TED Conversations

Nicholas Lukowiak


This conversation is closed.

New Age Atheism: The New Frontier of Scientific Ideology

There is criteria which one should follow in order to be a neoatheist:

*Understanding science, religion, supernatural and atheism
~Science is trying to figure out what is true through methods of logic and rationality, while religion does the same thing but through dogmas and old scriptures.
~Supernatural is the silly notion things cannot be explained by science but religion, and sometimes pseudoscience (which is fake science).
~Atheism is the lack of belief in deities
~Religions are the enemy. Buddhism gets a pass because they are hardly a religion - more of a philosophy.

*Make sure to know proper arguments to distinguish atheism from religion:
~"So by the lack of belief in God, I have a belief? So my lack of belief in Santa Claus is "Aclausian?"
~"Is being bold, a hairstyle?"
~"The television being off, a channel?"

*Check out Dawkins, Rosenberg, Dennet and Harris:
~These guys pave the way for what it is be a rational, logical and non-dogmatic person.
~They demonstrate how belief in a God is just nonsensical through science!
~They prove logic is EVERYTHING to how to think properly.

*Being militant does not mean physical actions
~Only extremist harm others for their beliefs, and since we have none there is no need for violence.
~Never allow 'faith' to be an acceptable reason for the other person to avoid an argument.
~Don't be afraid to debate, you are right! Religion is a destructive practice!
~The burden of proof is on those who claim truth!

Always keep in mind something a leader of our movement had to say, which proves powerful:

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
-Christopher Hitchens

Let's how a strong discussion here on what it REALLY means to be the neoatheist everyone should be!

As an active blogger and forum user to discuss new age atheism, there are a couple of websites I can share. Once a week we have a podcast for lectures with live commenting! Join in the movement!



Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Feb 5 2013: I do not particularly fancy this "Neo-agnosticism" movement; scientific proof and open, logical reason have had the same end-goal for years then and now. Atheism is Atheism and ought to remain so, at least so far as I can see things. It could be very likely that I am misinterpreting your point though?
    • thumb
      Feb 7 2013: My point is to paint the picture of this movement as being a religious one. Which is not bad, as long as it is recognized as one. This way, organization can allow members to be more accepting of the diverse approaches there are in this world. There are a lot of already existing atheist religious groups (like Buddhism, shocker!). lol.

      ... lol, I have this joking idea that Scientology gets a good number of members because of the word 'science' in the name... With this thought, people enjoy attaching to ideas which are both self reflecting and communally enhanced.. Embracing who we are and our natures are great! As long we are conscious of the reasons and conditions.

      Read what I said to others, and respond further, if you wish!
      • thumb
        Feb 7 2013: I don't think your idea about Scientology is unreasonable, though I have not studied the question. There are other popular belief communities that have found that selling their belief package as science is a very effective vehicle for getting supporters. Their outreach combines real scientific results with pseudoscientific additions that serve the purpose of the organization.

        I now understand that your thread opening was satire. What makes me uncomfortable about that approach, to represent a belief system AS IF you are a member and perhaps incorrectly, is that it potentially stirs up antagonism from those who believe you have correctly described the movement.

        It's a bit like spreading a rumor about someone- an exaggeration- and then afterwards saying "Only kidding!"

        I am not a neoatheist and had not heard of it until you raised this. I would have this concern regardless of the belief system you described.
        • thumb
          Feb 7 2013: Well the satiric demonstration comes in the notion that atheist would not recognize their organization because if they did, they would be more like what they oppose.

          In fact a TED admin suggested the conversation would not be good as provoking others is a path for negative discussion. But, I enjoy taboo thinking. And I believe the new age atheist are in the first step to making a new religion, one that may be beneficial to the world. But, only if they realize their efforts are driving towards unity of thoughts - which is religion.

          If, at the point, I have described their beliefs accurately, that should be more evidence to them 1. they are indeed dogmatic and 2. they should organize into larger groups.

          Such as Atheist Plus

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.