ChatterBank8 mins 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.
-- answer removed --
Sixty years ago, a known atheist would be an academic, a Bertrand Russell type, and atheism regarded as a harmless eccentricity, the kind of thing would be discussed after dinner at high table, literally of academic interest.
The story was that recruiting sergeants faced with someone who said 'no religion' or the like would enter them as 'C of E', the default position. You were expected to have a religion, even if your adherence was on paper only.
But that has changed. Science has advanced; many of the deepest mysteries of evolution and medicine are mysteries no more; and with it are whole new generations of young people who understand more, question more, and have the evidence to doubt the proclaimed factual truth of religious texts and teaching.
The only 'new' feature of 'new atheists' is that more people are prepared to openly challenge the factual beliefs and tenets of religion. Faith, per se; the idea that there is some deity to whom one can pray for comfort; is harmless and seems itself to be a product of evolution. It is ancient and universal. But once the leaders of a religion claim to direct others because they, the leaders, speak for the deity, the harm is potentially great. That's what atheists, new or old, should be addressing, and do now.
The story was that recruiting sergeants faced with someone who said 'no religion' or the like would enter them as 'C of E', the default position. You were expected to have a religion, even if your adherence was on paper only.
But that has changed. Science has advanced; many of the deepest mysteries of evolution and medicine are mysteries no more; and with it are whole new generations of young people who understand more, question more, and have the evidence to doubt the proclaimed factual truth of religious texts and teaching.
The only 'new' feature of 'new atheists' is that more people are prepared to openly challenge the factual beliefs and tenets of religion. Faith, per se; the idea that there is some deity to whom one can pray for comfort; is harmless and seems itself to be a product of evolution. It is ancient and universal. But once the leaders of a religion claim to direct others because they, the leaders, speak for the deity, the harm is potentially great. That's what atheists, new or old, should be addressing, and do now.
'New Atheists' is a veiled connotation used to imply without explicitly stating a subcategory of atheists who are in fact anti-theists, in an attempt to obscure the fact that it was them, theists, who threw the first stone and that anti-theism is simply a response to those whose intent has always been to demonise atheists.
Thanks to the improved understanding of the nature of reality science has provided in recent years, atheists now have something substantial in their arsenal to throw back in the faces of the religious who have for millennia extolled faith as a virtue and sought to marginalise (to state it mildly) non-believers, who now emboldened by the overwhelming indisputability of the facts are at last free to come out of the closet and demand fair treatment . . . if not an apology.
Thanks to the improved understanding of the nature of reality science has provided in recent years, atheists now have something substantial in their arsenal to throw back in the faces of the religious who have for millennia extolled faith as a virtue and sought to marginalise (to state it mildly) non-believers, who now emboldened by the overwhelming indisputability of the facts are at last free to come out of the closet and demand fair treatment . . . if not an apology.
To me 'New Atheist' conjurs up pretty much the same style of person as 'Reborn Christian' just in the opposite corner.
Where the fundamentally religious are tedious and domineering in their insistance of 'revelation from god', so too are many atheists who rather arrogantly assume that anyone who doesn't share their beliefs is clearly their intellectual inferior. I dislike both types with a passion, niehter have any respect for mankind as a whole or for people's right to free choice without being victimised or ridiculed.
Where the fundamentally religious are tedious and domineering in their insistance of 'revelation from god', so too are many atheists who rather arrogantly assume that anyone who doesn't share their beliefs is clearly their intellectual inferior. I dislike both types with a passion, niehter have any respect for mankind as a whole or for people's right to free choice without being victimised or ridiculed.
Nox, I dont know any atheist like you describe, I accept that in discussion, debates and arguments etc things can get a bit heated but isnt that always the case.
I think most Atheists just deplore the so called Christians trying to tell everybody that the Non believers will go to hell and have no morals etc.
I think most Atheists just deplore the so called Christians trying to tell everybody that the Non believers will go to hell and have no morals etc.