A Person wrote:One problem with the article is that it implies a Church of Atheism, with leaders and a common doctrine, i.e. a religion.
When you strip away that assumption the article falls apart and we seem to be left with a discussion as to how we should go about 'advancing the cause of atheism', quietly and respectfully or aggressively and loudly.
I don't necessarily think that the assumption of the story was one of atheism as an organized system of beliefs, just one with two populations of conflicting opinions on how best to express their disagreement with the organized systems of belief.
Personally, speaking as somebody who used to call himself an atheist and now doesn't really care what he's called, or what he acts like/believes, I prefer the so-called "old-school" system of thought. The newer system with its more hostile attitude does nothing to make disbelievers a palatable population in the eyes of people with different systems of thought (a very large chunk of the world, in other words), and can result in a backlash amongst the general public.
Additionally, I agreed with Paul Kurtz's quote in the story that referred to the "new" atheists as fundamentalist atheists. I agree with Liv in that it seems hypocritical of non-religious people to be so critical of religious fundamentalists while being equally dogmatic and closed-minded. I'm not a particularly big fan of Dawkins or Hitchens in this respect, as I feel like they do represent a certain philosophy that views religion with disdain just because some crazy people who were religious blew up buildings. This ignores that religion *can* have a positive effect on people and *can* be a positive influence on peoples' lives, just as easily as a lack of religion *can* be related to a nihilist philosophy that can turn bad in the hands of the wrong person. There are good sides and bad sides in any system of belief or lack thereof, and I feel that people like Hitchens and Dawkins ignore that simple fact.
FWIW, I thought that the reporter didn't do a reasonable job of stressing the emphasis on humanist ethical system, which is a crucial point when discussing what nonbelievers would replace religion with that is often overlooked. However, the point should be well taken that there are a population of nonbelievers that are more hostile towards belief and there are a population of nonbelievers that are less hostile towards religion, and both populations think that the other is going about it wrong. At least, that's the perception that I've had over the years.
Now, the question that I would have is, is this really an issue that's new, or is it just that the so-called "new" atheists are just now getting more publicity? This seems much more likely to me, as I saw some pretty strident criticisms of religion in my philosophy classes in college. Regardless, as someone who agrees more with the "old-school" thinking, I feel like the increased publicity combined with the aggressive statements is not helpful to the concept of increasing public acceptance of atheism as a way of living.
