Are the "New Atheists" As Bad as Christian Fundamentalists?

I don't believe in God(s) but I do happen to think there are valuable moral and ethical lessons to be gleaned from religion(s). Our task as a modern society is indeed to separate the toxic elements from the elements that will make the world a better place.

I don't agree with dismissing religious thought out of hand because it's supposedly antiquated. This is thousands of years of tradition, culture and history that can't just be overlooked.

My hope is that we can distill religion's most valuable lessons down to new cultural traditions that are positive and inclusive, removing the impurities. A new vodka for the soul!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't believe in God(s) but I do happen to think there are valuable moral and ethical lessons to be gleaned from religion(s). Our task as a modern society is indeed to separate the toxic elements from the elements that will make the world a better place.

I don't agree with dismissing religious thought out of hand because it's supposedly antiquated. This is thousands of years of tradition, culture and history that can't just be overlooked.

My hope is that we can distill religion's most valuable lessons down to new cultural traditions that are positive and inclusive, removing the impurities. A new vodka for the soul!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't believe in God(s) but I do happen to think there are valuable moral and ethical lessons to be gleaned from religion(s). Our task as a modern society is indeed to separate the toxic elements from the elements that will make the world a better place.

I don't agree with dismissing religious thought out of hand because it's supposedly antiquated. This is thousands of years of tradition, culture and history that can't just be overlooked.

My hope is that we can distill religion's most valuable lessons down to new cultural traditions that are positive and inclusive, removing the impurities. A new vodka for the soul!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I may not agree with everything Richard Dawkins states, but I admire and appreciate him. He has always been more than respectful when debating some rather annoying and even rude people. Hey, if you don't like Dawkins, don't go to his website or read his books or watch his videos (which were fantastic by the way and highly informative!), but please don't throw him under the bus for all of us who do respect him.

Second, I have been on Professor Dawkins' website and enjoyed his videos about various species, etc., and I hardly think I'm a "deluded (not terribly bright) follower" and find the author of this to be the one who is arrogant and a little too full of himself. I guess it's difficult to let go of being a big shot or the son of a big shot, but you are not speaking for a vast many of us out here and are a bit out of touch.

Why is Professor Dawkins so under the skin anyway? Could it be he hits the nail on the head, and there's enough residual religious indoctrination that the author is more than a wee bit uncomfortable? Letting go of the BS is hard to do.

Religions are weighty and deeply rooted with an overwhelming number of churches and faiths, etc., in the USA. We need ALL voices: Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, etc. They each bring something of value to the table.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hello?

They're not dogmatic, they're not closed-minded. That's the opposite of science and rationality.

They require evidence to back up extraordinary claims. Religion has none.

They accurately point out how religion informs and is used to justify some of the most immoral and despicable behaviors in the world today.

The only reason you're worked up about them deriding religion is because its religion. As if religious ideas should somehow not be subject to the same critique as other ideas.

I can think of nothing more dangerous than to exempt from criticism a class of ideas that so pervasively informs public policy. If Bush had claimed Zeus supported the invasion of Iraq he would have been publicly and universally lambasted, but because he invoked the Christian God, for whose existence we have exactly no objective evidence, there was only a small hue and cry.

And you ask if outspoken atheism is as dangerous as Christian fundamentalism. Good grief, get some perspective.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

be it Commies, gays, and now (gasp) godless atheists...
something to rally the ranks with and try to stave off those declining memberships.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wow, a 9 page long ad hominem attack.

If you don't like Dawkins or Hitchens as people, fine but you don't have to bring up atheism to do that... Unless it's atheism itself that you are trying to smear.

And don't give me that, "but their doing it too!" Didn't you ever learn that two wrongs don't make a right?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It would be wonderful if the, I think vast majority of us, who believe in the good influence of the church, but do not believe the books of the various religions are other than the works of man, would come out of the closet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Theists tend to use the word "atheist" as if to describe another fringe belief system - another lunatic club...A veiled attempt at implying parity - as if all theories are equally valid, including that "nutty" evolution theory and all beliefs have equal merit, including those "atheist folk," with their nihilism nonsense.
Make no mistake about it: there is no such thing as atheism. As Richard Dawkins rightly calls it, there is reason and there are enemies of reason. This has been so since the birth of mankind. Today, reasonable people are polite enough to refrain from belaboring the fact theists used to burn witches and people who believed that the Earth is round.
We have quietly ceased referring to the many aberrations of our less than glorious past, and are merely trying to deal with present insanity.
Given the passing of enough time, reason eventually grows, but only in hindsight.

Atheists and reasonable people in fact deserve as much respect and tax breaks as the religious, for their contribution to our survival is greater.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Each time i have a conversation with someone and it they're answer is "well god made it that way" or "We'll its in gods hands" i wanna slap the person. Theism provides people a comfort yes....but a comfort that allows for the stagnation of our people... we didn't have federal funding for stem cells during bush because an embryo has a soul, and ever sperm is sacred...our planet is overpopulated because god made our wants us to work, have sex and worship him....multiply and prosper...the pope tells Africans condoms help the spread of aids. Honestly Hitchens needs to raise his voice. I know this post wont get high ratings...."god forbid" lol. But the world will be a much better place when israel, mecca, and every holy site is obliterated dust, and people can remember the teachings of these fine men...jesus, buddha, Confucius, krishna were.. men who were slightly crazed but really cared about humanity. And im pretty sure all taught one common thing LOVE THE MAN TO YOUR RIGHT, AND YOU WILL ALWAYS BE LOVED. Meaning our happiness is dependent on the happiness of those around us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As regards atheism and theism , both create a unique variety of stresses born of the actual demands caused by living within the terms stipulated by cultural paradigms.

The impact of religion on society in this case are including the impact of society on religion, in that those societies which choose to stringently limit the parameters a paradigm of their members tend in fact to embrace equally stringent and limiting religious concepts.

Those societies where there is a wider concept regarding religions, the religions themselves tend to expand as it were in a reciprocal manner to the social conditions.

When many societies converge in either a single place or a single frame of reference, occasionally the result is on comprehension and inclusion, but that only occurs when society and religion both accommodate such inclusion.

When limited societies and exclusionary societies experience the same interaction, there is a dramatic increase in the degree and types of exclusion carried on and the folkloric supports of exclusion comes to the fore, as the inclusionary folkloric supports come to the fore under the aegis of social inclusion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Some Atheists would not protest if every religious leader was hanged and houses of worship closed. They also believe that the bible was written by men that were insane. But most Atheists have friends that are believers and keep their friendship alive by never discussing religious views.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You're saying that it's OK to attack the "New Atheists" rather than their arguments because they do the same. However, they don't do that and even if they did it doesn't make your argument any more valild.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

People often have strong opinions and, at least in principle, the American tradition is to welcome expression of these opinions. There is nothing at all wrong with forcefully arguing your own point of view whether at the dinner table or in print.

Where people cross over the line is when they try to force others to live by their own opinions. When anti-choice groups try to subvert current law by intimidating people they cross that line. When a group tries to block election of an atheist to office, that too crosses the line. When a group tries to subvert the teaching of evolution that too crosses the line.

I would give some examples of atheists crossing this line, but I really don't know of any. Perhaps the author can provide some.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What a weirdly convoluted article. Here's the difference between "New" Atheists and Christian fundamentalists. Christian fundamentalists are dogmatically defending things that can't possibly be proved. Atheists are defending reality.

Gee, it's so shocking that after thousands of years of religious fundamentalism causing wars that kill hundreds of thousands or in some cases millions of people, non-believers might get a little spooked and tell people to knock it off. I couldn't care less if they mention their website in the process.

Ooh, Richard Dawkins is making money off his atheism. Really? Has he made enough to build a Crystal Cathedral yet? Is he getting a monthly stipend from grandma's social security? Comparing him to the Christian fundamentalists that have been ripping off the poor for decades in order to be "blessed" is a crock.

I don't blame Richard Dawkins for wanting to make noise about this. We atheists have been marginalized and even victimized for too long. It took until 2008 for a US President to even mention that we exist.

Atheists are the latest group to come out of the closet and it's difficult. I don't need anyone comparing me to a fundamentalist Christian. I pussyfoot around believers just like every other atheist does and I commend those that have the guts not to.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Frank Schaeffer is the religious equivalent of an enabler. By putting down the "New Atheists" (atheists are atheists; there is noting new in these writers' message), he enables the far right wing nutjobs like Hagee and Parsley to get away with their shenanigans. I read Schaeffer's biography. I was led to be lieve he would spill the beans on the megachurches and televangelists. I was terribly disappointed.

Schaeffer can say what he wants about Harris, Dennett, Dawkins, and Hitchens, but nothing he says will prove the existence of "God," a concept he stubbornly continues to cherish. He is just as deluded as all the rest.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mr. Schaefer, your 9-page diatribe can be summarized into 2 words: "Shut up!" That is your message to atheists. You're just another religious tool trying to muzzle atheists. I may not agree with everything Dawkins or Hitchens has to say but I applaud their willingness to put themselves out there and argue our side in this debate. There has to be some voice for the sane people in this world. Your article also completely fails to demonstrate how the so-called 'new atheists' are alike to religious fundamentalists. Are the new atheists flying planes into buildings? Are they trying to influence the legislative process? Are they trying to control high school science curricula? No they are not. They are just presenting their ideas in the marketplace. I think what really pisses you off though is the fact that Dawkins, Hitchens, and Sam Harris can sell more books than you by appealing to reason. You're upset that more and more Americans are looking behind the curtain and rejecting your false god. No sir, we will not be quiet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Are the new atheists like the x-tian fundamentalists? Um, no. A fundamentalist will not change his/her mind with evidence. Richard Dawkins will "believe" in gods if you present him with evidence. Frank Schaeffer is desperate to hold on to at least parts of his fairy tales. His "arguments" are silly and full of holes. I like Daniel Dennett, Hitchens, Dawkins, Sam Harris--all have different styles. I think Schaeffer is just jealous.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

These arguments are always basically dishonest. The problem isn't what religious belief consists of, whether it's true or false, it's that people are trying to walk right into the heads of others and for some bizarre and controlling reason, CHANGE them. No one has any more right to do this, and no one is any more normal for even being interested in it, than you have a right to walk into my living room and critique my furniture, or try to get me to buy the car you like.

The problem is always presented this way: is religion true, or isn't it? But that point of discussion could not come up without this underlying belief: does anyone have the right to decide others need influenced, then proceed to do so, aside from what that individual requests or desires? I say that no one has this right, that this is one of the main criticisms of religions in general, yet many of the articles and a vast number of the comments display exactly that desire: to find and influence people religiously, people who didn't ask for it and don't want the input. Evolution is always included, as if that's what atheism is always all about, and as if NO religious people believe in it, and all religious people fight it. Obviously, none of these are true.

The recent atheist articles could not have been written without the assumption by the writer that s/he has the right, and probably the duty, to comment on the thoughts of others, and their life practices. These writers have no more rights to this than Jerry Falwell ever did. Religion is a horribly difficult subject to write on: you must be able to separate the subject from the humans involved in the subject. I don't observe that the atheists here even think that is required. Words like "silly" and "stupid", words that would not be tolerated by a rightwinger discussing anyone not born again, are used freely and casually. This is always a terrible sign. Anyone who uses "silly" does think herself as capable of commenting from above a group of people she makes it clear she knows better than. Of course it rankles the group. It is SUPPOSED to. Sheeple are dumb and bad, right? Well, don't expect anyone to happily and compliantly join the group you're knocking.

I think I'll write an article about how stupid some vacation spots are, and how smart it is to go to the ones I like. I'll have plenty of reasons, very true to me and absolutely consistent with my experience. Will anyone be gullible enough to argue the points of that article? Or will people rightly come back with, "where do you get off? My life is MY life. I'll vacation wherever I goddam please". I never read anything like this, yet something far more important and personal is constantly being sneered at, as if the writer knows they have the absolute right.

We all arrive at where we are through ways we meant to travel, through ways we tried to avoid but were stuck with anyway, and one thing is for sure: if you've arrived at your final goal of thought, you're stuck. Your brain is turning to concrete. Don't expect anyone to join you in the hardening process, and especially don't expect anyone who can see what you're doing to yourself feel happy about your insistence that we join you.

Beliefs are intensely personal, arrived at for many reasons. Everyone needs to leave everyone else's alone. Fight for the teaching of evolution or for any other injustices in the real world. But people's heads need left alone, with respect and perspective.

One last bit of dishonesty: no one is influenced, although the pretense seems to be that that will happen, of course. No one is an atheist after reading an article. The vegan articles have not changed one diet or saved one cow. The political comments have probably cause less people to be in small parties. Big decisions come from big influences, a series of them over a long period of time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This article seems to be a fairly long moan about how the author doesn't like some of the 'new atheists.' So dawkins sells merchandise? Who cares?

They're not as bad as fundamentalists because they're not spewing out hate-mongering, unsubstantiated claims about an all-seeing all-knowing being who listens to all our thoughts.

I don't care if you don't like them. They're logical. They're reasonable. There is nothing that I have heard dawkins ever say for example, that I could classify as faith or faith-based in any way. No real atheist has faith that god doesn't exist, they simply realise that there is no proof that one does, and don't see a need to fill the gap.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The argument between athiests (materialists) and fundamentalists (dualists) rages on as if those are the only two options for belief. But there is a third way, called idealism. Remember Plato, Hegel, Spinoza, Emerson, Thoreau?

There is such a thing as spirituality without superstition, and it is growing in America -- 30 percent of Americans are now "spiritual but not religious" says Newsweek -- and yet the athiests and the religious keep pummeling each other like they are the only two options on the planet.

Maybe if they let go of each other's throats they might notice there is a third option that is both intellectually and spiritually satisfying.

www.newagepride.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thanks for all the personal attacks regurgitated in this article, very enlightening stuff.

Anyway, the author fails to explain the intellectual black hole that he has weaved for us. If people who blindly believe in the bible are wrong, and people who strongly believe in science and reason are wrong, who's right? Well, the author's own personal brand of wishy-washy religiosity, of course! A quick read of the internets should have lead this guy to a whole trove of articles destroying the logic he has employed.

I just love it when a moderate believer equates strong belief in the natural sciences with fundamentalist belief in fictional accounts of our past. It exposes the moderates as weak minded and intellectually inferior. Thanks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No, of course "New Atheists" are not as dangerous as fundamentalist religious kooks. For one, we are not likely to kill someone over whether or not God exists. Why is it not OK to view the entire concept of 'faith' as idiocy? It certainly has a historical precedent as such. Seriously, what is so virtuous about believing in something with no evidence? (No, the bible does NOT count as evidence, not in any meaningful way.)

People are welcome to 'believe' whatever LooneyTunes ideas they want. They are all as LooneyTunes as each other - virgin birth, 72 virgins upon martyrdom, resurrection after 3 days, jesus came among the native americans - take your pick, all equally loopy...on par with the actual belief in a god, which is no more or less nutty than any of the surrounding myths. I would just like to see us get to a point where believing in god is something people grow out of, like the tooth fairy or the easter bunny or santa claus.

I don't have to respect "belief". I can accept that people "believe" many strange things, but I don't have to respect it. Any real moral ideas (the Golden Rule being the big one) do not need a god for validity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

is in the eye of the beholder. “Dennett believes that the answer is that religions evolved as a response to our fears and as an explanation to ourselves of what we don’t understand.” Dennett seems to possess the same fear motivation as the Elmer Gantry’s. What if a long time ago an infected man went deep into his cave and chanted to images drawn from inside him and on the cave wall, not driven by fear but by the infection itself. What if the infection and the image within him are one and the same? We mystics believe that we were created with that infection or in the image within. That is where the journey begins. Western atheism, Judeo-Christian-Islamic fundamentalism is just scenery at this point in time in the space time continuum. Enjoy the trip while you are a part of it in the dimension of the flush, because one can not escape the infection or the image within. Once upon a time there was a beginning, then there was an awakening, now is the era of the reconciliation, I would tell you what the next era will be but you would not believe it. Since you will not be here then it is not important right now, but your descendents are going to love it. The reconciliation is not as most Christians believe, between man and God, but they are at least on the journey. The reconciliation is more like Jesus said, your sins shall be forgiven, now how you going to act? Believe or do not believe, just keep spreading the word, that is how evangelism really works in the space time continuum, it is imbedded in your culture, an infection, an itch you can not scratch. We have come a long way from the images on the cave wall, from golden calves and even the books of the trinity themselves, all in search of a cure for the infection, the image within.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...would admit to not literally believing in scripture, but still support religion for its benevolence.

It's not benevolent at all. It's toxic.

Whatever good it does could also be done without superstition.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alternet..... HOW COULD YOU POST THIS BULLSHIT.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am right now quite happy that I resisted Alternet's fundraising drive and gave my money elsewhere. I would have seriously regretted giving money to an organization that panders this kind of BS. In saying that the new atheists are no better than Ted Haggard, this writer reveals himself as unbiased and accurate as Lou Dobbs.
When exactly where PZ Myers, Dawkins and the other new atheists caught organizing a vote against the rights of a category of people (gays, women, immigrants)? Whenever has any of them being caught engaging in the behaviors that they chastise on a regular basis (going with prostitutes, male or females)? Most importantly, since when is a public and vigorous defense of one's belief the equivalent of intolerance and disrespect? People deserve respect, not opinion. People who feel disrespected every single time their opinion is challenged do not belong to civil debate. Atheists and supporters of Darwin do not whine "I have been disrespected" whenever creationists open their mouth: they get to work to show how untenable creationism is. This is what makes the kind of apologetics that Alternet is currently engaged in so intolerable. No atheist suggests that religion should be cracked down on. You want to find intolerance, look at believers wgo screed that atheists do not deserve tolerance, or that, at the very least, they should shot up about their beliefs. It's atheists who are unelectable, even when they show impeccable moral code.
If you are made uncomfortable by the fact that there are people who do not believe in God and who are not afraid to say so, this ought to be your problem. You have no right to tell others to stop manifesting their beliefs because you do not like them.
Shame on you, Alternet. I guess this is where you and I part ways.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I very strongly believe in free speech, so I won't chime in with the criticisms that Alternet posted this. I think the editors/managers should bias towards accepting opinions that are all over the map, including stupid ones.
Nonetheless, in saying that, I feel a bit like the ACLU defending the Nazi party's right to march through Skokie, IL (a heavily Jewish community), as happened back in the 1970's.
Personally, I'd like to see this stupid and hostile meme (the idea that atheists are like fundamentalists) killed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"In other words, to Hitchens, Stalin and Hitler and Mao and Pol Pot and their ilk were more to be understood as bad popes than as bad atheists."

Hitler (at least) was a devout Christian.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the "new atheists" ARE just as bad as christian fundies - i speak from the experience of working for a small "humanist" community on the west coast - the people in the community i work with are every bit as dogmatic about their beliefs (some times more so) as the fundies i encountered in the mid west...atheism is just another religion...it is just as intolerant of those who do not believe the same thing(s) they do, just as sure they are correct and the group i work for is a 501(c)(3) religious organization...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The American political and judicial systems have consistently written laws and interpretations of those laws implicitly finding that Christian values are morally superior to those of other systems -- or even those of non-religious rationality. (Witness the war on the public trading under the name of a war on drugs.) Militancy is an effective counterbalance to that support garnered by those whom the author considers to be "bad preachers," so "let a hundred flowers bloom." We can worry about tending the garden when we have beaten back the weeds.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A couple of years ago South Park had a couple of episodes (Go God Go, Go God Go XII) where one character went forward in time where Richard Dawkins had managed to convert the world to atheism. The result? We still had wars. The various factions on earth instead saying for God or Allah said "For the Science!". The factions where divided on who was the best and most authentic atheist. Sound familiar?

South Park's point is even if religion did not exist or Dawkins wet dream came true we would still have wars and disagreements because we are human.

All movements throughout history struggle for acceptance from larger society at some point or another. They generally go through a phase where they try and stand out by railing against everyone else. They also have their share of nutballs. Seems pretty common to the species.

At a certain point atheists will take their place along Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, agnostics, pagans and everybody else. Maybe, just maybe we will find out what we have in common as human beings and stop trying to convert each other to our point of view.

In the meantime I thank Alternet for posting this article. I may not agree with everything posted here but it is nice to hear not only from the atheists but the believers as well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I thought this was an excellent article primarily because both Dawkins and Hitchens are two blowhards with little conception of the flaws in their arguments. I say that as someone who doubts the existence of a creative force ordering the Universe and finds the concept of an afterlife to be without merit.

The problem with Atheism per se though is that as one looks at the realms of scientific discovery of things that are totally counter-intuitive like 11 dimensions, or the interconnectedness of all matter and energy, a reasonable person must admit there is also the possibility of a creative force ordering the universe. This is not a definite logical truth, but it remains a viable possibility.

My own use of LSD in my youth taught me that the fabric of what we call reality is quite thin and subjective. While I'm not optimistic about a God created/driven universe, I believe it is still an open question.

Both Mr. Dawkins and Mr. Hitchen also reinterpret religious belief in terms of their own pre-judgments and lack of understanding of contexts. The creators of many sacred texts were not primitives, but people adept in the use of metaphor and analogy. Genesis in its' time was not understood as actual history, but was a metaphor for creation. In the Jewish Torah for instance it is quite informative to realize that all of the patriarchs and their wives were seriously flawed people. That was the point, rather than a belief that this was actual history.

Anyone familiar with Hellenic religious beliefs knows that Zeus' pantheon were metaphors for the world and society. Yet people like Dawkins and Hitchens fail to grasp this and that is proof of their own pre-judgment clouding their thinking.

The religious evil in this world has always been the misuse of the various teachings by men lusting for power, who reinterpret their holy writings to produce results foreign to the original intent. This has been the evil of organized religion, but it is less about precepts and belief and more about social control.

Dawkins and Hitchens similarly misuse their limited understanding of religion in pursuit of the same ego driven things. Neither of them are the threats that religious Fundamentalists of all stripes are, but they have a similar nature to them. If you want to really know what Dawkins is about, read his seminal work "The Selfish Gene" and see if his view of humanity is congruent to yours. As for Hitchens, never trust anyone who has ever been a Trotskyite, they are seriously deranged and curiously at base humorless people. Hitchens may crow about his sexual exploits but in the end he loathes and hates women.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Personally, I think a militant counter-attack to the centuries-long denigration of atheists is overdue, so I'm content to have Dawkins, Hutchins and Harris speaking out.

However, it is true that as a group, "active" atheists are dogmatic like many fundamentalists.

A study was conducted by psychology researchers Bruce Hunsberger and Bob Altemeyer, in which they measured several categories of social outlook for active atheists and religious fundamentalists, including: dogmatism, zealotry, prejudice, and authoritarianism.

The conclusion: active atheists are pretty dogmatic, comparing near religious fundamentalists. But atheists are less zealous, far less prejudiced, and far less authoritarian than religious fundamentalists.

There isn't much scientific social data about atheists, so most of the arguments like Schaeffer's are no more than emotional responses based on personal experiences and biases.

But with Hunsberger and Altemeyer's study we at least have the beginnings of legitimate social data on atheists. Let's use this data when we are criticizing or defending the group.

Title: Atheists: A Groundbreaking Study of America's Nonbelievers
Author: Bruce E. Hunsberger and Bob Altemeyer
Publ Date: June, 2006
Publisher: Prometheus Books
ISBN: 1591024137

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In Breaking the Spell Dennett levels a subtle rebuke at Dawkins, even though he doesn’t name him: “Biologists are often accused of gene-centrism—thinking that everything in biology is explained by the action of genes. And some biologists do indeed go overboard in their infatuation with genes. They should be reminded that Mother Nature is not a gene centrist!”

I just checked my copy of Dawkins' 'Extended Phenotype' and sure enough there's a forward by Daniel Dennett. The 'Extended Phenotype' is an expanded (and more rigorous) version of the 'Selfish Gene'. Nothing I've ever heard from Dennett contradicts the 'Selfish Gene' view that Dawkins puts forth. This smells like quote mining.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am an atheist. My basic premise is that religion and morality are not one and the same thing.
But, beyond that, Dr. Dawkins, is fighting a political war against Christian and Jewish and Muslim fundamentalist's attempt to distort science, particularly evolution. This isn't something that just popped into his brain.
As I recall, in the early 90's Dawkins was Britain's science education guru. He has been passionate about the subject long before he became known as an idealogue.
However, Dawkins has spent too much time disproving the anti-scientific wave across the world. He doesn't really espouse a philosophy about what it means to be an Atheist and how this understanding of the Universe affects daily life. He is too strident and he answers no questions beyond the refutation of religion.
He should confine his remarks to the subject of Evolutionary Biology and leave the philosophizing about Atheism to others.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This sort of sophomoric comparison is the worst sort of specious "common ground, third way, bi-partisan" piffle. Show me even one instance in which atheists have started mass movements based on unfounded myths and imagined supernatural powers, then led campaigns of mass murder and extinction in their name. And spare me the dodge about Stalin. Stalinism was a cult and a criminal racket, whose leader was a bank robber and professional leg breaker before vaulting himself into absolute power (more or less by murdering everybody else). Atheism was a sideshow in Stalin's USSR.

Hitchens is a bad-tempered crank with some very foolish ideas (pro-Iraq War, pro-War on Terror). He may also be a serious alcoholic depending on whose accounts you read (try Juan Cole). He has a savage wit and you don't want to be the target, but his critique of religion is sound, if offensive to the delicate sensitivities of religionists. Unfortunately for this debate, religionists tend to view mere questions and criticism as a form of bigotry and discrimination. This is yet more unreason, hiding behind prevailing myths of "tolerance".

Dawkins is, frankly, arrogant and cocksure. That was clear in his early work, "The Selfish Gene", which adopts in part, the same mocking tone as does the "God Delusion". He tends to snear at his opponents.

In the end, however, so what? Hitchens and Dawkins can be unpleasant, even wrong. So what? Why are people of "faith" so reactive towards their opponent's comments? What is so threatening? If you believe, you believ, right? The comments of a non-believer should have no effect whatsoever.

Or is their faith actually brittle, fragile and weak? Is their worldview in reality a paper-thin rationalization tarted up in remnant mythology from 2000 years ago? Is that why religionists are so offended by Hitchen's and Dawkins's snarky tone? Are they afraid the atheists might be right?

Good! First step back into the world of reality! It's called "doubt". It won't hurt you even though you must be strong to live with it (like gravity and the certainty of death). Keep stepping - jump right in, the water's fine! Just leave that medieval scripture in the recycling bin by the pool.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You read that right -- I am a long time AlterNet reader and a Christian. I know that puts me in a pretty small minority. But that's OK, let's make it even smaller -- I used to be an atheist. I also read Greta Christina's piece last week about "3 Silly Religious Beliefs held by non-silly people". A couple of the comments to that article actually used the phrase she was "preaching to the choir". You gotta love that irony. I wonder Greta's feelings about her last name too, since it's a not too difficult anagram of "Christian". A popular theme of all these pieces seems to be that religion and science are somehow total and polar opposites of each other. I believe them to be the exact same thing. Science is the search for physical truth -- religion and/or philosophy the search for spriritual and moral truth. The atheists I've read on this site all speak to there being spiritual goodness and morality even in the absence of religion. And I agree the Old Testament God does look like a very ill-tempered mythological cartoon. Hey, we all do the best we can with what we've got. Put some of us in a time machine to 3000 BC and let's see how well we fare. So the point being, we are more than the sum of our parts. Science knows quite accurately what chemicals, elements and compounds make up a human body, and in what proportions. Mix all that stuff in a bowl for 9 months at 98 degrees F, and at the end that gob of goo will not get up, walk around and write articles on the Internet. What's the spark that animates us and all other life? I believe that to be where we start to look for God. And even if Dr. Frankenstein can discover/harness/focus this energy onto a cadaver, he still didn't create it. He just found it and used it. This will probably happen one day, and I just hope the first re-animated cadaver looks a lot like the great Peter Boyle. We may never find it, but the journey is still a noble one. Science may figure out how the whole thing works, the elusive unified theory. It will never answer why we're all here and the universe even bothers to exist at all. There is where we try to fill the gaps with religion. Do I know why? Of course not, but neither does anyone else. Questions are fundamental to humans. I certainly have no qualms with questioning God. So if God installed in us all her/his/its own capabilities (the good and the bad), how do we maximize the good ones? I personally want to live a life that helps others -- and probably many atheists do too. A role model like Jesus or Buddha serves humans very well. As many comments posted on the political articles here point out, we people have a very sheep-like quality to follow, sometimes blindly. And no matter how high you try to put yourself above those you feel lesser than you, we're all really just about the same underneath the veneer. Some smarter, some prettier, some wiser, some stronger -- but all with basically the same hopes, fears and dreams. We need each other, and we want to feel loved and accepted. One point the author does get right though, is the great similarity of both the evangelical atheists and Bible-thumpers. There is a great lack of love, tolerance, compassion and empahty from both groups. I'm expecting a negative response (if anyone even bothers to read my little missive)-- bash me, insult me, call me names. I'm ready and it won't bother me nary a bit. I may even come back and read some of them later. Just don't be hateful just for hateful's sake. Try to make it funny if you can. And for Ms. Christina, Mr. Hitchens, and Mr. Dawkins -- God will always love you too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Personally I don't see atheist Christopher Hitchens as an egomaniac intolerant fundamentalist type. He has a great sense of humor, and while he has firm atheistic views, he is at least fun and interesting to listen to. Unlike the fundamentalist Christians Mr Schaeffer listed, I don't see any of the most visible atheists he mentioned coming anywhere near what the religious folks are doing. And unlike the religious fundamentalist media whores, at least atheists like Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer, Paul Kurtz and others make us think and reason and not just accept ideas on faith.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's too bad that discussions of religion and spirituality can sometimes be so acrimonious. I have found it helpful to believe that we humans might still be too primitive to fully grapple with the "ultimate questions"--we're good at asking them but not so good at answering them definitively.

That's why I've long admired the writings of Olaf Stapledon, especially his book Star Maker (1937). It is an awesome exposition of his philosophy of "pious agnosticism" that moves far beyond petty dogma (of both the believing and non-believing variety). I recommend it to any thoughtful person.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

all one need do is read the title of the Authors book in order to understand the depth of his bias

" Patience With God-Faith For People Who Don't Like Religion (Or Atheism)."

Once again someone passively bashing atheism gets it wrong. It has nothing to do with faith, belief or religion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I hear from deists "without god, you'll have NO moral rudder" etc.
OK if I have NO dogma or sage whispering in my ear, how do I determine what's right etc??
In fact, how can we even determine the probability of there being supernatural forces unless we use empiricism, the tool of Scientific inquiry?
Should I--steal, well if I haven't eaten in three days and HAVE NO OTHER WAY of getting food AND I'll not be significantly depriving another? I'd say yes. How about abortion? What's the probability of that child being in a nutritive situation if born? The superstitious and political reasons are now more significant than the activity but the actual behavior should be primary: If the woman is unlikely to be able to provide a nutritive environment for the infant, If not, can her health be assured so the infant will be born healthy and will it be likely that it will be adopted to a family able to provide the necessary environment?
Perhaps we need to develop a continually evolving written moral guide which will be a standard that those concerned can refer to, Now to dogmatics, it seems all or none.
Michael Rogers

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My how you squeal when someone points out the simple, obvious fact that the vocal among you are no damn different than the idiot Christian, Jewish and Muslim fundamentalists that equally try to shove their dogmatic bullshit down the throats of the rest of us. You take a position that cannot be proved and declare it to be an absolute truth and that those who see things differently are either stupid, venal or hell bent on some form of genocide. A pox on both your blighted houses.
My faith is my business, and the commentary here shows a lot of mental problems and unbelievable baggage among both types of fundies-- religious and atheist. Somebody tried to convert you; somebody criticized you for being a sex fiend; somebody excluded you from their company because your non-belief, so everyone who has faith must be cut from the same cloth and punished or vilified.

Har dee har har. Find yourselves some good therapists and STFU.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

To call atheism "a deranged faith-based personality cult" is not only willfully ignorant, stupid and wrong-headed but despicable. Schaeffer, like almost all religionists, fails (or refuses) to recognize that atheism is not just another religion, any more than health is just another disease.

In my experience, atheists are inveterate non-joiners and individualists with a healthy distrust of any kind of worship, whether of imaginary beings or actual humans. The kind of people who flock around Dawkins are highly atypical and their existence confirms the power of religion in getting people to subscribe to a herd mentality in order to belong to the "right" tribe. I read Dawkins' books because they are well written and entertaining, but I never visit his website because I am turned off by all the commercialism you have to wade through before finding any content.

As for Schaeffer's attack on Hitchens, it is one long irrelevant ad-hominem hatchet job from start to finish, so I needn't dignify it with a response. There is plenty that is loathsome about Hitchens as an individual, but that does not detract from atheism in general.

It always amazes me that after centuries in which organized religion monopolized the debate, as soon as a handful of authors succeed in getting a word in edgewise, there is a wildly disproportionate backlash against them, from moderates like Schaeffer as much as from Neanderthal troglodytes like Bill O'Donohue. To those who call Dawkins et al "fundamentalist" or "militant", how many bombs has Dawkins planted? How many people has he killed?

Even if Dawkins is trying to destroy religion, so what? He is arguing with his words, his intelligence, wit and learning. Any religion that can't stand up to this is a piss-poor religion that doesn't deserve to survive. Meanwhile, the real fundamentalists are "arguing" with suicide bomber vests and car bombs, with cruise missiles and depleted uranium.

Fundamentalist religion poses a huge threat to democracy and peace with its mouth-foaming lunacy and violence. Moderate religionists should be spending every waking minute standing up to this threat and fighting back against the extremists who have hijacked their religion, rather than boo-hooing about nasty old Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens being mean to them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There is enough room for different styles of arguing against religion. The world is a big place, and arguments look very different depending on a country's culture.
The fact is, that T-shirt quoting Dawkins on the nasty Old Testament god is 100% true.
On Sundays I happen to wear one quoting anthropologist David Eller (author of "Natural Atheism") saying:
When Religion Ruled, they called it the Dark Ages.
You'd be surprised how often I get congratulated for it, it's conversation starter.

There are atheists who keep it to themselves (and maybe donate to Americans United for Separation of Church and State) and there are anti-theists who have seen enough PROOF that religions kills minds and people (not to mention sacrificially tortured animals - kosher, halal) to be active, vocal, and sometimes aggressive.

Different people react differently to their approaches. But I'll tell you that youth, for instance, responds on wavelengths that may seem unsavory to other groups. It can't be avoided, and all approaches have merits and drawbacks.

But please get off your stupid high horse about "commercialism". As if selling books and media were the same as selling beer. Books are a convenient wrapper for ideas, and they have a price. That's okay.

And once you start comparing how many trees are felled to spread sectarian rubbish that consists entirely of made up falsehoods cooked up by religious billion dollar enterprises you should realize that your criticism is hollow.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In all fairness to Schaeffer, I read all the way through this lengthy piece and what I found were a lot of spiteful and not necessarily accurate character assassinations. It is rather silly to spend so much energy trying to prove that SOME atheists are not very likable people — just like the notorious religious leaders we all know so well.

Yes, it would better PR for atheists to be more gentle and kind and patient toward the people who have suppressed them for centuries. But does that make those who are not so nice as "bad" those who made themselves wealthy by spreading the falsehoods of religion? I don't think so.

The damage done by aggressive proselytizing of fundamentalist faiths can be clearly demonstrated. We don't even have to get into the obvious historical consequences, such as the Inquisition or the Holocaust (a product, in part, of Christian fundamentalism, since that demographic was in Hitler's corner). We can look at the current fundamentalist problem in Islamic countries and our own. Conservative Christians listening to the likes of Falwell and Robertson brought the Bush administration to power — twice — with disastrous results.

Now, please tell me just what damage Hitchens and Dawkins have done that makes them just as "bad." As far as I know, they have not yet caused the destruction of an economy or the needless death of thousands in places like Iraq (to help fulfill biblical prophecy).

OK, so they're not as nice as Schaeffer would like them to be. Neither was the late Madelyn Murray O'Hare, who was brutally murdered by the way. Yet O'Hare freed our school children of a situation even our conservative Supreme Courts came to recognize as a violation of our Constitution. Would we now like to go back to forced prayer in schools? So even "nasty" atheists can be forces of good in the world.

The whole idea of a "fundamentalist atheist," is a strange and inaccurate invention of Christians to begin with.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If we reject the premise assumed at the onset of these discussion that "God" is a "Him" (or any other form of personification), Atheists would have no need to proclaim their disbelief in 'Him',if left undefined as an "It". A cosmic force that maintains some structure, order and functions. That displays similiar 'designs' even between the Macro and micros structures/functions within the realm of all.
Besides when the concept of 'God' is allowed to be highjacked by personifiers, they often portray their god as possessing some of the most loathsome human traits.Jealosy, rage, vengeful. their god won't just punish you, He'll torture you for eternity. In fact he is such a nasty bastard he's not only going to kill and torture humanity, he's going to make the other living creatures suffer as well. That's nothing short of Sadistic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Am enjoying watching the christian industry struggle for relevancy. They have been closely-guarding their flocks so they may continue to shear them (of money, dignity, freedom of thought...). People seem to be waking up to the fact that almost ALL institutions in existence are a sham--government, religious structures, educational system, etc. It can be frightening to realize that we ARE, in fact, responsible for our own lives and our own thoughts and cannot outsource them. Institutions will gladly sell you their services; all they ask for in return is your soul.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I would like it so much if objectors to both atheism and religion understand that the real enemy is fundamentalism!

The best predictor of who will become a potential terrorist or an evangelical fundamentalist, or an angry, rude or even violent atheist is not the quality of his beliefs, or the violent passages in his holy book. It is the surroundings where he lives, where he gets friends, the hateful propaganda he receives in every chat with a friend.

I stopped reading this article when I saw the author cannot separate the religion from the terrorist. Maybe, if I read more, I would see that he cannot separate the fundamentalist atheism (like the soviets) from the people who simply have good reasons to prefer all natural explanations instead of the super-natural.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

For those out there who may not know this one yet.......

Have you heard about the amnesiac, dyslexic agnostic?

He laid awake all night wondering if there really was a dog.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As usual, what is missing from this atrtack on the "New Atheists" is any effort to engage the valid points they make about religion. Schaeffer takes Dawkins and others to task for rudeness, arrogance, cheesy aesthetics; anything to avoid facing the unpleasant but telling pointst that they make. I have no sympathy with the New Atheist POV, but it certainly deserves a more serious and thoughtful treatment than this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sorry, Frank. You have called each of these people "fundamentalists," but you have failed to demonstrate precisely what that is and why they are one. You remind me of people who call Atheism a "religion." As though "bald" could be a hair color...

If you think that depending on EVIDENCE as validation of an assertion is equivalent to "fundamentalism" (the belief that scripture is literally true), I suppose you are painted into the corner where you have to prove your assertion WITHOUT evidence, since to use evidence would be taking the other side's stance... tautology, anyone?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Atheists, for the most part, were in the closet in the US starting with the McCarthy era when atheism started to be associated with communism. Usually, the separation of church and state has be honored in this country. For example, public schools were generally considered a secular forum. An exception to that is the McCarthy era when religious people forced their beliefs onto others by inserting the "under God" clause into the Pledge of Allegiance which until then had represented the idea of inclusiveness of all Americans. It was also during this time that "In God We Trust" was put on the currency. Perhaps this intrusion of religion planted seeds for the "God is dead" aspect of the hippy movement.
Fast-forward to the last 15 years. The right-wing religious wing of the US populous played a central role in electing GW Bush and enabling him and his cronies to reinforce their kleptocracy. They started a disastrous war and otherwise looted the treasury. Furthermore, the govt. started direct subsidies of churches through the "faith-based charity" programs.
So, is it any wonder that atheists would in recent years start to fight back against a major ideology at the root of destroying our country?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A mystery is not a solution or explanation of anything.

This, I think, is where atheism operating as secular science and the practices of religion part company. Scientists seek a chain of causal effects that can explain an observed succession of events, and physical evidence is the best information that can be employed in such a situation. Religious types use religion to comfort themselves and others. They need not address reality to achieve their goal. Faith suffices for this purpose.

Frank Schaeffer’s candor about fundamentalism and other religions is refreshing, but Schaeffer neglects a recent poll showing 55-percent of religious Americans dislike (or discriminate) against atheists, making atheists even less popular than gays. Before the poll, a kind of live-and-let-live attitude existed among most atheists concerning religion, one which quickly evaporated after the survey was released.

No atheist feels secure in a society where more than half of a randomly chosen group of people sitting on a jury in a court room are likely to discriminate against atheists in a trial proceeding. And no citizen, religious or otherwise, should feel safe in a country that is dumbed down by fundamentalists just to sustain a belief in their legends and mythology. These same misinformed fundamentalists tend to be used by demagogues seeking to enrich themselves at the expense of others, or even the planet (i.e., oil and coal lobby vs. global warming). Or as Hitler was fond of saying, “Isn’t it wonderful that people do not think.”

Speaking of Hitler, Schaeffer should read more Nazi history. Regardless of whether Hitler was religious, he was Machiavellian in his use of religion. He frequently quoted the Bible to justify his pogrom against the Jews. Hitler wanted the social control that religion offered. As a control freak, he made sure that no separation of church and state existed within the German public education system. School prayers for the children were definitely okay. Hitler’s goal, had he lived, was to join religion and the state together into a kind of state sanctioned Nazi religion. Whether he would have succeeded is another issue.

What was clear in Nazi Germany was that the thousands of people who voluntarily carried out Hitler’s orders, the unfeeling animals who ran the work camps, the death camps, those in the police battalions who operated the death marches, considered themselves to be good Lutherans, good Catholics, or good whatever. With the few exceptions that have been mentioned by Frank Shaeffer, religion was generally insufficient to get the Nazis to distinguish between good and evil.

Contrast the Nazi pseudo-scientists and bigoted fundamentalists with the modern science of genetics that has made today’s researchers aware that the concept of race has little or no meaning beyond physical appearance. Homosexuality has been identified as having a genetic basis. It is clear that fundamentalist religions could never have achieved such convincing, evidence-based conclusions. In fact, today’s fundamentalists reject the science of genetics because genetics provides definitive evidence for human evolution.

Given the history of religion, including the history of fascism, it’s no wonder atheists such as Dawkins and Hitchens get so worked up. Some may disagree with their approach, but the authors’ ultimate goal is to educate the world against barbarism, while in many situations the goal of religion has been to preserve and coddle man’s inhumanity to man.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What is it that defines a new atheist-- is it the decision to finally attack the religious pukes who have been impugning the old atheists forever?

To say that atheists, new or old, are similar to the fundamentalists, demeans the atheists and unduly elevates the fundamentalists. One is guided by reason, the other by myth.

If the atheists are finally coming out of their shells and showing some irritation at being marginalized by the religious wackos who speak to god daily, it is long overdue and welcomed by this old atheist.

To reiterate, All religion is pure bullshit and its purveyors are bullshit artists. That is ALL anyone needs to know about religion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The category that IMHO should fit all of us in Agnostic - because nobody has any sure proof about anything absolute.

That said all that is, as far as I can see, had to come from someone or something. It had to have been started and I don't mean 5,000 years ago.

I'm just not dead sure what or who is/was behind the whole thing - and I'm not sure how anyone else can be either, from dead sure atheists to the most fervent holy rollers.

I know this - it is dead certain that many millions have been killed for not believing what others believe and that is beyond ridiculous.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's not like there's a "Curch of New Atheism" or something. Atheists are not joiners and followers. So what if they are selling books?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It exists to answer all questions that science is unable to answer. At one time, mechanization was explained with the power of angels or elves.
There are still unanswered questions that science needs to explain. That does not mean there is a true religious explanation. History tells us religion has been wrong on every issue.
Religion gives people a false self-perception that believers have become holy and superior to none believers. The truth is opposite. Because of their miss beliefs, they commit more evil and do not have to have the feelings of guilt a none believer would feel. Their holiness and piety makes them refuse to see the results of their actions.
Of course atheists can do wrong, but I trust our natural abilities of empathy over a big lie.
The worse thing about religion is their belief in an after-life justice. This is a belief that lets the truly evil get away with their crimes (Dick Chaney). The truly evil uses religion to keep us from seeking justice in this world. The only justice in this world or the next is the justice we create ourselves here.
People like Dick Chaney get away with his crimes by believing he will get his in the after-life. All this does is lets him get away with it. Without religion, we would have him in prison, now.
I say go, go, go, to the new atheists. If fire must be fought with fire, so be it. The market features should not be an issue. All movements need money.
I say to all atheists to keep fighting the good fight of truth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

All you oh-so-reasonable atheists should already know that. It's the logical fallacy of the argumentum ad ignorantiam: I've never seen a zebra, therefore zebras don't exist.

What's more, when Dawkins claims "I require evidence," he's leaving unstated an essential underlying assumption: For a materialist, evidence means physical evidence, because (for a materialist) "Only the physically measurable or quantifiable is real." Obviously, no one of any faith tradition is claiming that God is a physical being. So materialist-scientistic atheists are ruling that the only kind of evidence that's admissible is precisely the kind that can't possibly prove the theistic point.

It's a circular, question-begging line of "reasoning" and just as intellectually dishonest as the sophistic proof-texting arguments used by the Pat Robertsons and John Hagees of the world to "prove" that the Bible is inerrant and factually accurate. In other words, he's "as bad" as they are, at least in that respect.

And it certainly disproves the claim many are making in these comments that "atheism equals reason, religion equals unreason." It's a bad habit in Western culture, and an imperialistic one, to assume that "we" are the rational people and "they" are irrational and need our calm, scientific, Northern European guidance. Not that any famous geneticist would espouse anything resembling racism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The first time I came in contact with Dawkins I understood him the same way you do. I also am a recovered fundamentalist Christian and I recognized his technique in a flash.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

IS ATHEISM SCIENTIFIC?

WHY IS BILL MAHER LYING TO OUR CHILDREN?

IS RICHARD DAWKINS SMARTER THAN JESUS?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

IS ATHEISM SCIENTIFIC?

WHY IS BILL MAHER LYING TO OUR CHILDREN?

IS RICHARD DAWKINS SMARTER THAN JESUS?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I believe that there is a planet circling alpha centauri that has a population of intelligent, pink tailed, purple, puddy tats. Yeah sure! It is really easy to argue about unanswerable beliefs, but neither side has anything to throw at the so called discussion but loaded symbols. Belief in anything is a fully loaded argument waiting to happen for no other reason than two folks with opposing beliefs getting together and fighting about it. That's all it is too, just a stupid fight over nothing. Belief is just a convenient metaphor for 'lazy thinking'. Isn't it strange that you do not find people arguing about whether there is actually a processor or not inside of a computer? Maybe god is doing all of the computing and it is just a solid chunk of metal...Oh no, people will not go there because it can be so easily checked for validity. But not so these big questions...Is there a god?
Belief is plain and simply the route that humans frequently take to accept as true the words of certain comforting authority's. Knowledge, like the knowledge of science, and belief, like the faith of believer's, is like oil and water.
When you attempt to mix the reality's of science and the scientific method with the tenements of religion, you are mixing what is real with what does not exist.That takes work. There will be much turmoil and argument.
When humans learn to use their own language in an intelligent and compassionate manner we will leave war far behind.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One writer said beliefs are "intensely personal." No, they are social constructs. In a family of five we don't find a mixture of Islam, fundamentalist Protestanism, some sort of liberation thelogy Catholism, Judaism, and a totally new religion the last person made up all on his own. In fact, it would be difficult to find such a mixture on any street anywhere on the planet.

Beliefs are geographically and culturally clustered, and ironically the only category that crosses all geographic and cultural boundaries is the resistance to belief. The article and many of the comments pit atheism against Christianity, but there are non-believers, resisters of indoctrination, inside all the belief cultures.

Resisting the indoctrination, ironically, is intensely personal, at least initially, because of the fear of acknowledging your refusal to go along with the dominant culture.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Evil is perpetrated religiously by those who believe, whether they believe in Christ, Mohammed, or believe that there is no god.

It is those who do not believe in any of the above that can actually make peace in our world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The way I see it is this, Franks problem is that he left fundamentalism but he still believes in the whole silly God notion. He didn't really "quit" having irrational beliefs, he just changed FLAVORS from Extra-Nutty, to just plain Nutty. So , of course his feelings are going to be hurt because of the critiques. What you have to understand is this Frank :
: At the end of the day, you either believe in crazy shit or you don't. You choose to. The pain that the New Atheists are causing you is really Cognitive Dissonance.
As far as I'm concerned religion has zero value, if for no other reason than it's all made up .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The religionists like the Pentacostals, Fundamentalists, and the Evangelicals who writhe and roll their eyes at the mention of birth control, the right to choose, homosexuality, gay marriage, Democratic Socialism and Liberalism, really brought about the backlash of atheism themselves. Did they think they would be able to throw their weight around forever without challenge of their perilously empty foundations?

Finally, however, the conservatives can only say: God exists because I need Him to exist!

That is the entire foundation of the religionist. They may claim more--- but the hard evidence is smaller than they imagine. The literalist interpretation of the Bible smacks of a forthright chin looking for a jaw-shattering fist to put it in its place. The New Atheism is that fist.

I wrote a strong critique of Levitcus last night, saying that Leviticus was not inspired writing, but was rather a primitive codex pertaining to a no longer viable desert culture. It merely sought to confirm and reify a social ordering based on local custom, mores and folkways. Leviticus speaks not of God, or from God, but of the social order.

AOL never allowed my critique to be published on the boards. If the only way you can maintain your religion is by silencing dissent, you are on extremely shaky ground. Atheism, once invoked by the red-neck Christians, will answer conservative religion in its own terms. Dawkins and Hitchens exactly mirror and balance the dogmatic conservative religionists.

Epicurus made 4 statements about God which remain:

1. If God is willing but not able to prevent evil from being in the world, then he is not omnipotent.

2. If God is able but not willing to prevent evil from being in the world, then he is malevolent.

3. If God is both willing and able to prevent evil from being in the world, then whence comes evil?

4. If God is neither willing nor able to prevent evil from being in the world, then why call him god?

Epicurus was writing about the Sun God, whose cult was five hundred years earlier that Jesus.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

b*tch than anything else.

Frank still has a lot of baggage left from his fundie days and it shows in this article. The fact is that he doesn't like "in your face" atheists. But those that are prepared to make nice and not call religious superstition exactly what it is, he doesn't like. Too Bad!!!

Atheists have had to put up with the crap from religious types and their apologists long enough. Now it is time to hold the feet of religious superstition to the fire of reason and science - let 'em scream a little - maybe they'll see the light (or at least feel the heat).

Having embraced the light of reason and science rather late in life and having become a "born again" atheist in the process of dealing with all of the contradictions inherent in any sort of religion, I'm so happy to be in the company of Dennett, Hawkins, Hitchens, and the others who are exposing the roots of superstition and ignorance that I feel as good as a tornado in a trailer park.

Darwin bless 'em all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It saddans me to see so much intolerance on the site, even though it's totally understandable. When you look at how the right has turned God into some Gun owning, Neo-liberal, frothing-at-the-mouth pile of conservative pus; you can't help but understand Progressives revultion at the idea of a higher power. I'm a LIBERAL and a beliver. I don't believe in an old man with a white beard sitting on a cloud; but I do believe in a higher power. Ther are things in this universe that science cannot explain. I'm fine with people disagreeing with me. If you don't believe in God..great... you don't have to. The thing that makes us superior to RebubliCANTS is our ability to accept. Let's all stick together, and make sure these right-wing wackos don't give the whole circus away.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I decided to become an atheist after my second heart attack.
If there is a god and I was going to die as a religious person, I would be dieing with a lie.
I choose to worship truth. If there is a god against truth, then that is not a real god. I will finish this world in purity. If I am sent to a hell for purity, then the whole thing is illogical.
Truth is the only real God. Religious writings of man were methods of men to control other men to do evil.
Of you who want the true salvation and eternal life, seek and worship truth (atheism).
We need an anti-religion, religion.
Truth will give you a legacy of a better world for our children.
If a mansion of gold is what I get for committing evil in this world, they can stick it up their ass.
I would rather see the children of the world fed. The Catholic Church could do that, but they love afterlife greed over the needs of children.
I am an atheist and I am ready to die with a pure heart.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is a biological impulse and without Atheism the fanaticism would still be growing toward a new world religious war. Atheists like these so-called new ones are just deciding to push back as hard as they feel they have been pressed to them. I disagree with them on that.

Considering we are out numbered by billions it isn't prudent or logical. We should be making bridges, not burning them before they are even lain. We need allies not more enemies.

From what I can determine from the evidence it is an evolutionary trait and as evolution is always putting out different traits in order to survive if the environment should suddenly change and the random ability could become dominate and useful whereas before it was recessive and of no real use. Like Atheism in this case. Think about it. Trilobites are gone but roaches still remain even after three previous extinctions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You know, I read paragraph after paragraph about the subject I'm most familiar with, that being Richard Dawkins, and I just couldn't see that anything was particularly wrong except in your eyes. It boiled down to bitter sarcasm instead of reasoned disagreement. I am quite disappointed.

Frankie, your book and your biography would suggest that you're aware of the abusive potential of religion. The more authoritarian they are, the more dangerous they are. You need only watch Jesus Camp to get a taste for where that goes. Couple that fevered zeal with a system that drills into children's brains that they are inherently bad and need to say prayers not to go to hell, and you've decoupled them from reality. The real lessons of life get muddled up, lost in the abstraction.

This is an inherently dangerous system of thought. It's fundamentally dishonest to assert that you know something you don't, on grounds you couldn't use to get out of a traffic ticket to claim certainties about who's headed for heaven or hell. It's a sham. If you think you have a divine mandate for anything you can quote a few scriptures for, you can have fierce force for most anything you want.

I know. Personal anecdote: I had one very religious stepfather corner me with a bat when I was a child "in the name of Jesus", amongst countless other cases of abuse. I am now redundantly diagnosed with PTSD about what he did. The churches repeatedly told me to submit to him anyway, to forgive him "seventy times seven", to blame the devil and not him, until I gave them a shove and found my voice in court to fight him. In the meantime, he worked with youth groups, to the shock of people in the know. Why? Because spouting some simple points of creed meant that he had to be a good person, in the church's eyes!

Goodness is not congruent with creed.

I repeat, goodness is not congruent with creed.

I want the new atheists to speak out, because the crazy religionists have been speaking all along and screwing up people's ideas about what's right and wrong, good and bad. I'm not saying mythology is bad, or the presence of non-extreme religion is inherently bad. They're benign and beautiful as metaphor. It's fundamentalism that's blowing smoke over the business of learning a decent human being, and while some atheists fail at it too, at least their failures are individual, not systemic.

Please review your subjective skew about *why* you felt you had to write this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Interesting that Dennet should suggest turning places of worship like the Vatican and the Mecca into museums or amusement parks. We Hindus did that a few 1000 years ago, and almost everyone of our mandir/kovil is a place to meet, greet, and let the mind wander free. I would suggest everyone watch the video of Anthony Bourdain's visit to the Ganesh Mandir in Flushing, Queens, and his experience with a vegetarian repast. I would be happier if the Vatican or Mecca didn't remind me that in their eyes, I am headed for hell and damnation - not that I care - but still it matters. As for atheists or anyone else, all are welcome, just leave your shoes outside and be mindful of the others therein. Cheers!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

All of these authors approach the subject from a "hard science" perspective, as it were...evolutionary biology or whatever.

I think we're sorely missing the input from sociologists and anthropologists and the like who study religion from a social science perspective, which is significantly different and arguably better.

Even if Dennett and Hitchens and Harris and Dawkins aren't perfect, I am glad that we now have these outspoken public or professional atheists to create dialogue and get people thinking and to question things that have long been considered taboo, but I think the discourse would greatly benefit from the perspectives of the social sciences.

So I guess my question is...where is the social science equivalent to The God Delusion? Or who's going to write it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Religion, n - a collection of ancient myths and superstitions wrapped in delusions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

..that is what is missing from this article.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I certainly haven't had any 'new atheists' knocking on my door and interrupting my dinner to ask me if I've given up on the idea of God. Of course, maybe they couldn't get through the crowd of fundamentalist Baptists, Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists who DO knock on my door.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sell Dennett books if you will Frank, but quit pissing on real Atheists.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hitchens, Dawkins and their ilk call themselves "sceptics" but their atheism is a narrow-minded dogmatism equal and opposite to the narrow-minded fundamentalism they reject. I was raised an atheist and used to go around making the same atheist arguments to my little friends when I was eight years old. I lost my atheist faith somewhere in college, and my mind is now open to the fascinating study of all the religions of the world. There is more in heaven and earth than is dreamt of in the philosophy of these bigoted anti-Bible thumpers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What's wrong with evangelizing atheism? We need some campmeeting ranting and chanting. We need some born-again Atheists out spreading the truth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

On the question of whether there is or there is not an alleged "supernatural" and an alleged "supreme ruler" of it all, theists and atheists can't both be right. One or the other is true. Thus far, fact and logical reasoning are on the side of the atheistic view and theists are incapable of supporting their beliefs. Never mind the fence-sitting agnostics who are unwilling to take a proper stand in favor of fact and logical reasoning to decide what is and what is not true about theist claims which is all that's at issue.

One thing is certain, to equate the "new atheist" with the theistic fundamentalist is a gross misunderstanding of both. It isn't the atheist proclaiming theistic belief on coinage or attempting to impose the alleged commandments of a very limited and specialized worldview into publicly-owned places, it isn't the atheist making unwarranted proclamations the U.S., a secular nation, is "one under god", it isn't the atheist interfering in the personal reproductive choices of others, it isn't the atheist frothing to deny homosexuals the basic right to associate with and marry whomever they choose, it isn't the atheist hinting that women ought to be denied the right to vote or a voice in human affairs, it isn't the atheist dividing the races into "chosen" and "unchosen", it isn't atheists planting bombs, wearing bombs or flying aircraft into buildings, it isn't atheists continually engaged in "holy" wars, it isn't atheists stockpiling for some mythical "Armageddon", it isn't the atheist flinching at every natural catastrophe as though it's the apocalypse.

The list could go on, but I trust you get the point. The atheist, new or otherwise, doesn't and never will equate to a theist fundamentalist, no matter how vocal they become in favor of a more reasonable worldview.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This writer poses ridiculous opinions. Atheists cannot be compared to the likes of Pat Robertson, et.al, since atheists have no god or theology. Atheists have been quiet far too long--they do not proselytize or try to convert people to their way of thought.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oh and BTW way, dude you are such a complete asshole I cannot even begin to express my disgust.I get the feeling from your post that you are in serious need of validation, maybe there is a xian knok off organization that would welcome your comments.Damn I wish I could reach through the internet and hi five your face.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ill informed and completely ignorant of fact, this is the kind of journalism that can be found on Fox broadcasting. Pathetic at best, dude please quit before you finish digging your grave.Every day I encounter stupid and stupid x12, trust me when I tell you that ther is no more validity in your post that that of Glenn Beck. I weep for the future of my country and the influence of the Wal-Mart trash like you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I never see any athiests. I wish people were more vocal about it but especially I never see any religious or spiritual alternatives to Christianity. Oh well atleast for the most part most of us are secular humanists

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Atheists generally get a bad rap. We are evil, going to hell, immoral, etc., etc. While I totally understand this author's point of view and I agree with what he is saying, I am also at the point I am sick of being discriminated against in this country. So many of our laws and practices are based on Christian thought as absolute and correct (alcohol purchase on Sundays, sodomy, anti-gay marriage prohibitions, 10 Commandment fights, Christmas displays on public land, other church and state separation issues, the list goes on and on).

So with that backdrop, knowing that many atheists are scared to "come out" as atheist (yes it is a real fear within some communities or families--let me tell you of the times I have been cornered and threatened without starting the conversation because of what I was wearing or what people overheard me discussing), I am okay with someone like Dawkins pushing the envelope. It gives us a seat at the conversation table.

I think Dawkins and this author alike will encourage more atheists to come out and join the conversation. Perhaps more atheists will speak to this author's liking. And I can only hope that in my lifetime it will be okay to be atheist, just like it is okay to be Christian in this country. So far, writing to my senators/representatives, voting, and being an activist have not done enough to change the status quo about us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Seems that well over half, maybe as much as 80% of the atheists who responded to Frank simply proved his point. And, when he writes in the same manner about the religious zealots the response is the same tone in similar percentages.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"...my late father Francis Schaeffer was a fundamentalist guru to millions in the 1970s and 80s and a leading founder of the Religious Right."

Yeah, Spanky, it shows.

(And if you wanna play "wave your former fundie creds around", well, *I'm* a couple of generations away from Darby hisownself. My sect *invented* fundamentalism. So there! *snarf*)

What a boring, droning, extended ad hom you've produced. At least you warn us near the beginning that's all you got. As in here:

"...it's just as legitimate to ask about the characters of the people pointing out religious people’s moral faults ad naming names."

Yea, verily, we gotta weigh the character of the prophets, test the spirits doncha know? But at least Your Holiness shows us The Way and gives Your Blessing to Dennett. Let us rejoice and praise Your Name.

A multipage ad hom screed and you have the nerve to talk about the arrogance of others? Wow. That's impressive. That's... very fundie of you.

Yeah, you heard me. As another former fundie, two things are *glaringly* obvious in your screed. You haven't shaken it off. And you're having a whopper of a fear reaction.

Fundamentalism *is* based in fear. You know that.

You're still afraid. You're simply running around making frantic hand gestures and whispering harshly, "Don't piss off the crazy people!!!"

That's one reason you try--ever so lamely--to savage Dawkins. He's smart. Far smarter than you'll ever be. And he's eloquent. See previous snark. He scares the bejeebus out of you.

Fundamentalism hurt you. You're afraid they'll hurt you again. So you run about trying to shut everybody up, hoping futilely that if we all sit real quiet, the bullies will pass us by.

I could almost pity you. Almost.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Schaeffer's comments on Dawkins do nothing except twist his words and insert his own interpretation into the tone of what Dawkins wrote. None of his opinions about Dawkins actually show fundamentalism anyway. I suppose if wearing an Atheist pin is evidence of being a fundamentalist then anyone who wears a baseball cap with their favorite team's logo on it is also one. If selling something on your own website makes you a fundamentalist, then Schaeffer had better start pointing the finger at a lot of other people too.

Dawkins has shown himself to be very respectful of people even when they prove closeminded. If he seems arrogant then his arrogance is subdued.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

While I do support and commend Mr. Schaeffer’s exposing the danger to democracy by the Radical Religious Right, I must comment on his article regarding the “New Atheists.” Mr. Schaeffer’s indignation appears to come from his perception that the “New Atheists” are certain that there is no god (although I have read both The God Delusion and God is Not Great, and there is no indication of absolute certainty on either the part of Dawkins or Hitchens, which is only proper since those scientifically-minded who are in the mainstream would never make claims for absolute knowledge).

But if I were to ask Mr. Schaeffer if he believed leprechauns had a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, would he be just as certain as he believes Dawkins and Hitchens to be that these prosperous little beings didn’t exist? And in that case, do we have license to be outraged with him for that certainty?

Since the default position is that there is no god because there is no indication one exists, one must follow one of logic's most basic tenets, which is that the burden of proof is on the asserter. Aren’t the so-called “New Atheists” and other such rational persons just operating within the confines of logic?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]