woot,

the New Atheism "is" about a following, inspired by a shallow "debate" between Dawkins and his mates against Os Guiness and co. Neither side can vanquish the other because both are limited to the constraints of reason; "reason functions in this atheistic/theistic debate in a very limited, even reductionist way as it becomes the final arbiter of all truth forced into propositional form and thus sundered from everyday life" (Creston Davis).
I tried to make a similar point recently about the experiential side of religion, which is effectively rendered inadmissable. In terms of sterile reason, the only terms permitted, the New Atheists have the running.
Even so, in both Dawkins's musings and those of his followers here there's not even any depth in terms of reason!
Not only is this facile struggle between materialist/idealist worldviews "overdetermined" (can only be resolved in reasoned terms), but according to the much deeper "atheist", Slavoj Zizeck, "the (big bestseller 'troika' of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett) is certainly sustained by the ideological need to present the liberal West as the bastion of reason against the crazy Muslim and other irrational fundamentalists".
These strawmen are the bread and butter of the New Atheist crusaders, who are not only oblivious of the philosophical/theological/experiential depths of theism, but they're equally oblivious of their own unconscious depths (prejudices).

Apart from this, woot, your complaints above are both hyperbolic and suggest "society" can be ordered in simplistic terms of "individual" freedom. The reason debates over education, abortion etc. are so rife is "because" we live in a secular state, and the fact is that the concessions made to Christian groups (whose members far far outnumber atheists) are miniscule. Freedom of choice "is" dominant but you want it to be absolute. It can't be! We live in a "society" based on shared norms and "co-operation". Debate is certainly the lifeblood of healthy society and our norms should be perennially contended, but all sides have to be interrogated, even, indeed especially, your vaunted "freedoms".

Poirot asks "The question, therefore, is why are atheists imitating the institutional behaviour inherent in religion as a mechanism devised to oppose it?"

Because it has come to this. Opposing theists of the world are leading us to a bad place, with more and more moderate people becoming radicalized/polarized through atrocities suffered in the name of one god or another (although this is not always overt).

Atheists have nothing uniting them other than what they oppose. They convene because they are against an increasing shift towards theocracy emanating from polarization processes and which is facilitated by societal privilege. Theists would rally against living
under a theocracy with which they do not share belief and makes them feel unsafe, so why should we expect otherwise of atheists?

The convention is not mardi-gras. It is where what can be done to oppose the polarization process and further entrenchment of religious interests can be discussed. Does it have to come out with a declaration of war on religion to satisfy some here? Who knows, maybe it eventually will.

Squeers, your opinion is that I am a galah and need your viewpoint dumbed down for my consumption. Well, hold that thought if it makes
you feel superior but if "individual sovereignty" is a feature of the atheism you assert it is not a feature of mine. If I am a neo-liberal I am one for community with the belief it can function in a civil manner without theism. I partake in acts of community right alongside theists. If you're concern is that godlessness is an excuse to escape civic participation and responsibility you've no basis to be. If your concern is that the atheist convention is just a narcissistic mardi-gras then we've had your big bellyache and now let's see how it goes with time. Heck, you might even see a good bombing as a sign of things progressing.

Err, only jokin' about the bombs, if that's permissible, Squeers?

Luciferase,
I don't think for a moment that the convention is going to be a turnout of New Atheists. It'll be a highly eclectic group and I wouldn't mind going myself. I don't know you but you seem intelligent. I was referring to New Atheist Galahs(showy, noisy birds), led by the tone of the article into supercilious propaganda and refusing to consider the issues in depth.
I don't feel superior, in fact my reading makes me feel decidedly mediocre, but one does tire of being wilfully of otherwise misunderstood. Admittedly, sometimes my prose is a bit dense, or cryptic, but this medium demands it and I only ask people to read what's said carefully, or to ignore it. One of the causes of intellectual degradation is people expect everything to be instantly accessible, as if profundity is a beat-up, we all live on surfaces, and anything can be said in a banal sentence or two. The pleasure in reading a Shakespearean sonnet is penetrating its layered-depths, which can't be apprehended in a single reading, or even ten. Probably why no one reads them any more! Ours is an impatient age. This is not to say philosophy or theology has to be opaque, but that a large part of signification is rhetorical, and it's not merely embellishment. language is a living, irrational thing that all to easily arranges itself not only into cliches, but along well worn neural pathways.

I hope to hear of some positive outcomes of the convention--some of my (perhaps former) friends will be attending--and maybe even to read some atheist theology in due course : )

Hi Squeers,

I'm with you on this one. 2012 and we are still f@rting around about science, sense and reason vs superstition, magic and religion. I know it's fun picking at scabs, folks, they itch so much, but if you want them to actually heal .....

I just wonder however, if there really is some underlying agenda pushed by some interest, not necessarily atheist. Think of it this way (and indirect acknowledgements to Arjay: he/she keeps us vigilant).

Currently, there are forces in the world which seek to use religion to promote a certain agenda, mainly against the West with its rationalism, modernism, scientific approach, economic power (fading somewhat) and recognition (at least formally) of equal rights of men and women. Forces which badly need specific, Satanic-type targets.

Lo and behold, up jumps the AFA. No, I'm not saying they are the puppets of religious forces, but given that one can be an atheist in one's daily life (at least in Australia: I can't vouch for Muslim countries), and get on quite well with one's neighbours, what's the rush ? Why give a toss ? Crackpot beliefs and superstitions will probably be with us for a long time yet, from evangelical Christianity through to Salafist Islam and neo-traditional or neo-Aboriginalist beliefs, but I'm confident that their idiot hold is fading.

And that's the point: how do the crackpot religions rally the troops, so to speak ? By being able to point to new Shaitans/Satans, somebody whose flag they can burn, whose portraits they can trample, whose champions they can beat to death. [Why does it always come back to Pakistan?] And, thereby, whose values they can spurn, re-valorising their own in the process ?

Make light of superstition, my fellow-atheists, don't take it too seriously and thereby give it air. Follow the lead of Voltaire, when he was asked on his deathbed to renounce the Devil: "This is not the time to make enemies." My kind of atheist. I think I know the feeling [It's getting warm in here] ;)

Cheers,

Joe

For those who have not heard, Q&A on ABC TV, will be hosting a debate
between Dawkins and Pell, on Monday night, which should make for
entertaining television.

My take on it all is that Pell will try to use similar arguments to
the ones used by JP on this thread. ie without a god, that there can
be no morality. Hopefully Dawkins will point out that all the claims
made by the Catholic clergy, that only they are in touch with the
Almighty him/herself, have not a scrap of substantiated evidence to
back them up and as far as we know, are merely snakeoil used
to manipulate the masses. It should be an interesting debate.