New atheists

I have had this post mulling around in my head for a while and I need to get it out.

New atheists, oh how I hate that phrase. Most new atheists as they are described by theists, are basing their thought processes on the Socratic method and "new" philosophers like Voltaire and Denis Diderot. These are not new ideas, atheism is not new. What is new is the success that has been attained by these books, success that is well deserved due to hard work and due to timing, nothing more.
Socrates is over 2000 years old... I suppose that makes them New atheists in the same sense that Christianity is a new religion, continuing on from Socrates we had Epicurus, you'll know of him and from his problem of evil;

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent (evil). 

Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God?

Interestingly Epicurus' was taught and influenced by the teachings of Democritus (father of the aptly named Democracy), who was friends with Hippocrates (where the Hippocratic oath gets its name, and thus modern medicine its founding precepts). So this "New" atheism has some 2000 year old ideas.
I like to respond to the claim that we are just blindly following these new idols with ironically a paraphrase from Richard Dawkins, the first atheist came into existence when the first conman met the first skeptic. Think about it, some guy comes down from a mountain into your village and says he saw a god atop the mountain that controls its occasional eruptions, and this god requires your devotion and donations of food, this conman will ensure is made pleasing to this god, as he eats it in his hut.

So, unless you fandangle New Atheists to simply be a definition for the current successful atheists and their books, and those that are effected by them, then you are creating a definition that does not equal the words you have chosen. Most atheists I know from Sydney atheists were atheists before they read a single book of Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, Harris, Krauss, Stenger or any of the others. Myself inclusive. Sure there are plenty that where on the fence when they read one of these authors books, and then quickly fell off into non-belief, but most where either there and not out, or already there and out but not in fashion.
“Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.” - Isaac Asimov, obviously Asimov is another New atheist... considering this is taken from one of the many thousands of letters that he wrote in his 72 year life (died 1992), compiled into the book "Yours, Isaac Asimov" in 1996, well before any of the New atheists where on the scene. The letter according to the annotation by his brother was written on Feb. 22, 1966, quoted again in 2006 by Janet Asimov in her book "Notes for a Memoir" Pg58. Sorry to labour this Isaac Asimov quote but I have found some contention on Christian blogs as to whether it is legitimate, seeing it in two different sources, as well as the times he criticises the bible in his other works, convinces me of its legitimacy.

The aforementioned authors, I would say are also quick to attribute their thoughts and success to those that came before them, standing on the shoulders of giants. Giants such as Newton, Kant, Darwin, Kelvin, Faraday, Jefferson, Paine, Bertrand Russell, and many, many others who have contributed to the body of science and thought that makes up modern day atheism.

So stop calling it new atheism, or I am going to call you Christians, a New Jew, and anything newer than 1700ad flash in the pan, eg flash in the pan Mormon, flash in the pan Scientoligist. Let the temporary nature of your belief system sink in for a bit.


Gnu atheists
Yeah I have no problem with this term, as it is a mock of the "New atheists" term, and I am sure Richard Stallman (Of GNU/Linux) would be proud.

Some references;
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=flynn_30_3
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=PdxlAAAAMAAJ&q=potent+force#search_anchor search forthe words "potent force", in quotes.
http://www.pantheismunites.org/Scholarly%20Publications/New%20Atheists%20and%20New%20Theologians.htm Raphael is a friend from Sydney atheists, and much more learned and scholoarly than I, in fact a discussion with him on facebook re-inspired me to finish this post off.

The "honorable" Fred Nile

I was a little annoyed post Christopher Hitchens death people like Fred Nile trying to garner publicity for themeslves by posting this kind of attack at a person who can no longer defend themselves; http://www.cdp.org.au/index.php?option=com_jnews&act=mailing&task=view&mailingid=1554&Itemid=999
To save you  from giving Nile any traffic I am sure the headline will tell you enough; "Christopher Hitchins No Longer An Atheist". He was of course copying words off of televangelists in the USA. So I decided to respond, below is our short correspondence;

Email 1

Hi Fred Nile or your assistant who reads these,

I refer to the media release here; http://www.cdp.org.au/index.php?option=com_jnews&act=mailing&task=view&mailingid=1554&Itemid=999

I know this may be a waste of time, but I feel the need to respond to your media release.

Do you find it easy to attack someone who has passed away, or are you trying to gain some fame from riding on his coat tails?

Here let me answer your questions you posit, I hope you will take the time to read this as I read yours;

Hitchens(the correct spelling) is no longer an atheist because he is dead, his consciousness is gone he cannot experience anything and has no consciousness to show any doubt in the existence of a God. There is no evidence of your God Yahweh or any of the Gods, any evidence would be trumpeted from the rooftops by the faithful but none is forthcoming. Using the bible as proof for God's existence is the same as using the Bhagavad Gita for proof of the Hindu God Bhagavan, or the Koran to prove that Jesus was not the son of God (Allah), and was just a prophet of Muhammad.

Your quote from the bible means little; the bible is flawed and contradictory in many ways. Do you follow all 300 odd rules that Yahweh lays out in the bible, are you able to drink poison or be bitten by a poisonous snake and not die as the bible says will be the sign of a true believer? (Mark 16:17-16:18)

Christopher Hitchens did amazing things with his intellect, he exposed the fraud of the Catholic church and their poster girl Mother Theresa, and he exposed religions failings, foibles and all out lies. He debated valiantly with minds like yours closed to evidence and reason. The fact that you would try and denigrate him and compare him to his brother, someone who has not been widely published or widely recognised by anyone is abhorrent.

Here I will confront Jesus Christ as others have, see here; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvleOBYTrDE and here; http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
Jesus was probably not called Jesus, it is a mistranslation from Yeshua, more properly translated to Joshua in English, Joshua was as other books of the old testament show a very common name among the Jews. The town of Nazareth didn't exist till after the 3rd century AD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth and http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html), and the inconsistencies in the story of Jesus show it to be a badly handed down and edited story at best, a fabrication at worst.
Here are some of those inconsistencies;

• When was Jesus born; http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/jesus_born.html
• Who were Jesus' descendants; http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/davids_sons.html and here http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/gen_ml.html
• Why was the Roman census called that enforced the people to go back to the place that their ancestors lived, this seems ludicrous, especially in a time when travel was slow and arduous? Why is there no record of this census except in the bible? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius
• Why did Joseph and Mary travel to Bethlehem, if they lived in the province of Galilee which was not under Roman control till long after 6CE. (http://books.google.com.au/books?id=PTq9f2ad5kAC&pg=PA79&lpg=PA79&dq=%22galilee+became+a+roman+province%22&source=bl&ots=oDDEdjTTM1&sig=hje9tVfzjbjXYDqgpyrscBoB_1I&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MLDyTpTPB4eaiAerwJStAQ&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22galilee%20became%20a%20roman%20province%22&f=false)
• Why is there nothing (save for the now known doctored writings of Josephus) other than the bible that attests to Jesus' existence?
• Why did Jesus not know anything more than the people of his time, sometimes it seemed even less with him cursing a fig tree that bore no fruit even though it wasn't in season. (Mark 11:12-14)
• How was Jesus' sacrifice really worth anything, if he knew he was going to rise again and ascend into heaven?
• Why is there no record by Astronomers and Astrologers of the time of the Star that the three wise men followed?
• Why is there no record (and why is it not mentioned in the other Gospels) of the earthquake and subsequent rising of the dead post Jesus' crucifixion? (Matthew 27:50-53)

It was unlikely that I was ever going to vote for you, but now I will ensure everyone I know, knows that you are not just a small minded bigot but someone who seems to revel in the death of someone with a dissenting view. I don't wish you death, but I would wish you and your staff think truly and honestly about why you believe what you do and why you feel the need to promote yourself at the expense of others.

Email 2 - Reply

Mr Storey

It is I who reply to your Email.

Christopher Hitchens spent his life publicly attacking the evidence of God and the Christian faith and he now knows their is a God and life after death.   Where he spends eternity is in God's hands.

Please do me a great favour and prayerfully read the Gospel of John and ask Almighty God to reveal Himself to you.

God bless you.

Rev Fred Nile

Email 3 - Final

Hi Mr Nile,

I have read the book of John, as well as Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Psalms, Paul's letters to the Corinthians, Timothy, Acts of the Apostles, Revelation and in fact the entire Bible cover to cover as well as interspersed during religious education. I even prayed for my faith to be strengthened, it didn't happen, quite the opposite.

Who would God (if he exists) be more angry with, those like me that use the brain given to them to question and seek the evidence or those like you that pretend to speak for God? 

My Comments;

I like how he replied to my last email. Also nice of him to read the links I sent him, oh well, if you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people.