One Agnostic's View of the New Atheists

[Bob Kelso]

---

Since many of you are British (and most of you are atheists), I thought you might enjoy reading agnostic BBC personality, John Humphrys' assessment of the New Atheists (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens). Speaking of this same anti-theist movement within the atheist community, Atheist Paul Kurtz, founder of the The Center For Inquiry (a secular humanist organization), observed:

“I consider them atheist fundamentalists,” he says. “They’re anti-religious, and they’re mean-spirited, unfortunately. Now, they’re very good atheists and very dedicated people who do not believe in God. But you have this aggressive and militant phase of atheism, and that does more damage than good.” (Barbara Bradley Hagerty, “A Bitter Rift Divides Atheists”).

In an article posted at StrangeNotions.com, Matt Freyer summarizes Humphrys' assessments of the New Atheists taken from Humphrys' book, In God We Doubt:

1. Believers are mostly naive or stupid. Or, at least, they’re not as clever as atheists.

To which Humphreys responds:

“This is so clearly untrue it’s barely worth bothering with. Richard Dawkins, in his best selling The God Delusion, was reduced to producing a “study” by Mensa that purported to show an inverse relationship between intelligence and belief. He also claimed that only a very few members of the Royal Society believe in a personal god. So what? Somebelievers are undoubtedly stupid (witness the creationists) but I’ve met one or two atheists I wouldn’t trust tochange a light-bulb.”

2. The few clever ones are pathetic because they need a crutch to get them through life.

To which Humphrys responds:

“Don’t we all? Some use booze rather than the Bible. It doesn’t prove anything about either.”

3. They are also pathetic because they can’t accept the finality of death.

To which Humphrys responds:

“Maybe, but it doesn’t mean they’re wrong. Count the number of atheists in the foxholes or the cancer wards.”

4. They have been brainwashed into believing. There is no such thing as a “Christian child”, for instance—just a child whose parents have had her baptised.

To which Humphrys responds:

“True, and many children reject it when they get older. But many others stay with it.”

5. They have been bullied into believing.

To which Humphrys responds:

“This is also true in many cases but you can’t actually bully someone into believing—just into pretending to believe.”

6. If we don’t wipe out religious belief by next Thursday week, civilisation as we know it is doomed.

To which Humphrys responds:

“Of course the mad mullahs are dangerous and extreme Islamism is a threat to be taken seriously. But we’ve survived monotheist religion for 4, 000 years or so, and  I can think of one or two other things that are a greater threat to civilisation.”

7. Trust me: I’m an atheist.

To which Humphrys responds:

“Why?”

He adds:

“I make no apology if I have oversimplified their views with a little list: it’s what they do to believers all the time.”

Taken from:

An Agnostic’s Assessment Of New Atheist Attitudes
By Matt Nelson
http://www.strangenotions.com/an-agnosti...attitudes/

---

So you thought it'd be interesting for us to read an assessment on the Four Horseman, as they're called, a list of somewhat offensive blanket statements and gotcha responses. 

Cool beans man. 

Not sure what point the OP is trying to make, or rather the person OP borrowed that from, but OK.  So?  There are atheists who are dicks.  Granted.  Now what?

That's exactly what I was thinking. I have no idea what the point of this thread is.

And, what the hell is a New Atheist?

There have been good and bad atheists for a long time. There have been strong anti-theists for a long time. What is a new atheist? The only thing that seems to fit the description is someone who just became an atheist. Are new atheists more vocal about atheism Randy? Is that what's new about them?

Those that have broken the silence evidently.