People do this?
No.
Some of the funniest people on the web are New Atheists. Now put away your straw and join the discussion.
Nonsense! I heard it on the TV.
I like the concept that it’s possible to have new evidence that there is no evidence.
I think this is a new concept but I have no evidence of it.
Disagree. There is a perceptible difference in tone between the old and new atheists. Bertrand Russell wrote, “Why I am not a Christian”. Dawkins pens, “The God Delusion”. Calling your adversaries delusional and implicated in terrorist attacks is certainly an advance in heated rhetoric, if not analysis. Even Nietzche was more dismissive than hostile towards theism.
Here at the SD, one might call Der Trihs a New Atheist and the currently less active Spiritus Mundi a more traditional one. That said, pretty much no one wants to labelled a new atheist: in practice it’s a backhanded pejorative term. (So I guess apologies are warranted for DT in GQ).
I’d rather be called a new atheist than an old one. I’m getting a little more sensitive about my age. “New” sounds younger.
And to the vast majority of Americans, just plain “atheist” is a pejorative, and almost no one would consider any descriptor other than “God damned” or “Commie”.
Oh, I’m sorry. I must have missed your contribution to this thread.
Who on this board identifies as a “new atheist?” The consensus of this thread is that it’s a bullshit meaningless term. Do you have a cite for this? Not that they arer the funniest, but that they are even “New Atheists??”
My comment was directed to Norder who couldn’t seem to recognize a joke. It wasn’t a strawman.
Fluffer?
I’m a New Atheist. I like the ring of it. Like the religious are afraid of the new, dangerous breed of atheists out there.
If I join can I get an iPad?
I’m with Boyo. I ain’t admitting to be an “old” anything.
I prefer stealth atheist.
Ok, that’s three of us. Enough to start a union, I think. What should we demand?
I think we should start on equal time on broadcast television. Every time a program mentions god, there should be someone who steps in and say, “God is an unproven theory”. And every time some does a story on some religion doing charity work, there should be another story about the destructive acts of religion through history.
Yeah, if you want to “teach the controversy”, this would be a good choice.
We need more stipulations. How you do you feel about frilly toothpicks?
I’m for 'em!
Good, then this club is formed.
Glad to see that we’re all getting along. 
Wiki has some other interesting articles. History of atheism:
Perhaps antitheism may be a better term for what I was describing above, for those who oppose theism. We can extend the taxonomy. Those who believe in G-d but don’t like Him might be called misotheists. Woody Allen said that he thought G-d wasn’t evil so much as an underachiever: that might be called hypotheism.
“We can rebuild him. We have the technology. We can make him stronger. Faster. Athier.”
I would have expected the convertible version to be the one proselitizers like.
When I joined the Old Atheists all I got was an anti-rapture helmet. I should have waited.
Is the idea of the “God Hypothesis” new? Dawkins, a New Atheist by the views of many, explicitly claims that the claim of the existence of a deity is a scientific hypothesis, and, as such, can be dealt with using the same methods we deal with astrology and every other hypothesis that makes testable claims. His conclusion, obviously enough, is that there is no evidence in support of any deity that can’t be explained more parsimoniously and more generatively* by the materialist hypothesis, which is that there is no supernatural and everything can be explained by the laws of nature.
*(‘Generative’ means ‘capable of leading to new insights’. ‘God did it’ is the absolute least generative statement in existence, as it can’t be used to predict anything and is ultimately a dead-end. Good scientific theories are all immensely generative.)