Again, who said I believe in supernatural intervention? Just because someone argues against New Atheism, it doesn’t imply they must a theist. I don’t know how many times I have to repeat this.

I am not a “scientist” – I come from a scientific background but do not work in science anymore. And even if I was working in science at the moment, not all scientists work in labs.

My background teaches me that humans are nothing special, I am not arrogant enough to think we are special, we’re just another “animal” like dogs and cats, and just as a dog or cat has limitations on what it can think and comprehend, I believe humans do too. The idea that we should be able to understand fully how the universe works around us because we’re somehow special is very unscientific to me.
Furthermore, science also teaches me that paradoxically, science cannot prove anything. Jerry says evolution is true, I believe it is, but science teaches me that there is no proof it is true and it could be wrong. Maybe you should read up on Boltzmann brains.

My negative opinion of New Atheists because I think they are like a cult cannot be true, considering I never really thought of them as being like a cult up until a few months ago! I had heard it mentioned many times before, for example, Glenn Greenwald has been saying it for quite some time, but I actually disagreed. Only recently did I start thinking about it closely, and I now feel it is very cult-like in behaviour.

Just because someone looks something up on Wikipedia, it doesn’t mean it is wrong! “The only think NAs have in common is that we don’t believe in God or gods, and we don’t hide our lack of belief” – that’s your definition, it doesn’t make it right. People who identify with Atheism+ also don’t believe in God or gods, and don’t hide their lack of beliefs, according to your definition, they are also New Atheists, however, they go out of their way to say they’re not – they clearly do not believe in your definition either.

Did it occur to you that you might be the one who is indoctrinated?

You are a scientist. So I assume in your work you assume that there will be no supernatural intervention – you couldn’t do your job otherwise. Then you leave your lab, and you assume supernatural intervention in other parts of your life.

There are things about Islam I disagree with. I reached my opinions about that on my own. I have read widely to form my opinions, and some of the reading was of NAs. Just because someone is a NA, like myself, is absolutely no guarantee I will agree with them, or even that I am more likely to agree with them. I have never in my life been a group thinker, even at those times most people are like in my teens. You disagree with some conclusions I have reached. That doesn’t mean I am wrong. I will always change my mind if I get information that is better, more reliable, provides a point of view I hadn’t considered or whatever. I never make decisions just because that’s what someone else thinks.

My opinion of Islam is not the same as yours. It is also not the same as Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens or Jerry. On a spectrum it is closer to theirs than yours. I am not apologizing to anyone for my opinion. Having a less than positive view of Islam does not mean I automatically have a negative opinion of Muslims. In fact, proportionately, more of the Muslims I meet are nice people than the Christians I meet.

I am not always trying to defend NAs in general. I sometimes defend some NAs in particular, in certain circumstances, if I think they are right in that circumstance. My defence of Jerry has been in certain circumstances. We do not agree on every subject, and I have pointed out where he and I disagree to you, and I do to him on his website too. I find it more difficult when you criticize Jerry than other NAs because I know him, and I know some of the things written here would hurt him.

New Atheism is not a cult. Personally, I think your opinions of NAs is influenced by your idea that it is. You got a definition of NA from Wikipedia – stick to that. The only think NAs have in common is that we don’t believe in God or gods, and we don’t hide our lack of belief.

No, you are absolutely wrong. Comparing Mehdi Hasan and Dawkins is like comparing apples and oranges.

Jerry posted a Youtube clip of Mehdi Hasan calling unbelievers cattle, and you then wrote what a vile man he is. However, that clip was taken out of context. If you see the whole speech, it is a criticism about Muslims. He calles Muslims cattle in that speech too.

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2009/07/27/an-attempt-to-smear-mehdi-hasan-from-new-statesman/

So, yes, that clip Jerry posted was very disingeneous. It gave the impression this guy thinks atheists are like cattle. He admits his choice of words was wrong:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mehdi-hasan/anatomy-of-a-hitchens-hatchet-job_b_1742497.html

So that’s why I called you out on describing him as a vile man. I don’t think he is.

Anyway, the big difference between Mehdi Hasan is that I only know of one occasion when Hasan has shown bigotry towards atheists. If Hasan was constantly retweeting things about atheists by Muslim fundamentalists, if he was tweeting “atheism is the greatest evil”, if he was tweeting half truths about atheists, then, yes, I would judge him the same way I judge Dawkins – a bigot.

Therefore, it is clear to see your comparison of me defending Hasan with you defending Dawkins is simply unjustified.

As I have said before, even amongst fundamentalists (like New Atheists), there are differences.

I posted once before that you look at the nuances, so I am clearly not referring to you in that generalisation about New Atheists. You are probably the best New Atheist I have come across, and I think if New Atheism is to get rid of it’s bigotry and toxicity, it is people like you who will help achieve this.

The first quote you have highlighted wasn’t directed at you personally, it was directed at those of faith in general.

That makes no sense. If people of faith were calling some New Atheists narcissist, and other atheists weren’t, then you’d have a point. But other atheists are calling them narcissists too. So, again, your lack of objectivism is clear to see. You totally ignore that other atheists are calling them narcissists too, and simply concentrate on the people of faith so that you can somehow dismiss the allegation if narcissism.

The second is also about atheists in general – again, because of your prejudices, you’ve chosen to make it personal.

I am not making anything personal. And I don’t have any prejudices – after all, I am not the one going around saying one group is better than the other. My position has been quite clear from the beginning – there are good people and bad people (I am simplifying here for the sake of argument) amongst every group of people, no matter what religion they have or whether they have no religion. I am not arrogant enough to say whichever group I might identify with is better than any other group.

I made no comment on the reason why women weren’t being educated in Muslim-majority countries, just that they weren’t. Again, you’ve put words in my mouth.

I am not putting words into your mouth. You insinuated it. This is what you wrote:

But that doesn’t mean Islam hasn’t been a big part of the problem when it comes to women being educated. You are completely correct that it isn’t the only problem. I don’t know much about the education in the countries you name, but I do know that Bangladesh has a fairly new secular constitution, and that has a lot to do with why women have been achieving so much since their revolution.

So you clearly did say that Islam is responsible for women not getting educated, and you insinuated that it could be a big part of the problem. You then proceeded to say that the secular constituition has “a lot” to do with why women are now getting educated in Bangladesh – again, you are insinuating that if it wasn’t for the secular constitution, they would not be getting this much education. I showed how wrong you were, I showed how in “Islamist” Pakistan, women’s literacy has increased at a higher rate than in Pakistan, and I also provided the reason why UNESCO think the rate of literacy amongst women is increasing.

I have always praised your honesty, so instead of accusing me of being dishonest and putting words in my mouth, at least please have the decency to admit that you were commnenting on a topic, trying to praise seculaism for women’s education, even though you had no knowledge of the topic.

I find the charge that I have been indoctrinated about anything offensive.

It is an opinion, I might be wrong. Learn not to give a s*** what someone thinks of you, especially over the Internet.

Indoctrination doesn’t have to be in the classical sense where someone tells you what to think – it can happen as a by-product of being in an environment amongst people where you keep hearing the same things and then start feeding off one another and then reach the point where you are so much part of the group, you lose the ability to think objectively and are always trying to defend the values of that group even when they are wrong or bigoted. I have seen a number of things you have said which aren’t objective at all, and so I think, “Why is a good, rational human being like Heather, who cares about people regardless of their beliefs or race or sexuality or whatever, quite ofen forming opinions which are not objective and steeped in bigotry?”. And the answer to me is the “cult” of New Atheism.

The first quote you have highlighted wasn’t directed at you personally, it was directed at those of faith in general. The second is also about atheists in general – again, because of your prejudices, you’ve chosen to make it personal.

I made it clear that Jerry does let contrary opinions on his site. He makes it clear in the rules for commenting on his site the way he expects commenters to engage – this is not a new thing I have made up. Read it for yourself.

I made no comment on the reason why women weren’t being educated in Muslim-majority countries, just that they weren’t. Again, you’ve put words in my mouth.

Other people might indulge in “whataboutery.” I don’t. In fact I frequently criticize others for it. I do make analogies, but that isn’t the same thing.

If I’m indoctrinated, I’d like to know who the hell did it? I spent most of my life Christian. Almost everyone in my off-line life is Christian except my best friend, who is Hindu. Almost all my family are Christian or Buddhist. I rarely even discuss religion off-line. I go to weddings, funeral and christenings in churches. I am godmother to one of my nieces. How and where did this indoctrination happen? Becoming an atheist was a decision I made on my own. I didn’t consult anyone beforehand, and told people as the subject came up afterwards. I am outspoken about it on-line because I think people who are in a position to do that, should. That is how I feel about most things. It’s the same with something like recycling – if the subject comes up, I tell people I think they should. I never hide my opinions, and I always come to my opinions after careful consideration. I find the charge that I have been indoctrinated about anything offensive. I have never been one who is easily persuaded, or followed the pack. I have always made my own decisions, and I do what I think is right, no matter the consequences. From the age of four, I refused to buy my parents cigarettes for example (yes, at that age they would send me to the shop to get things for them). I never did it, although my bum sometimes wished I had.

This criticism of me in defending Dawkins is almost exactly the same as the way you have defended a liberal Muslim. (And, actually, I have no problems with the liberals of any religion, just the religion itself.)

I consider my view of the world anything but simple, and resent the implication that it is. A statement like, “They are unable to understand that human beings are very complex,” is just ignorant imo, and I expected better of you.

I haven’t read enough Coyne to say, but I’d be very surprised if doesn’t understand what you say about people’s motivations regarding religion. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to convince people based on evidence, particularly when public policy is at stake. I do agree that the in-group/out-group dynamic should get more attention.

Also agree there is too much focus on Islam as THE cause of terrorism, but it isn’t quite as comparable to AU’s caricature, because he wasn’t discussing NAs in the third person, but is talking to several right here, insisting that we must believe certain things for certain reasons when it is obvious we don’t even agree on all matters, let along the reasons why.

I’ve no doubt that the dynamics you discuss are at play here though. Didn’t know that Coyne has defended Palestinian oppression. I would put Harris in Dawkins camp regarding Israel. It’s more about Western exceptionalism for them. As an academic question, Harris doesn’t actually think Israel should even exist, but puts a lot into the fact that Israel is a democracy. He seems to think that makes their intentions better by definition.

Would definitely like to know their views on the Iran deal. I don’t know Coyne well enough, but know Harris and Dawkins enough to predict that they strongly support. I think even Hitchens would, though I’ve never been able to follow his reasoning regarding the Iraq war.

My concerns are twofold: 1) that NA hostility to Islam enables neocons and other warmongers who want to serially invade Muslim countries,

Yes, totally agree, though would say that it’s not just hostility to Islam, but that they give a free pass to Western actions that they actually have some hope of influencing. Of course, the one view bolsters the other, so it’s difficult to say which one is driving them.

and 2) that their political vendetta against Islam and petty attacks on such things as putting the ten commandments in front of courthouses, ends up undermining rather than supporting the atheist cause.

Perhaps this is true in combination, though I don’t agree that efforts to preserve separation between church and state are petty. I think they are very important, which can be true even though they aren’t life and death questions like how we respond to terrorism.

I also think they aren’t entirely wrong in saying that Islam has characteristics that make it more troubling in some ways than Christianity, like that they are much quicker to violence, the obvious example being over cartoons and the like. Just as the anti-Islamists are wrong to ignore Western crimes, liberals who act as though religion being in the mix makes no difference at all are also wrong. Both stances make it harder to agree on appropriate actions. Now I agree that politics is the much larger issue to address here – and the one we can most influence – but we can’t even have that conversation when we’re stuck with one side saying politics makes no difference and the other saying religion makes no difference.

I do not know if this is what AU means when he calls new atheists fundamentalists. I’d be interested to have you elaborate

I mean they have a very simple view of the world. They think in fundamentalist terms such as “good” and “bad”. They are unable to understand that human beings are very complex, there is a myriad of reasons why people behave the way they do, NA are simply interested in cherry-picking the “religion” out of everything bad a religious person does and blame religion (or actually, they probably do understand this, but their lack of objectivity and bias causes them to behave in a fundamentalist manner).

Please see this post as an example of their fundamentalism:
http://vridar.org/2015/08/12/on-how-to-be-completely-wrong-about-radicalisation-the-curious-case-of-jerry-coyne/#comment-72926