The New Atheism

[rug]

Writers such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens tend to equate religion with fundamentalism. A more nuanced examination of religious belief can be found in modern fiction.

In the last 10 years or so, the rise of American evangelicalism and the menace of Islamist fundamentalism, along with developments in physics and in theories of evolution and cosmogony, have encouraged a certain style of aggressive, often strident atheistic critique. Books such as Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion and Christopher Hitchens's God Is Not Great have sold in the millions. Beyond the unlikely success of these books, there has also been the spread of atheist and secularist websites and blogs, some of them intellectually respectable, others more dogmatic and limited (ie, pretty atrocious). The events of 11 September 2001 were the obvious spur. In The End of Faith, the American writer Sam Harris argued that as long as America remains swamped in Christian thinking, it will never defeat militant Islamism, since one backward religious system cannot prevail over another backward religious system. Atheism would be the key to unlock this uneasy stalemate. Academics such as Dawkins and Daniel Dennett have broader projects, perhaps – for them, the removal of our religious blinkers will result in a proper appreciation of the natural world, and of science's ability to describe and decode it.

I can't be the only reader who finds himself in broad agreement with the conclusions of the New Atheists, while disliking some of the ways they reach them. For these writers, and many others, "religion" always seems to mean either fundamentalist Islam or American evangelical Christianity. Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism and the more relaxed or progressive versions of Christianity are not in their argumentative sights. Along with this curious parochialism about the varieties of religious belief comes a simplistic reading of how people actually hold those beliefs. Terry Eagleton and others have rightly argued that, for millions of people, religious "belief" is not a matter of just totting up stable, creedal propositions ("I believe that Jesus is the son of God", "I believe that I will go to heaven when I die", and so on), but a matter of more unconscious, daily practice ("Now it is time to kneel down, face Mecca and pray"). This kind of defence of the deep embeddedness of religious practice has been influenced by Wittgenstein – for whom, say, kissing an icon was a bit like loving one's mother; something that cannot be subjected to an outsider's rational critique. Wittgenstein was obviously right, though this appeal to practice over proposition can also become a rather lazy way, for people like the Catholic Eagleton, of defending orthodox beliefs via the back door – as if a bishop encouraged his flock by saying, in effect: "It doesn't matter what you believe. Religion is not about propositions, but about practices. So stick at those practices: just keep on doing the church flowers and turning up every Sunday."

We know that plenty of people hold religious beliefs that are also propositions – they stand up and recite creeds on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays; they can tell you who will be punished in hell, and how; they believe that Allah is the one God, and so on. Prayer itself is a proposition: it proposes that God exists, and can be communicated with. Rather than simply declaring all religious belief to be non-propositional, which is manifestly untrue, it would be more interesting to examine what might be called the practice of propositional beliefs. We know that people believe all kinds of things, as propositions. But how do they believe them? In this area, the New Atheism has nothing very interesting to say, except to wish away all such beliefs.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/aug/26/james-wood-the-new-atheism

[skepticscott]

1. HIs opening statement is blatantly false

And his "tone" argument is tired and trite. As is his implication that "real" religion (dismissing the regularly and openly expressed beliefs of tens of millions of Americans) is too subtle and nuanced for so-called "New Atheists" to understand.

[dmallind]

2. Commenters like this always miss several key points, but one in particular would help their obvious

confusion - real or feigned.

Atheists focus more on fundamentalism because it is more dangerous and needs more urgent opposition.

Is it an intellectual failing in gay rights thinkers at any level if they worry more about job discrimination, the right to marry, and legal equality than the funny looks they get when choosing curtains together?

Is it vapid simplistic ignorance on the part of the FBI from Director to academy applicant that they spend much more time concerned with terrorism, organized crime, and drug cartels than jaywalking and failure to return library books?

Why then is it the same for atheists from world-renowned PhD's to teenage schlub bloggers to focus on the danger, error and outrageousness of those who would turn the country into a theocracy and stone us if they had a chance, rather than worry about people who just feel like singing a couple of hymns and donating to a roof repair fund every Sunday?

[rug]

12. This is akin to Bush's reaction to 9/11.

Distorting this country's civil liberties in the name of terra committed by a few while ignoring the millions that do not fit into this simpleton's description.

It's stupid. And i think the author aptly describes it.

[skepticscott]

14. The argument that

Christian fundamentalists are only a tiny fringe minority in this country is also old, tired, and long discredited. Why do you keep going back to it?

[rug]

16. It's not an argument.

If you're going to push a bogeyman, you'd better have a tight definition of it.

[skepticscott]

18. It would be more accurate to say

that it's not much of an argument, since what it claims flies in the face of considerable evidence that is apparent to anyone paying attention.

[rug]

19. State the evidence.

(Yes, I do pay attention despite your attempted preemption.)

[skepticscott]

31. You'd think that since it's an affirmative claim,

those on this board who assert that fundamentalist Christians constitute only a tiny fringe minority and are not the face of their religion in this country, would feel some obligation to provide some affirmative evidence of same. Yet it never happens.

But it is a fact that over 40% of all American believe in Biblical creationism. You don't get much more fundy than that. And why does every candidate for a major political party have to express their doubts about evolution in order to be taken seriously? Are they really trying to curry favor with 2% of the electorate, while having the other 98% think they're a blithering idiot? Why does every Republican candidate wanting to be take seriously suck up the religious right? Why do even Democratic candidates feel the need to make constant references to god, faith and belief? Is it liberal and moderate Christians who care about such displays? What is the origin of the vehement resistance to homosexuals having the same rights and privileges in this country as everyone else? Why is so much of our foreign policy being driven by fundamentalist Christian ideology? Why is our military infested with proselytizing by fundamentalist Christianity?

[rug]

32. Actually, the claim is that "fundamental Christianity" is both the majority view and threat.

Those two separate claims require support.

"why does every candidate for a major political party have to express their doubts about evolution in order to be taken seriously?" doesn't do it. Not least because it's factually untrue.

The rest of your post is rhetoric, not evidence.

[skepticscott]

58. I never made the claim

that "fundamental Christianity is both the majority view and threat". Why are you dishonestly implying otherwise?

The rest of my post is just a short list of many easily observable circumstances that cannot reasonably be reconciled with the claim that fundamentalist Christians are only a tiny fringe minority, but which agree much more closely with the alternative view. As much as you want and need to dismiss it, that's how evidence works.

Try again.

[laconicsax]

62. Do you believe that fundamentalist Christianity poses no threat whatsoever?

It's a verifiable fact that creationists are in the majority in this country--any poll from the last 30 years can attest to that. The current statistic is that about 40% of Americans are Biblical literalists/Creationists.

I feel that I post this fact quite often--if 40% of Americans are Biblical literalists/Creationists and Christians represent less than 80% of Ameicans, then it follows that over 50% of Christians are Biblical literalists/Creationists.

Actually, given that Catholics are about 33% of Christians in the US and few (if any) are literalists/Creationists, that means that the overwhelming majority of Protestants are literalists/creationists. Remember, fundamentalism is a Protestant movement and Biblical literalism is one of its characteristics.

So, dear rug, do you think that the fact that the overwhelming majority of Protestants are literalists is a problem?

[rug]

65. There's a bit of space between fundamentalist Armageddon and "no threat whatsoever".

To answer your question, in the priority of threats, I consider fundamentalism to be moderate or low. Capitalism remains by far the greatest threat.

And your "fact", that the overwhelming majority of Protestants are literalists, is not. I hazard you'd find, by percentage, more scriptural literalists among atheists.

[trotsky]

66. So, atheists believe in a god and that the world was created...

in literally 7 days by said god?

You have a fascinating definition of "literalist," rug. Unless you were simply to make a really pathetic slam on atheists, but I know you are far too mature to try something like that.

[rug]

67. No, but many ostensibly believe Christians do.

"Because the Bible says so."

[trotsky]

69. And many Christians do.

See post #69.

[rug]

73. I just read it.

It's the one I'm replying to.

[trotsky]

78. Oh good grief, 68.

Excuse the typo if you can. And you were given the link to the poll.

[dmallind]

68. ermm.. some people actually asked both groups....

not surprisingly, you are utterly wrong

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/primetime/us/views_of_bible_poll_040216.html

Bible Stories Are "Literally True"
Red Sea Creation Noah
All 64% 61% 60%
Catholics 50 51 44
Protestants 79 75 73
Evangelical Protestants 91 87 87
Non-Evangelical Protestants 59 55 50
No Religion 32 24 29

[rug]

72. Do you have a link to the actual 7 year old poll?

Surprise me.

[dmallind]

79. It's there in the post - and do you think religious beliefs have changed much in the last 7 years?

They haven't changed much in the 2000 prior.

So do you think I am capable of whipping up a false page on an ABC site or do you think they misreported the results of their own poll?

[rug]

80. If you're going to post conclusions, it's more honest to link to the poll itself.

[dmallind]

82. What the fuck - a news report from the people who commissioned it, showing detailed results

is not enough?

[rug]

83. In the time you took to answer the last two posts you could have provided a link.

Never mind, I'll find it myself.

[dmallind]

86. I PROVIDED THE FUCKING LINK IN THE FIRST ONE - UNEDITED. READ!!!!

[laconicsax]

70. You have a bizarre definition of literalist.

By your own comment, #69, you hold that someone is a literalist if they believe that other people believe the Bible to be literally true.

Well, hate to burst your bubble, but that makes you a literalist since you believe that some Christians believe the Bible is literally true.

[rug]

74. Comment #69 is trotsky's.

[laconicsax]

75. My mistake. Your comment #67.

[rug]

76. Ok, here's my ranswer.

uh-uh

[laconicsax]

77. At least you're willing to be consistent in your nonsense. n/t

[rug]

81. I am always considerate of my audience.

[laconicsax]

85. That's debatable. n/t

[LeftishBrit]

64. Currently, almost all candidates for the Republican nomination *do* express doubts about evolution

and since they all deem it necessary to bring it up, it seems likely that they think that it will help them politically. Jon Huntsman's expressed belief in evolution has led to a lot of comment.

I realize that the phrase 'every candidate for a major political party' could be taken in two ways: 'every candidate for any major political party' vs 'every candidate for one particular major political party' (the Republican party). I interpret it as meaning the latter, and as such it seems true.

I doubt that 'fundamental Christianity' is the majority view, but I may be going by the UK, where fundies are uncommon even among the religious. But as regards being a threat: there are obviously places in the USA where reproductive rights are under serious threat, and where homosexuality is treated as a sin. Where schools are forbidden to teach evolution without giving equal time and validity to creationism. Where religious organizations whip up fear of government health provision and other public services. Where the influence of mega-churches makes it impossible to elect a Democrat, let alone an atheist. Fundamentalism may be only part of the reason for this - I daresay there are plenty of powerful political and financial interests prepared to make use of fundamentalism for their generally RW purposes - but the point is that it *is* readily and frequently used in this way.

[dmallind]

22. You have to be fucking kidding

What civil liberties are atheists trying to distort? What implication did I make that they should? What, precisely, is stupid about being most concerned with the most threatening group in opposition to you?

Did you actually read the post, because it sure seems like you had a prewritten response that you just cut and pasted at a random point. Absolutely no connection at all to what I posted.

[rug]

33. No, I'm not fucking kidding.

Your description of religion, extrapolated from fundamentalist extremes, goes down the same intellectual path the rightwing used in the wake of 9/11.

It was stupid then and it's just as stupid when you do it now.

[dmallind]

56. What description was wrong?

[bananas]

3. "It parasitically lives off its enemy" - it's like a memetic parasite (or, a mind parasite)

<snip>

The New Atheism is locked into a similar kind of literalism. It parasitically lives off its enemy. Just as evangelical Christianity is characterised by scriptural literalism and an uncomplicated belief in a "personal God", so the New Atheism often seems engaged only in doing battle with scriptural literalism; but the only way to combat such literalism is with rival literalism. The God of the New Atheism and the God of religious fundamentalism turn out to be remarkably similar entities. This God, the God worth fighting against, is the God we grew up with as children (and soon grew out of, or stopped believing in):

<snip>

[dmallind]

4. Obviously this Brit has no clue of American Christianity

Maybe somebody should show him that 2/3 of Americans believe in a literal Devil, and less than 1/5 accept naturalistic evolution. We ain't dealing with Songs of Praise and a few old women in big hats like he is.

And since we're not, shouldn't we focus on ("feed off parasitically") the Eric Rudolphs and Fred Phelpses first?

[LeftishBrit]

9. I think you've got it!

In most parts of Britain, the religious right simply does not have anything like the influence that it obviously does in America. Not only are far fewer of us are religious; but religion is far less associated with right-wing politics.

This doesn't mean that there is no problem with the Religious Right here *at all* (e.g. if the political 'pro-lifers' NEVER interfere in our local politics round my area again, it will be too soon!). The most serious examples are probably Ian Paisley and his ilk. But it is far, far less of a problem than in America. We do have atheist politicians (2 out of the 3 main party leaders currently), and, perhaps even more significantly, it is quite possible not to have a clue what a politician's religion is or isn't. And moreover it is quite common for church leaders, both Anglican and Catholic, to arouse politicians' fury by criticizing their policies from the *left*.

[CelticThunder]

5. There is more evidence for UFO's than there has ever been for Jesus Christ

I was raised in a relgious household and went to parochial school through high school and by the end of it I realized it was a total crock.

[skepticscott]

15. And far more evidence for Santa Claus, too

[cleanhippie]

6. How can a lack of belief ever be "new"?

[NMMNG]

7. The only thing that's "new" about so-called "New Atheism"

is that atheists are no longer sitting quietly in corners. We're speaking up against the abuses of religion, and demanding both a voice and equal rights in a society that panders excessively to religiosity. That upsets the status quo and makes the privileged majority uneasy, so naturally we're the bad guys.

[cleanhippie]

8. I guess so, it would seem the only thing "new" are people speaking out against the hypocrisy.

And the din is getting louder, and louder, and louder...

[rug]

11. Correct. The dispute is about noise, not anything new of substance.

Which makes it more about politics than theology.

[cleanhippie]

24. You may be partly correct, rug. As soon as believers can produce some kind of evidence to support

their beliefs that actually contain something of substance worth discussing, theology is just a bunch of noise.



Here is something of substance: Lets discuss the very real, and very problematic, decades of hiding and protecting child-raping priests by the RCC.

[rug]

35. Why do you exclusively post about something you consider not to be worth discussing?

[cleanhippie]

39. I think child-raping priests IS something to be discussed. Its YOU who are avoiding it.

Mary Lou Retton called, she wants her moves back.

[rug]

48. Well, no one is stopping you from talking about raping children.

Enjoy yourself.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[backscatter712]

21. Exactly.

But the "new" thing that really gets under the skin of the fundies is the idea that religion gets no special exemptions from criticism.

[rug]

10. To quote skepticscott, the only thing new is a" tone argument".

The rest is a rehash of centuries-old arguments.

[trotsky]

20. Yup, arguments that theology has never been able to answer.

As much as they wish they'd disappear, they are still right there, unanswered. And so we get silly articles like this, that attack the people and the tone, but don't dare venture into the substance.

[humblebum]

27. Atheism has substance?

[cleanhippie]

30. No, it doesn't. On that we agree.

So here you are, bum, with a real problem. On one hand, you claim atheism is responsible for so many ills (substance) and on the other hand, you say it has no substance.


That sir, makes you a hypocrite, by the very definition of the word. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite




:rofl:

[humblebum]

43. Where did I say that it had no substance? I think it does

otherwise, it would not exist, and I have no doubt that organized atheism has been the cause of "many ills."

If you care to look, my question was in response to trotsky.

[cleanhippie]

60. Oh, I see, you make it so very clear now.

[rug]

36. One would think the inexorable logic of atheism would have extinguished religion by now.

[trotsky]

38. Naw, if there's one thing humans do well...

it's holding onto delusions even in the face of contradicting evidence.

[rug]

47. I suppose humans are just too stupid to figure out anything important.

[trotsky]

61. Naw, even smart people can be deluded.

Such a waste of intellect, though, trying to figure out how many angels can dance on the head of that pin.

[cleanhippie]

25. Yes, but the "tone" argument is coming from believers. Maybe it should be "The New Christians" ?

And it is just a rehash of centuries old arguments. Arguments that have been repeatedly shown to be flawed, false, and inadequate, yet apologists continue to repeat them as if they were brand "new".

[rug]

37. Hmm, can you give me an atheist argument that is less than, say, one hundred years old?

[cleanhippie]

40. Sure.

Pretty much sums up the what the "New Atheists" think about religion.

[rug]

46. Yup that pretty much sums up the new atheist arguments.

[cleanhippie]

49. What arguments are those, rug?

[rug]

50. The smiley you posted.

Granted, they're small arguments.

[cleanhippie]

51. You must be looking down, because I presented no argument.

More of an assessment, really.

But I like the way you are self-evaluating.

[rug]

52. You did whether you realize it or not.

[cleanhippie]

53. Oh, ok, if you say so.

[rug]

54. No need to repeat it.

It's not that hard to grasp.

[Jim__]

13. Thanks for posting that. It's a pleasure reading Wood.

Of course, after reading his article, I can't help thinking that these questions of religion and belief are complicated.

One good place to study that "swarm-like life", and to see religious belief seriously represented and seriously examined, is the modern novel – from, say, Melville and Flaubert in the 1850s to the present day. Melville, Dostoevsky, George Eliot, Jens Peter Jacobsen, Tolstoy, Virginia Woolf, Beckett, Camus – and in our own time José Saramago, Marilynne Robinson and JM Coetzee – have all shown sustained interest in questions of belief and unbelief; many of them have struggled with the departure of God. Because they are novelists, they want to see both sides of a theological argument, and so they can't afford to do what militant atheism does, which is merely caricature any form of belief it doesn't approve of. They offer narratives of belief, and novelistic narratives make real the ambiguity, the contradiction, the intermittence, even the absurdity and comic irrationality of our intellectual lives. In a beautiful passage in Moby-Dick, Melville says that the ocean constantly moves and heaves like a human conscience. That could be said of our mental life, too.

[onager]

34. Not that complicated.

But it's certainly to the benefit of windbags like Wood and Terry Eagleton to make it more complicated.

"Evidence? Proof? Ignore all that stuff! Look at what the MODERN NOVELISTS have to say!"

Huh? Well, at least Melville and Woolf are more readable than some other fiction writers - like Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. And that mental eunuch who wrote Leviticus.

Loved this part, proving that Wood doesn't have an ironic bone in his brain: ... they want to see both sides of a theological argument...

We should also ignore the minor fact that, for centuries, any writer who looked at "both sides" of a theological argument would probably find himself hauled before a church court and burned at the stake...along with his heretical writings.

Which still happens today in the Lands of Off-Brand Religions. e.g., when I was living in Egypt (2005-09), a popular Muslim blogger was arrested for "insulting Islam." His crime: a blog post saying the Koran was written by human beings. At his trial, his own father asked the judge to give him the death penalty. (The judge didn't, but he was jailed for several years.)

Of course, stuff like that doesn't happen with modern, shiny, Western Xianity. Well, with the possible exception of my Pentecostal cousin in the old homeland of Confederistan. Who once said she would rather have her child die than become a non-believer. But I'm sure she isn't a real representative of American Xianity.

And she's certainly not a True Xian, since they're all good-hearted, liberal ivory-tower academics...who know that we can glean the real truth of religion from novelists.

OK, now I've had one of those epiphany things and see the point. Novelists get paid to tell lies for a living - just like the Pope and Pat Robertson!

[Jim__]

44. "There is always an easy solution to every human problem ..."

But it's certainly to the benefit of windbags like Wood and Terry Eagleton to make it more complicated.

An ad hominem without substance.

"Evidence? Proof? Ignore all that stuff! Look at what the MODERN NOVELISTS have to say!"

Why did you put that in quotes? That statement is not in the article linked to in the OP. Couldn't you find anything to quote that you could tear down? Or, did you just have to make something up?

Loved this part, proving that Wood doesn't have an ironic bone in his brain: ... they want to see both sides of a theological argument...

Just some context will suffice:

... Because they are novelists, they want to see both sides of a theological argument, and so they can't afford to do what militant atheism does, which is merely caricature any form of belief it doesn't approve of. They offer narratives of belief, and novelistic narratives make real the ambiguity, the contradiction, the intermittence, even the absurdity and comic irrationality of our intellectual lives. ...

And back to simplicity.

We should also ignore the minor fact that, for centuries, any writer who looked at "both sides" of a theological argument would probably find himself hauled before a church court and burned at the stake...along with his heretical writings.

Which still happens today in the Lands of Off-Brand Religions. e.g., when I was living in Egypt (2005-09), a popular Muslim blogger was arrested for "insulting Islam." His crime: a blog post saying the Koran was written by human beings. At his trial, his own father asked the judge to give him the death penalty. (The judge didn't, but he was jailed for several years.)

Of course, stuff like that doesn't happen with modern, shiny, Western Xianity. Well, with the possible exception of my Pentecostal cousin in the old homeland of Confederistan. Who once said she would rather have her child die than become a non-believer. But I'm sure she isn't a real representative of American Xianity.

And she's certainly not a True Xian, since they're all good-hearted, liberal ivory-tower academics...who know that we can glean the real truth of religion from novelists.

"...liberal, ivory tower academics ..." Really? George Wallace level name-calling is the best you have? As to crimes committed by religious people, Wood isn't over-looking them:

This God, the God worth fighting against, is the God we grew up with as children (and soon grew out of, or stopped believing in): this God created the world, controls our destinies, sits up somewhere in heaven, loves us, sometimes punishes us, and is ready to intervene to perform miracles. He promises goodies in heaven for the devout, and horrors for the damned. Since militant atheism interprets religious faith, again on the evangelical or Islamist model, as blind – a blind leap of faith that hurls the believer into an infinite idiocy – so no understanding or even interest can be extended to why or how people believe the religious narratives they follow, and how often those narratives are invaded by doubt, reversal, interruption and banality.

OK, now I've had one of those epiphany things and see the point. Novelists get paid to tell lies for a living - just like the Pope and Pat Robertson!

Actually, many novelists don't get paid. And, your thinking that what novelists do is tell lies, speaks more to your complete lack of understanding than anything I could say.

The complete quote from H L Mencken is, "There is always an easy solution to every human problem - neat, plausible, and wrong." To actually understand a problem, we have to understand it in all its complexity.

[Silent3]

71. "Who once said she would rather have her child die than become a non-believer"

That's the kind of sentiment that would add a lot of interesting color to a fictional character. So I guess it should be cherished! ;)

[humblebum]

17. New Atheism is nothing more than repackaged old atheism.

The same today and yesterday.

[dmallind]

23. precisely - no need to be "born again" when you got it right the first time. nt

[cleanhippie]

26. +1

[humblebum]

28. As dangerous to the world now as it was a century ago. nt

[cleanhippie]

29. Does anyone hear that?

[LeftishBrit]

42. Atheism is not dangerous to the world.

The view that other beliefs than one's own are 'dangerous to the world' is dangerous to the world.

And yes, some atheists can hold this view, as can Christians, Muslims, Communists, free-marketers, etc.

[The Magistrate]

63. Since This Person Continues This Line, Ladies And Gentlemen,This Bears Repeating

Your line regarding atheism and its 'dangers' here is a reaction to statement of a fact, variously phrased, that religion has been the motive for the killing of a great many people down the course of human history. Being a religious person, and one who conflates 'religion' with 'good and moral', this troubles you, particularly when it is stated by persons who do not believe there is any Deity, and that all religion is therefore fraud and lies. So you attempt to throw the charge back at them, and claim atheism is the motive for mass murder on a scale that dwarfs killing done from religious motives. In doing this, you engage in a variety of distortions of meaning and shadings of fact. They are pretty obvious, but worth stating openly, as you persist in them so energetically; room must be left for the possibility you really are not aware of what you are doing.

When people say religion has been the motive for killing a great many people, they do not mean that people who hold religious beliefs have killed a great many people, from whatever motive: that would be a wholly unremarkable observation, and hardly worth the typing out. They mean that people have killed other people from motives of religious belief, killed to suppress a dissident sect in their society, or to extend the range of dominion their religion exercises, or killed to enforce a code of behavior inherent to their religion, or killed as matter of religious ritual or rite. And in fact a tremendous number of people have been killed down the course of human history over these directly religious motivations. These are killings which, it could be fairly claimed, would not have taken place without religion, or more precisely, without the religious beliefs the killers felt directed them to kill others as a matter of sacred duty.

When you say in response, 'well, atheists have killed lots and lots of people,' you fail absolutely to tie this into any element of atheist doctrine or belief that requires such killing, and so do not actually mirror the statement you are attempting to defend against, that religion has been the motive for a great deal of killing, that a great deal of killing has owed to the killers subscribing to a religious belief the killing they engaged in was required by their Deity, by their holy law. Since there really is no 'doctrine' of atheism beyond the statement that there is no Deity, it is hard to see how you could tie killings by atheists into some atheist doctrine, in the way that, say, the persecution of heretics or wars of conversion can be tied directly to items of religious doctrine, or the killing of persons on a high altar by priests, or in funerary rites, can be tied directly to requirements of religious ritual or enforcement of a sacred code.

Adopting the standard you wish to apply to killing by atheists, you would have to accept that every killing throughout human history by a person who held a religious belief was a killing that should be charged up to the account of religion, and that it would owe to religion, regardless of its actual motivation. This would chalk just about every death from human agency since we first appeared as a species to the account of religion; indeed, it would include a great many of the killings you ascribe to atheism on religion's side of the ledger, since the actual agents of death, the guards in the camps, the personnel of the squads that carted away the grain, were as a matter of practical fact shot through with persons who retained religious beliefs; even if they were acting on the order of an atheist, they were the ones actually doing the killing, after all.

[LeftishBrit]

41. We agree on this!

I wouldn't even say 'repackaged'. There have been outspoken atheists and people objecting to atheism for centuries.

[edhopper]

45. It would be interesting

if any of these writers attacking the "new" atheist actually read a book like The God Delusion.
Dawkins addresses exactly this and shows how he is not only talking about Fundementalist, but more moderate religions as well.
It's time the religious crowd put this false zombie lie to rest.

[darkstar3]

55. +1

The problem is, how can they read such books when they're too busy trying to share their fear of them with others?

[Deep13]

57. No they don't.

They say that moderate religion greats an environment that promotes or at least allows acceptance of fundamentalism. Anyway, how nuanced can it be when it is based on nothing but a guess? Until someone establishes that some kind of god is actually real or at least possible, any nuance is premature.

[Silent3]

84. Good novelists provide good insights into the mess...

...that is the human mind. That doesn't mean that this mess always has to be accommodated, and it certainly doesn't mean every bit of that mess needs to be cherished or sustained or encouraged.

Further, those traits which make a character interesting, be it a real or fictional character, don't necessarily make that character a better or smarter person.

Writers such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens tend to equate religion with fundamentalism.

That's simply false. They may spend more time discussing fundamentalism when discussing religion, but that's not the same thing as equating religion and fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is simply more dangerous and a more important problem to address. Further, fundamentalist examples sometimes offer a clearer contrast for illustrative purposes.

Having read Dawkins (I haven't read as much Hitchens, and he is more given to bombast than Dawkins) I know that he has definitely addressed non-fundamentalist religion, and I can't think of any argument that he's made that would be made better or more effective by looking at humanity as a bunch of complicated characters from novels.