Is 'new atheism' really new?

no, it's just getting more press

nina wrote:

no, it's just getting more press

That's the only thing that is new.

But I like it. I'm not one to make waves myself, but I am enjoying that there are a few highly intelligent and well respected individuals out there promoting my thoughts.

Christians seem to feel a huge need to see atheists as opponents who threaten and endanger them on all levels, and there are a few very loud, extremely visible atheists who do just that. But most of us are content to live our quiet lives and perhaps post on forums like this one from time to time.

Many, even some atheists like to imagine that there are atheist plots that rise us to the level of wonderful hollywood villains. But anyone who has tried to organize us knows damned well that it's even harder than trying to herd cats. Too few of us have any use for leaders and we all have our own opinions, our unique ideas about the world and how it "oughtta be." Neither Hitchens nor Dawkins can organize or even speak for the larger population of atheists, and they know it.

But as Ford said to Arthur Dent as his house was being knocked down, "Let them have their fun--it hardly matters now..." Let them strut and fret on their pathetic little stages and bellow their impotent sound and fury. It still signifies nothing.

kinda new we don't get tied to a pole and set on fire.Well at least we don't here.

NightSerf wrote:

Christians seem to feel a huge need to see atheists as opponents who threaten and endanger them on all levels,....

this is why they are so silly

they are basically admitting that what they believe, their way of life - is so unattractive and unnatural

that even knowing that other people live and believe differently (ie atheist, gay/lesbian)- that their children will reject their parents teachings and go out and become atheist gays and lesbians

clearly, the only way you can get people to be xtians is to eliminate all other ways to live and force them

Jammercolo wrote:

kinda new we don't get tied to a pole and set on fire.Well at least we don't here.

Ah, you're no fun, the pole part can be kinda hot.

Jammercolo wrote:

kinda new we don't get tied to a pole and set on fire.Well at least we don't here.

Well, in the good ole' USofA?

They haven't burned anyone lately-- but there was certainly a boat-load of hangin's not all that long ago....

...as recent as the 50's...

...not a "proud tradition" like some would claim.

*sigh*

But we're Much Better Now.

The only thing new about "New Atheism" is its open hostility to religion and its failure to even attempt to deal with the arguments presented by theists.

The old-time atheists thought their positions through much more thoroughly.

Victoruto wrote:

The only thing new about "New Atheism" is its open hostility to religion and its failure to even attempt to deal with the arguments presented by theists.
The old-time atheists thought their positions through much more thoroughly.

I'm always open to an argument that god exists. Lay it on me!!

Victoruto wrote:

...
The old-time atheists thought their positions through much more thoroughly.

no, early and modern atheism is the same as ever

no evidence, no reason to beleive

we're just not as quiet now, because beleivers aren't allowed to kill us for being atheists

nina wrote:

<quoted text>
no, early and modern atheism is the same as ever
no evidence, no reason to beleive
we're just not as quiet now, because beleivers aren't allowed to kill us for being atheists

Trust me, it takes a little more thinking to workout one's worldview than "no evidence, no reason to believe".

But speaking of evidence, what kind of evidence are you speaking of?

how is 'disbelief' new?

And it's as opposed to what?'old' disbelief?

Some peoples obvious agenda driven drivel ... is just such as sad commentary on *humanity*.

Victoruto wrote:

But speaking of evidence, what kind of evidence are you speaking of?

I'll bite...

What do ya have?

NotBuyingIt wrote:

<quoted text>I'll bite...
What do ya have?

I'm not trying to put any arguments for God's existence forward (at least here and now). I was just pointing out that those who consider themselves New Atheists tend to replace scholarship and critical thinking with hostility and mockery.

While I do not agree with many of the "Old Atheists" I at least respect them for their analytical approach to such subjects. Most tended to be more respectful and reserved as well.

Victoruto wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm not trying to put any arguments for God's existence forward (at least here and now). I was just pointing out that those who consider themselves New Atheists tend to replace scholarship and critical thinking with hostility and mockery.
While I do not agree with many of the "Old Atheists" I at least respect them for their analytical approach to such subjects. Most tended to be more respectful and reserved as well.

I think you are mistaking the *more vocal* atheists for 'new atheists', who are simply trying to prevent the right-wing from *continuing* to turn this country into a theocracy.

There are a few here who are actually trying to say that this country is officially a 'christian nation'- despite what the USC says clearly.

Please read posts by theists - and ask your self if those people truly deserve 'respect'

Many come here - not for rational discussion - but belittlement and the ol' revenge fantasy ('You'll all burn in hell!')

How can one be 'analytical' with those people?

You can not reason with unreasonable people.

Me, like most I see here, treat others they way they are treated *first*.

Otherwise -'disbelief' is neither 'old' or 'new'- its the vocalization of atheists that's changed. And I make no apologies for that - and I do not condone anyone to do so either.

Old atheism = there is no god.
New atheism = there is still no god.

Victoruto wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm not trying to put any arguments for God's existence forward (at least here and now). I was just pointing out that those who consider themselves New Atheists tend to replace scholarship and critical thinking with hostility and mockery.
While I do not agree with many of the "Old Atheists" I at least respect them for their analytical approach to such subjects. Most tended to be more respectful and reserved as well.

I think it would be more accurate to say that some atheists combine critical thinking with combativeness when confronted with hostility and mockery from the more vocal fundamentalists.

I suspect that we define critical thinking differently. My definition centers on skepticism, investigation, and analysis. A critical thinker, when confronted with a new idea will neither accept it nor reject it, but think, "That's interesting--I wonder whether it's true" and then start the process of checking it out. Ultimately, real skeptics go back and revisit ideas that were acquired before their skepticism was awakened, which is how many more towards atheism.

NotBuyingIt wrote:

<quoted text>
I think you are mistaking the *more vocal* atheists for 'new atheists', who are simply trying to prevent the right-wing from *continuing* to turn this country into a theocracy.
There are a few here who are actually trying to say that this country is officially a 'christian nation'- despite what the USC says clearly.
Please read posts by theists - and ask your self if those people truly deserve 'respect'
Many come here - not for rational discussion - but belittlement and the ol' revenge fantasy ('You'll all burn in hell!')
How can one be 'analytical' with those people?
You can not reason with unreasonable people.
Me, like most I see here, treat others they way they are treated *first*.
Otherwise -'disbelief' is neither 'old' or 'new'- its the vocalization of atheists that's changed. And I make no apologies for that - and I do not condone anyone to do so either.

To make the assumption that all theists (or "those people") are unreasonable is quite a statement to make. There are many Christian scholars in many different fields of inquiry that deserve attention and respect. If you have not come across reasonable theists, then you have purposely avoided them. They are not hard to find (as long as to you don't define "reasonable" as "whatever I believe")

As a Christian, I am confronted with unreasonable and name-calling atheists all the time. The pendulum swings both ways. But I do not disregard the arguments and worldviews propounded but the ones who are willing to argue rationally.

In regards to New Atheism (Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, etc.) versus Old Atheism (men like Russell, Flew, Hume, Nietzsche, etc.), the difference is not vocalization, but scholarship. The Newbies have done anything but place forward a systematic and consistent philosophy. They argue, but have no starting point to argue fro. As Chesterton says, they "have their feet planted in mid air". The Older fellas, while I believe can be easily refuted, attempted to be consistent, cogent, and clear.

But I think we are on the same page, perhaps just different books. There are idiots on both sides who only want to vent and ridicule. Let them do it to eachother.

Victoruto wrote:

<quoted text>
To make the assumption that all theists (or "those people") are unreasonable is quite a statement to make.

Nobody has made such an assumption, so your argument is quite a moot point...

NotBuyingIt wrote:

There are a few here

NotBuyingIt wrote:

Many come here

And before you go digging up quotes to the contrary, please look up the definition of the word hyperbole.

Victoruto wrote:

<quoted text>
To make the assumption that all theists (or "those people") are unreasonable is quite a statement to make. There are many Christian scholars in many different fields of inquiry that deserve attention and respect. If you have not come across reasonable theists, then you have purposely avoided them. They are not hard to find (as long as to you don't define "reasonable" as "whatever I believe")

I made it pretty clear *which* theists I was talking about.

The ones who come to an ATHEISM forum, and belittle atheists - THOSE theists were the ones I clearly spoke of.

Victoruto wrote:

In regards to New Atheism (Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, etc.) versus Old Atheism (men like Russell, Flew, Hume, Nietzsche, etc.), the difference is not vocalization, but scholarship.

First off - how exactly do you differentiate those scholars?

Second, since when does 'disbelief' require any scholarship to effectively convey their 'disbelief'??

Victoruto wrote:

The Newbies have done anything but place forward a systematic and consistent philosophy. They argue, but have no starting point to argue fro.

To be 'atheist' All they *need* to say is 'I do not believe'. The rest is up to philosophers - Dawkins, I know is not a philosopher - seems more like an unfair and unrealistic expectation on your part - not all atheists are philosophers. Nor does an atheist require a philosophy degree, just as a theist does not require a theocracy degree.

Victoruto wrote:

As Chesterton says, they "have their feet planted in mid air". The Older fellas, while I believe can be easily refuted, attempted to be consistent, cogent, and clear.

Sure, hey ALL have their own personalized way to convey their disbelief - but that's as far as it needs to go to 'not believe'.

Again, its not fair to expect great philosophy from a biologist.
And not everyone is as eloquent as niche - if they were, you'd never heard about him.

And...'easily refuted'- You are quoting someone who makes rather unrealistic claims.??

The fact is... theism is not a subject that some win/lose goals. You either believe or you do not - it really is simple as that, no matter how complicated some people like to try and present it as.