Are all these questions of atheism a joke?

A decorative frame for atheism?

“Framing” describes the embedding of concepts in certain forms of administration or “frames” that influence reception.
For me, this idea has become relevant since there was a debate about the “framing” of Atheimus, especially in the USA, and I asked myself: “Does atheism need a“ framing ”?”

The debate separates two “camps”, one of which, represented by the likes of C. Mooney, M. Nisbet, P. Plait and S. Kirshenbaum, calls for an appeasement emblazoned, defused appearance of atheism, while the other, under whose known advocates are R. Dawkins, C. Hitchens, S. Harris, D. Dennett, and PZ. Finding Myers to be confrontational, adamant, and unapologetic.

Part of the conflict is based on the question of whether a primarily rationalistic-scientistic approach to the world, which, so one assertion, inadmissibly narrowing out part of the "riches of theological thought" which supposedly supports the debate, could produce sufficient arguments at all. One response to this question is the analogy of the “answer of the courtier” which I have already presented elsewhere.

Another part, however, is about "tone" and the culture of debate, epitomized by the phrase "Don’t be a dick!" (German: “Don't be an ass!”), whose advocates, the “diplomats”, reject ridicule and sarcasm of religious beliefs as being unhelpful and point out that more flies can be caught with honey than with vinegar.
The other side, the “warriors”, points out that it is entirely appropriate to mock religious (but also pseudoscientific) ideas and bluntly and bluntly criticize them if / because they are simply and really too silly and ridiculous.

In the orbit of this conflict, which is often distorted by eager theists (or anti-theists?) As a harbinger of an irreconcilable schism in the camp of atheists (there is also talk of “deep rifts”), the outlines of the concept of “New Atheism ”Sharpened, the“ New Atheism ”, whose members, to which I also count myself, do not necessarily call themselves New Atheists, or even perceive“ camp thinking ”, but the comparatively offensive, affirmative way of arguing and representing atheism and sometimes to proclaim prefer. The defense and refutation of religious arguments directed against atheistic worldview, ethics and coping with life thus takes a back seat to attacks against the harmfulness and danger of religions and the appeals for overcoming an irrational conception of the world and man that are not lacking in clarity and that are not lacking in clarity.
A reconciliation and somehow achieved, peacefully on feet of clay, compatibility with the religions is not only not understood as a lofty goal, but not even as a compromise worth striving for.

(Many atheistic natural scientists, including me, consider religion and natural science to be incompatible, if not diametrically opposed. And those who are thinking of an anecdote that supposedly “proves the opposite” with the words “I know a believer Scientist about to initiate ... ”I reply that believing scientists must be inconsistent in at least one area, religion or science. If they are inconsistent in science, they are bad scientists and should not be used as an example. But if they are inconsistent in religion, then they are in numerous societies and could - if they were only consistent - actually let religion be the same.)

In the course of this, as I have already said for myself, atheism, overcoming the lexical narrowing of the term, is no longer understood and lived as a negating worldview or even as a "diagnosis of exclusion", but rather as a positive, affirmative attitude that lots Values ​​and attitudes includes, their consistency and Not The prerequisite is amongst other things to reject the idea of ​​any (i.e. every) god figure and to regard it as absurd. According to this self-understanding, atheists are not only connected to one another by a common negation in the form of the rejection of a concept (sart), but often by the common possession of similar humanistic, skeptical, free-thinking and / or agnostic values ​​and goals and sometimes even organized.