Battle of the New Atheism

[Eusis]

Wired URL

I haven't read more than one and a half pages in, but his 'New Atheism' crap is already pissing me off.

[Jimmy]

The New Atheists will not let us off the hook simply because we are not doctrinaire believers. They condemn not just belief in God but respect for belief in God. Religion is not only wrong; it's evil. Now that the battle has been joined, there's no excuse for shirking.

Uh, for one that's just such a huge contradictory statement. I can respect their lack of belief, but wow. I've seen atheists argue that since there is no god, then what we consider "good" and "evil" is merely a construct and the consequences of doing what religious doctrines tell us not to are non-existent. So them saying believing in god is evil, if indeed they actually have said that, is contradicted by the fact there is no such thing as evil.

And really, what's new about Atheism?

[Ryos]

And really, what's new about Atheism?

Must be a vogue term.  I've never heard about "new atheists" before now though.  I find it somewhat ironic from the article that said new atheists seem to be organized like a religion. :p

[Ramza]

I have little to say in reply that wouldn't start a flame war...

So I'll just say this.

Anyone on the board agree with Mr. Dawkins?

Ramza

[Dios GX]

Atheists believe human beings are the zenith of existence in the universe.

Allow me to sum up that statement:

No.

[Cauton]

I'm an atheist, and I agree with some of his points. I do, however, not believe that you should ridicule or condemn anyone for what they do, or do not, choose to believe in.

Dawkins is himself an extremist. Just as some religious extremists will go to great lengths to convince non-believers that their religion is right, Dawkins seem hell bent on converting everyone into atheists.

I do not think that the world would automatically be a better place if all religion was abolished. Religion, in and of itself, is neither good or bad. People can use, and abuse, it to either of those ends, though.

In the end, it's up to everyone to decide for themself what to believe in. Some might choose to believe in the Christian God, others will worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster and some of us will decide that there is no sort of higher power. I might not agree with other people's choice of belief, but I will never think of them as lesser people because of it.

[Degolas]

The biggest thing that annoys me about SOME atheists, is how they'll say how they hate religion and religious people because they force their beliefs on others, yet they do the same with their atheism.

I basically agree with what Cauton said...and laugh my arse off at Dios' post!

[Hidoshi]

Seems to new that a "New Atheist" is no more reasonable nor valid in his or her viewpoint than a witch-burning medieval zealot from antiquity.

[Losfer]

Seems to new that a "New Atheist" is no more reasonable nor valid in his or her viewpoint than a witch-burning medieval zealot from antiquity.

I was refraining on commenting in this thread cause I couldn't muster my thoughts into coherancy, but you summed up my thoughts nicely as well, Dosh.

[Vanguard]

This is the type of stuff that pisses me off about identifying myself with the atheists. Intolerance is not good. Just believe what you fucking want to.

[Angelo]

Wow, this guy is really advancing the cause of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  Until this I only saw FSM on one car.

[Bogatyr]

There are basically two types of atheists, the ones who don't believe for cynicism, convenience, disbelief, anger, etc - whatever is the reason, it don't matter. And the ones who are so for an "intellectual" motivation. They believe being an atheist equals being smart, or that being smart, you couldn't be anything other than an atheist. If you are not too bright, at least you can fool yourself into believing you are actually smart, for not believing in "fairy tales".
I don't respect the second type, and this Dawkins certainly fits the

[GrimReality]

I read a majority of that article previously. I am reading Dawkins book, The God Delusion, right now.
I agree with him on most points, and disagree on a few.
I would classify myself as a "Strong Atheist"
I not so sure about this "New Atheism"(a term I hadn't heard until reading the Wired article) business, as I do not believe in pushing my Atheism onto others. I honestly don't believe religion is particularly evil either, just individual people.
If you want to believe in an imaginary bearded sky daddy, thats your business.
For the sake of open honesty, though, I will say that I truly wonder how someone could actually believe in a "god" and all that comes with it. It's just odd to me.

[Hidoshi]

One major issue I see as a fundamental flaw of any atheist argument is the matter of God/No God. A person does not need to believe in the Christian/Judaic/Islamic concept of God to be religious. One does not even need to believe in a supreme deity to be religious.

Besides, who the hell has time to argue this stuff? If you want to believe in God and be religious, so be it. If not, what's the point of trying to argue about it? All you're going to do is create more zealots on either side.

Addendum: As to the matter of believing in a God and "why" for that matter... I'm about to be a hypocrite of my prior statement, but eh, felt the need to say something.

A concept of God does not necessarily imply an all-powerful or even fatherly figure that controls everything. Certainly, the core of Hindu deity worship has nothing to do with that. In even more abstract terms, a Buddhist does not believe in a deity per se, but in a state of total oneness, which may well be related as a reflection of a God that is pervasiveness itself. Thus, the word "God" does not imply an individual at all.

[Logick]

And these guys are better than <insert religion> zealots how?

People like these only furthur my belief atheism is just another religion, when you devote yourself to not believing, its the same as devoting your life to believing.