|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Free LunchFree Lunch Date: May 11, 2008 07:43
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.
Possibly those with new attitudes toward religionists. The evil that
religionists set off with their bombings at the Atlanta Olympics or on
9/11 or in oppressing others need to be objected to.
>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.
Atheism isn't anything other than a lack of belief in gods. For many
years EU folks assumed that religion would continue to wither away. The
resurgence of radical religions in parts of the EU, coupled with the
growth of intolerant forms in the US caused a number of rational people
to take notice of the danger that religion can cause civilization.
|
| Show full article (2.14Kb) |
|
| | 6 Comments |
|
|
Author: Kenny McCormackKenny McCormack Date: May 11, 2008 07:50
In article 4ax.com>,
Free Lunch wrote:
...>>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.
>
>Newly energized in their response to the evils of religion.
Yes.
Incidentally (this is not directed at you, but at the OP), Sam Harris
(the only one of those mentioned whose life and work I have studied in
any detail) was born in 1967.
I don't _think_ the others are that much older than that.
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: EnkiduEnkidu Date: May 11, 2008 07:58
> In article 4ax.com>,
> Free Lunch wrote:
> ...>>>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.
>>
>>Newly energized in their response to the evils of religion.
>
> Yes.
>
> Incidentally (this is not directed at you, but at the OP), Sam Harris
> (the only one of those mentioned whose life and work I have studied in
> any detail) was born in 1967.
>
> I don't _think_ the others are that much older than that.
>
>
|
| Show full article (1.60Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Daniel KolleDaniel Kolle Date: May 11, 2008 17:07
>In article 4ax.com>,
>Free Lunch wrote:
>...>>>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.
>>
>>Newly energized in their response to the evils of religion.
>
>Yes.
>
>Incidentally (this is not directed at you, but at the OP), Sam Harris
>(the only one of those mentioned whose life and work I have studied in
>any detail) was born in 1967.
>
>I don't _think_ the others are that much older than that.
Dawkins and Dennett are both old-fart professors approaching seventy.
|
| Show full article (0.78Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Daniel KolleDaniel Kolle Date: May 11, 2008 21:13
On Sun, 11 May 2008 19:48:23 -0500, Free Lunch
wrote:
>On Sun, 11 May 2008 19:07:26 -0500, Daniel Kolle
> gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>In article...
|
| Show full article (1.32Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: SkyEyesSkyEyes Date: May 12, 2008 14:26
On May 11, 5:07Â pm, Daniel Kolle gmail.com> wrote:> On Sun, 11 May 2008 14:50:07 +0000 (UTC),
>
>
>
>
>
> gaze...@ xmission.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote: >>In article 4ax.com>,
>>Free Lunch  wrote:
>>...>>>>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.
>
>>>Newly energized in their response to the evils of religion.
>
>>Yes.
>
>>Incidentally (this is not directed at you, but at the OP), Sam Harris
>>(the only one of those mentioned whose life and work I have studied in ...
|
| Show full article (1.06Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
