1. Comment #428638 by Mitch Kahle on October 31, 2009 at 11:47 pm

... rather by moving towards a society in which religious belief is accorded far less respect than it currently is.

BINGO! Religion belongs right down there with astrology, palm reading, and ESP.

Other Comments by Mitch Kahle

2. Comment #428641 by Jos Gibbons on November 1, 2009 at 12:05 am

Rosenhouse has written a great piece here. It's long, but don't let that put you off. Make sure also to look at his link to Jerry Coyne's discussion of an ex-Christian for whom the New Atheist books served not only to erode his faith (not all on their own, mind), but also to foster an interest in evolution. If only the NCSE could appreciate that. But the trouble with certain apologists for evolution is that they have so narrowly defined their goals in terms of its defence that they are willing to tolerate pretty much any other assault on the prevalence of rationality in people's thoughts in exchange for embracing evolution. I'm more in to promoting greater rationality per se.

Other Comments by Jos Gibbons

3. Comment #428643 by Eager non-theist on November 1, 2009 at 12:17 am

Jos Gibbons,there is no such thing as a "new atheist".To deny such an ridiculous term is a big step in promoting greater rationality.

Other Comments by Eager non-theist

4. Comment #428644 by mmurray on November 1, 2009 at 12:57 am

It is all good but I liked this bit

By all means tell people about how four billion years of savage, cruel and wasteful evolution by bloodsport was a logical necessity for God to achieve his goals, or that the prevalence of evolutionary convergence somehow makes it likely that human-like intelligence was inevitable, thereby preserving a privileged role for humans in God's plan. Tell them they don't need the argument from design to maintain a rational belief in God and that they need a team of scientists and literary theorists to tell them what the Bible means.

Yes, go sell that message. Just don't be surprised when you find few buyers, and don't blame Richard Dawkins for your lack of success.

Michael

PS: Mitch Kahle you need to put the word block in front of the word quote to get a quote. Or look here for more info

http://richarddawkins.net/commentNotes.html

This is the link attached to [Comment Posting Guidelines] above the box you enter the comment.

Other Comments by mmurray

5. Comment #428649 by KRKBAB on November 1, 2009 at 1:41 am

Comment #428643 by Eager non-theist - I wholeheartedly disagree. Whether or not the term "New Atheist" is liked or not, they (we?) exist. I think a New Atheist could be clearly and simply defined as an Atheist who is loudly proclaiming the taboo against criticising religion has been smashed like the Berlin Wall. IMHO

Other Comments by KRKBAB

6. Comment #428651 by Quine on November 1, 2009 at 1:45 am

Very good piece. I agree that the NCSE, while telling the religious that they are wrong about evolution, need not also tell them that they are wrong about everything else; others will happily do that for them.

Other Comments by Quine

7. Comment #428672 by Enlightenme.. on November 1, 2009 at 6:48 am

Much admiration for such dedicated people as Jason working at the sharp end with what sounds like the patience of an [anti]saint. (going to creotard conferences and keeping stumm excepting the hard science)

----

This is a major click-fest! I've got about twenty tabs open now (including catch-up on his 'blogging Dawkins')

----

Just found a link from Jerry Coyne's blog about a member of the French band AIR having this to say about sex/religion:

"Godin also offers a less-than-obvious pleasure booster. "It really has something to do with the religion," he explains. "In France, we are Catholic and it makes the sex really exciting. In countries like Italy and Spain and France, it's all about Christianity but for some reason, they're hot people. People make love and it's incredible. I don't know if religion is bad or good; I come from a Catholic country and we have some spice in the sex. It's like when your parents don't want you to smoke -- you smoke. It makes it exciting and cool."

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

8. Comment #428680 by esuther on November 1, 2009 at 9:03 am

Yeah, I see the practical advantage of accommodating ignorance (for that's what it is, after all), but find it personally draining. I recall a discussion some 40 years ago, when a fellow student - a soft-spoken, polite Texan-- gently made the case for slavery by saying that "Blacks were happier then. They had a place to live and work and people took care of them." For all his soft-spoken, courteous conviction, I could not think of any equally polite response except to say "You are SO full of shit."
I feel that same digust most of the time around believers, even the 'nice' ones who juggle the contradiction of god and evolution in their cheerful little brains. Ignorance is ignorance, and I don't have the fortitude to engage with it. Kudos to those who do.

Other Comments by esuther

9. Comment #428681 by Nunbeliever on November 1, 2009 at 10:20 am

Why is it that some bloggers do not seem to be able to express their opinion on a given subject in less than 10000 characters ;-)

He had a point though...

Other Comments by Nunbeliever

10. Comment #428685 by Koreman on November 1, 2009 at 1:05 pm

Washing hands makes you more immoral.
http://bhascience.blogspot.com/2009/10/is-ritual-purification-brain-down-to.html

Other Comments by Koreman

11. Comment #428687 by Serdan on November 1, 2009 at 2:05 pm

Jos Gibbons,there is no such thing as a "new atheist".

Yet we all know exactly what he was referring to. Making it a useful term, which means that the only way to get rid of it is to come up with a more catchy term with the same referent.

Other Comments by Serdan

12. Comment #428709 by bladesman on November 1, 2009 at 4:15 pm

Comment #428638 by Mitch Kahle :

BINGO! Religion belongs right down there with astrology, palm reading, and ESP.

I actually have more respect for those 3 things than religion, as they cause little-to-no actual harm in the world today, compared with the big R. :oD

Other Comments by bladesman

13. Comment #428734 by wonderist on November 1, 2009 at 6:25 pm

Comment #428687 by Serdan:

Jos Gibbons,there is no such thing as a "new atheist". To deny such an ridiculous term is a big step in promoting greater rationality.

Yet we all know exactly what he was referring to. Making it a useful term, which means that the only way to get rid of it is to come up with a more catchy term with the same referent.

The term is: Unapologetic atheist. Please see my post promoting 'unapologetic' at The word is: Unapologetic

Also, Mano Singham has a good article to describe the sentiment behind the term: Being a new atheist means not saying you're sorry

The idea is simple. The difference between the so-called 'new' atheists and the presumably 'old' atheists is that we are no longer willing to treat religion as a taboo subject of criticism. We will not apologize for merely criticizing and speaking out against it. This does not make us 'strident' or 'militant' or 'fundamentalist', or any of the other derogatory words that are used to label us. It simply makes us unapologetic: We have done nothing wrong, and we have nothing to apologize for.

It also has a nice double-meaning as the opposite of 'apologetics', meaning that we have considered the apologetics arguments, we have rejected them, and we put forth our own counter-apologetics, such as Dawkins' Ultimate 747 Argument, or Sam Harris' argument against religious moderatism, or Hitchens' challenge to point out any moral action by the religious that cannot also be undertaken by a non-religious person. We could collectively call these arguments as 'unapologetics'.

As for whether this is a catchy term, I guess that is up to us to bring it out into the public sphere and use it. Whenever you hear the stereotype of 'new atheist' (and, look around, it *has* become a stereotype), counter it with the term 'unapologetic atheist'.

I have tried this tactic and found it very successful. See a recent blog post where I used the term to deflate the blogger's claims that atheists and fundamentalists are just two sides of the same coin: http://rabidlycurious.wordpress.com/2009/10/30/36/

Also, another blogger was left with no reply after I pointed out that 'unapologetic' is not 'arrogant': What the New Atheists should be Criticizing

Try it. Pass it on. It's a useful turn of phrase, and stops the 'strident' stereotype in its tracks. If we keep at it, we can turn this into an atheist meme to replace 'new atheist'.

Other Comments by wonderist

14. Comment #428738 by Mitch Kahle on November 1, 2009 at 6:47 pm

Unapologetic atheists have been around for centuries. I myself have been unapologetic in my atheism since high school (in the late 70s). As far as the terms "new" or "old" atheists, what should we call Madalyn Murray O'Hair? Besides HERO!

Other Comments by Mitch Kahle

15. Comment #428742 by mira on November 1, 2009 at 7:16 pm

Thanks wonderist! I don't like the term 'New Atheist' I've never understood what it's supposed to mean exactly. It's just another dodgy blurry theists' label meant to dodge and blurr minds.
In general I don't like the term Atheist itself not because I'm ashamed but it's simply extremely void. So if anything 'Unapologetic Atheist' is much better and precise.

Edit: minor typo.

Other Comments by mira

16. Comment #428756 by wonderist on November 1, 2009 at 8:24 pm

Damn. I guess you can't edit two comments at once. My comment here got replaced by the text from my first comment. That totally sucks.

Oh well, here's a quick re-construction of it from memory:

Comment #428738 by Mitch Kahle:

Just to clarify: I don't claim to have coined the phrase. I saw it scattered around long ago. My point is simply to promote it to replace the term 'new atheists'.

Comment #428742 by mira:

Indeed, 'new atheists' has become a stereotype. It used to just mean 'the atheists who have suddenly been able to sell lots of books'. But now it's become a catch-all label to collect all the stereotypes of atheists into one simple term.

6 months ago, if you search the blogs for the term 'new atheist', you would find mostly stuff *by* and *about* atheists and their positions. Now, if you try the same search, you get mostly uninformed rants against atheists and recycled stereotypes repeated in an echo chamber.

I believe it began to shift around the time of Mooney's blog post "Civility and the New Atheists", and Michael Ruse's article "Why I Think the New Atheists are a Bloody Disaster". They needed a simple label to apply to the targets of their criticisms, and 'new atheists' fit the bill. This opened the floodgates for countless others to start using the phrase, and to them it means, well, whatever they want it to mean.

'Unapologetic' works because it is accurate, and avoids any negative connotations. It is similar to the transition when derogatory words like 'fag' gave way to 'homosexual'. It worked because 'homosexual' is simply an accurate description of the relevant difference in sexuality, without any of the negative connotations.

Other Comments by wonderist

17. Comment #428758 by Mr DArcy on November 1, 2009 at 8:28 pm

Maybe I'm thick or something. I just don't understand what "reaching out" to believers means. Does it mean not insulting them, that's fine by me, it's their ideas which are deserving of criticism. The author seems overly preoccupied with evolution. Does "reaching out" mean seeking "progressive" allies like Francis Collins who are good proponents of evolution? I'm not too sure about that. Whilst Collins undoubtedly knows more about human cells than I ever will, he still believes in creation by God. I feel uneasy in such company. There's something very creepy about Christianity and I'd rather not be associated, thank you. To me the whole idea of religion and evolution being compatible is nonsense. They ain't! That's why Darwin lost his Christianity, because he saw how nature worked.

IMO a religio, telling me the universe was created by God 13.7 billion years ago, or on 22nd October 4004 bc, is still talking nonsense. Maybe "reaching out" means keeping a discreet silence?

Other Comments by Mr DArcy

18. Comment #428881 by hungarianelephant on November 2, 2009 at 9:53 am

17. Comment #428758 by Mr DArcy

Maybe I'm thick or something. I just don't understand what "reaching out" to believers means.

You and me both.

It's odd how the discussion always seems to gravitate in that general direction. The aim is to promote science and reason in public policy making. "Reaching out" to religious believers - whatever it is supposed to mean in practice - may, or may not, be a useful tactic to achieve that aim. It is not the aim in itself. I don't think the likes of Richard or Jerry Coyne would disagree with this at all. So why do we keep getting distracted?

This obsession is a relatively recent one, and goes well beyond science and religion. You start with a very respectable attempt to build cohesion, but then it mutates into an article of faith in differences. Employing [Insert Group Here] Outreach Co-ordinators effectively ensures that there will be no movement towards cohesion between [Insert Group Here] and the rest. If there were, the Outreach Co-ordinator would be out of a job, and we can't let that happen.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

19. Comment #428933 by Lucas on November 2, 2009 at 5:04 pm

Mr DArcy and hungarianelephant - My plan for "reaching out" involves constructive dialogue. The goal is three-fold: to help nonbelievers understand believers better, to help believers understand nonbelievers better, and to promote the idea of secular humanism (including freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and separation of church and state) amongst both believers and nonbelievers.

Doing so requires a huge amount of knowledge and a precise sense of conversational delicacy, both of which I'm in the process of gaining/learning. I make no assumptions about my chances of success in this endeavor, but I think it's worth a shot. In fact, aside from full-scale genocide, or the magic ability of Scarlet Witch to say "No more believers" like she did with the mutants (sorry, X-Men reference), it may be the only way to bring about the world I want: not a world completely without religion, but a world where it is put in it's proper place - that is, in the privacy of one's own mind, not in public policy.

Other Comments by Lucas

20. Comment #428938 by hungarianelephant on November 2, 2009 at 5:21 pm

19. Comment #428933 by Lucas

My plan for "reaching out" involves constructive dialogue. The goal is three-fold: to help nonbelievers understand believers better, to help believers understand nonbelievers better, and to promote the idea of secular humanism (including freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and separation of church and state) amongst both believers and nonbelievers.

But as you say, the last is the aim and the first two are the method.

How do you start the dialogue?

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

21. Comment #428986 by Mitch Kahle on November 2, 2009 at 7:03 pm

I enjoy dialog with God-believers. But they almost always get angry after about 5 minutes of simple questions: such as "how do you know this?" or "what evidence do you have?"

God-believers love making loud statements of "faith" but they hate answering questions.

Defending lies is very difficult, so I can understand their frustration, but their anger is entirely self inflicted.

Other Comments by Mitch Kahle

22. Comment #429028 by F_A_F on November 2, 2009 at 8:16 pm

Calling someone a "New Atheist" is trying to water down the semantics. Just as a "Neo-Nazi" means someone who goes on little marches trying to annoy Asians, and a "Nazi" means someone who goes on slightly bigger marches and indulges in genocide.

"New Atheist" implies that 'we' do not base our beliefs on what has gone before. Old thought atheism goes out the window, and instead we are meant to have all new thoughts and ideas. I guess this is a small way to discredit; old ideas are seen as tried-and-tested...or they wouldn't be old...compared to new nonsense we just came up with down at the student's union bar. The respect that the religious and irreligious have for older atheist philosophers can be disassociated from those naughty new upstarts like Prof RD.

Other Comments by F_A_F

23. Comment #429088 by Lucas on November 2, 2009 at 10:24 pm

20. Comment #428938 by hungarianelephant

No, I consider the first two to be aims in and of themselves. (Weirdly, and I noticed this after I typed it, what I wrote exactly mimics the core goals of the Peace Corps, of which I was once a part.) It is important that both sides understand each other's point of view in as much detail as possible and not just settle for caricatures. Ignorance breeds hate breeds violence, and if our goal is to avoid violence, we must first educate in order to create a basis for empathy. You are right that if these two things can be accomplished, a society committed to secular humanism will be more likely/successful. But promoting secular humanism itself will actually serve both other goals as well.

As far as method, I have chosen oral history, as opposed to sociology, anthropology, psychology, classical history, or any other disciplinary methodology by which you might collect and present data about people. Oral history seems to me to have many methodological advantages particular to understanding the personal nature of belief and has the most potential to reveal sources of understanding and empathy between people who hold fundamentally differing ideas about the world.

You ask, "How do you start the dialogue?" and it's a good question. I have no solid answer as of yet (hope to work that out in the next few years of field research,) but I am sure that the dialogue will never be started if we continue to exchange insults and debate each other publicly. All I can say is that something happens in one-on-one conversation, with no camera, that is impossible to do in public. It is important to communicate to your interviewee that you are not looking to argue with them, judge them, or persecute them for their thoughts and feelings. You are simply there to find out what those thoughts and feelings are. You are both the prod and the sponge, and they are the source of information. You get the best info you can get, collect a lot of it, and then analyze the data. Then you pass on the results of the data, but that's very far ahead in the process. I'm most concerned at the moment with figuring out how to pick the right subjects and honing the details of, like I said, the very delicate art of communicating empathetically with someone who holds fundamentally different views.

As an aside, one avenue of oral history research that I want to pursue is concerned with collecting the thoughts and feelings of the worldwide secular/atheist community. That means I've been keeping a list of posters here who I think might be good interviews, and if all goes well, maybe I can get some grant money and run around talking to a few of those people (if they agree to it, of course.) Fingers crossed.

Other Comments by Lucas

24. Comment #429178 by hungarianelephant on November 3, 2009 at 8:28 am

23. Comment #429088 by Lucas

Well, thanks for the extensive answer and good luck with that. Because frankly I have less idea than when I started posting here a couple of years ago.

I would definitely agree with you that promoting secular humanism serves other goals as well. I suspect we spend a lot of time on people who are simply beyond persuasion, but who have hooks into the majority who are. It would be very interesting to see if this hunch is supported by evidence.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant