A blog of random jottings on events, science, renfairs, travel, reading, music, humanism, religion, atheism, and even the odd spot of gardening.

Rate this Entry

5 : Excellent 4 : Good 3 : Average 2 : Bad 1 : Terrible

Gnu Atheists, accommodationists, New Atheists: definitions of the terms

Posted 02-Aug-2010 at 07:21 AM (07:21) by Gurdur
Updated 13-Oct-2010 at 03:49 PM (15:49) by Gurdur

Tags abuse, accommodationism, accommodationists, anti-theism, antitheism, atheism, atheists, betraytheists, chris mooney, christopher hitchens, credophiles, daniel c. dennett, david hume, dishonesty, dylan evans, faitheists, gnu atheism, gnu atheists, godlycoddlers, hamilton jacobi, hitch, jerry coyne, ken pidcock, muzzle-ems, narcissism, new atheists, ophelia benson, phil plait, placatheists, pz myers, religion, richard dawkins, sam harris, science, scientism, sheril kirshenbaum, uncle tom, ung atheists, unscientific america, victor j. stenger

---

Since I'm going to be doing several blog posts very soon on certain recent incredible antics by wannabes, I am going to provide here definitions of some of the phrases currently tossed around in hapless word-salads on many atheist blogs and boards.

• Atheism: Anyone who vocally rejects belief in all gods is an atheist. I am just such an atheist.
  
  Identification: most often self-applied, sometimes a label applied by others.
  
  
• Antitheism/Anti-theism: anyone who makes a huge constant practice out of really going on a downer on religion as a whole.
  
  Identification: This label of antitheist/anti-theist is most often self-applied (anti-theists tend to think other atheists are too soft on religion, or too quiet, or something).
  
  
• New Atheists: The term " New_atheists" should be properly applied only to Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel C. Dennett, Victor J. Stenger and Christopher Hitchens.
  
  Those five people all came out with books that sold well during the period 2004 to 2008, all centered around the thesis that religion itself as a whole had to be combated, and a sense that that combat had become urgent. There were other themes often but not always in common, ranging from promotion of science as an answer to everything (very common though not universal to the five, veering off into scientism every now and then), to Christopher Hitchens' support of the invasion of Iraq (which Richard Dawkins was against), but the two themes really held in common were anti-theism and an urgent feeling of the need of anti-theism.
  
  There has recently been a couple of tries at fake legitimization by PZ Myers by claiming people like David Hume as New Atheists (of very long ago, obviously, seeing Hume died in 1776; as shall be seen while moving along through this and my other soon blog posts, such claims are bogus).
  
  Identification: the term New Atheists has both been self-applied and applied by others opposed to them.
  
  
• Gnu atheists: The term "Gnu Atheist(s)" was recently invented by Jerry Coyne (edited to add: actually, invented by Hamilton Jacobi), apparently as a way of having a confused dig at those who criticise some atheists for being abusive; but it's as handy a term as any other here for those I would normally term the extremists, and those into atheism for their own narcissism rather than for the sake of atheism itself.
  
  Gnu atheists would be those loosely self-identifying as New Atheists but not actually of that group of five described above. This group would include those like Ophelia Benson, Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers, frequent commentators like Hitch, Ken Pidcock, etc.
  
  Identification: a label actually first used by Jerry Coyne (as far as I can see) and others to apparently try pretending abusive atheists simply don't exist, and trying to mock their way out of the problem; the label became self-applied by Ophelia Benson and commentators on her blog, again apparently in a mocking way to try pretending no atheists could ever be abusive. I'm simply going to use the label for them, it is after all shorter than "extremist" or "those who like to be abusive for the sake of being abusive, or who try pretending none such people exist within the atheist movement".
  
  .
  Edited (12 October 2010) long afterwards to add:
  They've now even invented a new logo graphic for themselves, forsooth. The whole thing doesn't work out as well as they think it does for them; the next time some Gnu whines about schisms inside the atheist movement, it's time to remind them of just who is playing tribalist politics.
  
  
• Accommodationism: The term "accommodationist" goes all the way back to 1964, and is cited by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as meaning someone "who adapts to or compromises with an opposing view", and is related to the old "Uncle Tom" slur.
  
  Back sometime around May/June 2009, following the release of the book, Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future (USA edition, British edition), by Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum, some like Jerry Coyne started applying the term "accommodationist" as a disparagement to people like Mooney, Kirshenbaum, Michael Ruse and so on.
  
  What is an accommodationist supposed to be? The definitions are as myriad as the number of stars, but the most usual Gnu atheist definition makes a claim that (alleged) accommodationists think that religion should not be criticised. This is one of the standard dishonest lines peddled often. Another similar line of untrue claim is that the "accommodationists" as a group want atheists to shut up, a canard exploded a long time ago way back in June, 2009, but still endlessly repeated.
  
  Just why these canards, and what purpose they serve, is something I will explore in coming blog posts. Jerry Coyne made a very childish attempt at getting others to come up with new abusive names for anyone he doesn't like, names like "betraytheist", "faitheist", "Godlycoddlers", "Placatheists", "Credophiles", "Betraytheists" and "Muzzle-ems".
  
  As for myself: since I am not an accommodationist by any stretch by any of the definitions peddled by the Gnus, and since I am an open and vocal atheist, then I'm simply a non-conformist and an atheist who is rather disgusted by the dishonest antics of some of the Gnu Atheists. Here, as always, I'm voicing my opinion as an atheist. I will be rather clear; my personal opinion of the New Atheists, as defined here, is much much higher than my opinion of the Gnu atheists as a whole. I do after all like collecting Dawkins' books, and a fair few of Dennett's.
  
  Identification: The label "accommodationist" is almost always applied by others to alleged accommodationists, and hardly ever self-applied; Chris Mooney, for example, explicitly rejects the label. He had previously used it a while to talk back to the Gnu atheists, since it was the label applied to him and others, but his use of it was always only a form of shorthand out of courtesy to those applying it.
  
  
• Civility: it seems incredible to have to define civility. But it's become necessary, owing to a very bogus Gnu tactic. One of the most pertinent criticisms of the Gnu atheists that Chris Mooney made way back in October 2009 was that the major stumbling block to any reconciliation between the Gnu atheists and the so-called accommodationists was the issue of personal abuse; a lot of the Gnus simply use a huge deal of (usually irrelevant and highly incorrect) personal abuse, something which I've often documented in my own blog here, and something a good many other atheists like Phil Plait or Dylan Evans have criticised -- or even as Richard Dawkins has criticised.
  
  Identification: Gnu atheists like to either claim personal abuse is never employed by their side, or that it was somehow (magically) deserved, or try pretending everyone is abusive, or that the call for civility is actually a codeword for the suppression of atheist especially Gnu atheist voices. This is of course highly reminiscent of the usual argument tried by so many internet trolls of all stripes and camps.
  
  The ones criticising Gnu atheists most often just stick with everyday conceptions of the term civility and its application in real life.

So much for defining the terms so often used; it is important to realise that many of the arguments within the atheist movement as a whole long predate the publishing of Unscientific America, and long predate Mooney and Kirshenbaum; in fact, arguments about rudeness and so on have been tottering along for nigh on 50 years in the USA (for example, see the debates about Madalyn Murray O'Hair and her tactics), and for around the last 10 years within Britain.

So, definitions done, onwards to my next blog posts!

Below, a screen-capture of the image apparently from or used by Jerry Coyne:

Posted in Uncategorized

Views 6397 Comments 17

Comments

Post a Comment

1. 	I've read some of those links and it seems everyone is making up labels and then arguing about them. I'm not one to label myself, so this isn't easy. I considered Ung-atheist, but I don't really use atheist. Maybe Ung-non-believer? Possibly just "me".
   	Posted 02-Aug-2010 at 07:54 AM (07:54) by Never Updated 02-Aug-2010 at 08:00 AM (08:00) by Never

2. 	Quote: Originally Posted by Never ... Ung-atheist ... Good one. I like it. I am now an Ung-atheist. Quote: Possibly just "me". Well, now, that's exactly how I feel too, when dealing with this crap. I have provided all these definitions just as a guide for people, since they are so often bandied around on atheist sites; but bluntly, I think an awful lot of those atheists simply need to get a life.
   	Posted 02-Aug-2010 at 08:11 AM (08:11) by Gurdur

3. 	Nice article! Nice article, fellow Ung-Atheist! Being involved with the Open Source movement, I'm rather upset that those people appropriate our beloved Gnu. BTW, Wikipedia is case sensitive, so it should be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_atheists.
   	Posted 02-Aug-2010 at 11:35 AM (11:35) by mintar

4. Nice article! Quote: Originally Posted by mintar Nice article, fellow Ung-Atheist! Many thanks! My oh my, has Never started a movement here? Does this have traction? Quote: Being involved with the Open Source movement, I'm rather upset that those people appropriate our beloved Gnu. That too, and apparently, deliberately. Quote: BTW, Wikipedia is case sensitive, so it should be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_atheists. Many thanks! I've edited the blog post to reflect that.

   Posted 02-Aug-2010 at 11:43 AM (11:43) by Gurdur

5. 	An Ung-Atheist? Also, I wish they wouldn't try to troll. From everything I've seen they're 1) bad at it and 2) give us real trolls a bad name.
   	Posted 02-Aug-2010 at 08:06 PM (20:06) by Makbawehuh

6. Extremism Luckily I'm no extremist, even though you try to brand me as such. That's what people get for accepting your invitation for discussion and being honest with you? Hmm. I have spend a lot of time engaging with your questions and argument, as people can find on this very blog in the comments section. Rather extreme, I would agree given how one gets treated and branded in return. You neither respect my time, my effort nor my right to have a different opinion. You make people out to be something they aren't. That's shameful. Auf Wiedersehen und ich hoffe Du findest einen netteren Kern irgendwo. Bye.

   Posted 02-Aug-2010 at 11:09 PM (23:09) by Hitch

7. 	I have to admit that I find the "Gnu Atheist" label a bit odd, since when I think of "GNU" and "atheist," I think of Richard Stallman, but that's the geek in me talking.
   	Posted 03-Aug-2010 at 03:31 AM (03:31) by J. J. Ramsey

8. Extremism Quote: Originally Posted by Hitch Luckily I'm no extremist, even though you try to brand me as such. No, Hitch, what I would brand you as is the kind of person who tries very hard to pretend the abusers do not exist, and the kind of person who would try an awful so-obviously manipulative attack as the one you tried last, where you lied. I answered you in full that time, and now here you are trying the same kind of manipulative dishonesty all over again. Quote: That's what people get for accepting your invitation for discussion and being honest with you? No, what I get from you for having invited you is a whole line of bullshit where you also be implicitly rude to others, and utterly evasive of the actual topic. Quote: I have spend a lot of time engaging with your questions and argument, as people can find on this very blog in the comments section. Yes, indeed they can! But they won't be impressed! (see the blog post and the comments under it in full). Quote: Rather extreme, I would agree given how one gets treated and branded in return. You neither respect my time, my effort nor my right to have a different opinion. I have something to say about your "respect" for differing opinions later, Hitch. In full, on a new blog post, since I am very unimpressed by your conduct and your hypocrisy here. Do note, by the way, I leave all your comments up, despite the weak attempt at trolling in this one and the last one. Quote: .... Auf Wiedersehen What, again? That's what you said last time. Quote: und ich hoffe Du findest einen netteren Kern irgendwo. Bye. == "I hope you find a nice kernel somewhere". Hitch, this is ridiculous. But also funny. I like it. A nice kernel, eh? Or maybe you meant nucleus?

   Posted 03-Aug-2010 at 04:06 AM (04:06) by Gurdur Updated 03-Aug-2010 at 01:17 PM (13:17) by Gurdur

9. 	Quote: Originally Posted by J. J. Ramsey I have to admit that I find the "Gnu Atheist" label a bit odd, since when I think of "GNU" and "atheist," I think of Richard Stallman, but that's the geek in me talking. That's what pissed off the second commentator, Mintar. We all have our own different focuses.
   	Posted 03-Aug-2010 at 04:08 AM (04:08) by Gurdur Updated 03-Aug-2010 at 04:24 AM (04:24) by Gurdur

10. Quote: Originally Posted by Makbawehuh ... Also, I wish they wouldn't try to troll. From everything I've seen they're 1) bad at it and 2) give us real trolls a bad name. Indeedy, everyone else has their own focuses. You'll be happy to know both PZ Myers and Ophelia Benson, as well as assorted others, read this blog post of mine. Both are outraged -- outraged! -- by it. Ophelia Benson wants to claim original rights -- and user-rights -- to the creation and use of the Gnu appellation. Well, she's plumb out of luck on the user-rights issue. Right out there in the public domain now, too bad. It's rather funny. Benson claims I stalk her with close hostile attention, and then she whines I don't pay close enough attention to her, and I don't give her credit for the term. Sheeeeesh. Some people just can't make up their minds about how they want things, eh?

    Posted 03-Aug-2010 at 06:08 AM (06:08) by Gurdur

11. Quote: Originally Posted by Gurdur Ophelia Benson wants to claim original rights -- and user-rights -- to the creation and use of the Gnu appellation. Not too sure what you mean by "original rights," since Benson gave full credit to "Hamilton Jacobi" for coining the term. Plus, her bracketing her remarks with "Hmph!" and "So there!" makes it pretty clear that she was being tongue-in-cheek about the whole "rights" issue.

    Posted 03-Aug-2010 at 11:20 PM (23:20) by J. J. Ramsey

12. Quote: Originally Posted by J. J. Ramsey Not too sure what you mean by "original rights," since Benson gave full credit to "Hamilton Jacobi" for coining the term. She's always welcome to come along and correct things herself. Mind you, she doesn't appear to be able to handle reasoned disagreement well, and she ran away the last time she came here. Quote: Plus, her bracketing her remarks with "Hmph!" and "So there!" makes it pretty clear that she was being tongue-in-cheek about the whole "rights" issue. Given her peculiar ways and her chronic bizarre claims and contentless flames, I wouldn't know what was actually humour on her part, and I find such claims more than dubious. Your claim is noted, but nowhere near proven. Given the rest of what she said, genuine humour seems hardly likely on her part. Is she capable of it? Not snark. Not stupid flaming. Can she actually do genuine humour? Just mildly wondering, since I see no evidence of it.

    Posted 04-Aug-2010 at 05:15 AM (05:15) by Gurdur Updated 04-Aug-2010 at 05:21 AM (05:21) by Gurdur

13. 	thanks for the definitions Your post seems to be the only one which does it. Prior to knowing about 'gnu atheism' I had essentially been using the term 'born again atheist' for that group for, I think, obvious reasons. In fact I think I'm going to keep using my term because of the GNU's Not Unix overload of 'gnu' that other's have mentioned. :P
    	Posted 07-Oct-2010 at 02:22 AM (02:22) by HappyEvilSlosh

14. thanks for the definitions Quote: Originally Posted by HappyEvilSlosh Your post seems to be the only one which does it. Prior to knowing about 'gnu atheism' I had essentially been using the term 'born again atheist' for that group for, I think, obvious reasons. In fact I think I'm going to keep using my term because of the GNU's Not Unix overload of 'gnu' that other's have mentioned. :P Thanks, HappyEvilSlosh, and that works well too!

    Posted 07-Oct-2010 at 07:31 AM (07:31) by Gurdur Updated 07-Oct-2010 at 07:43 AM (07:43) by Gurdur

15. 	The gnudean people's front Good blog This might be up your street YouTube - The People's Front of Gnudea.flv YouTube - The People's Front of Gnudea.flv
    	Posted 25-Feb-2011 at 03:31 PM (15:31) by Unregistered

16. Professed atheists Many of the terms above look to me the be off the mark. I class atheists who talk constantly about being an atheist and argue with the claims of religionists as being PROFESSED (or professing) atheistS. Likewise in Ireland, when atheists form into an organisation, I find Irish Catholic Atheists, based on their behaviour patterns. The idea of not believing in god type things is not new so being an atheist can't be new. It's even very likely that it was atheists who through their own local self interest founded organised religions. If you had the means to study the movements of stars and had been in a position to predict cosmic events such as an eclipse you were in the best position to use that information to manipulate others as being the spokesman for a god. As in "god has told me if you do not...the sky will never see light again. The chumps march up the long steps with those whose to be sacrificed (on the advice of gods spokesman on earth) and just before the eclipse is about to end the atheists says "the god [thing] has told me he's satisfied.... Whoope the sky clears and light returns... dubusairl@yahoo.com

    Posted 22-Oct-2011 at 08:59 PM (20:59) by Unregistered

17. 	An atheist An atheist is a human who does not believe in the existence of gods. It is not someone who SAYS they don't believe in god.
    	Posted 22-Oct-2011 at 09:01 PM (21:01) by FXR

Post a Comment

Trackbacks

  About this blogger:

Gurdur

• About me | Contact me

Gurdur is online now Blog Entries: 933

		View all blog entries by Gurdur
		View Gurdur's photo album(s)
Follow me:     To suscribe to this blog, please register on the board at the "Register" link below, then when registered and logged in, please use the "Suscribe to this blog" link below
		Register
Follow on Twitter:
		The_Heathens  For selected blog posts on atheism, secular humanism, ethics, religion and the like
		Heathen_Hub  For selected blog posts on everything else
		View RSS Feed

           

The Hub board information for Gurdur

		Gurdur is online now   Board posts: 5,123   Join Date: Nov 2007
		View Gurdur's Hub forums profile
		Find all posts by Gurdur
		To the Hub board

• Find Blog Entries by Gurdur

  Containing Text: Search Titles Only

  Advanced Search
• Blog Categories

  Local Categories

  • Explaining atheism and atheists
  • Dialogue
  • Laughter
  • Nosology
  • So you want to be an activist?
  • Defending the truth. Jealously!
  • All about YOU: series on my blog and Twitter followers
  • Narrative, story-telling and so on
  • The road-movie of my life
  • Reporting on the Church of England
  • Uncategorized
• Recent Entries

  • Distress email allegedly from Lionel Fanthorpe is only a scammer-hacked email account
  • More details breaking as news on the Woolwich murder attack
  • Collected tweets from an eyewitness at the Woolwich, London, crime scene
  • What is the insect from which these egg-cases on buffalo-horn come?
  • The Rubicon is crossed: Women In Secularism, feminism, atheism, skepticism, humanism
• Recent Comments

  • More details breaking as news on the Woolwich murder attack by Gurdur
  • How five Jews changed the way we see the world by kapil
  • Cocktails and party drinks with a difference by Gurdur
  • The Rubicon is crossed: Women In Secularism, feminism, atheism, skepticism, humanism by Elevatorgate
  • Why the strange absence of both science and theology in Game Of Thrones? by Gurdur
• Tag Cloud

  #jan25 #scicomm #scio12 abuse atheism atheist movement bloggers blogging blogs round-up books britain christianity church of england cif cofe crime daily telegraph dear diary democracy egypt england ethics evolution extremism facebook freedom germany greenbelt guardian health-care history islam islamism japan journalism london maggi dawn media medicine meet-ups mental health morality muslims narcissism nature north carolina ohio pakistan philosophy politics protest psychiatry psychology pz myers racism religion rev'd lesley fellows richard dawkins salmaan taseer science secularism sexism skepticism social media terrorism theology twitter usa wisconsin women

  Search by Tag

• Archive
  <      May 2013
  Su	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa
  21	22	23	24	25	26	27
  28	29	30	1	2	3	4
  5	6	7	8	9	10	11
  12	13	14	15	16	17	18
  19	20	21	22	23	24	25
  26	27	28	29	30	31	1

• Recent Visitors

  • alicat
  • An Ardent Skeptic
  • AspenMama
  • AtheistFeline
  • Dawn
  • Elevatorgate
  • hermesbags
  • Justin
  • lifelinking
  • Makbawehuh
  • mick
  • MyCatsAreMyGods
  • nellywagner
  • Never
  • Seeker630
  • Shadowfox
  • Skep tickle
  • Submariner USN
  • Tharmas
  • theArmchairSkeptic