[peter12]

So called "new atheists" are so called by religious people BTW, they didn't create the name themselves.

And why are they annoying? Because they're writing books? Trying to get equal consideration? Speaking out against bigotry and marginalization? Answering questions when people ask them? Expressing and discussing their views in venues of discussion?

Really, what precisely is the thing that all the "new atheists" do that's so annoying?

Well, they're dumb and frankly, getting a lot more cultural currency than they are worth.

Lol, you think this graph is a product of new atheism? One of the first works on Biblical inaccuracies is hundreds of years old. There's an entire area of scholarship dedicated to tracking the different versions of the Bible and trying to figure out what the earliest writings actually said. This graph is just a visual representation. Lots of people have no clue that the Bible actually has those kinds of problems, I certainly didn't when I attended church.

Again I'd like to see the examples of aggressive behaviour, certainly creating a graph for anyone interested isn't aggressive is it?

It's not new atheism, it's just the product of the new, easily-palatable, popular scientific atheism which is the new cultural fad. Did you miss my post earlier about the higher criticism? That goes back to the 17th century and Spinoza. To act like it's a linear progression from then until now is just ignorant. These guys, like Harris, don't have an ounce of the intelligence and bibilical literacy that someone like Spinoza worked his whole life to attain. It's insulting to good scholarship and the human experience.

Atheists can't become dogmatic, since there is no atheist dogma. They can't be preachy because there's no doctrine to preach. If you don't want to listen to something, don't listen to it. No one's forcing you to.

This is an ideological statement. There is no atheistic creed, but there is liberalism, which is all these guys are. Going back to self-awareness, if Harris had read someone like Thomas Hobbes, he wouldn't be acting as if the stuff he were saying now was all that original. He is a dogmatist because he is essentially repeating philosophy as dogma with not the slightest inkling that he is doing so. Seriously, it's not hard to theorize on these guys.

You are definitely wrong about sparking the revelation in a Christian of a godless universe (though I wouldn't put it that way), I know a good number of people believers and pastors who have deconverted as a result of knowledge of the Bible and its history and content, or deconverted as a result of learning more about science and how it contradicted their worldview, or deconverted as a result of some of the things brought up recently in the books coming out.

Atheism on the cheap is the defining principle of the modern bourgeois.

http://www.amazon.ca/Reason-Faith-Re...9627717&sr=8-1