I'm not, probably.
I mean no offense to fans of Mr. Hitchens, but the New Atheism movement is not all that new. Indeed, because these authors had limited literary success with a largely pseudo-scientific and pseudo-skeptical platform, they've decided to pass it off as a "new way of thinking" by redefining what is actually science. I have a feeling the only difference in this debate from ones repeatedly versed on the 'net is that it's done by a previous Prime Minister and a prominent literary figure. Not worth the three dollars, in my own opinion.
I agree with both Flynn and Hedges (both also anti-religious folks, actually) that these New Atheist guys have more in line with religious movements than they do with scientific credibility or true skeptical thinking. In my own mind, they are perpetuating a failed belief set
exactly like we see in threads like the
homosexuality thread right by this one, where the church reflects that same sort of thinking back on other topics. Either these authors are opening the gates for that sort of thinking to be acceptable, or they are selective in their usage because it promotes their own viewpoint. I am personally hoping and believing that it's the latter. This is all however, besides the point.
I don't mean to support or defend religion. I am an agnostic. No doubt some good points are being made in that regard, but I felt driven to respond to the atheist aspect described by the Guardian article because I feel the article doesn't encapsulate the background of that man and his expertise enough. But I think these men and the New Atheist movement they encapsulate define and emphasize the problems present with general atheist ideologies and mainstream perception of what atheism is (which has mutated since the internet came about, it seems).
Forum Addict 
Active Member 
) arguing about it will not lay the problem to rest despite claims of victory by one side or the other. 
