/atheism/ - Atheism

>>10431

based hotwheels

what board was that posted to?

>new atheists

propaganda term.

take it literally, new atheism is the latest wave and generation of atheists. the simple idea of atheism remains the same. there isn't much room to change the definition of disbelief in deities.

atheism as a word has been used with the same meaning since the Enlightenment or so

>>10433

>what board was that posted to?

I can't remember, it was a while ago.

>>10433

>>10434

But why do they say that people like Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris are new atheists? It doens't make any sense.

>>10442

It's implied that's a new fad. You have to give something a name to mock it.

>>10442

Seriously speaking it's just a way of implying anti-theists are "new" and that old atheists were not vocal anti-theists. It's silly really, since they've always been around; it's just becoming more acceptable for them to speak up.

>>10443

>implying

Hotwheels further confirmed for based

There has been a lot that changed over the years. Politics, science, technology, and so on.

However, atheism by definition remains the same. Any atheist today would have the same answer as Marx, Freud, Rand, etc.

The only difference is that more people are willing to speak up and are making a bigger push back against religion. It used to be that only so many educated people would be willing to really stand against religion but now thanks to the internet and mass communication, anyone can and many people are.

Some may not be the best voices out there but none the less so many more people are tearing apart at the idea of God and now theists are upset because they want everyone to be quiet. Hence they try to make some sort of distinction between atheism of the past and present.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism

New Atheism doesn't refer to new ideas but to new people. New Atheists are people like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, and a few others.

It isn't meant pejoratively for all I know, but descriptively. They are new atheists because they aren't from 1920, basically.

New Atheism has been very popular over the past decade or more.

As to Christian persecution, I don't see how any of these atheists have been persecuted. All have made a living off of their published atheism and the most Christians have done to them was give them free advertising.

I hope that was satisfying enough as an answer.

"New" atheists are just atheists who talk about atheism. First there were the four horsemen and now there are shittons of youtube atheists talking about stupid things religions do.

>>10462

How about those cases where a self righteous Christian goes off the deep end while arguing with an Atheist, and and shoots the Atheist.

https://truelogic.wordpress.com/2010/10/14/christian-kills-16-year-old-atheist-with-shot-gun/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/09/05/yes-a-christian-shot-and-killed-an-atheist-but-theres-more-to-the-story/

These readily come to mind, and there have been many cases of Christians killing their kids in the last twenty years because they thought their kid was controlled by demons and had no choice. Similiar to Muslim honor killings, and I would not be surprised if a fundamentalist family somewhere killed their Christian son for saying he was an Atheist.

>>10463

>cases of Christians killing their kids in the last twenty years because they thought their kid was controlled by demons and had no choice.

Haven't thought about that.

>>10478

You sure take a lot of pride in being completely unaware of present-day developments.

>>10563

>>>/christian/ and stay there

>>10568

>everyone who disagrees with me is a /christian/shill/whatever

Seems like this board is more suitable for you actually.

>>10569

It's only ever christians who say this shit. You've revealed yourself for what you truly are.

>>10579

>It's only ever…

You are doing it again, lol. You don't have to be a Christian to recognize that New Atheism is a currently existing political movement, kickstarted by the events of 9/11.

>>10581

Where is the evidence?

>>10463

They were killed for not being Christian, not for being atheists. Same thing would have happened if they were Muslim.

>>10664

So if they were not christian, what were they? If they didn't adhere to any other religion, they were atheists. Stop buying in to the christfag propaganda.

>>10452

finding /tech/ and /atheism/ after halfchan's /g/ went to shit was the best thing to happen in my internet life

>>10462

extremist muslim's reaction isn't bounded to atheism. Syrian christians are facing a hard time too. But it is true that all sorts of theist religions hate atheists more than they hate other religions.

>>10463

>there have been many cases of Christians killing their kids in the last twenty years because they thought their kid was controlled by demons and had no choice.

suddenly I feel an urge to emancipate ASAP

>>10664

I have to disagree. They could have been killed for not being christian, but it is more likely to be killed by a christian if you are an atheist.

Part of the discourse behind the rationalisation of religion is that judaism, christianity and islam belong to the same macro-religion. that they all see a common truth and only differ on the details to some extent. of course this explanation comes short, but atheism is something that very few jews, christians, and specially very few muslims are willing to live with.

>>10433

I think it was /b/. It had roughly that amount of posts last december