Lack of understanding religious politics leads to biased reporting

Posted on by

No one really likes an angry person in life or in person. People especially don’t like angry people when they “attack” your established traditions and long held beliefs. When there is a shift in society’s power structure the media and others like to focus on the angry people as if doing so discredits the supporters of the change. It seems to be working that way for atheism too.

USA Today columnist Stephen Prothero starts out complaining about the angry men of New Atheism in his article “Atheists need a different voice”.

The New Atheism stands at a crossroads. Until now it has been spearheaded by the sort of white, male firebrands that led the charge for evangelicalism during the Second Great Awakening of the early 19th century. Dawkins rails against faith as “one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.” Hitchens calls the Protestant reformer John Calvin “a sadist and torturer and killer.” In perhaps the unkindest cut of all (at least for a Frenchman), Michel Onfray reports in his Atheist Manifesto that the Apostle Paul was impotent and “unable to lead a sex life worthy of the name.” But there is a different voice emerging — call it the new New Atheism — and with it a very different agenda from that of Hitchens and his angry acolytes. This friendlier atheism sounds more like a civil rights movement than a crusade. And it is far more likely to issue from the lips of friendly women than from the spittle of angry men.

“Atheists need a different voice”

People like Prothero rather have good little atheists who know their place in the world and don’t cause trouble for the usual believer power elite. What people like Dawkins, Hitchens, and Sam Harris etc do is call bullshit bullshit. It isn’t nice and can be angry but sometimes it is needed to be heard. Sometimes the truth hurts.

Prothero then goes on to explain that atheism needs softer voices including more women if it is to grow.

The problem is atheism doesn’t need to “grow”. We don’t recruit people. All it requires is to dump your supernatural irrational beliefs about the world. Most people are half way to atheism to begin with. Religions need to recruit.

As for needing more women, I know of many atheist women. There is no difference in attitude between atheists and believers. Men love to debate and women love to hug. Yes that is nasty stereotype. Just like the idea that people like Dawkins et al are “angry”. It seems the passionate atheist is always angry but the passionate believer is well seen as “passionate”.

While I reject the term “New Atheist” since it is not new, I do think people like Dawkins and Hitchens forced their way into the public sphere and were noticed in our more adversarial centric media. Soft spoken and “nice” atheists have and tend to be ignored.

When it comes to ideas and thoughts about supernaturalism and god beliefs the atheist has been correct 100% and if believers have a problem with that then it is their problem not the “new” atheist.


Comments for this post are closed. If you still wish to send a note to the editor, visit our contact form

4 thoughts on “Lack of understanding religious politics leads to biased reporting

  1. Neil C Reinhardt

    And when people like me call people who refuse learn and/or deny the many facts proving the Iraq War is Fully Justified “Stupid” as only stupid people do such things, we are jsut telling the factual truth! The same applies to those who refused to learn,
    and/or deny the MANY Facts PROVEING our new “leader” President ODUMA is a Dishonest, Lying, Racist slick taking Con Man who uses NLP on his
    audences. Who constanly proves his extreamly poor judgement skills by the low life scum he chooses to include among his close friends (Felons, While/America Hating Racist Preachers, Communiusts and the worst, TERRORISTS who have killed Americans) and by the Tax Cheets he puts in office.

    ODUMA also constantly proves his LACK of ANY INTEGRITY by those choices and his Pathetic and Prolific Lies. He Lies and Lies and Lies some more!

    So anyone who supports and/of voted for him is alos STUPID as Only stupid people would vote for such a person as he is!

  2. Doug Post author

    See even atheists can have a problem with reading for understanding.

    I made a qualification that the issue I’m talking about is specifically about is issues about philosophy of religion and beliefs and not politics.

    The above comment is about politics and has nothing to do with what I said.

    I also never claimed that some atheists weren’t or couldn’t be assholes. I have personally known some atheists who, although was like minded on religion and beliefs like I am, were buttheads when it came to other issues like politics. Again the person who made the previous comments prove that point.

    I once knew an atheist who hated Jews so much he jumped on the Holocaust deniers bandwagon. Just because you might not believe doesn’t mean you have to be anti-religion at all costs including dumping logic and facts. That would be stupid. See comment above for more of an example.

  3. Neil C Reinhardt

    Well Doug,

    1. As it seems you do not get it, I shall explain it to you.

    BOTH what you posted and my reply have to do with people who do not put up with BULL SHIT from the others side.

    2. IF you would ever answer my email’s and even attempt to prove anything I say can not be proven to those who are willing to accept proof I probably would have not posted what I did.

    ONLY AS YOU REFUSE TO DO SO I did reply in such a manner. And as so doing DID get you to reply, that MISSION WAS ACCOMPLISHED!

    3. Anytime you want to compete in taking reading speed and comprehension tests, let me know.

    4. And the same for listening comprehension

    5 And general knowledge, experience & the ability to use logic.

    6. As well as IQ and AQ tests

    Since I doubt you know, AQ is the tested ability to effectively use the IQ one has.

    ODUMA’s 160 IQ proves a persons IQ is like a mans penis.

    “It ain’t how much you have, it IS how effectively you se it”

    And Oduma uses his IQ VERY, VERY ineffectively.

    Last, you really should not enter into “Battles of Wits” when you are so UN-armed.

  4. Doug Post author

    You are right I am not a mind reader so forgive me that I didn’t “get it”. If you had actually written “people who do not put up with BULL SHIT from the others side” in your first comment then it would have been clear, right?

    It is also good you are so obsessively confident in your knowledge, facts, and IQ. I just need to note that has nothing to do with my post just as Oduma has nothing to do with it (who ever that is).

    If you are looking to “win” some kind of debate I need to explain that simply being confident in your answers is not enough with the first principle being that you need to debate the issue that is being discussed not whatever your dead horse is at the moment. In common Internet terms you are off topic for this blog post.

Comments are closed.