New Atheists

[naomi24]

Rather a recently coined term, it seems - but what do you understand by it?

[madmaggot]

No idea, except perhaps someone who has never before given it any thought but has now decided they don't believe?
As far as I can see you either believe or you don't; belief is a deeply held conviction not something that changes frequently.

[ummmm]

Me....I'm one :-)

I think people are brought up believing because that's just the way it is. Then some are lucky enough to have joined AB....and start questioning their belief.

[ladybirder]

Me too, I'm one. Reading on here made me really sit and think about it. I haven't change my mind as I was an agnostic I suppose.

[Davethedog]

I have never seen it.

In the realm of rational argument it could be a term for someone who has recently denounced their deity. However given that the religious now feel the weight of of rational argument, I would think it is an inferred insult, by theists, against those who are now speaking up.

[jomifl]

If it means anything perhaps it means previously 'closet' atheists who have decided to stand up and be counted rather than let the established church get away with it's oligarchic grip in our supposedly democratic system of government.

[Old_Geezer]

Are they new & improved ?

[Old_Geezer]

Or just fundamental atheists ?

[sandyRoe]

Could they just be dedicated followers of fashion? The first lemming accidentally falls over a cliff and all the others rush to follow.
I sometimes wonder how many atheists, old or new, are actually votaries of meaner gods like Mammon or Dionysus.

[Minotaur3]

New Atheists are people like Professor Dawkins, who are quite aggressive in their opposition to religions

[mike11111]

An erstwhile atheist friend of mine once told me that he had a God-given right to be an atheist.

[Davethedog]

Minotaur as opposed to the placid accepting Catholic church or the Archbishop of the protestant church you mean.

Nothing wrong with money or wine I am a votary of Barclays and Theakstons

[Clanad]

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."

[Clanad]

I suppose it would be appropriate to leave the link:

http://www.guardian.c...n-new-atheism-defined

[naomi24]

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.

[jomifl]

Sandy, Would you care to differentiate between a follower of fashion and a follower of religion? It's all about mindless unquestioning adulation and worship isn't it. Something you cannot accuse 'new atheistss of.

[LazyGun]

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

[jomifl]

And the laws of physics LG ;-)

[Stevee]

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.

[ludwig]

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.

[jake-the-peg]

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.