New Atheism and Marxist Philosophy

After Bushism died off Muslim hate was all they had. What actually "new" idea does new atheism offer society?

As I see it it's a counter reactionary movement fuled by the re-emergence of religious fundementalism in the west. So it dosen't need a new idea, it just needs to defend secular society from old ideas. The closest thing it has to a "new" idea would be to challenge popular notions of religious institutions as forces for good, Chatolic church etc. It's been done before, but the idolisation of religious authorities like the pope is hard to kill.

I remember seeing the artists page and that's actually John Cleese

Terry Eagleton, a Marxist semi-Agnostic Catholic has ruthlessly BTFO New Athiesm:

Here's his review of the "God Delusion" = lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching

Also here's a talk he gave on it, he examines a lot of the racist and reactionary aspects built into New Athiesm:
youtube.com/watch?v=QCqHnwIR1PY

thx, ill check this out later

NP, He also wrote "Why Marx Was Right" which is a great, simple Marxist apologia/intro for normies and noobs alike, dispels common myths about Marxism and reactionary propaganda, and builds the case for why Marxism really is still of utmost importance in the modern era

I get the irritation with Sam Harris and Dawkins. But Neil Degrasse "Imma Astro-muthafucka-Physicist" Tyson is the shit, and I suspect he's a bit of a crypto-Marxist whether he knows it or not.

He's still the kind of retard who writes ignorant bullcrap on fields he has not the slightest grasp.
reddit.com/r/badphilosophy/search?q=tyson&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all

That might well be the case, but it's clear he has a better grasp of any of those topics he talks about more than you or any other average person.

No, he really doesn't.

Literally how?

NDT can be a bit of a dickfuck and lets his knowledge get to his head
For example: every new year he posts on twitter something to the effect of "happy New year BUT JANUARY FIRST IS NOT AN ASTRONOMICALLY SIGNIFICANT DATE GUYS" as if people celebrate it because of astronomy and not culture

Culture is a spook. Lol. He's right to make fun of it.

Culture IS a spook but that doesn't change the fact that his response isn't relevant

t. Someone who has never read Stirner.

Also why tf saint max's nose is big af in that pic 🤔

facebook.com/notes/neil-degrasse-tyson/moby-vs-tyson/10155607590546613/
Just actually read anything philosophical he writes.

Except he constantly talks about topics he has absolutely no idea about.

BEST BIOLOGIST

That reminds me of my retard, staunchly pro-capitalist, pagan, psychic & dream power believing, pseudo-fascist, "friend" who believes in inferior v superior ppl (& that Capitalism is a system which, aside from some racism & sexism that needs to still be rooted out, sorts between those fairly, giving superiors success, and failure to inferiors, "innovation = profit") - but yeah, he's a "Bio-Infomatics" Major, and he regularly says "good morning/good night" in the opposite times you would, gives greetings that go with different holidays/seasons than the actual time - all because "time/seasons/etc" are relative, and thus he is being "clever."

Hahaha, wow, this is really embarrassing.

New atheism was a trivially empirical movement. It was good as an introduction to skeptical thinking, but once creationism was thoroughly destroyed in America, people stopped giving a shit about them. There’s no real point in addressing them philosophically because most of them aren’t invested in philosophy. Hitchens was the only one that was, and even his philosophy was basically just a finely crafted liberalism through Hume and Spinoza. Figures he was a Trot before.

Cows were invented. The same way wild maize is not the same as the canned corn in your cupboard. The way industrial grade hemp is not indica. The way a pug is not a wolf.

Not to argue semantics, but I think it's more accurate to say selective breeding was invented.
To say humans invented cows overstates the human involvement in the process.
Compare it to this statement. "Yao Ming is a biological machine created by communist china to play basketball. "
It may or may not be true that the marriage of Yao Ming's parents was arranged by the state in a successful attempt to produce athletic offspring, but it's silly to reduce his essence of his being to this one selected trait and then call him an invention of what ever bureaucrat that envisioned the project.

To me the embarrassing aspect of DeGrasses tweet is not his clumsy formulation, but that he dubles down on it and claims his statements are objective truth devoid of any form of opinion. #iLoveSience
It's the same sort of bullshit you hear from alt-right fags spouting statistics about race and Autism Level or jewish control over Hollywood.
Tyson is being either extremely naive or just plain dishonest.

Weird that you pin Hitchens as the philosopher considering Daniel Denett is an actual published philosopher. Hitchens was more of a polemicist, an entertaining one, but not an especially rigorous one.

Yeah, I forgot about Dennett. His arguments were interesting, if not necessarily compelling. It mostly felt like he had a hard time making up his mind about being a dualist or not. Still, entertaining guy. I just meant that Hitchens was more diverse in his knowledge of philosophers. He has several points in his books where he talks about Hume, Spinoza, Marx, Nietzsche (to a very limited extent), and Socrates. That’s all I can think of at the moment, but my point is that Dennett seems more narrowly focused.

The best part of this is how it's specifically the two non-white people whose faces look nothing like the people.

Sam Harris is the smartest liberal alive today

Then why is he a fascist?

nah, he's firmly within the tradition of liberalism and individualism
highexistence.com/videos/view/sam-harris-on-the-dangers-of-tribalism-and-identity-politics/

Hmmmm

so a fascist then

His sacred cow is clearly liberalism itself, not western civilization.

I think you are mixing up Sam Harris with alt-lite dog whistlers like Gavin Mcciness.

No they weren't, you utmost 'tard,

The "selective" in selective breeding was practiced for thousands of years before it became a conscious endeavour… For the category of "invention" to be applicable you'd require techné first, and an understanding of scientific/technological practice second, not available until the late Renaissance. Not to mention the obvious fact that a theory of genetic selection waited for Darwin to be conceptualized.

color me shocked

this

Just to preface, I don't understand why Anons are upset by New Atheism. I think they are ass hurt idealists, that fail to see the world dialectally, seeing things as separated and contained. Thusly they see an idea with Capitalist believers as a neccessarily Capitalist belief, instead of seeing it correctly as a belief outside of Capitalism. Perhaps I do not understand part of New Atheism, but if the Wikipedia article on it is correct, I have no problem with antitheism or the debating of religious beliefs. Having a problem with this is discourse literally on the level of medieval idiots.
Anyways
Being a neocon is utterly deranged? Being anal about cinemas is deranged? Surely, we live in deranged times.
Notice that for the more rightist of these atheists, they are accused of political insanity/ranting, but with Neil, the more liberal of them, his crime is strange criticisms of movies. I smell liberal bias.
I understand the (sort of) irony here, but it would be sloppy to not mention that he is implying an organizational structure necessary for atheism, like the Catholic Church. My guess is that he will later expand on this view as a sort of "All beliefs are equal, look at how dogmatic you are. (oh and your priests are worse so traditional religion is better)". Perhaps I am simply paranoid.
This is the simple stating of beliefs, that someone sees as profound likely for the way it shapes their life. But sure I can empathize that they see themselves as too intelligent.
He has shown us no dogma, this is completely unsupported. Also, unclear if he is referring to the dogma of the speakers or of atheism. I imagine this is purposely unclear, and will be strewn throughout wildly as referring to either and neither. I'm not saying the author is intentionally using dogma unclearly, but that the lack of specification will support the author in further ranting.
The entire precedingsection can be summed up as, "Science uses patterns, people that follow patterns are sometimes crazy from the patterns, (look Freud said it) all of your logic is founded on madness". Then, I imagine, the authors snowflake ideology will enter stage right, somehow free of the madness of logic/sanity/what atheists justify things with Guarantee we are entering a materialism free zone very soon.
Perhaps I am reading into this too much, but I believe the author is making a play to "be on the atheist's side". He is more or less saying "Look, Atheism is logical like the world being round", something atheists would appreciate. Then, he turns around "But if you keep insisting the world is round, you must be imbalanced in the head". I don't appreciate being ambushed from my own ideology. Also consider this section is called "Just the facts",yet a fictional piece is cited for this whole analysis. Finally, consider that the objects of repetition (world being round/God not being real) are seperate. In the story, the character repeatedly insists on a socially accepted fact, tipping people off to his insanity. In the real world, Atheists argue for their (statistically) outsider beliefs, apparently tipping the author off to their insanity.
This is where the author sheds his cloak, allow me to retranslate this.

I am in disbelief that I wrote such an autistically long post.