> On May 13, 11:11 am, panamfl...@hotmail.com wrote:

>> On May 11, 6:49 am, Christopher A. Lee optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

>>> On Sun, 11 May 2008 04:44:10 -0700, chibiabos nospam.com> wrote:

>>>> I've heard and read many remarks from persons criticizing atheism about
>>>> some so-called "new" atheists. The next sentence usually includes names
>>>> such as Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and so on.
>>>> I want to know what is "new" about them other than the fact they've
>>>> made their case publicly (and successfully) in the popular press.
>>>> We've had atheists from time out of mind, from W. Somerset Maugham to
>>>> Terry Pratchet. We've even had the vocal and litigious ones; MMOH,
>>>> Laurie Gaynor, to name only two. You can get a comprehensive list here:
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists
>>>> Throughout, the crucial message is that there is no such critter(s) as
>>>> god(s). Nothing "new" about that. It's the same message you'd get from
>>>> any atheist.
>>>> The people named in the first paragraph above are in their fifties and
>>>> sixties, so they can't be considered "new" in the chronological sense.
>>>> For that, you'd need some fifteen-year-old wanker who makes a startling
>>>> breakthrough in the proof of the nonexistence of god(s). <--(Yes I know
>>>> this can't be done.)

>> In response to:
>>

>>>> So WTF is a "new" atheist?

>> Nominated portion begins:
>>

>>> One who is no longer prepared to be an Uncle Tom putting up with
>>> bullshit from theists.

>> nominated portion ends.
>>
>> Aw, HELL yeah! Seconds, anyone?

>
> Seconded, enthusiastically.
>
> Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
> EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
> skyeyes nine at cox dot net