Re: Mises and \"New Atheism\"
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How do you characterize the "old brand" of atheism?
[/ QUOTE ]
I guess when you would get burned at the stake for atheism, old atheism was not believing in god an not liking being told that you were a bad person for believing that. New atheism is telling other people they're bad people because they believe in god. The ironing is delicious.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ummm...you don't see a bit of difference between "burning at the stake" and "vociferously disagreeing"? There is no irony to be found here.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I do, I kid.
But seriously, from the view as communicated by the OP, the "new" atheism involves openly attacking the true believers. Old atheism was about seeking accpetance of a minority view, which is a defensive position.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with your characterization of new atheism, although I tend to think that its prevalence is grossly exaggerated. I'm starting to rethink my position though. I hear all these stories about these atheists who run around saying they are 100% that no God could ever exist and that they God is dumb and all theists are dumb. But I've never met one. I'm assured by theists they exist, and they point me to Dawkins and Hitchens as examples. If Dawkins and Hitchens are the worst of it, it seems like a phantom menace to me. Most of the atheists I know (I'd say all but who says "all" these days?) are nothing like that. Maybe its because I don't hang around too many morons.
|