By this term "new atheism" what they really mean is atheists with balls.  No offense to the female atheists here.  For the record, I think you all have balls. 

er....

movingrightalong

Since 9/11 atheism has truly been raising it's voice and raising a little hell.  I think the change in demeanor among atheists is what prompted this relabeling.

I would never call myself a "New Atheist", even though I've only been an atheist for a little over 3 years.

I am perfectly fine with atheist, agnostic atheist, or secular humanist for the personal label of my beliefs or lack thereof.

I don't like the term at all, because it is inaccurate. The phrase "new atheism" implies that there is something 'new' about the 'atheism' itself. Being as that there are no tenets of atheism to change, and non-belief has been around for as long as belief, there is nothing about atheism itself that is, or even could be, new. It seems like it is just an attempt to paint atheism as a belief system.

What is new is the way in which atheism is being discussed, or the way in which theism is being approached, debunked, ridiculed, what have you. It seems that it would be much more appropriate to call it a "new approach to confronting theism" than "new atheism" (though that is a little long).

I don't like the term because there IS no new atheism. Atheism is the same thing that it ever was, it's just that more people are doing it now, and they are less afraid of being ostracized.

The term is absurd to begin with, but it's also a ploy to make atheists sound like rebellious teenage goths who are just going through a phase or something of that sort. It's an attempt from the opposition to paint atheism as something that shouldn't be taken seriously.

When an old novel, ahead of its time, suddenly becomes popular with a later generation of readers, we don't say that the novel is new. It's ridiculous to do that with atheism. There is no "new" atheism. There is only a "new" society, a society which just so happens to be receptive to the atheist view.

Some know that society changes and can deal with it.

Some know and can't.

Some are clueless.

"new atheism" is a term used by the latter two groups. 

   the thing is , is that it is new in the perception of the public,

The term atheist has definately changed from old references that I read,

Even our atheist buddy Tom Jefferson used the atheist word much differently than we do.

Like so many say , use adjectives etc with the Atheist word, so people will respect it.

"Old Atheism" , is maybe better, and hey wasn't that jesus / buddha ? 

Fucking 'Tower of Babel' ....    

I'm just thankful they use new rather than radical or extremist, but I have to say 'new atheist' is an obvious attempt to make it look like a passing fad. Really we're the same old atheists who have just been pushed too far by religious extremists and we've realised if we do nothing it will only get worse.

It could always be worse. At least it isn't refered as 'atheism 2.0'. Now that would be really obnoxious.

Well, since you asked so nicely.

You know, I actually don't have any problem with "new atheist/s" as that denotes the person/group in particular and not the 'ism' aspect. It is just the ideological collectivism that "new atheism" seems to denote that I dislike. Perhaps its the extreme literal scrutiny with which I dissect these type of terms that is the problem. Naw, that couldn't be it.   

I don't like the term. Atheists have been vocal since 1770 at least. I hope it hasn't become too widespread to prevent us from shoving it in the verbal garbage disposal.

I think Sapient is simply recognizing the generation gap, and poor communication between young and old.

I realize I am an odd OLD atheist here with my style of trying to de-convert the "god of abe followers". I give my suggestions because they work for me. Chat rooms are very different than personal encounters.

I use a "sneaky" approach. I start by being seriously curious with nearly all questions and follow by saying thanks for your ideas. Eventually my questions get more elaborate.

I find teaching by asking questions most productive.

Consider that you had to go door to door with your atheist message with the goal of actually getting people not only interested but agreeing with it.

Obviously this would take some practice, and each of us would refine our method. We would also learn from the successes of more gifted atheist teachers. The TV needs fixing asap.

Hitting friends and neighbors over the head with logic, while sometimes successful, more often drives them away. These chat rooms are different because religious people that come here are already curious and questioning and can remain invisable. That silent audience I speak to most.

As far as these chat rooms go, butting heads is xlint medicine and practice, but converting the neighbors is a bit different.

Thanks for all your ideas and suggestions, I learn alot at RRS.

I am an old re-newed atheist.

    Watcher, no, it's only 5:21 here,

having my first beer now , I will being getting to that shortly, CHEERS !   

its just words... i have a hard time telling if i like it as long as the word atheist is considered to mean devil worshiper by some ppl.

that doesnt limit itself to atheism, i was once asked what im doing, so i said im a graphics designer.

The other person then answered that he doesnt approve what i do because its vandalism.

YES he actually confused graphic design with GRAFITTI!

>_<

So ill call myself a neo-progressive para-modern recycled post-deistic agnostic on wheels.

Ppl dont know what that means either. 

Can we conversely define a "New Theist" as someone that continues to believe even though they've been proven wrong and have ignored facts from the "New Atheist Movement" over and over again?

Born again stupid! 

And I should be grateful that I've weeded out a supporter that makes stupid assumptions.  We need people around here who aren't going to knee jerkingly react in a negative and ignorant manner to what the "co-founders" are saying.  We're not gonna sell out for a dollar, the fight against religion is predicated more on the ability to persuade others on an idea, not get your money.

Be gone, you're old, and I hate all old people as everyone can see from my post above.  You can also see how much I hate the 57 year old Margaret Downey at the website that I don't pay for, didn't create, and don't maintain right here: www.margaretdowney.com

Asshole. 

I've never cared for the label of atheist as I've always thought of it as a label the theists came up with to catagorize us. I don't want to play their game so why should I use their words? As if I have a choice. Mr. Harris's words concerning there not being a label for a non astrologer really strikes a chord with me.

All of the many labels for "people who don't believe in imaginary deities" drive me crazy. I think it's a major reason why we have such a hard time organizing ourselves.

"New Athiest" is a label the media have come up with to sell their product. I don't care for it as a label either. If I had to find a term or label to identify my desire to not just be quiet about my non belief in an imaginary deity it would be: I'm a card carrying member of the Rational Response Squad. You may provide me with proof of your deity or you may shove your delusion up your ass sideways. Thank you. Have a nice day.  Of course I'm still waiting for my membership card :p 

R/

Lenny

www.kaosium.org

Like most people, I don't like it either. Although I really could care less about what people want to call it. I take my definition of atheism straight from the dictionary--no god. Whether they want to call it "new atheism," "neo-atheism," or whatever, I really don't care. Atheists are atheists, period. What surprises me is that they haven't formulated a "politically correct" term for "atheist" like "spiritually challenged" or "suffering from a temporary loss of spiritual guidance" or something like that.