I know I am going to get major flak for this, but I think that New/Militant Atheists give a bad name to normal atheists, just as a militant theist does for a normal theist. I have atheist friends who aren't anything like this, and to put those people in with the New Militant ones seems like an insult on their character.
"Their arguments are not new, their arguments don't make sense" - does this person give us a single example? No. Not one. I cannot take this gentleman seriously.
What he means, and even Dawkins agrees, is that the new atheists present the same old arguments that philosophers like nietzche and brand have done long ago...except that the new atheists have tacked on a very hardline, militant stance.
@databaseexpert well, leaving the second point aside, I think it is true to the New Atheism isn't that new, Dawkins Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit comes from David Hume in the 1700s, also Daniel Dennett's book on treating religion as a natural, social phenomenon dates back Frazer's 'The Golden Bough.' which was first published in 1890. Also their view that a proper understanding of evolution will mean you can't believe in a God, was being put forward by Sir Julian Huxley atleast 50 years ago.
The New Atheists tend to be moral realists / moral objectivists, i.e. not adherents of moral skepticism --- that is a big difference between old and new atheists.
I would like to further the argument, and say that it is a "NEW" Atheism. We have a better grasp on science than back in the 19 century. We have DNA and a better understanding of Evolution, even way better than Darwin himself could have possibly understood. More information is becoming prevalent such as "The Grand Design" by Stephen Hawkins that proves there is no need for a god to make the world we live in. Its reasoning like this that makes these arguments "new".
...and nothing constructive here to see. Saying that something is older than it appears (and he is correct in this) or maintaining that something is militant (which really doesn't mean anything other than an appeal to emotion) are not arguments; no refutation here has taken place. Responding to the former point, the term "New Atheism" in it itself is describing a new movement, not a new philosophical foundation, presenting old reasoning in new popular formats.
Religions demand respect. Religions will not be accorded respect they do not merit. Denying basic rights to women and homosexuals, vilification of science and reason and insistence their dogma be taught in state schools should not be respected. Reliance on a book of contradictory statements that allows one to claim absolute certainty does not deserve respect. Such attitudes allow religions to feel justified in hating 'the other.' Xian hates Jew hates Muslim hates Hindu hates Sikh ad infinitum
And you either don't have it in you to write Christian though you spell every other religions name right or you distinguish between pretenders and those who do believe.
@sellingnothimg Oh I'm well aware of what he was doing, and I'm well-read on the subject. There's a reason why their arguments are "the same old." They've never been really answered.
Did anyone else notice that he didn't even attempt an argument here? What good is a 2 minute video that spends most of it's time quibbling over the semantics of "new" and then dismisses mountains of atheist arguments with "their simply not valid." This is nothing mire than pablum propaganda for the already-converted crowd.
@trappermark - One can't do much more than that in a 2-minute video. His point is that these atheists are not offering anything "new". The arguments are the same as they've always been. This conversation's been going on for millennia. The arguments themselves are better served by the written word, not videos. Visit a library (before they all get torn down) and see what's already been said.
Christians threaten me with damnation and hellfire every chance they get from a position based on a book that cotradicts itself within the first two chapters of Genesis. Atheists assert they need evidence for the existance of any God, evidence that is lacking and WE are the militants. PUH-LEEZE!
@disrxt I don't think he's saying that they're militant compared to the Christians who threaten you with damnation and hellfire. Rather, compared to atheists of old, it's quite militant in so far as it's agressive and quite loud. And I think that's fair.
They are EVANGELIZING atheists as well ! Not happy to go about as fools all by themselves... oh, NO they are wanting to add swiftly to their numbers ! Now, WHO does that remind you of ?
I view New Atheism as being similar to the promotion of Deism through Thomas Paine's book THE AGE OF REASON. It isn't that atheism is anything new; like deism, it has been discussed in the ivory towers of the universities. However, the New Atheism brings the ideas of atheism to the general public and expresses its philosophy in simpler terms so the masses can understand atheists objections to God and religion.
No new arguments since antiquity - god's been dead that long but you still keep the corpse around in a rocking chair in the corner. You like that smell of death and decay.
I know I am going to get major flak for this, but I think that New/Militant Atheists give a bad name to normal atheists, just as a militant theist does for a normal theist. I have atheist friends who aren't anything like this, and to put those people in with the New Militant ones seems like an insult on their character.
Discordian7 2 weeks ago
"Their arguments are not new, their arguments don't make sense" - does this person give us a single example? No. Not one. I cannot take this gentleman seriously.
databaseexpert 3 months ago
@databaseexpert
What he means, and even Dawkins agrees, is that the new atheists present the same old arguments that philosophers like nietzche and brand have done long ago...except that the new atheists have tacked on a very hardline, militant stance.
aloh86 3 months ago
@databaseexpert well, leaving the second point aside, I think it is true to the New Atheism isn't that new, Dawkins Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit comes from David Hume in the 1700s, also Daniel Dennett's book on treating religion as a natural, social phenomenon dates back Frazer's 'The Golden Bough.' which was first published in 1890. Also their view that a proper understanding of evolution will mean you can't believe in a God, was being put forward by Sir Julian Huxley atleast 50 years ago.
Anglican08 3 months ago
The New Atheists tend to be moral realists / moral objectivists, i.e. not adherents of moral skepticism --- that is a big difference between old and new atheists.
aaronshaf2006 3 months ago
@UnApologist74 If you want good philosophical arguments for the existence of God, I'd check out William Lane Craig or Alvin Plantinga.
Drgamedood 6 months ago
I would like to further the argument, and say that it is a "NEW" Atheism. We have a better grasp on science than back in the 19 century. We have DNA and a better understanding of Evolution, even way better than Darwin himself could have possibly understood. More information is becoming prevalent such as "The Grand Design" by Stephen Hawkins that proves there is no need for a god to make the world we live in. Its reasoning like this that makes these arguments "new".
archdtaylor 7 months ago
...and nothing constructive here to see. Saying that something is older than it appears (and he is correct in this) or maintaining that something is militant (which really doesn't mean anything other than an appeal to emotion) are not arguments; no refutation here has taken place. Responding to the former point, the term "New Atheism" in it itself is describing a new movement, not a new philosophical foundation, presenting old reasoning in new popular formats.
niriop 7 months ago
Religions demand respect. Religions will not be accorded respect they do not merit. Denying basic rights to women and homosexuals, vilification of science and reason and insistence their dogma be taught in state schools should not be respected. Reliance on a book of contradictory statements that allows one to claim absolute certainty does not deserve respect. Such attitudes allow religions to feel justified in hating 'the other.' Xian hates Jew hates Muslim hates Hindu hates Sikh ad infinitum
disrxt 1 year ago
@disrxt
And you either don't have it in you to write Christian though you spell every other religions name right or you distinguish between pretenders and those who do believe.
ivlfounder 1 year ago
@sellingnothimg Oh I'm well aware of what he was doing, and I'm well-read on the subject. There's a reason why their arguments are "the same old." They've never been really answered.
trappermark 1 year ago
"they're" not "their" - I do know better.
trappermark 1 year ago
Did anyone else notice that he didn't even attempt an argument here? What good is a 2 minute video that spends most of it's time quibbling over the semantics of "new" and then dismisses mountains of atheist arguments with "their simply not valid." This is nothing mire than pablum propaganda for the already-converted crowd.
trappermark 1 year ago
@trappermark - One can't do much more than that in a 2-minute video. His point is that these atheists are not offering anything "new". The arguments are the same as they've always been. This conversation's been going on for millennia. The arguments themselves are better served by the written word, not videos. Visit a library (before they all get torn down) and see what's already been said.
sellingnothing 1 year ago
Christians threaten me with damnation and hellfire every chance they get from a position based on a book that cotradicts itself within the first two chapters of Genesis. Atheists assert they need evidence for the existance of any God, evidence that is lacking and WE are the militants. PUH-LEEZE!
disrxt 1 year ago
@disrxt I don't think he's saying that they're militant compared to the Christians who threaten you with damnation and hellfire. Rather, compared to atheists of old, it's quite militant in so far as it's agressive and quite loud. And I think that's fair.
arnizach 1 year ago
They are EVANGELIZING atheists as well ! Not happy to go about as fools all by themselves... oh, NO they are wanting to add swiftly to their numbers ! Now, WHO does that remind you of ?
cheesestr4wz 1 year ago
I view New Atheism as being similar to the promotion of Deism through Thomas Paine's book THE AGE OF REASON. It isn't that atheism is anything new; like deism, it has been discussed in the ivory towers of the universities. However, the New Atheism brings the ideas of atheism to the general public and expresses its philosophy in simpler terms so the masses can understand atheists objections to God and religion.
michael34453 1 year ago
No new arguments since antiquity - god's been dead that long but you still keep the corpse around in a rocking chair in the corner. You like that smell of death and decay.
unassumption 1 year ago