"Old" atheism, "New"atheism, atheism 3.0, WTF?

[leo-rcc]

After listening to the Boston Atheist podcast where Atheism 3.0 was discussed I looked up some relevant articles on the topic.

Here I found this gem:

The old atheists said there was no God. The so-called "New Atheists" said there was no God, and they were vocally vicious about it. Now, the new "New Atheists" — call it Atheism 3.0 — say there's still no God, but maybe religion isn't all that bad.

First off, what the hell? "Old atheism" was just as vocal against religion as this so called "New atheism". When I read something from Percy Bysshe Shelley, Lord Bacon, or D'Holbach, I see no pussyfooting about religion, they are not saying anything different from a Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris or Guy P. Harrison. So what is this "New atheism" crap? Just because the so called new-atheists have 200 years of better information to base their findings on doesn't mean that the findings of these "old" atheists were any less vitriolic.

Here a quote from Shelley:

All religious nations are founded solely on authority; all the religions of the world forbid examination and do not want one to reason; authority wants one to believe in God; this God is himself founded only on the authority of a few men who pretend to know him, and to come in his name and announce him on earth. A God made by man undoubtedly has need of man to make himself known to man.

http://www.infidels.org/library/historic...heism.html

Tell me that this could not have been written by the likes of Dawkins or Hitchens, all being worded differently.

Then, on to Atheism 3.0.

What a load of crap.

From the USA today article:

Atheists who insist that religion be removed from the public square are doing themselves a disservice, argues Austin Dacey, a former United Nations representative for the staunchly secularist Center for Inquiry and author of The Secular Conscience: Why Belief Belongs in Public Life. A godless public square not only shields religion from public criticism, it also circumvents a broader debate on morality, he argues.

If there is one thing religion does not need it is protection from public criticism. I would even go as far and say that when it comes to criticism, moderates should look a bit more to their own ranks and voice criticism from within their religion, and not rely on us "angry 2.0 atheists" to be confronted with the atrocities the hardcore literalistic fundamentalists undertake in name of the same religion the moderates claim to be in. But if these moderates stay quiet, I sure as shit will not.

If we as atheists would go the route of this so called 3.0 movement, we are just pandering to the religions we do not consider benevolent at all, just because we might offend some religious persons feelings. Well though shit. If you are not able to stand up for what you believe in, there is no reason for us to take your precious beliefs into consideration. Atheism 3.0 is a crock.

Rant over.