This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← Can Critics of “New Atheists” Please Read Some First?

sonnygll's Avatar Jump to comment 30 by sonnygll

I think we have a definition problem here. "new atheist" started as a bullshit term for someone like Dawkins that wrote atheism books in the last decade, as well as anyone with similar views.

What AtheistEgbert seems to be talking about are the recent additions to the atheist community, who are technically "new atheists", but not THE "new atheists". These are the people of average or lower intelligence who have come to be atheists the last couple years. They tend to have a poor grasp of the arguments and they are extremely bellicose, have a tendency to generalize, and frequently seem to have it out for religious people, rather than just being against religion. It's just a symptom of our numbers rapidly growing. We aren't primarily geeky intellectuals anymore; there are all types in the atheist community.

Now his last post about liberalism....My reaction "WTF?!". First take Bertrand Russell for example, he's an older atheist, yet he was extremely liberal. The behavior of the recent arrival type of "new atheists" seem to be conservative. In fact they frequently bash liberalism. One need look no further than fans of Pat Condell and Thunderf00t on youtube.

the Gutting article is demonstrably false because even an older atheist like Bertrand Russell said something along the lines of "If something is true you should believe it, if it isn't you shouldn't. It doesn't matter if you think something would be good if it was believed. Ask yourself only what the facts are". That's not word for word, but that's the main idea. So that is not new at all.

I would always tell people to read the "Why I am not a Christian" essay, and THEN try to tell me there is anything new about it.

Mon, 26 Sep 2011 01:06:06 UTC | #875163