I think it’s a good thing. I don’t know of any “new” atheists who actually think there is anything genuinely new about it (apart from its reliance on new knowledge, perhaps), but many of us have accepted the label anyway. “New” atheism isn’t so much new as it is a swerve away from the habit of special deference to religion; in this sense many of us take it as a badge of honor.

It’s important for atheism to be explicit and vocal and public. There are reasons to think atheism is true, and atheists should be able to articulate those reasons without fear of “offending” believers.

Posted: May 5th 2011

See all questions answered by Ophelia Benson

I don’t know if I’m all that keen on the label, or whether it’s really a “movement” at all. I was an atheist long before I knew there was even a word for it, and certainly haven’t signed up to any “movement”. One of the essential aspects of being an atheist is that you’re not a “follower”, but it seems to me that most theists (and most journalists) aren’t able to fully grasp this, so they can only write or speak in terms of “faith in atheism”, of “leaders” and “followers”, of “messiahs” and “disciples”, and so on. You soon learn to spot the loaded language in articles, which tells me more about the writer than about the subject of atheism.

The part that’s “new” is what the Internet has brought: I call it “the great clarification”. There is now no excuse for woolly thinking, or for blindly accepting “dictionary definitions” of atheism and related topics. (Who wrote the dictionary – what was their agenda?) We no longer have to let theists set the terms of the discussion to suit their biased worldviews.

The Internet itself has no inherent bias: if there was genuine evidence to support religious claims, you can bet that religious leaders would be using every means at their disposal to spread the “good news”. Where is it? All we get is testimony of the sort that would not stand up in court. We know that people lie for their own gain, or delude themselves and others without malice, but the result is the same: we simply can not rely on the words of people – written or spoken – to be objectively honest and true in a matter of this importance.

Posted: April 25th 2011

See all questions answered by brian thomson

I love it. Atheists have always been with us, but until the advent of the New Atheists, they generally felt browbeaten into keeping quiet about their lack of belief. Browbeaten or much worse, of course, depending on the society in question. For far too long religion has demanded respect and an immunity to challenge, even from those of us who don’t believe its claims. Now, at long last, we’re speaking out and we will not be silenced. Why should religious beliefs, alone among all the countless ideas that humans have had, be shielded from challenge and criticism? Why should the religious be able to loudly proclaim without challenge that their beliefs are the source of all morality? Why should they get to be vocal on every aspect of life and society, yet never have to encounter open and clearly expressed challenges to their views?

There is no reason for it at all. Religion has called the shots for far too long, been pandered to for far too long, treated with kid gloves for far too long. It is high time that it was subjected to the same degree of dissent and challenge and criticism that we consider absolutely normal in all other areas of human activity. Thanks to the New Atheists (and I, unlike many of us, actively like the term and embrace it willingly), religion is no longer taboo, no longer off-limits. And that is exactly as it should be.

With the advent of New Atheism, the religious are still free to believe, they are still free to practise their religion, they are still free to preach their religion. But they can no longer do so from the cosiness of a protective cocoon, shielded from dissent and challenge by an unspoken understanding that the rest of us are required to stay silent.

Posted: April 24th 2011

See all questions answered by Paula Kirby

I have mixed feelings about what gets called 'New Atheism’. The media attention surrounding the publication of The God Delusion was the impetus for me to think carefully about my attitude towards the claims of religion, I’m thankful for that.

At the same time I’ve noticed a correlation that I find troublesome. I believe that there’s a tendency among some commentators who are affiliated with or supportive of 'New Atheism’ to transpose their confidence in empiricism, which is entirely appropriate when it comes to natural sciences, to other fields in which the empirical approach is of extremely limited use: for example in questions of politics and economy.

See for example PZ Myers’ casual dismissal of libertarianism, and the uncritical approval of his followers here: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/libertarianism_defined.php

Posted: April 24th 2011

See all questions answered by bitbutter

I think labels related to atheism are mostly irrelevant and that talking about an atheist “movement” implies a level of agreement and organization across atheists that doesn’t exist.

I do think that having more vocal atheists is a good thing.

Posted: April 18th 2011

See all questions answered by Eric_PK

I had my “crisis of faith” right as The God Delusion was published, and those books and the skeptical groups that formed around them really helped me leave my religion without falling flat on my ass, so I’d have to say I think the “New Atheism” movement is a very good thing… but I think the name sucks.

Posted: April 18th 2011

See all questions answered by Reed Braden