Why are gnus so hated?

[Aught3]

I've been following along with the recent controversy in the blogosphere regarding those annoyed with the gnu atheists. I'm not really sure what their beef is or why they are so annoyed. Jerry Coyne suggested it could be jealousy. Richard Dawkins et al are relatively new on the scene nor are they making incredibly new arguments. But they are the authors of best-selling books, something which the old school atheists can only dream of. Ophilia Benson though it may have something to do with religious studies academics running into student with dismissive attitudes towards religions. If you are a lecturer and so of your students are not interested in the fine details of your subject it could get quick annoying.

My own take is similar but I think it is the no-nonsense approach of the gnus that is annoying the old-school atheists. No longer is engaging in the minutia of religious argumentation considered worth-while. Religion is obviously nonsense (and not good for you to boot) now let's get on with the more important questions of how to treat each other and live fulfilling lives.

Has anyone heard other reasons for why the gnus are so annoying? Or do you have your own takes?

 

[Independent Vision]

I think it has a lot to do with jealousy. And also the unapologetic nature of it.

Also, the fact that people can't face them in a debate is something that seems to rub everyone the wrong way.

 

[Memeticemetic]

I just don't get it. From my perspective there is nothing new whatsoever about "New Atheism" apart from the fact that there seem to be more outspoken atheists these days. But none of the arguments or core philosophies are anything innovative or even particularly insightful. No slight against Dawkins and certainly not against Hitchens but their infamous books contain nothing but arguments my smart-ass friends and I were bruiting about in our late teens after reading a bit of Russel. For me, new atheism boils down to atheism+internet and nothing more. Useless appellation, says nothing, adds nothing to the conversation.

And also the unapologetic nature of it.

Unapologetics. I believe that's the best way to characterize our responses to christian apologists.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

The "New Atheists" as I interpret should be used to label people who have recently deconverted, and those are hardly outspoken.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

There's really nothing new about them other than chronology, but I suppose it would be because they are popular. Their books are best-sellers.

We wouldn't hate Glen Beck so much if he was reduced to an AM radio station in Central Nevada.

 

[lrkun]

Hehe, I thought this was a thread dedicated on making fun of gnug.

Whether gnus are hated is something we have to determine. But, if that really is the case, then it's because gnus are different, witty, and enterprising.

 

[borrofburi]

It's got to be all those car bombs...

I am far less bothered by the term "gnu" or "new" or what have you, than I am with the constant equivocation with "militant". So some of us say mean things and will get in your face with mean words... And how does that equate to car bombs, terrorism, and warfare?


But it really is the unapologetic nature of it...

How dare those uppity atheists all of a sudden start announcing that they actually exist! HOW DARE THEY! I'm going to write blog posts about how they're horrible militant people and a threat to america!

They should be more apologetic for their beliefs, with more "sorry sir, I can't help being of the devil, I tried real hard, but I'm super glad you are so much better than me" just like that ole S.E. Cupp. My, she's a good atheist, she's exactly what an atheist should be, not like all these evil gnu atheist militant bastards who I hate so much!

Just look at how some of the "controversial" billboards amount to "hey, we're an atheist group, you should come join us (especially if you're also an atheist)." And yet they can still be controversial (some are intentionally moreso)... It's all about us not showing due deference to religion and the religious for being better than us. And if we can't do that, we could at least have the decency to be quiet about it all.

 

[justsomefnguy]

I've wondered about this myself from time to time, but I don't think there is anything particularly 'new' or 'gnu' about this particular brand of atheism. The difference is that people don't feel like its something they have to keep to themselves. Atheist attempting to engage the theist in the past of come at it from a conciliatory sort of approach. Even when vehemently disagreeing, they always felt obligated to pay some lip service to theist and engage them on their grounds. To argue the merits of religious belief in a context that it might actually have some merit. Those that didn't use this method either kept their mouth shut or weren't paid any attention to, so their arguments really never gained any traction. What I think might be the cause of this anger towards this approach is that it simply leaves out the religious view. Essentially saying to the religious; 'We aren't really concerned about what you think because there isn't the least bit of support for any of it'.

I believe that what we are experiencing right now is an attempt to move past the argument and into the area of what to do about the cultural religious hangover. Time magazine told us some decades ago that 'god was dead', well if so, he certainly has been flailing about rather vigorously. Cultural institutions and habits of thousands of years are not overcome quickly or easily. There is even some indication that religion may have an evolutionary positive role (population groups with united ideologies tend to be more successful, maybe).

All the engagement of the previous generations of atheists is nothing more than tail chasing. Religion isn't an argument you win, its one you state and refuse to allow meaningful debate on. This is a rather sad idea in some ways because as someone that respects learning and scholarship, I want to believe that discussion of opposing ideas is a positive thing, but after sometime engaged in this activity, I am beginning to have serious doubts.

I think the religious community, and people in general may have such an adverse reaction to this trend in atheism because it marks the point where human beings stop taking religious ideas seriously. Indeed, it marks the point at which we make an effort to eliminate them completely from the common discourse. Change of any kind is threatening, but to introduce such a radical element as discarding religious thought is something that touches on deep and primitive triggers.

 

[BrainBlow]

what the hell is a gnu atheist?

 

[lrkun]

what the hell is a gnu atheist?

Gnu atheist. Based from the thread starter's post, a gnu atheist is not an old school atheist. That means new school atheists.

 

[Aught3]

what the hell is a gnu atheist?

It's an atheist who realises calling it 'new' atheism is silly and is mocking the religious apologists for referring to it that way.

 

[Prolescum]

[centre]

[/centre]

 

[borrofburi]

In this case it's because we disagreed with him:
http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/new-atheism-a-disaster-comparable-to-the-tea-party/33421

 

[DepricatedZero]

[centre]

[/centre]

winning

 

[Prolescum]

winning