Talk:History of atheism/Archive 2

6 doctrines
This is a large quote so I have contacted the Guardian regarding permission. I'll update when I know more. jbolden1517Talk 15:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Europeans needed
This currently is way too England / America. If you are reading know about this topic in non english I'd love to get some non english language new atheists information in here. Particularly the stuff from Scandinavia which predates the english language stuff. jbolden1517Talk 19:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In Italy there are the works of Piergiorgio Odifreddi and the Uaar which can be a nice start. --Coffeeonmars (talk) 14:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Books by New Atheists on New Atheism?
do any of these authors describe themselves as New atheists? i doubt any of them would consider themselves to fit into this wiki's definition of New Atheist. 210.56.88.40 (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Origin of term
.

Seems to me the term was coined by Ronald Aronson in 2005.

See: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/14/us/14beliefs.html

If someone can find that original essay, we'll be set.

71.146.6.35 (talk) 22:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (sign in and sign) Thmazing (talk) 22:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticism?
I'm happy this article is here, as I think the distinction between more traditional forms of atheism and New Atheism is a very important one. But I'm concerned that there's not much balance to the article at present. Specifically, the definitions of faith and god, among other things, in the quoted texts seems like they would draw a number of important criticisms from various religious communities. We should include some of those criticisms here. Failing that, at the very least there should be a link to the Criticism of atheism article; but some coordination is necessary, as that article is not entirely clear on the distinction between traditional and "New" atheism.--Pariah (talk) 03:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I added the criticism link. Al Mohler is a leading evangelical.  His entire lecture was exploratory/critical.  jbolden1517Talk  17:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think what this article needs is some criticism of the definition of New Atheism - at present its entire body consists of quotes or paraphrases from people who are heavily critical of the movement. As noted in a section above, many people described here and elsewhere as 'new atheists' reject the label or even the idea that there is such a thing as new atheism. I'll try and find some appropriate sources if I get time. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Well that's a good sign we've found good sources. If Mohler, "R. Albert Mohler, Jr. (born 1959) is the ninth president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky." comes off as a supporter then we've managed to find the right tone. jbolden1517Talk 19:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, some clarity is needed in the text--perhaps just explaining the politics of the people quoted. Until you mentioned it, Olaf, I had the impression that the two quotes were supporting the New Atheist movement.  Also, it would be interesting to get some understanding of where people like Dawkins, Hitchens, or Harris stand on the issue--do they consider themselves to be part of a new movement within atheism? or are they identifying themselves with more classical variations?  or do they deny that they're part of any sort of movement at all?  I think there's some great potential in this article, but it needs expansion.  I'll try to help as much as I can, but I'm unfortunately not that well read on the subject, and was looking here for information.  That said, thanks for that link jbolden1517--I think it will help elucidate the subject matter.--Pariah (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's not at all clear from the article that Brown and Mohler aren't supporting the movement. I have read a fair bit about this subject, but unfortunately mostly on blogs - I'll see if I can find some more usable sources. I'm a bit busy at work this week as well so it might be a while. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Article is (was) a hatchet job
I am making extensive changes to this article. Pretty much the entire article attempted to define "New Atheism" in the words of its opponents, which is POV disaster waiting to happen. The very first sentence defines New Atheism in a way that the vast majority of so-called New Atheists would not agree with.

BTW, expect some increased traffic on this article... --72.226.206.86 (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Still is a hatchet job. Now it's a puff piece to soothe PZ Myers' ego. All criticism has been gutted, leaving an article that's now heavily POV in the other direction. NPOV must be seen at any time, we don't rent an article to the Anti- for a month, then the Pro- for a month. the only thing more debilitating to an article than neglectful decline is active decline. ThuranX (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that second paragraph is pretty awful. This article needs to start from the sources and build up from there.-Wafulz (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * ThuranX -- most heartily agree, but keep in mind that what just happened is a whole bunch of traffic got directed at this article from folks unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies. No surprise that it swung wildly in the other direction.
 * In the long run, this will likely be a good thing, as we hopefully will get a balanced and accurate article out of it. The previous version was crap -- it got the definition completely wrong, it focused almost solely on criticisms, and it failed to point out some of the most fundamentally important points about the term (like that the people who are most identified with the term are skeptical about its usage).
 * I just re-added a criticism section, and although I don't have time to look up sources now, I think we are moving towards a better article already. --72.226.206.86 (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The main issue now is that the article barely scratches the definition and it already has a criticism section and a controversy section. Criticism is much more useful when it's presented within the context of the prose (which, unfortunately, involves a bit of thinking). Also the first paragraph in the section stops halfway through a sentence, so, uh, that should be fixed.-Wafulz (talk) 15:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Short stop was my fault, fixed it, sorry. I was typing something, thought of something else, then forgot to come back to it.
 * On PZ's blog, a commenter brought up an interesting point. I quote directly: """Honestly I'm not sure why there needs to be a page for 'New Atheism'. Can't there just be a comment in the main Atheism page that says "Outspoken modern atheists have been labelled by some as "New Atheists" but many of them have rejected the label." With appropriate references of course."""  He might have a point... does this term really deserve its own article, or should it just be a section in atheism? --72.226.206.86 (talk) 15:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone should nominate it for deletion. Jafafa Hots (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I was wondering that too. History_of_atheism is probably a good merge target.-Wafulz (talk) 15:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW, the criticism section was also my doing. It was a quick and dirty attempt to bring some balance to the article, but I realize it's not the best format.  Consider my edits sort of like a Cliff Notes for Wikipedians who have the time to do a more thorough repair of the article.  I tried to capture the main notable controversies and criticisms, but clearly I'm ass-out of citations and my format left something to be desired. --72.226.206.86 (talk) 15:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This article concerns a neologism thinly supported by 3 opinion pieces and a lecture by a theist. It is my opinion we should consider it for deletion on grounds of no notability and a possible attack piece. Any thoughts?--LexCorp (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Critical content is fine, but allowing the critics to define the concept is something else entirely. It's a bit like starting the article on universal health care with a quote by Ayn Rand, or introducing monetarism with a piece from Das Kapital.  Other than a list of their names (and a list of book titles) the new atheists themselves weren't even mentioned.
 * Furthermore, the fact that editor recruitment has taken place doesn't affect the merit of any particular point of view. Please focus on content and not on personalities.  The article now seems to be a relatively sober description of the "New Atheist" viewpoint.  Please describe why you think it is a puff piece, rather than blaming PZ Myers.
 * &mdash; H y p e r d e a t h ( Talk ) 15:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As an atheist, and one who sides with the "new atheists", I have to say that allowing the opposition to define it is fine. It should be noted in the article, however, that no atheist actually adopts the term as legitimate and it's a political label given to certain people by others who disagree with their statements.  The "New Atheists" label is NPOV from the start so a simple disclaimer that it is a derogatory term, like referring to Jews as "kikes", and that people who are labeled as such are actually offended by it should be sufficient.  I'm sure you can find ample sources for this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.254.117.66 (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's get rid of this unnecessary fork. Imagine Reason (talk) 15:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Request to Delete this article
What does this article bring to Wikipedia? Nothing. There is nothing "new" about atheism. Even the people mentioned in this article aren't "new" to atheism. There is nothing notable here. “New Atheists” seems to be a label that religious groups and people have applied to a group of people they do not like and would like to belittle. Seer (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree as per my comment above. This article concerns a neologism thinly supported by 3 opinion pieces and a lecture by a theist. It is my opinion we should consider it for deletion on grounds of no notability, Original research and synthesis (I meant outside the opinion pieces has anyone hear of this term before?) and a possible attack piece.--LexCorp (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed that this article doesn't really have any content with reliable sources to back it up. If consensus has it, I believe this article could simply be turned into a redirect to History of atheism.  Artichoker [ talk ] 16:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * fine with me.--LexCorp (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I vote for merging first, redirection second. The article is full of "who" and "citation needed" and is quite scant on actual content. It would be better off as a single section in a broader article. Nightrose (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge what exactly? The is no relevant or notable info in the article. This is a neologism without any reliable source or wide support.--LexCorp (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I vote for deletion. A short notice in the Atheism article will be sufficient Physikant (talk) 16:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What about the article is there to salvage? In any case, I think any content that could be used is already used in History of atheism.  Artichoker [ talk ] 16:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just my 2p worth, but it seems to me that 'New Atheism' refers to a specific 21st century resurgence of interest in atheism in the wake of the 9/11 hijacks -which alerted many to just how dangerous unchecked theism can become.
 * The tranche of atheist advocacy books (especially 'The God Delusion') that came out thereafter were partly in response to that event, and their popularity must owe something to the interest that the event sparked.
 * I believe that the wave of interest is real and significant enough to merit a term like 'New Atheism'- and even a Wikipedia article. The title of 'New Atheist', however, has been applied by default to the authors and public figures who are seen to be at the heart of the resurgence, and has not been claimed by them. Dawkins has dismissed the term, and I've yet to hear any of the others so labelled show any affection for it. They were all atheists before any of this came up; at most they're simply more widely known now.--Cdavis999 (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That is why there is a History of atheism section.--LexCorp (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

(←) I went ahead and merged what I could. Just a mention of the term should be fine.  Artichoker [ talk ] 16:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to add another 2 cents worth, I recognize the serious problems with this article, and would go so far as to support its deletion, but I also agree with Cdavvis999, above. "New Atheism" is briefly mentioned in the History of atheism section, but it really doesn't do justice to the noteworthiness of the term.


 * I realize that atheists who are also anti-theists may not see much point to it, but it at least deserves its own section in the main Atheism article, if not an article of its own. Dawkins & friends may have been doing this a long time, but the surge in interest in their writing (especially post-9/11) is definitely a new thing--or is at least being treated as a new thing by the media.


 * The term also speaks to the difference between a atheists like J. Michael Straczynski, who may appreciate religion (or major aspects of it) while not following it, and atheists who believe, as Dawkins does, that religion is a destructive mental affliction or a memetic virus with no redeeming qualities.


 * So, by all means, delete this article, but significant mention should be made of the term in the main Atheism article.--Pariah (talk) 02:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think the main atheism article would an appropriate place to mention "new atheism". It would be better suited to the History of atheism article in which it is already mentioned. However, more content could be added if reliable sources are provided.  Artichoker [ talk ] 02:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Why would the main article be an inappropriate place? "New Atheism" describes a definite trend and an important way in which the general public views modern atheism.  And this is in the present--it's not some footnote in the history of atheism, it's a big deal in the here and now.  It warrants some attention--and more than the single sentence it gets in the history of atheism article. --Pariah (talk) 03:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not really appropriate because the term "New Athiests" is mostly used as a pejorative by those who dislike the more vocal proponents of atheism. It's really a neologism. As such, I'd say it just deserves a small mention in the History article. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 14:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course it's a neologism, but I think the claim that it's pejorative and therefore unworthy of attention is highly suspect. It's no more pejorative than the word "atheist" itself is in fundamentalist circles.  All that the term "New Atheist" does is distinguish between atheists who simply don't follow a religion, and atheists who would like to see all religion abolished.  That's a very important distinction and it would be inappropriate and POV to gloss over the issue just because people who identify with the latter group don't like to be separated from other atheists.  According to PZ Myers blog (linked above), the term was coined in a Wired article; not by the religious right, and the article itself, while disagreeing with what it calls "New Atheism" does not use the term pejoratively.--Pariah (talk) 04:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I'm all for expansion, provided good, reliable sources are available. Since you seem to be so set on this, how about finding some sources and I will gladly incorporate them into the article.  Artichoker [ talk ] 04:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. See you then--Pariah (talk) 04:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * From WP:NEO"Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms, must come from reliable sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term."This is the kind of reliable source that we are looking for. In order to merit its own article you will have to find multiple ones and show that they are significant as to the subject matter. Until now the only resources put forward were 3 opinion pieces and a lecture from a theist. These sources did not meet the above. As per the guidelines we have already conceded to much by including the neologism in the history of atheism article.--LexCorp (talk) 10:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Geez, LexCorp, you don't have to quote rules at me. I am well aware of Wikipedia policies on primary sources.  Please note that I was the first person to criticize the content of this article, as it was not only badly sourced, it was confusing and clearly biased.  I'm sorry that you think you have conceded or compromised something by including the term in the history of atheism article, but that suggests you're pushing your own POV as to the integrity of the subject matter, even if you happen to be doing it within Wikipedia policies.--Pariah (talk) 04:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Archive
If there are no further objections, I'm going to move this Talk page to become an archive of Talk:History of atheism, since that's where the content has gone. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)