Admitting You're a Sinner

[The Valkyrie]

Isn't new atheism just anti theism?

No.

[SteveII]

Isn't new atheism just anti theism?

Yes, backed by a healthy dose of scientism which leads to a kind of fundamentalism.  As with religious fundamentalist, agreeing to disagree is not an option.

[Cyberman]

I see a lot of unsupported definitions going on, but very little in the way of actual citations or anything silly like that.

[DLJ]

Isn't new atheism just anti theism?

Nope. New Atheism is just a journalistic term for a coincidence of thought / a meme. Probably fueled by publishers.

Around 10 years back, there was a push-back against the privileged position held by belief-peddlers triggered perhaps by the shock of 9/11 and its aftermath and the recognition that not all religions had become domesticated.

What it did do was enable a lot of 'old' atheists to find a voice.

Not all of those voices were anti-theism.

[The Grand Nudger]

This is really easy.  New atheism is a position that states that religious belief has no place in positions of authority or management of public interest.  Yes, it suggests that there is a negative ethical component to indoctrinating your children...but it;s content to say:

Keep god out of schools, education, and politics.

Whereas I..as an antitheist, think that you are terrible people for even believing...even if you do manage to keep it out of school, education, and politics.....and I know you -can't- keep it out of school, education, and politics.

Basically, New Atheists are a bunch of starry eyed optimists with unrealistic expectations of you and your various afflictions.

[RoadRunner79]

I see a lot of unsupported definitions going on, but very little in the way of actual citations or anything silly like that.

His definition seems consistent with what I have seen used.    When asked about the term on History for Atheists he describes it as the following “anti-theistic atheist activist” and also notes

I tend to find that it is the anti-theistic activists who are most likely to accept anti-religious pseudo history uncritically, to use it in their arguments and to reject any correction of it as “apologism” or “revisionism”.

However what would seem important in the immediate context would be what Steve is referring to in this manner.

[The Grand Nudger]

Guys guys guys, stop lumping me in with these plebes and/or bismirching their good natures by association with my position.

See, most of them don't have any issue with you -having- god beliefs. If we put all of AF in a small closet, and asked them to raise hands for those who have no issue with peoiple -having- beliefs...you probably wouldn;t be able to see anyone who;s hand weren't raised.

They may not even think that some particular god belief x y or z is a "bad" thing on any level.  This is always and always will be the difference between atheism and anti-thesim. Old or new. The difference between "atheistic" this or that's...and "anti-theistic" this or that's.

[JackRussell]

I don't particularly care about labels, but I am 49 and have been an atheist my whole life, so not New in any way. Although I was raised Jewish, but never really believed to the best of my recollection.

My atheism is just disbelief.

My agnosticism is just that I don't claim to know.

My ideology is not defined by either, but more akin to humanism, atheist in nature. I accept religious humanists also exist, I know many here who are CofE who would be comfortable with that label.

My 'scientism' is that it it is the most consistent and verifiable way to approach reality; hard solipsism excluded.

[Cyberman]

I am an atheist, yet I don't have an ideology. I'm fairly sure I'm not unique.

[Catholic_Lady]

Isn't new atheism just anti theism?

No.

It just sounded like it based on what he was describing, in terms of being actually against religion rather than simply lacking belief in it.