At over 6,000 posts in Atheism [link=http://boards.theforce.net/the_senate_floor/b10320/28678816/]3.0[/link], it seemed time for a fresh start. First, some general guidelines mostly carried over from previously: 1. Please be respectful to all members, regardless of beliefs or non-beliefs. 2. Atheism is the belief that there is no God or the lack of a belief in a god. It does not necessarily mean that the atheist has a problem with every religion, or any religion, or even the belief in God in general as believed by another person. 3. Different people have different concepts of what atheism and God mean. Your concept may not coincide with someone else's, and that's okay. Use the differences to bring illumination to each other, not anger. 4. If you have a problem with someone, please contact the Senate moderators. [hr] To start off, one of the terms getting tossed around now is New Atheism. The usage goes back to an article by Gary Wolf for [link=http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html]Wired[/link] that first coined the term. It can be defined using a CNN explanation cited on wikipedia: "What the New Atheists share is a belief that religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises" As it relates to the term, in particular, an [link=http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=flynn_30_3]article[/link] in the most recent issue of Free Inquiry, a secular humanist magazine that often has articles relating directly to atheism, made the case that the name itself is a misnomer since there's nothing actually new about New Atheism. Personally speaking, I think Gary Wolf's stance on what atheism is and what agnosticism is is, from the start, misled, as he clearly views atheism as a set belief that there is no god, or gnostic atheism, while ignoring entirely the position of agnostic atheism which from everything he says about himself, is his view even if he doesn't agree with a hostile stance towards religion. I think from that point it really does explain what seems to be a mischaracterisation of the 'New Atheists' he talks about simply because he doesn't really convey that Dawkins isn't certain in that there is no god, but more in the factual issues with the specific gods others claim. There's a lot more nuance in the positions than Wolf mentions, and while I'm not a fan of Dawkins, I don't think Wolf does Dawkins' views justice in trying to paint them as simplistic as he does, and it does strike me as similar to those that want to MAKE atheism fit how religion is viewed to get to a conclusion of "see, it's all the same" rather than looking at it as a unique thing, which doesn't preclude Dawkins or the other "New Atheists" from having flaws in their views, but would mean that any criticisms are more aptly directed at where the problems actually are in their views. The Free Inquiry article does also raise some strong points that their views are not new within the larger body of atheistic thought, but that the prominence they have is what is really unique, and I would agree with that article that that is what is new, not the thoughts themselves, per se.