Wednesday, April 23, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

Investigating Atheism

by Cambridge University

Thanks to Tim DiChiara for the link.

See:
http://www.investigatingatheism.info/

Since the publication of Sam Harris' The End of Faith in 2005, the English speaking world has seen a spate of books on atheism, most notoriously perhaps Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion (2006). The publication of Christopher Hitchens' God is not Great (2007), Sam Harris' The End of Faith (2005) and Michel Onfray's 'Atheist Manfesto' (2007), among others, have added and expanded the debate. However, despite the popular success of these publications, the 'new atheists' have had a mixed reception, not only among the religious (as is to be expected) but also among fellow atheists and agnostics, who have often accused them of oversimplifying the issues.

The purpose of this site is to set these contemporary 'God Wars' in their historical context, and to offer a range of perspectives (from all sides) on the chief issues raised by the 'new atheists'. We hope this will encourage more informed opinion about the issues, discourage oversimplification of the debate, and deepen the interest in the subject.

The current polarised nature of the 'new atheism' debate often discourages serious discussion of the very issues that the 'new atheists' have brought so forcibly to the attention of the public. Behind some of their more vociferous assertions, there are complex debates going on, and here we will seek to understand how and why these debates have arisen, and what is at stake.

The site contains a definition and historical contextualisation of contemporary atheism, an account of atheist organisations and demographics, an overview of the current controversies, and includes orientation to discussion on issues felt to be central to the current controversies.

Click here to continue:
http://www.investigatingatheism.info/

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 122 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #166790 by SamKiddoGordon on April 23, 2008 at 12:34 pm

So we are to expect cambridge university to be neutral on the subject? What is it they hope to really accomplish? Truth and reality is not up for debate, it just is what it is, like it or not.

Other Comments by SamKiddoGordon

2. Comment #166793 by JemyM on April 23, 2008 at 12:34 pm

Weird site.

Other Comments by JemyM

3. Comment #166807 by mintcheerios on April 23, 2008 at 12:41 pm

Someone needs to put up a page called "Investigating Afairyism".

Other Comments by mintcheerios

4. Comment #166811 by HourglassMemory on April 23, 2008 at 12:43 pm

Shouldn't we wait 200 years for this or something?

Anyhow, anything like this is helpful to people.

Other Comments by HourglassMemory

5. Comment #166812 by mikecbraun on April 23, 2008 at 12:43 pm

"Oversimplifying the issues?" Asking for evidence to back up any truth claim may be fairly simple, but it is necessary in its simplicity. I would accuse all religious people of making everything too complicated by inventing supernatural, extrasensory beings and then trying to cling to their existence with nonarguments. That seems like horrid obfuscation to me. But what do I know? I'm just a simple atheist who tends to rely on Occam's razor or the popular K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple, Stupid) theory.

Other Comments by mikecbraun

6. Comment #166820 by Elles on April 23, 2008 at 12:48 pm

"Since the publication of Sam Harris' The End of Faith in 2005, the English speaking world has seen a spate of books on atheism, most notoriously perhaps Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion (2006)."
Is there a... particular reason why The God Delusion is apparently the "most notorious" of them all? Why is The God Delusion so special?

Other Comments by Elles

7. Comment #166826 by jonwes on April 23, 2008 at 12:50 pm

Hmmm... I think they mistake accessibility for oversimplification. I found The God Delusion extremely accessible and though it better for it. I've not read any of the other books (though I plan too- I'm new to this!) but in the case of The God Delusion, Dawkins clearly hopes that the reader will investigate further and in fact explicitly encourages the reader to read the texts he is quoting on occasion.

Are there all kinds of interesting debates to be had about the points raised? Sure! But I think the best thing is that the books are RAISING the questions to begin with.

Also, can I raise an annoyance with people trying to place things in a historical context when they are currently going on all around us? It reminds me of when people tried to put 9/11 in historical context on 9/12! What exactly is the point of that endeavor, other than to try to cement their version of events into the history books before they are written?

Other Comments by jonwes

8. Comment #166828 by MrPickwick on April 23, 2008 at 12:51 pm

I quote from that site:

"Jean Meslier was a Catholic priest who is often identified as one of the first intellectual atheists in Europe. Meslier was not an avowed atheist during his life, but on his death it was discovered that he had written a book-length Testament which promoted virulently anti-Christian views. Whether or not Meslier's views as expressed in the Testament strictly count as atheistic rather than deistic remains a matter of contention."

The last sentence is so patently false that I wonder who is really running that site...

Other Comments by MrPickwick

9. Comment #166836 by stereoroid on April 23, 2008 at 12:57 pm

I saw this mentioned on another site earlier today, and took a look. The page on "definitions of atheism" looked reasonable, but it's followed by many assertions about atheism and violence - saying (without backing) that RD etc. are wrong about Hitler & Stalin.

It goes off the rails altogether when it comes to Nietszche. A lot of guff about how Hitler loved the "Superman", and nothing about Nietszche's Nazi sister and her anti-Semitic distortion of his ideas.

Other Comments by stereoroid

10. Comment #166845 by Jin on April 23, 2008 at 1:00 pm

Interesting. This may serve as a good resource. I have to say that some of the criticism seems a bit unfair, such as:

Against the background of more cautious and historically informed judgements of the relationship between atheism and violence such as that of Martin and others, the more recent pronouncements of the New Atheists generally appear by contrast to recall the optimism of atheistic materialists of the eighteenth century Enlightenment, for whom atheism seemed to offer the promise of bringing about a more violence free world. However, both the history of atheism and the political history of the West suggests that the optimism of eighteenth century atheists as the Baron d'Holbach was misplaced, a point that authors like Martin seem ready to concede but which New Atheists like Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens have generally preferred to underplay.

(Atheism & Violence)

or

The defenders of an autonomous naturalistic morality can claim on the basis of richer empirical evidence than ever before that humans are naturally altruistic and cooperative. On the other hand, the atheist amoralists can point out that the commitment of 'virtuous atheists' such as Richard Dawkins to biological reductionism makes it difficult for them to say why humans should not follow their aggressive and xenophobic instincts rather than their cooperative and altruistic ones. They appear to be able to offer only an evolutionary explanation of the altruistic moral instincts, not a reason why they should be followed.

Moreover, amoralists can argue that 'virtuous atheists' fail to provide any real justification for their moral stance. What can they say against De Sade's, Max Stirner's, or Nietzsche's decision to follow their darker instincts? It is striking that the trio of New Atheists - Dawkins, Dennett and Harris - have not so far addressed in any systematic way this 'other' tradition of atheism.

(Atheism & Morality)

Overall the site appears well-informed, though, but I've only had the time to browse at this point.

Other Comments by Jin

11. Comment #166851 by brian faux on April 23, 2008 at 1:04 pm

A quick shufti at this site gives the impression that it is written by a bunch of religious types.

Quote "At the beginning of the twenty first century the situation remains very similar: for every atheistic scientist who supposes that science supports (or does not undermine) their atheism, there is a religiously inclined scientist who supposes that science supports (or does not undermine) their theism."
Sounds a bit dodgy to me.
I have emailed them to ask if they have any stats to back up this statement. I dont believe that the ratio of believers to non believers in the sciences is anything like 50/50 (unless you counter nobel physics laureates with graduates from the Christian theology college of Moose Droppings Indiana)
Apologies to Hoosiers

Other Comments by brian faux

12. Comment #166855 by Verylee on April 23, 2008 at 1:06 pm

AKA The Politically Correct Guide To Atheism. Not only that but it also seems to me, to want to try to intellectualise the concept of Atheism, which is pretty simple really. I guess that's universities for you!

EDIT:

(About Us)The website has been put together by a group of academics and researchers at the faculty of Divinity at the University of Cambridge, and at the University of Oxford. The team have no set view on the subject, and aim to give a fully independent, but informed statement about this important subject.

They seem to be theologians and religious psychologists in the main. One of them is being funded by the Templeton Foundation

Other Comments by Verylee

13. Comment #166857 by Layla Nasreddin on April 23, 2008 at 1:07 pm

Cambridge? Hey, wait a minute...don't Cambridge and Oxford have this bitter rivalry going, with Oxonians poking fun at "North Fens Polytechnic," while Cambrige students in turn laughing at "Cowley Polytechnic"? I mean, if this was put out by "that other school"... ;) *stifles a giggle*

Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin

14. Comment #166872 by Adam Morrison on April 23, 2008 at 1:19 pm

I can simplify the whole issue:

Atheist:
An individual who does not believe in a theistic concept of god.
From the English 'a' a prefix derived from Greek for negation, and 'theist' which is a word for an individual who believes in an intervening supernatural deity (a simpleton).

Everything else is unnecessary.

Other Comments by Adam Morrison

15. Comment #166878 by Camsaint on April 23, 2008 at 1:23 pm

Marvellous. A project run by the faculty of Divinity. They're probably just trying to use the current popularity of atheist literature to raise their profile a bit. Essentially a bunch of well dressed fleas with html skills.

At the moment the faculty of Divinity is about as significant a part of Cambridge intellectual life as the Department of Land Economy. Let's keep it that way!

Other Comments by Camsaint

16. Comment #166883 by MelM on April 23, 2008 at 1:24 pm

Check the "About Us" link:

The website has been put together by a group of academics and researchers at the faculty of Divinity at the University of Cambridge, and at the University of Oxford.

...
Many of the team are also members, or former members, of the Psychology and Religion Research Group (PRRG) , based at the Margaret Beaufort Institute in Cambridge.

...
Fraser N. Watts, Ph.D.
Director, Psychology and Religion Research Group
...
Fraser was ordained in the Church of England in 1990 and is now Vicar-Chaplain of St. Edward King and Martyr, Cambridge

My caution flag is up.

Other Comments by MelM

17. Comment #166905 by carbonman on April 23, 2008 at 1:35 pm

The thinly veiled knee-jerk defensiveness of the site suggests the Faculty of Divinity sees atheism as a threat. I guess the smallpox virus, had it possessed the power of reason, may have felt the same way about the vaccination program.

Other Comments by carbonman

18. Comment #166911 by Jefe on April 23, 2008 at 1:38 pm

5 minutes on the site and I already see a couple of 'errors' with the assumptions on which it has been based.

""The New Atheists are typically concerned with defending (at least) the following theses:

* Belief in God and evolution are not compatible.""

I wouldn't categorize this statement (attributed to 'New Athiests') as strictly true.

"" * Atheism is not discredited by the 'atheist tyrannies' of Hitler and Stalin.""

There is misinformation rolled up in this little statement, that demonstrates a lack of understanding of Hitler and Stalin on the part of the Cambridge group.

Not really a promising start.

Other Comments by Jefe

19. Comment #166928 by MelM on April 23, 2008 at 1:47 pm

Why not an "Investigating Theism" site and a "Psychopathology of Religion Research Group"?

Other Comments by MelM

20. Comment #166937 by Camsaint on April 23, 2008 at 1:54 pm

carbonman - I agree absolutely. To continue the analogy, it's as if smallpox then tried to convince the world that instead of being threatened by Jenner, it actually had a full and useful role to play in framing the debate about poxes in the modern world.

Still, if they go belly up, the history faculty could use the extra space they've got in that snazzy building on the Sedgwick site. It's much nicer than the Seeley.

Other Comments by Camsaint

21. Comment #166940 by discipline on April 23, 2008 at 1:56 pm

I've only slogged through parts of this site, but I'm unimpressed. I would expect better from an esteemed university than the familiar apologetics -- however nicely they are dressed up as "intellectual" theology.

Theology must be great for self-esteem: it gives people with pre-existing certainties the warm and fuzzy feeling that they are open-minded and educated.

Other Comments by discipline

22. Comment #166949 by Stafford Gordon on April 23, 2008 at 2:02 pm

The use of inverted commas for 'new athiests' does at least nod towards the fact that these people are mostly life long atheists.

As regards evidence for and against the existence of a supernatural creator of the universe? Well, I would have thought that a slightly difficult balance to strike, even for a University such as Cambridge.

Other Comments by Stafford Gordon

23. Comment #166950 by BigJohn on April 23, 2008 at 2:03 pm

Comment #166872 by Adam Morrison

Correct, Adam. I have a problem with people who, apparently deliberately, misunderstand that atheism in NOT a belief but a lack thereof. This probably arises from their inability to realize that some people are able to live their lives without the fragile exoskeleton of faith in a supernatural being.

Other Comments by BigJohn

24. Comment #166951 by MelM on April 23, 2008 at 2:03 pm

Google for "psychopathology of religion" got me this interesting site: Link-> Derbyshire Secular Humanists.

Psychology: the study of the mind.

Psychopathology: the study of the mentally ill.

No, we are not saying that all religious people are mentally ill (though we do think that religion can be cured) - please read on!

...
It is interesting that most of the books and papers on the psychology and psychopathology of religion have been written by the religious - enquiring into why they believe as they do. They simply cannot leave it alone - "I believe because I believe" - they have to find some reason for why they believe (other than impartial logical proof which, as we have seen elsewhere, is denied to them.)

Other Comments by MelM

25. Comment #166954 by Tosser on April 23, 2008 at 2:04 pm

To see how little thought went into this site, look at the list of contemporary atheists. They name the "four horseman" and three others. How about putting people like Ricky Gervais on there? And how about investigating "ordinary" atheists working as plumbers, doctors, insurance agents, and so on?

The site appears bent on portraying atheism as a small, quirky cult. It's not a fundie screed, but the difference is more about style than substance. Behold this gem:

"Religious belief has traditionally provided human beings with a reason to think that their individual lives have a purpose, and that the existence of humanity as such has a purpose. Atheism, on the contrary, has generally taught that both individual human beings and (eventually) humanity as a whole have no purpose in the universe, and that they will be definitively annihilated in the course of time (human beings after their short spans of life, humanity - at latest - when the earth finally becomes uninhabitable)."

Other Comments by Tosser

26. Comment #166958 by 82abhilash on April 23, 2008 at 2:07 pm

The faculty of Divinity at the University of Cambridge and Oxford must be worried that RD's growing popularity coupled with the strength of his well reasoned arguments will shut them down for good.

I bet this place will become the front for religious morderates, apologists and crypto-fundamentalists.

I agree with MelM. There should be an "Investigating Theism" site. But not simply a counter current. But as an academic institution dedicated to understanding religion as a natural phenomenon.

Other Comments by 82abhilash

27. Comment #166960 by epeeist on April 23, 2008 at 2:09 pm

Comment #166851 by brian faux

A quick shufti at this site gives the impression that it is written by a bunch of religious types.

Yes, some of the staff seem to either be or have been members of the staff at the Margaret Beaufort Institute, which is a Catholic theological house (not even a college).

Other Comments by epeeist

28. Comment #167001 by jdb on April 23, 2008 at 2:33 pm

Okay, I didn't get very far before I noticed something screwy. They say on the Contemporary Atheists page:
http://www.investigatingatheism.info/whoswhocontemporary.html
that RD is a "molecular biologist". I think this is a bit of a misnomer. Well... other than the fact that he is a biologist, and indeed he is made of molecules.

Other Comments by jdb

29. Comment #167005 by Enlightenme.. on April 23, 2008 at 2:34 pm

Fukn'ell

Does the Universe show signs of having been a creation?

Nope.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

30. Comment #167015 by Verylee on April 23, 2008 at 2:40 pm

The top banner picture is quite telling. I suppose that is the fundy evangelical preacher on the right at his pulpit/lectern, and the atheist enlightenment philosopher at his scrolls on the left? Or maybe not!

Other Comments by Verylee

31. Comment #167017 by Enlightenme.. on April 23, 2008 at 2:41 pm

Put me up for the job of head Atheologian.

I have all the qualifications required.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

32. Comment #167020 by qomak on April 23, 2008 at 2:44 pm

I can't understand why everybody is so negative about this site? I entered with a very negative perception but I actually liked it. To me, they have done a fairy good job; it might not be perfect but it's still pretty good.

I don't think some of the criticism in the comments is just. For example

* Belief in God and evolution are not compatible.""

I wouldn't categorize this statement (attributed to 'New Athiests') as strictly true.

It has nothing to do with truth; they are defining new atheists to be those who share these views.

"" * Atheism is not discredited by the 'atheist tyrannies' of Hitler and Stalin.""

There is misinformation rolled up in this little statement, that demonstrates a lack of understanding of Hitler and Stalin on the part of the Cambridge group.

Once again it's a matter of definition and furthermore, almost all these "new atheists" (by definition) spend considerable time discussing Hitler or Stalin.

Other Comments by qomak

33. Comment #167030 by Enlightenme.. on April 23, 2008 at 2:53 pm

They could apply for a grant from Templeton.

[edit]
oh, hadn't seen post 12.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

34. Comment #167038 by Enlightenme.. on April 23, 2008 at 2:58 pm

Verylee:
"...want to try to intellectualise the concept of Atheism"

Exactly my kind of visceral reaction.

Teach the controversy?

What controversy - religions exist, I have evidence, but gods?

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

35. Comment #167040 by EgoSumNemo on April 23, 2008 at 2:59 pm

First I'd like to know what part of the Cam that's behind this site (I doubt it is the entire university).

Secondly I'd like to know how a state with no state religion could qualify as an example of atheist violence? Religion existed in the USSR as well, just not state religion. I mean, what makes the current government/state of Sweden more religious than the USSR? Nothing at all within the Swedish government is governed by religion. We have a official religion but it has no connection with any ruling body within the state.

[edit]took a better look and saw it was created by the faculty of Divinity at Cam and Ox. They say they will have "...no set view on the subject"...but somehow I doubt it.

Other Comments by EgoSumNemo

36. Comment #167049 by Enlightenme.. on April 23, 2008 at 3:09 pm

D'you think the diviners are on the run?
Excellent concept to keep them in tenure in a post-theistic age.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

37. Comment #167062 by BigC on April 23, 2008 at 3:19 pm

The New Atheists are typically concerned with defending (at least) the following theses.....

.....Religious education of children is 'child abuse'.

How many times is this going to be misquoted by religious nutjobs?

That's on this page:

http://www.investigatingatheism.info/newatheistgoals.html

Other Comments by BigC

38. Comment #167067 by CambrianExplosion on April 23, 2008 at 3:25 pm

It's very clever, isn't it? It's written in a somewhat neutral tone, yet most pages seem to deliberately end on the "positives" on the religious side after discussing the "negatives" of the atheist side. And as far as I have seen so far, whenever they choose to put a memorable quote on the page, it's always something like this:

"A little philosophy inclineth men's minds to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds to religion."
Francis Bacon

Or like this:

"Atheism... has generally taught that both individual human beings and (eventually) humanity as a whole have no purpose in the universe, and that they will be definitively annihilated in the course of time..."

I mean, come on! That last one is not even attributed!

The surprising truth is that atheism.about.com is far better at describing atheism than this site.

Other Comments by CambrianExplosion

39. Comment #167070 by devolve on April 23, 2008 at 3:31 pm

From the domain registration info (http://whois.domaintools.com/investigatingatheism.info):

Registrant Name:David Goode
Registrant Organization:David Goode
Registrant Street1:4 Ainsworth Court
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Cambridge

From David Goode's webpage (http://www.cus.cam.ac.uk/~djg39/)

we learn that

David's first book was published in May 2005 by The Canterbury Press. Food in due season: daily table blessings for the Christian year contains structured table blessings for every day of the year, based on the blessings in the Latin breviaries, brought up-to-date in contemporary English and the familiar Common Worship style.

and

David's second book was published in March 2006 by The Canterbury Press. Living bread: prayers of preparation for holy communion is a broad selection of prayers in preparation for receiving holy communion from the Anglican Fathers of the seventeenth and early-eighteenth centuries (some of whom were the 'Caroline Divines'), edited into contemporary English.

Draw from that what you will.

Other Comments by devolve

40. Comment #167089 by cafeeine on April 23, 2008 at 3:49 pm

Reply to 30. Comment #167015 by Verylee on April 23, 2008 at 2:40 pm

Well if you go to the contemporary atheists page
http://www.investigatingatheism.info/whoswhocontemporary.html
You can see that the 'preacher' is in fact a picture of Richard Dawkins, so if anything it would be the other way around!

Other Comments by cafeeine

41. Comment #167114 by Jack Rawlinson on April 23, 2008 at 4:19 pm

is there a... particular reason why The God Delusion is apparently the "most notorious" of them all? Why is The God Delusion so special?

I suspect it's the best-selling one, and I think Richard has probably toured and promoted it more heavily than the other guys did with theirs. I could be wrong, though.

I also think many people find him less easy to dismiss than, say, Hitch.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

42. Comment #167126 by Cartomancer on April 23, 2008 at 4:34 pm

I knew it would all end in tears when we let them escape and found their own university out in the marshes in 1209. Possibly a bit late now to revoke their independence and recall them all to Oxford where we can keep a close eye on them, but worth a try I feel.

To do my bit for the reclamation of the wayward Cambridge Loons I can put up a couple of theologians on my floor in Summertown, and maybe there's room in the wardrobe for a small deacon if he takes his hat off. Anyone else want to volunteer and help out in the cause of academic freedom?

Other Comments by Cartomancer

43. Comment #167155 by Aquaria on April 23, 2008 at 5:06 pm

Could the language up there be anymore loaded?

"Notoriously" rather than "notably?"

And there isn't an oversimplification in distilling the argument to its one essential question: What proof is there of any deity?

That's all there is to this. We don't need to know the theology of why evil is in the world. It doesn't matter.

We don't need to know how many angels can dance on a pinhead. It doesn't matter.

We don't need to know the difference between Augustine, Aquinas, Tertullian, Luther, Spong or Haught. It doesn't matter.

"What proof is there for any deity?'

It's that damned simple. Everything else is obfuscation and bullshit.

Other Comments by Aquaria

44. Comment #167197 by ivo on April 23, 2008 at 5:55 pm

Is it fair to judge a website based on the first listed of its Selected Features?

If yes, then investigatingatheism.info is *very* negatively biased against atheism.
The feature is John Gray's article "The Atheist Delusion", which purports to present some "New Atheists" (ie think the Four Horsemen), discussing the merits of their ideas.

Now, I'm not sure the guy's being dishonest, but he writes crap. For instance, he systematically misrepresents the views of Dennett and Dawkins, paying special attention to *not* discussing the central points of their respective bestsellers. Even worse, he completely buys into the atheism-is-a-philosophy misconception, so that he may entertain us with the nefarious social consequences of various brands of atheism, such as Stalinism, Maoism... One typical sentence:

quote
Nazi "scientific racism" and Soviet "dialectical materialism" reduced the unfathomable complexity of human lives to the deadly simplicity of a scientific formula.
unquote

Ah, and he just *loves* to compare the New Atheists fanatical attitude to that of evangelical Christians.

Bleah. Now recall that the purpose of the site is to "discourage oversimplification of the debate, and deepen the interest in the subject [of atheism]."

Other Comments by ivo

45. Comment #167283 by dragonfirematrix on April 23, 2008 at 8:17 pm

TO MUCH DEBATE… TO MUCH DEBATE…

Personally, I have no cross-purpose here. Mine is a direct purpose, so let me dispense with the wordiness of the palpitations of the brainiacs that I am reading, and let me simply say…

…There is NO god. The short, simple, sweat truth, and it is the end of the debate, unless proof positive is achieved by...

...If god wants to challenge my opinion, he can do so by completing the following on 04-24-08, Eastern, USA.

1) End his/her/its starvation of all the starving children on planet
2) Cure all childhood deceases, which he/she/it presumably (if he/she/it created everything) caused
3) Stop debilitating old persons
4) Put and end to mental retardation
5) Cure all amputees
6) Stop all the god-damn religious wars
7) End discrimination
8) End sexism
9) End racism
10) End homophobia

That should be enough.

The list above should be enough, but anyone can add more. Come on god. If you a real, you can fix all these things tomorrow, 04-24-08. I also invite other gods to step up to the plate and prove themselves by 04-24-08. God, if you are worth believing, you can easily handle my list above. If you are imaginary (not worth believing), you cannot.

Case dismissed. THERE IS NO GOD.

Other Comments by dragonfirematrix

46. Comment #167286 by njwong on April 23, 2008 at 8:49 pm

Although I agree that the Cambridge site has a pro-religion bias, I still think it is useful and quite well done. They have consolidated many atheism topics in an easy-to-navigate site.

For instance, the section "Atheist Arguments - For Disbelief" condenses much of RD.net's "Debate Points". For a newcomer to atheism, it is much easier to read a condensation of the main arguments at the Cambridge site than to wade through the forum-type responses at our RD.net site. Of course, there is merit to both approaches, but I personally prefer the more succint and concise Cambridge layout as compared to reading hundreds of forum-post responses on each topic in RD.net.

RD.net has a huge treasure trove of news type information. I feel that it needs to add a similar encyclopedic/wiki style information section so that we can provide the same information that the Cambridge site is now doing, but written with our pro-reason and pro-rationality bias.

Other Comments by njwong

47. Comment #167300 by mordacious1 on April 23, 2008 at 9:21 pm

I've never liked the term "new atheists". The only new atheists are the thousands of babies born each minute.

Other Comments by mordacious1

48. Comment #167305 by Diacanu on April 23, 2008 at 9:38 pm

The purpose of this site is to set these contemporary 'God Wars' in their historical context, and to offer a range of perspectives (from all sides) on the chief issues raised by the 'new atheists'.

The current polarised nature of the 'new atheism' debate often discourages serious discussion of the very issues that the 'new atheists' have brought so forcibly to the attention of the public.

*Sniff, sniff*

Hmm...fish..."Crossroads", anyone?

Other Comments by Diacanu

49. Comment #167307 by Roland_F on April 23, 2008 at 9:42 pm

Although I agree that the Cambridge site has a pro-religion bias, I still think it is useful and quite well done. They have consolidated many atheism topics in an easy-to-navigate site.

useful ? this is a wolf in sheepskin. Pretending to be an atheist web page, faking a little atheism arguments and bring home their 'divinity faculty' e.g. theist message to the unprepared readers.
I already smelled something fishy before the link opened and the first post showed that this 'atheism' webpage is made from religious persons and registered from someone who's publications are about table prayer before eating.

Other Comments by Roland_F

50. Comment #167335 by Lammie on April 23, 2008 at 11:00 pm

I've never liked the term "new atheists". The only new atheists are the thousands of babies born each minute.

I agree about the dislike of the term "new atheist". I think it is being used strategically to make all non-theists appear to be a group of "happy-clappies" (cf new born Christians).

Other Comments by Lammie