Mises and "New Atheism"

[mosdef]

[ 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.

[vhawk01]

[ 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.

[mosdef]

[ 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.

[vhawk01]

[ 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.

[adios]

[ 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 ]

So the "new atheism" is just much more intolerant of other points of view regarding god, etc. than the "old atheism" was. Not surprising actually.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
So the "new atheism" is just much more intolerant of other points of view regarding god, etc. than the "old atheism" was. Not surprising actually.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, not surprising. Considering that the intolerance present in most religion has been a driving force to the spread of atheism, it is perhaps interesting to observe the same intolerance in atheism.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So the "new atheism" is just much more intolerant of other points of view regarding god, etc. than the "old atheism" was. Not surprising actually.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, not surprising. Considering that the intolerance present in most religion has been a driving force to the spread of atheism, it is perhaps interesting to observe the same intolerance in atheism.

[/ QUOTE ]
Seems to me that religion has gotten less intolerant overall, not more so that doesn't seem like a very convincing reason.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So the "new atheism" is just much more intolerant of other points of view regarding god, etc. than the "old atheism" was. Not surprising actually.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, not surprising. Considering that the intolerance present in most religion has been a driving force to the spread of atheism, it is perhaps interesting to observe the same intolerance in atheism.

[/ QUOTE ]
Seems to me that religion has gotten less intolerant overall, not more so that doesn't seem like a very convincing reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? My not particularly thought out interpretation is that through intolerance and bullying religion grabbed a foothold in society, which eventually led to significant rejection of the religion, which made bullying tactics less effective, which led to attempts to stem defections by putting on a friendly face ("we really aren't that bad!") rather than the old school bullying face ("you'd better find faith in Christ or you're going to hell!").

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So the "new atheism" is just much more intolerant of other points of view regarding god, etc. than the "old atheism" was. Not surprising actually.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, not surprising. Considering that the intolerance present in most religion has been a driving force to the spread of atheism, it is perhaps interesting to observe the same intolerance in atheism.

[/ QUOTE ]

"new atheism" doesnt exist. Dawkins goes out of his way NOT to attack theists, he only demonstrates that there is no scientific basis for belief in god. Hitchens Ive never read, but there have been plenty of obnoxious atheists in the past, one more doesnt make it a "new atheism".

Actively campaigning against prayer in school and other perceived violations of separation of church and state have been around since the 50s, and in fact are probably pursued by as many theists as atheists.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

So the "new atheism" is just much more intolerant of other points of view regarding god, etc. than the "old atheism" was. Not surprising actually.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hm yes, and now that you mention it...I've been getting the impression that a lot of the newer ways of thinking are actually more intolerant than their older counterparts (not just limited to religion and politics although probably concentrated there).

edit: by "newer" I am referring to spans of recent years or decades, not spans of centuries.