A question came up in the comments of my last post, and I thought it might be useful to bring it out.
What is a “New Atheist”?
How are the New Atheists different from the previous generations of atheists? Who constitutes the New Atheists, and who are still Old Atheists?
A new atheist is someone who speaks his atheist opinions aloud and with conviction.
Duke
How is that new? We’ve always been pretty vocal.
…And I realize now that “his atheist opinions” was, perhaps, over-gendered.
To copy and paste my previous response:
“New Atheist” is a term applied, usually in a prejorative tone, to describe atheists who are strident and forceful in their beliefs. Why this should be considered “new”, I have no idea. One might as well describe Ann Coulter as a “New Retard”.
I swear this question was asked before already.
But yeah, it seems to me that there are no ‘new’ Atheists. I think perhaps because of the growth in public willingness to tackle religion there has been a surge in books/websites/music/etc dedicated to tackling religion. But making a new term for it just seems stupid. Atheists in the past tackled religion as well, perhaps with less success but they definitely were there.
Just seems very artificial to me.
But hasn’t the atheist voice grown dramatically in voice and strength in the last 10 or 20 years? I know atheists have always been there, but they seemed much less common in the public eye.
I would agree though, that the “New” in “New Atheists” doesn’t really seem to fit. Gay culture is stronger now too, but when a person comes out-of-the-closet do we call them a “New Gay”?
Perhaps…
Ann Coulter as a “New Retard”
Just had water shoot out my nose….thanks Custy…
You’re very welcome ;-)
There’s one born every minute.
What’s next? Grouping in radical, conservative, progressive Atheists?
I’m not too fond of these terms, and while – if anything – I consider myself Agnostic, I have the gut feeling, that for the majority of those, who “escaped” the stranglehold of organized religion, God and or his/her existence is not really the problem, but the fact that organized religion is a sham.
My personal position stems from exactly the fact that religions do not offer tangible, comprehensible and logical trains of thought and are constructs, that fail to stand up to thorough investigation.
I don’t need a term for my position since it is a rather personal result of questioning religion.
You spelled it wrong. it is Gnu Atheism
I don’t know if any of us are hairy enough to pull that off. Except PZ Myers.
Is Gnu Atheism POSIXly correct?
It should be **GNU/Linux** Atheists!
My understanding of “New Atheism” is not that it’s philosophically all that different from “old” atheism, but that there’s been a change in the ability (and interest) of atheists to engage with the public. I think this only represents a change in the attitudes of “new atheists” in a fairly small way, and is more likely to represent changes in society.
The most obvious one is the secularisation of society. I appreciate that in some parts of America, society may not seem all that secular, but many parts of the world the role of religion as central in to how people view themselves has been massively reduced over the last fifty years or so, which gives atheism a market it just didn’t have before that. An increase in the general intelligence of populations helps, as leads to a gradual shift from people accepting ideologies from an authority figure to wanting to understand it for oneself (in my experiences in christianity this is true as well – sermons are less frequently telling people how to be, but helping them to understand and draw their own conclusions). Then there’s more permissive changes, such as reductions of pro-religious censorship in media, and the appearance of completely uncensored media (hello, the internet!). I’d possibly also argue that the end of the cold war (and the equation atheism=communism=something we should fear) has also opened minds that weren’t before.
If there’s anything that marks “New Atheism” as distinct from “Old Atheism”, I’d argue that it seeks to bring about social change. This isn’t really something that’s particularily new, but previously it’s kind of been hitched to a larger political ideology (Marxism is a good example).
I think it just means “atheist who uses the internet.” or sometimes “I hate them, but baby Jesus cries when I swear, so I use dumb psuedo-insults like ‘darwinist’ and ‘new atheist’.”
When I am described as a ‘New Atheist’, it’s just another easy set up for me to knock down another straw-man. “I’m young, but there aren’t really any new atheist arguments or positions. What do you mean by that word, ‘new’?”
Although, I must say that Loftus’ Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) is a fresh package of the old “You are atheist towards Zeus, Ra, Thor, Muhammed, Mithra, Shiva… I just take it one god further.” I’m still reading his latest, The Christian Delusion, and I’m really appreciating the depths he is going to explore this line of thinking. Not quite new, but not old either… Just atheist .
I believe, like many other words throughout the years, that “atheist” has changed slightly in meaning. It’s common for people to refer to Descartes as an atheist, or to various scientists or philosophers as atheists — but even certain Catholic saints have, at times, been called atheists. So have people like Martin Luther, despite the fact that he founded a new religion.
Thing is, atheism used to refer not a denial of the existence of god across the board, but to a denial of a certain conception (the currently accepted definition) of god. Many historical atheists believed in *some* higher power, just not the one they’d been taught. The concept of atheism as a complete denial of *any* higher power is a fairly recent one (historically speaking). So, whether people realize it or not, I think that’s what’s being invoked in the phrase, “New Atheism.”
When you get down to it. Early Christians where called Atheists for not believing in the Roman Gods.
Is Ingersoll a new atheist or an old one?
I think it has something to do with the internet and people becoming more aware, famous atheists getting publicity. The internet has become a great place for people to admit they are atheists in sites like this and more general forums, and for people to find their way to atheism by looking for resources about it without having to buy or borrow books to satisfy their curiosity, if they are embarrassed or otherwise afraid of someone finding out or judging them. In that way, we rule the internet, so I think the “New Atheists” term is that prior to the internet, atheism was a curiosity of intellect, but very few people had a venue for talking about it or even bringing it up. We don’t build churches or wear symbols around our neck, so invisible.
I think it is a term that connotes a broader establishment of atheism, rather than the fringe that it used to seem to be, not that we’re louder now than we used to be, but that we have found a place to use our voice and now people run into us because they’re on the internet too. Consider me anecdotally — unlike many of you, I’ve always been an atheist. Before the internet, I never really thought about it in myself or talked about it. Few people knew, and I didn’t get into discussions. Now, I am here, learning and discussing.
To me, the “Old Atheists” are the louder. Most of us were quiet, but the image one had of an atheist was one you could see and hear. That’s not new, but the number is larger of visible, audible atheists, it looks like a “trend,” and maybe it is a trend, due to the internet and what a resource it can be for someone with doubts and fears that someone will find out they have doubts.
Analogous to “New Atheists” to me, is “New Christians.” There’s this internet thing again. I have never lived where I thought fundamentalism was oppressive, but with my new atheism, I find out a lot of y’all grew up in such homes and communities. I’d heard, of course, of the Bible Belt, but never really considered it. I guess you could say I never considered myself attracted to moving there on that basis alone, but most of the Christianity I’ve encountered in the Northeastern US seems pretty liberal to me, that could also be, they’re not loud about it or I wasn’t listening. I’d like to think a YEC would have been embarrassed to say so where I grew up.
This internet is making me more aware what an invasive and popular belief this is. It’s not just discussions on sites like this, but in the news, politics, and other general forums. I don’t think there are many more of them now than ever, I might just be more aware how many of them there are in the first place and what they do believe that used to just seem silly and fringe.
One other thing with the New Atheists and Christians and the internet, 9/11 was probably a catalyst for many finding either atheism and strengthened Christianity, questioning what happened and why and how could a god allow it, etc., and come away from it with different answers than each other, and look to the internet for easy access to information and forum discussions, and more forthcoming with their beliefs or non-beliefs. A person could use 9/11 as a reference when speaking of their beliefs or non-beliefs, but then it looks like a reaction, a symptom of grief and more of an emotional decision either way. I don’t know if it’s a coincidence that the internet brought this out of people, or what would have been different now if people didn’t have the internet to express themselves and firm up their inclinations.
And old atheist: an atheist over the age of 85.
A new atheist: someone who just recently concluded they are an atheist? Dunno.
That’s all I got.
have no clue
Nelly a.k.a Old Atheist
The term was coined in a snarky article in Wired Magazine.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html
It’s an article from 2006. An interesting look back to see the perspective shift.
I have understood “New Atheist” as a distracting term used by theistic groups to discredit atheists. To give an atheist a title like “New” implies that their ideas are new, not searched or perhaps not well thought out. Atheism predates theism by several billion years (assuming that not thinking about a god = being without a god) so calling it “New” is just ridiculous.
Also, there isn’t really a new wave/movement of atheism. The current wave of expanding atheism is still a part of the logical thought processes of Darwin and other countless scientists that have contributed data that has lead to the declining support of the Bible. Atheism is the result of information combined with a logical mind, the internet just makes more information encounter more logical minds faster than it did in the pre-internet dark ages.
I am a new atheist by the definition that I have recently (~10 yrs) been exploring the ridiculousness of theism, but my ideas are not new nor are they my own. They are quite old and quite established.
We’re out and open about our beliefs and we expose the cruel, hateful, and evil parts of the Bible for what they are.
This term “new atheist” is BS. Basically it just means “uppity atheist.” But where does that put Madalyn Murray O’Hare? Bertrand Russell? Nietzsche? Shelley? Hume?
There is no “new atheism” just as there is no “old atheism.” Its just plain atheism.
“There is no “new atheism” just as there is no “old atheism.” Its just plain atheism.”
A true atheist, not adulterated by religions and whole in life!
Apparently an “old atheist” = one that shuts up and knows their place. Say one word in defense of atheism, one word against religion, and you are a “new atheist” *gasp!*
Our fundie friends are dreaming about going back to the good old days when you could deal with people who were asking difficult questions you can’t answer by burning them alive.
New atheist is created by God (like adam and eve) to rescue them from reality. Old atheist was antichrist.
New atheists are what (old) atheists are called after 9/11.
A born-again atheist…who won’t be kept quiet.
There is no difference. An atheist is one who does not share a belief in a god. Nothing more, nothing less.
I don’t think there is such a thing as “new atheists”. What is new is both our numbers and our willingness to be labeled as atheists, non theists or anti theists. Many of our founding fathers here in the US of A were deists who rejected the proactive god of fundamentalist christianity today but kept “god” as the originator of the universe but not some white haired bearded old man sitting on a throne. That is Dumbledor or actually me sitting on a throne for that matter. To their thinking, god would have been what caused the big bang to bang, if they were here today. I think what is really new is the rebirth of really seriously anti science christians and when we step up and say, yes we need to teach children evolution in school but no we don’t need to teach them bronze aged myths along with evolution. They call us “new” because they think somehow all these voices against theocracy in the class room magically appeared over night, undoubtedly the work of satan.
Too bad in Gallileo’s time there weren’t “new atheists” willing to stand up to the pope. Who knows what else Gallileo might have discovered were he not under house arrest for the rest of his life.
There is also the new ignorance. This rears its ugly head every time science dares to discover that something else in the bible was made up by figuring out what is really going on. While they silenced Gallileo the church eventually found a way to wrap its head around the heliocentric solar system and doubtless eventually all but the really crack pot among them will come to understand evolution and they will warp the bible so that it fits again.
I think that ever since the discovery of the scientific method as a way of finding truth it has been hard for biblical literalists to keep up their claims. I caught a few minutes of the “Rick and Bubba” radio show this weekend and they were having a good laugh at how silly our belief in science, particularly evolution, was. I’m a southerner and I hate when idiots like these two and their “”scientific adviser” have southern accents. It seems like some of us down here work hard at living down to the worst stereotypes about us. Then again, the town of Mountain Park, a couple of miles down the road from me built a park which they proudly named Mountain Park Park. I just have to shake my head and wonder about things like that. But my brother and I grew up here and both are strongly atheist, as is my son.
We are also new because we do not give in and play along with the ignorance.
To me the difference is that currently a lot of us are loud, proud atheists. In the past, it seemed to be a slightly shameful thing that you kept quiet about. We were also very aware of the sensibilities of Believers, so didn’t wish to upset them.
But they took the gloves off when they started to attempt indoctrinating children instead of teaching science. So now instead of accepting their delusion as the norm, we are proud to shout our skepticism from the roof tops.
I find it all hugely refreshing. Telling it like it really is!
I just want to be an atheist!