"The Trouble with the New Atheists: Part II"

[Strong Atheist]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-wright/the-trouble-with-the-new_b_241217.html

[trotsky]

1. Sheep dip, more of the same.

Same behavior as Christian DUers, too. Because they simply cannot afford to turn a critical eye to their own religion and its fanatical zealots, they externalize it and attack atheists as the strawman causing all the REAL problems. Yeah, those atheists. The half-dozen or so who have written some books and those of us who post on the Internet. Right there on the front lines, taking down the peaceful utopia religion has given us today. :eyes:

Thankfully he's getting hammered in the comments.

[Strong Atheist]

2. .

:hi:

[laconicsax]

3. And a biology fail for the win!

"Now, viruses, generally speaking, are parasites;"

[Strong Atheist]

4. !

:rofl:

[enlightenment]

5. My, Oh, my.

To the extent that they cited the Bible, they cited it not as a religious text, but as an historical text--to establish that their people had been on the land before the Arabs were. (Just as native Americans might point to evidence that they were in America before Europeans.)

Where to start with a statement like that?

sigh.

[charlie]

6. Man, we're always in trouble, one way or another

Good thing there are so many who are ready to help.

S'funny how the guys who categorically deny religion's real world effects will often accuse you of hating soup kitchens and shelters if you say you'd like to tax church properties. I'm not saying this Wright guy is one of them, just making one of my occasional unfair generalizations.

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. Looks like he's claiming that someone left wing, like Dawkins,

is "objectively right wing" if he decides they are.

Sometimes, I despair when ignorant jerks like than get paid to write. His grasp of logic, discussion and the meaning of words is practically nil.

[Strong Atheist]

8. Congrats on 44,000!

:hi:

[and-justice-for-all]

9. Well since they can not get the title right...

"New Atheists" :eyes: I can surmise that the rest of the article is also incorrect.