Talk:New Atheism/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 9 April 2024. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Real

Is this article for real? Just asking, (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 14:14, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

I have a feeling there's some substance hidden in this subject. It's certain there's a world of a difference between an atheist like Russell and one like Hitchens (leaving it as an exercise for the reader to ponder what the particular differences are). The definition as written doesn't make much sense, though. --AKjeldsen^{Potential fundamentalist!} 14:22, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

Of course it is for real. It is as real as the phenomena itself. --Tom Morris 15:37, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

Then you could define what New Atheism is, in the article. Is it a movement? Is it a derogatory term by religious people? (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 16:11, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

I think I described it fairly well - albeit somewhat indirectly - as what it is: a pointless trope and labeling device used by lazy journalists, religious apologists and media agnostics. You may disagree with how I have characterized it, in which case feel free to hit the 'edit' button. --Tom Morris 16:25, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, but I am particularly dense and don't feel I'm able to edit the article. You should begin with "New Atheism is" and put what you said above in it. (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 16:35, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

To be more clear, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia - don't laugh, everyone! - thus the articles should begin with a direct definition. Otherwise it looks like some rambling, which should be in the Essay namespace. (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 16:38, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

Funny, because I thought "RationalWiki is not an encyclopedia". --Tom Morris 16:52, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

Funny, you use normal Creationist tactics: out of context quotes. Believe me, most people have never heard of "New Atheism". Wouldn't you make them a favour and explain it in simple terms, with a direct definition? (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 16:54, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

Actually I've heard the term a number of times. Without doing any great analysis it gets quite a few Google hits.--Bob^{bing up} 10:20, 18 July 2008 (EDT)

Wow, what a needlessly snarky article. New Atheism is just the description for the recent wave of atheist books, although there is often a connotation of anger or new forthrightness when the term is used.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 08:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Tom. I've often heard the phrase, but never knew wtf they meant with it. I tried reading this article, but apparently you need to already know what it means to get this article. I don't mind a snarky article, this ain't really an encyclopedia anyways with all the parody, but please consider the people who don't know the term. --GTac 10:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hang on, are you guys actually reading the article?!? It actually states the connotation of anger in the opening paragraph and then the second paragraph states how it's a recent media trend highlighting various authors. Anyway, if you're unhappy, there's this thing called an "EDIT BUTTON". ^{d hominem} 12:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw it, but it's just quite a slog through all the sneering mitigation in the article. I do plan on editing it, don't worry, I just wanted to see if anyone had any comments or the like first.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 17:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the article is very good. The "New Atheists" are simply a group who honestly criticize religion without caring if people are insulted by their opinions or not.--Bob^{Not Jim} 17:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

But what's "new" about it, exactly? Criticism of religion (and the reactions to it) is almost as old as the concept itself. There is no clear non-arbitrary distinction - not caring if people are insulted is hardly a new thing, either. It's primarily a pejorative used to describe Hitchens and Dawkins and the fact that they dared to write a book about how great God wasn't. ^{d hominem} 18:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Like I said just above, it describes a recent movement. It's not the atheism that's new, it's the atheists. It's not a pejorative, it's just the label that has been given to a resurgence in public atheism and publications about it.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 19:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we're converging on something pretty good here, but I maintain that this definitely isn't a "real" movement and is just a media induced trend. ^{d hominem} 20:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. But I do like the way things are shaping up, and like your contributions.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 20:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've been thinking about it and it's probably more complicated than both a media trend or a group of people. I definitely think the media trend came first, egged on by the love of controversy and the increased prominence of fundamentalist religion - from the Bush regime to Islamic extremists - post 2000. This makes it slightly more acceptable to openly criticise religion, so its more likely to get published, then you get a bit of a bandwagon effect that starts with one book and ends in a dozen all saying the same thing. Its not that the atheists or atheism (or even their style, passion or ferocity) is new but the fact that their voice is allowed to be heard, so people who would previously have to stay silent can finally "get if off their chest", so to speak. And then we have the other great change post-2000: the internet, and we should think about what that has done. Yes, forums have been around for decades and a lot of talk.origins stuff dates back to the days of Usenet, but videos, wikis, social networking and constant, cheap access that fuels large forums and discussion groups is really only a phenomenon of the last 5 years or so. And it's this that's produced the likes of PZ Myers and the rest of ScienceBlogs, then YouTube has allowed Thunderf00t, AronRa, TheAmazingAtheist and others to do their thing. Prior to that, they would have an audience of only themselves. So, perhaps it is a group of people, but it's not caused by these people, but by the world changing in a way that lets them speak - if we injected this technology into the times of Nietzsche or Voltaire we'd probably see "new atheists" crop up just the same. And of course, the biggest thing that's pissed off believers recently is the atheist bus campaign and its extensions worldwide, that went absolutely nowhere until Ariane Sherine started a Facebook group to promote it. So that's my idea at least, it's not that these people are new or that their attitudes are new or different, it's the world that's changed around them to let these dormant attitudes appear. ^{d hominem} 10:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it's a real movement. For example these guys are members of it and would presumably self-identify with the term.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 16:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Why does the top section of this page read like it was edited by Ray Comfort? First the De Souza quote, then the part about "evangelical fervour". Has Chris Stedman become a RW moderator? You don't see nearly this level of condescension on the accomodationism page. Also does anyone else feel like New Atheism and Antitheism are more or less interchangeable terms? Milesmcstylez--207.244.78.10 (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Unites atheists? Is this page a joke? This uniting of atheists and the scarlet letter A and the red blood A logos are really creepy. It reminds me of Aryans uniting with a swastika symbol, often red in color. If any intelligent person is reading this, please stop labeling atheists as new atheists, or atheists all together. Labeling yourselves this way and uniting has the same affect as calling yourself a communist, antichrist, antijew, etc. Anti movements that "unite" people in hotel ball room basements at fringe group like meetings: just say no. Unite all aryans (cough, atheists) with the blood red frightening scarlet A! Not.

Critisicm

A criticism section is a criticism section, not a "this is what stupid theists say, and why those stupid theists are wrong" section. New Athiests are often irrational in the extremism in which they present their views. (see Sam Harris and his abject fear of Muslims). Those of us who do not agree with the new atheist non-rational views are critical of teh over reaching statements, appeal to generlizations, and the appeal to "i'm smarter than stupid people" that new atheists use, and have a right to present that without the criticisms themselves being undercut. Atheism can stand on its own, without people needing to make strawmen out of religion and religious followers.--Godot 18:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Omar (gibber) 18:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Meh, "new atheism" is something of a straw man itself anyway. I mean, compare, say, Dennett to Harris. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Probably. by "new atheism" (a term I've only used since THIS site), i sadly usually mean "dawkins, harris and anyone else I dont' like". the rest are just "atheists". pity, isn't it. how easily we find catigories for what we dislike. heheheh--Godot 18:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

^ --il'Dictator Mikal 18:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

What is the basis?

For this sentence: "Your typical New Atheist might respond that if religious moderates truly cared about social issues and public acceptance of science, they would ally themselves with atheists without demanding unilateral self-censorship on the part of the non-religious." I have my (strong) criticisms of many New Atheists, but who has ever said anything like that? And what "unilateral self-censorship" is demanded by "religious moderates?"---Mona- (talk) 04:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The Rise and Fall of the New Atheism: Identity Politics and Tensions within u.s. Nonbelievers

http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/books/b9789004319301s008 FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 18:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC)