Motoring0 min ago
New Atheists
36 Answers
Rather a recently coined term, it seems - but what do you understand by it?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
This article (in a British newspaper, no less) is as succinct as any I've seen in describing the phenomena of Gnu... err... New Atheism. The take away is encapsulated in his last sentence "... That's how politics works, after all, and the new atheism is interesting as a political or social movement, not an intellectual one."
The term "New Atheism" appears to have been coined by Gary Wolf for an article in Wired magazine. Like others here, I wonder if New Atheists are, as OG suggests, new and improved – or whether they are, in fact, just the same as they’ve always been? I suspect the latter - the only difference being that atheists are no longer afraid to speak out.
I had always thought that the term "new atheist" was intended to be used in a vaguely dismissive or derogatory manner by the faith heads
I see no empirical difference in either tone or content of argument between those alleged to be the founding fathers of new atheism,such as Dawkins,Dennett,Hitchens et al. Religious belief is not of itself worthy of deference or respect.
As to the intellectual content being absent- I would not accept that from Andrew Brown, well known religious apologist. And the intellectual basis of atheism stands head and shoulders above what passes for reasoned debate from those of faith. Usually it consists of them tying themselves into rhetorical knots, attempting to confer some exemption for religion from empirical analysis
I see no empirical difference in either tone or content of argument between those alleged to be the founding fathers of new atheism,such as Dawkins,Dennett,Hitchens et al. Religious belief is not of itself worthy of deference or respect.
As to the intellectual content being absent- I would not accept that from Andrew Brown, well known religious apologist. And the intellectual basis of atheism stands head and shoulders above what passes for reasoned debate from those of faith. Usually it consists of them tying themselves into rhetorical knots, attempting to confer some exemption for religion from empirical analysis
Very interesting, I do wonder why the theist always has to resort to veiled insults, as they scramble to hide the paucity of their argument and the diminishing of their faith.
I can imagine, the sneer, denied the intellectual input of atheism. You cannot defend religion, you simply cannot. It is a canard, an unsupportable superstition. Why does he think there is a "new" atheism? Because education begets knowledge. The internet allows debate that the theist was always denied. The anonymity gives the doubters the ability to be aware of those doubts in full bloom and to realise the non believers are not the devils spawn, but just "people"
Religion, but probably not faith, brings violence. The "righteous" deny it, for how can they admit, what happens in the name of their God? When confronted by it they seek to defend it. If it means contradicting the word of God or Allah, that's OK the end justifies the means.
We, in the west at least, are becoming more secular and religion is like Canute holding back the tide. When the Catholic church seeks to stop marriage between a loving couple, all it does is bring the tide a little closer.
I can imagine, the sneer, denied the intellectual input of atheism. You cannot defend religion, you simply cannot. It is a canard, an unsupportable superstition. Why does he think there is a "new" atheism? Because education begets knowledge. The internet allows debate that the theist was always denied. The anonymity gives the doubters the ability to be aware of those doubts in full bloom and to realise the non believers are not the devils spawn, but just "people"
Religion, but probably not faith, brings violence. The "righteous" deny it, for how can they admit, what happens in the name of their God? When confronted by it they seek to defend it. If it means contradicting the word of God or Allah, that's OK the end justifies the means.
We, in the west at least, are becoming more secular and religion is like Canute holding back the tide. When the Catholic church seeks to stop marriage between a loving couple, all it does is bring the tide a little closer.
I do think there is a change of attitude among non-religious people. It's less tolerant, more antagonistic. Rather than just being an irrelevance that can be ignored by atheists, religion is seen more and more as a positive force for 'evil' (for want of a better word), that needs to be actively opposed. In other words you're right Naomi - people are just more inclined to speak out. The internet might have something to do with that.
It's been referred to as aggressive atheism. Seeing as how mankind's had to suffer thousands of years of aggressive religion, I think it's a bit rich of the religious to get all sulky about it.
It's been referred to as aggressive atheism. Seeing as how mankind's had to suffer thousands of years of aggressive religion, I think it's a bit rich of the religious to get all sulky about it.
I see so as opposed to old atheists who packed Oxford's Natural history museum to have a screaming row with Bishop Wilberforce ( who called Darwin a monkey at the event)
or
Charles Bradlaugh who founded the National Secular Society and in 1880 refused to swear on the bible as he became an MP and was arrested and imprisoned in the clock tower. in the ensuing rucous.
or new like Emile Zola saying "Civillisation will not reach perfection until the last stone from the last church falls on the last priest"
New like that eh?
Amazing how little people know about the history of atheism - then when Dawkins provokes a row everybody pretends it's something new.
or
Charles Bradlaugh who founded the National Secular Society and in 1880 refused to swear on the bible as he became an MP and was arrested and imprisoned in the clock tower. in the ensuing rucous.
or new like Emile Zola saying "Civillisation will not reach perfection until the last stone from the last church falls on the last priest"
New like that eh?
Amazing how little people know about the history of atheism - then when Dawkins provokes a row everybody pretends it's something new.
