkins' disingenuously JAQing off on twitter and acting all indignant and victimized when receiving the obvious blowback ( that he *knew* he was going to get if he still has remnants of a working brain) unearths from the bottom of my memories one of the most vital quotes of the New Atheism movement:
"Guys, don't do that!"
Still watching that channel ...
I had to jump the atheist community ship when a huge portion decided to turn full-bore anti-SJW. Which, thinking back, was right around the "guys, don't do that" moment.
And oh boy, remember how much grief she got from guys in the movement for saying that?
@@KaiHenningsen Yeah, same! Rebecca Watson does good work!
@@BoredInNW6 It was such a simple, harmless sentence - helpful advice, really, when you thing about it - and the dudes went wild as if she had called for universal chemical castration or something! Some folks really don't like their sense of entitlement mildly upset...
As a trans person who was a new atheist and even (bleugh) an evangelist for Sam Harris, thank you so much for this and for continuing to show what true humanism looks like. Love ya Steve 💜
You’re not alone. I’m a trans woman that used to stan Dawkins, and he’s transphobic as fuck.
Trans masc former Sam Harris fan here. I'm ashamed that I ever thought he had something valuable to offer that isn't easy to find elsewhere.
I feel like the reason people make statements like Dawkins or Rowling or whoever is because they genuinely think they have a point of view that nobody has ever considered.
Like when people tell vegetarians "we wouldn't even have sheep or cows if it wasn't for humanity cultivating livestock for food" and they expect them to reply "excellent point, I'm not going to be vegetarian anymore!"
Which is sad and a little funny, because that's how creationists and Christian apologists act.
A young lady I work with asked me the other day, if I didn't believe in God, then where did morality come from? She asked it like it was about to blow my mind. I don't know what's more embarrassing, thinking that's a good argument, or thinking I hadn't heard the same question a thousand times and previously asked other people the same when I was a Christian.
Dawkins has been one of the smartest guys in the room for a long time, and now that many of his ideas are comparatively mainstream, at least among atheists, he's still so used to being praised for his ideas that he opens his mouth and expects people to worship him for whatever garbage comes out. It's sad, because you can't grow with that mindset.
True, though I do suspect Dawkins to have done it for the attention it got (he was aiming at).
No matter the form the attention takes, he knows his book sales could profit from it, one way or another.
My grandma use to say, '' If someone is selling, (s)he'd say anything, no matter how off it is, to sell it. Be aware of them.'' I 'feel' as if Dawkins seeks the controversy not just to be a utter D about it, but to profit from it. I mean, how many times can he rehash the same topic and remain relevant?
Still a darn good biology professor, don't get me wrong, but .... what has he done lately?
@@ray0tj He outwardly denies biology because of his bigotry and transphobia, how is he a good biology professor?
@@georgeparkins777 It *is* exactly like the evangelicals who are somehow convinced that people have never heard their spiel about Jesus or their attempted refutation of evolution. It betrays a contempt for your audience to assume they're completely ignorant of whatever simple argument you're giving.
I also want to point out that former-Christian athiests need to realize that people leaving other religions might not have the same desire to disconnect from the the religion they were raised in. I bring that up specifically as a Jewish athiest. And yes I don't mean former-Jewish athiest. Most Jewish people who become athiests don't wish to ditch their jewish heritage, their jewish up bringing, just the religious aspect. Our heritage is still important to us and goes just beyond religion.
Yeah, I'm not atheist but I cannot associate with the Church for much the same reason this guy doesn't associate with Richard Dawkins. I see atheists as potential allies for ensuring Secularism stay a central component of Civic Nations. However, many non affiliated former christians still operate socially like christians. I think men like Harris are so off putting that they wouldn't humor atheism. Its not fair to the atheist community. But its a bit of public relations.
@James Hagan right. For some people its just religion but for some its a genuine part of their culture beyond just a relgion.
I'm like ethnically catholic from being Mexican, my last name is a knighted name from Catholic ancestors
I avoided religion & catholicism as I recognized most people co-opting religion for hatred, that buzz
I'm recognizing that there's some good things
This TH-camr helped with coming to terms with a lot of things
@@VincentGonzalezVeg There are the precepts of a belief, and then there is the culture which evolves around it. One need not divorce from the culture simply because they have divorced from the belief.
Bingo, that sense is exactly why I stepped away and did not get further involved in the community. Thankfully it was good training to be more skeptical of the next wave of public intellectuals. Just because someone sounds articulate and confident in what they are saying, does not mean that they know what the hell they're talking about, and doesn't mean that they're not a bigoted a**. The good parts of any message will come from many sources, not just from *on high*.
A friend of mine brought me to an episcopal church a while back, and I was pleasantly surprised. The rector, the congregation, everyone I met there was progressive, inclusive, my friends wife breastfed during the service and people only nodded approvingly, the rector said things like “white men in positions of power, like me, have to take an honest look in the mirror and ask ourselves are we perpetuating the status quo, or are we making a difference, making a better world.”
This came to mind watching this video, and I feel like I diminish the point by explaining why but I’ll try anyway: There are bigots, and there are good folks who’d only ever use a term like SJW as a compliment. There are religious folks, and there are atheists. Maybe someone can show demographically that more of one are one and more of the other are the other, but it’s still true as far as I can tell: rejecting religion is not a guarantee that someone is ok, and embracing it is no sign that someone is not.
Simple enough point I think. Not too controversial. Maybe didn’t even need to be said. Anyhow, God bless you sir! And everything you do. 🙏🏻
My mom always said there are only two kinds of people those who care about others and those who care only about what benefits them. And every community ( religious, ethnic, racial, etc. ) is made up of both.
Well, good on you for saying it, whether it needed to be said or no. People are people at the end of the day. Assholes and Angels, across the world.
To me, atheism was always about leaving behind the conservative bs and anti-humanist dogma's of religion. For other people it was about the comparatively unimportant question about whether or not god is real.
Atheists can be conservative and it isn’t an oxymoron
@@jonjonboi3701 its not an oxymoron but it is absurd and just as inconsistent and toxic of a world view as any religious conservative.
Yes!! Thank you. That's one of the things that was intensely frustrating about the online atheist movement in particular. They'd start debates about religion, but then when the topic got mildly complicated, they'd always pivot to "well none of that matters because it has no bearing on whether or not god is real".
It's just a weird non-sequitur. Yet these same people claim to be experts on religion because they've absolutely definitely 100% for realsies read every religious text under the sun and decided they're all without any merit, they absolutely haven't just Googled "questionable bible verses" and copied and pasted from some website.
@@wesleywyndam-pryce5305 there is nothing abosurd or inconsistent in atheist conservative. may be from american point of view, but in general no. because Atheism is theological matter and it is solemly matter of faith, while conservatism is a politcal point of view. Those are two completely different coins, and anyone can carry both in their pockets.
You simply believe that because someone shares some of your values (being atheist), they then should share all of your views (like being a liberal or progresive).
Thats actually not very healthy, or truthfull opinion.
This is one of the reasons why I stopped as well. Anything people want to know about my opinions on Atheism, they can just go watch those old videos. The other reason is that, when I looked at my community, I realized where my "activist energy" needed to be focused.
Oh sh..! RW!
Just saying hi, loved your music.
Your stuff was dope, I return it to sometimes even if I’m no longer confrontational in my atheism.
I get the impression that a lot of Americans aren’t aware of how normal atheism is in the UK. The kind of thing we’ve seen happen in America over the last fifteen years already happened in the UK sometime around the ‘60s and ‘70s. As such, people like Dawkins and Hitchens, whose attitudes to religion are quite normal for British people come across as quite groundbreaking and revolutionary to an American audience.
They are perhaps a bit more well spoken in their views than your average Briton, but that’s merely a byproduct of a privileged upbringing and education. Substantially, their views are fairly ordinary.
New Atheism has provided a great opportunity for very unspectacular British people to market themselves as visionary geniuses to unwitting Americans.
Very few people here in the UK care whether one is atheist or not.
@@uapuat The other numbers, on the other hand, are a matter of national concern.
Totally get what you’re saying, Steve. You were once my hero… then I found out you hate Voyager. #nogodsnomasters
Steve hates Voyager!? O M G NO!
@@pjaypender1009 Ya mean, this is news to you guys?? I've just watched an old(ish) video of his where he talks to Jessie Gender about recent star trek (Picard Season 2 and Strange New Worlds), seems like he doesn't like Lower Decks much either.
I used to like Steve until I found out he likes wrestling. That’s an automatic “moron” sticker.
Dude, I've been a Christian Humanist for pretty much my entire life, and I gotta say... welcome to the club. Every movement eventually reveals leaders that are more concerned about dogmatism than the welfare of people, even (and perhaps especially) movements that are expressly about the welfare of people. Christianity has been dealing with this for almost 2000 years with no end in sight for this problem. Just like it's human nature to be honest, kind, and helpful under most circumstances; it's also human nature to become corrupt, self-centered, and hateful under others. It doesn't matter what their "beliefs" are, many humans are just fine in living with moral dissonance when it suits them. This isn't a religious belief on what "human nature" is supposed to be, this is a conclusion based on overwhelming empirical evidence.
Every movement has their Richard Dawkins or Franklin Grahm or Jerry Falwell (to limit myself to modern examples), as well as those that will rabbidly defend those people in spite of the obvious conflict between the expressed ideology and their behaviour. And if you ever manage to root out one of them, there are always three or four more waiting to step up and take their place.
Note - To anyone who would argue that Atheism is not a religion, so it should be different; there is one thing that organized Atheism has in common with any and all organized religions: it is made up of people. And people are corruptable, regardless of what their outlook is on any philosophical issue.
that's why it's so hard to get atheists organized. A lot of them come from organized religions that treat their followers like cattle, and they don't want to go back to that.
Amen. About atheism being a religion, I find the way to approach that is, atheism can move from a stance to an ideology, and when it does, it exhibits all the core failings of religion. (And no, I don't consider claims about ancient magical events a core failing of religion; the core failings have to do with behavior here and now.)
A big issue is simply people claiming to speak with any expertise about subjects outside of their realm of experience and understanding. Whether it be atheist professors "asking questions" about the lived experience of trans people, or Christian lawmakers asserting strongly-held-but-weakly-supported opinions on abortion rights. Or Elon Musk making speculative comments about anything other than what it's like being a rich guy. I hate to whip the well-beaten Dunning-Kruger horse, but it seems relevant here.
@@kingbeauregard atheism is just an absence of a belief in god. It does not in and of itself advance any cause beyond that. The problem isn’t that atheists are too dogmatic about not believing in god, it’s that it doesn’t make them more empathetic or rational than anyone else and so they are every bit as likely to get carried away by the cultural currents that they are born into and all of their limitations. You can transcend those limitations by attaching yourself to ethical frameworks, various philosophical lenses, etc; but these too are human constructions and likely to be flawed. Obviously believing in god doesn’t change anything because god just takes a human invention (religion, spirituality, etc.) and then demands that it be above questioning. The only solution I’ve found personally is too attach yourself to some ethical precept anyway, one that prioritizes empathy, but never attach yourself so hardly that you can’t also view its claims through a skeptical lens.
Yeah, it might not be an organised religion, but it's still an organisation. Your post here is reminding me of some of the kinds of things we've been finding out in recent years about people like Oxfam workers exploiting locals sexually and the like. Just because they're not catholic priests doesn't mean they are not powerful people within their organisation, and that it's a part of human nature for some of their colleagues to defend their friend rather than believe they could have done horrible exploitative things to vulnerable people because the organisation they work for happens to have put them into a situation where they could do that.
It really is wild how the TH-cam skeptic community went from arguing with creationists and bigots to being actively against the existence of women and minorities.
I’m a Pantheist and used Atheist for convenience but I never really got the appeal of the new atheists. I really became “officially” irreligious in the mid late 2000s as a high school student when they were popular, but they and a lot of their followers seemed like jerks for lack of a better term. It just seemed almost like a gang to join for internet fights. I also thought a lot of the leading personalities seemed, questionable, compared to say Sagan a generation earlier. I still think a lot of organized religions are an awful influence on public life, I don’t think new Atheism has done much of anything to stop them though, it’s only allowed them to stereotype their enemies.
Wow you put me onto a new word. I'm somewhat an Omnist myself but I had a similar trajectory as you. Deep scientists like Tyson and such are brilliant. I like the humanist and secularism of the atheist movement and never want to see it stopped by religion. But I never considered aligning with atheist because of exactly what you say. Alot of the most visible atheists have an off putting approach to organizing. And the trolls online seem to want to antagonize rather than inform. I think Steve's point about diversity is absolutely true. Many in the black community have drifted AWAY from religion but do not organize under atheism because of the initial impression they have. Atheism doesn't need to carry the message of antagonism. At its core its one of the most inclusive. But that just has to be publicized more by not filling those visible positions with bigoted idiots who just like to be Antagonistic
I know the phrase "no gods no masters" as an anarchist slogan, and as a trans atheist anarchist I deeply appreciate you taking such a strong stance against the bigots who have self-styled themselves as masters of the atheist community. It really sucks to see these people still being given platforms--it's like some atheists consider every other social issue as secondary to their own atheism
Awwww.... thanks for the shout-out! And great video, I love seeing you rant now and again!
I'm disappointed in Dr. Tyson. I know they've been friends for many years but I hope he talks to his boy or makes a different decision soon.
Reminded me of that two parter episode of South Park, where Cartman ends up centuries in the future. The world he finds is divided in various atheists factions who are in a permanent state of (one could say "religious") war against each other. To me, it sadly felt more like a prophesy than a satire. I think we still have a long way to go on the road to rationality.
Science be praised!
You are correct, the modern atheist movement hasn’t evolved in 15 years, and so much has changed socially in the past decade that 15 years might as well be 100. I consider myself agnostic/non-religious but in college (the mid/late 2000s) became attracted to many of the basic ideas espoused by “New Atheism” as an alternative to unquestioning religiosity. Very quickly though I was made aware of the sexism, Islamophobia, and entertainment of racist ideologies that leading figures in the community bandied about. As a black woman who is dedicated to progressive ideals I had to exit stage left very quickly! Many folks like me would rather be in community with anti-racist, anti-sexist, pro lgbtq left-leaning religious folks than atheists with abhorrent views on everything else. It seems Dawkins and others are further flexing these views with the transphobia and even more disturbing amounts of scientific racism than I remembered in the past.
I had honestly not thought much about the community in recent years, but it is not surprising that they have been co-opted by the right.
Re: meeting your hero. I met Caesar Chavez at my first demo as a child, he set me on the path of activism but the irony was that it was a nun at my Catholic school who brought me to the demo. Thanks for all your insight.
And before anyone says Christopher Hitchens would be any better if he was still alive, just remember what he called Wanda Sykes.
what did he call her? Never head of this.
@@agent42q He called her a "black d#ke."
What did Wanda Sykes say?
the black Dye but there was a k in there. and it was a casual comment
Well said. I was atheist for about ten years (I'm come back to Catholicism since) and I tried to find a community back then, but the online atheist community at the time was bristling with contempt for everything I was, so I bounced.
This one hits home for me. I've distanced myself from the atheist movement over the last several years, in part because of stuff like this and in part because I find the organized atheist movement to be at least as rigidly dogmatic as what they claim to oppose. As such I didn't know these recent things were even going on, so it's good that it's being brought to attention. I completely agree with everything you said here.
Steve you're awesome, thanks for making these videos
I am a liberal Christian who's very, very involved in my local church. I also share your politics and moral positions almost 100%. You or anyone else being an atheist, or a Buddhist (as is my best friend) or any other belief system is not an issue with me at all. We're all people trying to make sense of this life, and it's inevitable that we come to different understandings; and also that these understandings change as we do over the years. Frankly, I learn (and hopefully grow) more from respectful conversations with people whose perspective differs from me. What I care about is how people treat others, which is especially made clear in how we treat people who are different from us in appearance or culture, and particularly if they have less power as its defined in our world. Unfortunately it seems like a lot of people manage to make their belief system into a club to beat up others with, often focusing on people who are different from them in some way(s). Steve, I can certainly understand your frustration with the atheist movement being somewhat co-opted by conservatives; Christians who try to follow Jesus' teachings (as imperfectly recorded in the Bible, IMO) have had this happen at least as bad.
I'm not an atheist, but I know how hard it can be to acknowledge such things. And as an outsider (and an extremely marginalized outsider at that), yeeeeeeahh, the refusal of the wider community to acknowledge these things is... not a good look.
Well done, and thank you.
I remember as a teenager I got into atheist TH-cam for a while. I was raised atheist but I wasn't something I'd really thought about before so it was interesting and exciting for me to start seeing what it was like for people who weren't raised to it and had actually had to think about their understand of the world. Also learning more about the harm organised religion has done/is doing as I'd been fairly insulated from that as well.
And then they all started going alt right (though the term didn't exist at the time). TH-camrs who had previously talked positively about feminism and even had videos railing against the ways the church puts women down were suddenly doing anti feminist videos talking about how irrational it was and how it had all gone to far. A lot of them were using women in the middle East as props to try and put western women down (ie look she has it so much worse than you, what are you complaining about).
As an adult looking back it feels like they suddenly realised that they actually quite liked all the power structures the church put in place, that put them near the top. They just didn't like the obligations it placed upon them.
Tithing to the church? Respecting your Priest? Engaging in chastity? Ick no. But being in command of women? Considering themselves above other races? Oppressing queer people? Yeah those bits they liked.
So they started coming up with "scientific" and "rational" reasons for those bits. I actually assumed up until very recently that Ben Shapiro was an atheist, because honestly he's just parroting a lot of the same shit that these guys on TH-cam started coming out with.
So I just stopped engaging with the atheist community online. I unsubscribed and just left. If it's being made obvious I'm not welcome, and that the people involved have no interest in meaningful changes why would I hang around for that?
There was also this tweet from Dawkins about a year ago:
"It’s one thing to deplore eugenics on ideological, political, moral grounds. It’s quite another to conclude that it wouldn’t work in practice. Of course it would. It works for cows, horses, pigs, dogs & roses. Why on earth wouldn’t it work for humans? Facts ignore ideology."
You would think that as an evolutionary biologist he would know about all the genetic diseases that are in all of those animals who have been selectively bred.
Also, I lost interest in the atheist community about 10 years ago when, as you said, everything was already said. It just seemed like a bunch of guys hanging out loving the smell of their own farts. It was boring. Many of the atheists I was around started getting into Ayn Rand, and liberatarianism. I myself was starting to go left, and found myself disallusioned by the Obama administration increasing drone strikes, and I found many christians, and people of other beliefs who were interested in the same things I was politically. I'm still an atheist, but its not a thing that defines my identity anymore. I no longer care about others religious beliefs, and no longer feel the need to argue with people who want to use Jesus to motivate their socialism. I'm too old for that shit, and there is so much more important things to worry about. Also, I now feel awful that my wife no longer practices her spiritual beliefs because of some of the shitty things I said in the past, inspired by guys like Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins.
F.uck... you sound like _me_
Especially toward the end!
@@travcollier The thing is there was no reason for him to bring up eugenics at all, let alone publicly praise their hypothetical efficacy
@@travcollier It wouldn't work because first you would need a group of people leading it that had no bigotry or bias to even plan it. It would be like NASA planning for a launch in ideal conditions, it might be a thought experiment but has no real world application.
Second, it would never work without either force or take such a ridiculous amount of time as to make it worthless. Humans do not breed with the people you tell them to and the number of generations it would take to get this up and running would be stupid. Even if you went for IVF, who carries them? Who raises them? Are people not involved allowed to breed? Can the "perfect" kid we just created through 80 years of IVF and careful planning flip us off and tell us they don't want children so you don't get to have their eggs or sperm? From a practical stand point it is not going to work and we haven't even gotten into the genetics.
Third, you have too many multi-gene traits and competing things to breed for as shown in the examples of selective breeding. We bred dogs to be perfect hunters and please ignore the blind and deaf ones that show up, or the bone issues, or the breathing issues. We bred horses at great expense to be incredibly fast, ignore the fact that it consistently does not work as we have surprise winners at races their many health problems both physically along with their crippling anxiety. Genetics is too complicated to breed for a desired trait let alone the many desired traits we would theoretically look for. We do not have a set definition of intelligence (going back to the bigotry issue), but even if we got one do you know the gene or genes for it? Are they dominant, recessive? And how do we prioritize this because we are not just going to be breeding for intelligence we are supposedly going for a "perfect" or "better" human. Is height more important, or muscle strength?
Fourth, environment influences development, adult health, and outcomes in chaotic and more powerful ways than genetics. You can have the genetic height of 6 feet and be expected to be the next Einstein, this does not matter if you were exposed to an infection in utero, nutrition during development was lacking, or you had heavy metal exposure early in life. It would take 3 generations of selective breeding to just clear out the epigenetic signals at baseline and then I can guarantee we would find some new ones we have accidentally added without noticing because epigenetics is not fully understood. Then all that work and water was contaminated with fertilizer and we have to start again.
Fifth, this leads directly into why I don't trust Dawkins on the issue. The last time Dawkins published research was before the first human genome was sequenced. We are now on the All of Us stage trying to get variety in our human genome sequences to discover the variation within humans and yet we could theoretically selectively breed for desired traits? Back to points 3 and 4: we do not know the genes we are selecting for because we don't know the cause for a large part of human variation genetically, and most of those would be erased by environmental factors.
If Dawkins or anyone actually wanted to create a group of humans that were healthier than the last generation he would do what has worked in the past: clean up environmental contaminants, work on early nutrition, and improve access to education as a great way to improve adult health is to have educated parents with good jobs that can follow public health guidance.
@@travcollier Dawkins claims that eugenics would work in practice. At best selectively breeding humans works ... in theory.
Well, I have "No gods, no masters" tattooed on my arm, and I was considering adding "no idols" as well, so I would say I pretty much agree.
Props to the American Humanist Association for revoking that 'Humanist of the Year' award.
I don't think it's a sunk cost fallacy. It's a combination of not wanting to see the bad bits for some, and actually agreeing with those bits for others.
I loved your "Atheist Reads" series but I totally get not wanting to repeat yourself
I'm trans and I grew up in a conservative religious environment. When left religion behind, I embraced the fervor of people like Dawkins wholeheartedly. It somewhat matched the passion of my former Christianity. I never expected to agree with him on everything. That didn't seem like the point to me. The point was that there was a growing movement of people who believed in secularism. I still think that's a good thing. I still have some common cause with Dawkins in this regard. That said, I'll be damned if I'm going to promote or defend someone who makes bigoted statements against people like me. Or any people for that matter. I left Sam Harris behind years ago over his anti-islam statements. I guess I will leave Dawkins behind too. It's a shame because I think movements work better with figureheads. Regardless, he's no longer it.
I found Harris's unquestioning support of Israel no matter what it does particularly disgusting.
@@fidomusic"I don't believe in God, but the god I don't believe in is JEHOVAH😤"
I love this title so much.
I got into the "atheist movement" when I thought i was a cishet guy in high school, luckily i never tumbled quite so far into the 'alt-right' but I did join a number of groups with questionable-at-best politics in the name of furthering this movement. As I grew up it didn't grow up with me.
Still an atheist, but I'm not loud about it anymore. And as a trans lesbian I find the aligning of the atheist movement with hideous misogynistic transphobic islamophobic old white men repugnant
Preach
i guess, you already know "The Transatlantic Call-In Show"
Pretty much same. I started growing out of it when I was 14 or 15.
I don't have heroes, never have. At school when given an assignment on who I admire or who my hero was I really struggled. I just don't think anyone, at all, is worthy of that kind of worship. We are all fallible, we are all human. None of us are heroes. Not a single one. Many of us are in fact villains, cleverly disguised perhaps as Dawkins once was, and now* is revealed.
This is in fact why I lean toward atheism. No one, not even God himself is worthy of worship. I've found every deity or mystical force to be wanting. Lacking. Not worthy of my respect let along worship.
I honestly think worship in any form is inherently toxic and nothing good can come from it.
(*now as in the last decade or so)
I have at least two heroes, my big brother and my big sister.
Of all the other people I may admire and respect, I don't know anyone else well enough to place that lofty accolade onto them.
Heros are heros not because they are infallible but because they do their best and more despite of it.
I agree with you that blind worship is inherently toxic. However to admire positive qualities in poeple that they display and trying to emulate thouse qualities (like kindness, openess or heck even language skills) is a great way to self improve.
I feel you on that writing assignment - in sixth grade "Who is your idol and why?" was the essay topic on the state mastery test, I couldn't come up with anything and failed the test. I was assigned to an after-school remedial writing class, after about the third session the teacher pulled me aside and basically said, "WTF are you doing here?" and gave me the re-test four months early.
Always a pleasure to watch you
Thanks (again, always) for this, Steve. Wish I’d known you back in the days of my involvement in organized atheism and skepticism (which I fled in like manner), but really glad you’re around.
You say that you stopped making videos because you felt there wasn’t more to say… but here you are making a fantastic point. As atheists and humanists we differentiate ourselves from other belief systems by questioning ourselves and keeping our values in check. We shouldn’t hero worship or put anyone on a pedestal who doesn’t meet or exceed our values and it’s this level of self awareness and ability to constantly evolve our understanding that I admire in your videos and makes me feel I can respect your content. Thank you for this video.
I've taken to just calling myself a "non-theist." I do like some of the members of the humanist community, but at the one and only convention I attended, it seemed like the loudest and most obnoxious voices in the gallery were all the pseudo-libertarian (read: Qanon) types who really were poisoning the discourse. It was a shame.
And as for bad examples in the new atheists, Lawrence Krauss has been a terrible influence as well. Three of the four so-called "Horsemen." Sad.
"Humanist" at least has positive content, it means you identify with the broadly liberal tradition of western philosophical and cultural discourse.
Met my heroes, Weird Al Yankovic and also Danny Carey (on separate occasions) and let me tell you, I am glad I met them. Such sweet, warm, authentic kindness. Both lived up to their well deserved reputations. And yet if either revealed themselves to be not only transphobic (or holding any other harmful prejudice) but were also unwilling to unreservedly apologize and demonstrate growth, I would drop my support for them in an instant. A lifetime of good deeds does not excuse us from being held accountable for our wrongdoings. No, the best among us would seek and appreciate accountability.
I watched your videos years ago, and it really helped me on my way out of religion.
In fact, I think you really helped me resist falling down the "right" side of the wedge, so to speak, and I'm glad you were able to frame religious issues with humanity and compassion.
Now, I've come back, because I now have family that have become non-religious, and while I don't hang out in "atheist circles" as much as I did in my 20's, they're just discovering atheist meet up groups, etc.
Thanks for publishing your thoughts on this, and continuing to think critically, unfortunately a skill many in the atheist community seem to have forgotten.
Seriously, dude, you are one of my favorite humans. Never die.
While reading "The God Delusion" I made the mistake of looking up one of Dawkins's sources because I simply couldn't believe they'd mixed up a certain thing so much. Surely Dawkins knew something so simple! And, if not him, the original author must have said more. I needn't have bothered. Dawkins copied it almost verbatim. "Which study?" you might ask. Well, after finding out about that one I looked up original source articles on most of them. The answer is, "Most of them." Huge sections of that book are flat out stolen. Don't believe me? Subject it to the test, and yes, you can start at the beginning.
I fear much of his fame and discoveries simply came from being a better salesman of other people's ideas. You don't start out that flagrant, that kind of thing is something you work your way up to.
Naturally, I've been shouted at by a number of people not willing to look and really ticked off those who were and found themselves then trying to fruitlessly argue why it wasn't plagiarism because those people cited didn't make a huge stink about it. Always be willing to put a scientist to the test, if you aren't that's not science, it's not even philosophy, it's idolatry, plain and simple. And trading one object of worship for another, well... need I go on?
Hot damn! You're spittin' absolute fire on this and I am HERE for it!
Thank you for being an amazing person and able to get your point across
Completely agreed on this! I gave up on New Atheism and the Atheist movement when Sam Harris started saying bigoted shit about racialy profiling people and Dawkin's advocated for eugenics by way of aborting children on the spectrum. It all seems like a thin veneer of intellectualism barely hiding the bigoted shit beneath. I hope that sentiment changes for atheists worldwide but I'm not holding my breath.
The Dawkinites are exactly the reason I began to distance myself from the secular internet community
EXCELLENT!! Thank you!
Ooo new video!
As a gay man and as a pastor of a progressive Christian church that welcomes all, upholds the worth of all persons, and affirms the identities of individuals in the lgbtq2sia+ and related communities, I applaud you for standing up for your convictions and for speaking out against bigotry that should have no place in the Atheist community. I similarly spend a lot of time speaking out against bigotry in the Christian community, which unfortunately continues to be pernicious and damaging to individuals, to groups, and to society in general.
GO OFF STEVE!! I'VE BEEN FEELING THIS FOR YEARS
Well put 👍
Thing is, Dawkin's "excuse" for asking questions like that falls apart when you realise we DID ask those questions. All those questions were asked. Conclusions were come to. For me, we live in a world with conditions like harlequin ichthyosis. "Being born with a body that develops differently from your brain" is hardly what I would call an impossibility when you consider all that's controlled by whether you get a single chromosome, one of which is actually a broken wreck with SO much wrong with it because it only needs to do one job, and any mutations otherwise are irrelevant as long as it survives.
It’s the same with TERFs who demand “debate” (and if you actually debate them it crumbles). They’ve all already been discussed. There’s no need to retread it. But they have political interests in keeping the discussion there and refusing to move on. Exactly as Steve says with the wider atheist community and about more things than just this matter. They’re trying to push back against the flow of time and tendency toward increased understanding.
@@kaitlyn__L Terfs are bad with that. I guess Dawkins would count as a terf, right?
@@tyrongkojy well, he’s certainly used TERF arguments in the past. I’d say he’s more generally nonreligious right-wing, and TERFs tend to align with the right whenever they can. MRAs, American fundamentalists, PUAs, anti-gay movements, and more; have allied with TERFs to various degrees in just the past 15 or so years.
@@kaitlyn__L What's a PUA?
@@tyrongkojy oh, pick-up artist. Just part of a wider network of general online misogyny and objectification. (AKA “The Manosphere”.) You’d think self-identified feminists wouldn’t go near it, but they both hate trans women and so a few of them have cooperated or collaborated with various persons within that group.
This was really cathartic, Steve. Thank you! I'm so done with New Atheists and their many bigotries. I can hardly blame you for not talking about these issues much anymore. You're likely to attract some really toxic people, I'm afraid.
BRAVO!!!!!!...Insightful, Sensitive, Candid, Rational and Informative...Thank You, Steve, for yet another Amazing offering!!!
I was never an atheist but I rather enjoyed a lot of the earlier material some of the New Atheist produced.
But the movement became silly, self-important, arrogant etc. They were so dismissive of philosophy (and the humanities in general) and felt confident in analysing history, politics etc. without putting in the years of work that actual experts in these fields have undergone.
It was all very Jordan Peterson.
"It was all very Jordan Peterson"
It's absolutely no surprise that so many in the movement gravitated toward him when crying lobster steak man came onto the scene.
Well and clearly said. I'm only familiar with this channel because of your Trek commentary, this video is a happy surprise.
Steve, I just want to say thank you for this! As a neurodivergent person myself (autistic and ADHD) I was pretty pissed off about Dawkins' casually advocating for genocide against people with Downs years ago, but whenever I'd mention that to people I'd get the typical ableist justifications for his comments. For that and many reasons you mentioned, I've always been deeply critical of the atheist movement despite being an atheist myself. I'm glad you spoke out about this. Keep on being awesome. :)
This video deserves way more views. It's nice to see your channel grow with the times and needs of humanity in a way dawkins just couldn't
Man, this was cathartic. I was pretty engaged with the community around the time that controversies about misogyny in the community were flaring up in the late 2000s/early 2010s (I don't remember exactly) and at the time I was insecure enough that I made excuses - not to defend these people, but just to totally ignore the problems in the community.
In the years since, I've drifted away from all that stuff. I've grown as a person. I don't hate religious people the way I used to, I just think they're incorrect. I don't need the affirmations and reassurances that I got from the organized atheist community anymore. Upon reflection, I'm a little ashamed that I was willfully ignorant of the issues in the community, and I view people like these figureheads with pity, as they've (apparently) tied their identity to that culture, never moving beyond the anger and fractiousness that comes with being insecure in yourself and your beliefs.
Mmm. This was a rejuvenating tonic for me today, thanks Steve. Good egg.
This video right here. Thank you Steve.
It was always funny to me even 15 years ago how the atheist that claim to be so rational are not aware that they adopted religious patterns like worshiping harris/hitchens/dennet/dawkins like they were idols. Its kinda ironic to.
I remember, a long time ago, that I was watching videos from Richard Dawkins and Pat Condell (sigh) and such.
I'd always been an atheist. Nobody in my family is religious.
My mother took me aside and said "This crap you're listening to is like you've gone to church and are listening to sermons". I think that her saying that set me on the path away from New Atheism.
Becuase we had turned these loud-mouthed idiots into a priesthood, hadn't we?
Personally, I think Richard Dawkins is a senescent old coot who doesn't know what he's saying when he opens his mouth. I don't think he's malicious, he's just incredibly dumb in the way that only smart people can be. Of course,we shouldn't be defending him when he says something bigoted.
Sigh. I feel that I grew up from this "community" a decade ago. I'm glad that most of the rest of us did as well.
It doesn't really matter if Dawkins is doing it maliciously or he's oblivious. The harm is the same either way. If he's going to keep doing it, that's a huge problem.
I found Pat Condell particularly disgusting.
Dawkins been nonvalid for humanism since elevatorgate ten years ago. Just trying to forget about him, even though many of his books, especially those on evolution such as The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker, has meant a lot to me and my understanding of evolution but also for me as an atheist. But now, for me, he's just another rich, old, entitled, man.
I've always associated "No gods, no masters," with the anarchist community (of which I'm far more familiar than I am with the atheist community). I've been an atheist all 20 plus years of my adult life, but never felt the need to belong to a community that organizes itself around atheism, although all the communities I have chosen to belong to are typically atheist. I guess I don't have a dog in this fight, but just as an outside observer, I would say, "I agree with Dawkins on this point, but not on these points," and leave it at that, pretty much like we all do with everyone as no two people have exactly the same ideas. A lot of artists have done terrible things, but their art is still amazing. You appreciate the good people do, disavow the bad, and know that no one is perfect. I see a lot of communities - especially leftist ones - constantly dividing themselves and thus allowing the right to conquer them. It seems like the left expects all leftists to be perfect, and when it is revealed that one isn't, they are completely destroyed. But since no one is perfect, that leaves everyone destroyed. Whereas the right will defend each other, and the worse their behavior, the stronger the defense. It's a sad dynamic, one that allows the right to be a very strong force even though they are almost always wrong about everything.
I may be ignorant but I always assumed anarchists were atheists or agnostics. Are there religious anarchists?
@@agent42q there’s definitely pagan anarchists
A disbelief in a god or gods is not a community, the same as people who are non-stamp collectors are not a community. Being an atheist doesn't make you a humanist. Putting people in boxes is a lame and lazy approach on trying to understand the world. It doesn't work.
Oh hey, that same Richard Dawkins StarTalk video is recommended to me too, below your video!
Very well said. Thank you for talking about this.
I don't understand why anyone has been surprised by Dawkins behavior. As a young atheist I was excited to hear a public atheist on radio in the nineties. He spoke meanly, mocking anyone who believed in a god or used ritual to better their life. He was conceited, arrogant, ignorant and nasty. It turned my stomach to hear him insulting my friends and well meaning people of faith. He called them ignorant and stupid. Then he claimed in defiance of its definition that science is the only necessary vehicle to all forms of knowledge. The hypocrisy of juxtaposing those two ideas was nauseating. I changed the channel and never looked back.
Thank you
This is great. Thanks. You really speak to what I feel.
FIR- erm... Actually, never mind.
Much of the reason I initially gravitated toward the New Atheists was that they were finally an articulate voice pushing back against the overbearing, right wing evangelical movement that had always operated with impunity, and had no qualms about trampling on people like me who did not share their beliefs. But that point has been made, and it’s time to make our voices heard in support of actual progress, not simply in support of resistance. Short version: time to fight for things, not just against things. Thanks for making this video, Steve.
I find it interesting that the man who who refuses to debate creationists because it's a completely debunked faith-based idea with no backing in science, and thus not a valid debate, doesn't understand why trans people wouldn't want to debate if their existence and identity are valid. Could it be because the find the idea of "Are you real? Discuss" to be a debunked idea with no backing and thus not a valid debate?
Hear, hear. I had forgotten that aspect about Dawkins. A very good hypocrisy spot.
Hot damn! That Trek box set behind your shoulder! I have the same. :D
Thank you, Steve. I could not agree more. As a muslim woman, it has been very difficult to watch my atheist childhood friends support and venerate these men. I love my friends and have been there for them always, but could never really feel like they would have my back with this spectre of superiority and disgust present. I really hope more realize what you have realized so that we can all have a place in this world. Live long and prosper.
LOL... Same Dawkins video you mentioned popped up as the next suggested video after yours.
My personal atheist Mount Rushmore is Matt Dillahunty, AronRa, Hemant Mehta, and George Carlin.
Neil deGrasse Tyson's weak "apology" in the wake of the accusations of sexual misconduct against him soured him for me. Having Dawkins on StarTalk certainly doesn't help that for me.
For a long time now, I've despised Dawkins. I could never stand for his preachy-ness about atheism. Its the same thing I can't stand with theists.
Ive spent a lot of my life in hospitals and I've seen how religion can help people. I'm an atheist, who grew up in an atheist household, but when you're suffering or your loved one is suffering, its whatever gets you through. It's not for me, but I wouldn't deny anyone else their coping mechanism.
BTW Steve, you are always so on point. You're one of the few people who actually bother to think about society and how they can have a positive effect on it, allways thoughtful and insightful, please never stop making content.
Well said, Steve.🖖
Hi Steve, long time fan of your shows. I wasn't super familiar with the No Gods No Masters phrase until now, but I immediately saw it later as the title of the new Garbage album. I can't imagine this is a coincidence. Do you have any plans to critique atheist media, like music or novels?
Hi... my name is Ideal and I am a former Harris...
Dusty Smith brought me into his cult and now I am free. Or just into a new cult.
Dusty talked about you said you were good and I watched ya years ago. This is great. Thanks.
Well said, Steve.
Hitchens also was a notorious war hawk who said we should invade Iraq.
Wow, thanks for saying it...
I agree with this 100%. Still an atheist and a bunch of the stuff that goes with it, but anti-racism, anti-capitalism, and politics have kind of taken over for me. Basically took Humanism more seriously after 2016. ...Hey, remember that Atheism+ thing people talked about for a while? That just died, didn't it?
Excellent video, Steve. I miss your "An Atheist Reads" series but I understand why you had to move on from it.