New Atheism is Over.

I feel that, if religious empires hadn't subjugated the near and middle East and Europe, science and humanism would have advanced much faster.

As an atheist, i hardly know any atheists who puts any stock in this "new atheism" thing. Nor did they ever. I think its mostly christian apologists who blew up this term to maybe some overinflated popularity among Christians as some sort of boogieman. I mean these 4 people can't even agree on morality. So for atheist they are not really a group to rally behind other than they stand up to Christianity which is generally supported. But it is very easy for Christians to rally against them and make them a bigger thing than they are. Honestly who can genuinely say anything more about Dennett other than he is part of the "new atheists"? Very few i think. Here is another test, check every time you hear "new atheism" who is saying it. I bet about 95% of the time it will be a christian apologist.

As a 56 year old British atheist I understand fully what Dawkins is referring to. We had prayers and hymns during school assembly. I can recite the Lord's Prayer from memory, even know, and say, "Bless you," when people sneeze. I didn't have any real animosity towards religious organisations, and attend mass with my wife, on occasions. Any society you are brought up in influences your personality and attitudes. I might not use the same term, but I understand the analogue quite well. Like most of the other commentators, I don't believe New Atheism existed, it was mainly a change in how we responded to increasingly dogmatic religious groups, such as evangelical Christians and fundermentalist orthodox Jews and Islamists. It was also in response to decades of church sanctuoned abuse and cover ups, within the Catholic and Anglican childcare systems, such as homes or schools. As a Wwelshman I sing hymns at the rugby or when attending a church service, such as a wedding, funeral or when my kids were confirmed. This means no more to me than singing along to an Abba record.

Sorry to say, but still not believing the nonsense over science and Logic 🤷🏻‍♂️

Sam Harris’ whole point is that “spirituality” is something that comes from within, not without, it is basically Taoism. Through “the fasting of the mind” whether it be through prayer or a meditation ritual, is highly cathartic, and can be beneficial objectively, without blaming a deity for it.

There never was a "new" atheism: that was just marketing. The idea that there's no evidence for the existence of a deity isn't new.

So I’m not really hip to this “New Atheist” term. I really don’t understand it at all. If you didn’t believe in a Creator before, what can make that belief system, anything new? Seems like a “rose by any other name…”, to me.

Dawkins has been saying he is a cultural christian for decades. There is litteraly a BBC article from 2007 with the title: "Dawkins: I'm a cultural Christian".

Sure, people like Dawkins and Hitchens aren't as popular as they once were. Non-belief is still on the rise, and people like Matt Dillahunty and Paul Ens are gaining popularity and impacting Christian apologetics. "New Atheism" may be outdated, but skepticism of theistic claims is still going strong.

people like this pray for the dark ages. Sorry religion had its chance when everyone was ignorant, but now we have things like handsoap and wifi thank god...

The trouble with sending someone psychotic food I can sleep is you might get correct information out of them on the other hand you might get complete nonsense

This video should be called “Jordan Peterson for dummies” Loved it! So concise!

Good video. I think a lot more people are just agnostic rather than atheiest. I think we all like to think that something is greater but haven't seen enough evidence in order to support that claim and that's it. I ask this question regularly to myself, especially later as I got older and read the bible. However for me, coming across the two ages at once of King Ahaziah of Judea with scholars stating it's a scribal error opens up the possibility for a lot more criticism for me than added mysticism. For me personally, I think is it more possible that Noah lived for 950 years or that you're actually wrong?

I would also call myself a cultural Christian. My father, grandfather and great grandfathers all were protestant ministers. The culture of liberal protestantism is in my DNA. I love the music of protestant composers from Telemann to Brahms, I have the greatest respect for Protestant thinkers such Bonhöffer and Paul Tillich. Still, I don't believe that the Christian god exists, I don't think Jesus was God incarnate, that he rose from the dead and will return one day, I don't think there will be a Kingdom of God. So in what sense am I an actual Christian, when the faith part is missing? BTW, I'd say atheism is only the next logical step from protestantism, which already did away with much of the miraculous and supernatural and, today it would seem, has dug its own grave by doing so. In parallel, there is the phenomenon of atheistic Jews, who still identify as part of the Jewish people but don't share any of the the supernatural beliefs of Judaism. I can't imagine that I could ever go back to believing the doctrines of the faith I grew up in. I would not know how to do so. There just isn't a way back. Calling yourself a cultural Jew, a cultural Christian is a fair acknowledgement of your roots, but no more than that. Well, maybe it also indicates that you probably hold certain values. But it does NOT indicate that you hold specific supernatural beliefs or that you ever will.

Firstly, atheism means "without theism". It has existed for as long as "with theism" has existed. There's no "new atheism" or "old atheism"; that's just Christian word shamming. Secondly, I don't care if Dawkins was a Christian or not. Unlike theists, atheists don't have an authority that tells us what to think and believe, so what Dawkins did or didn't believe has nothing to do with the fact that I do not believe the claim that a supernatural deity exists. Lastly, I think you are misusing Dawkins' quotes to paint him as something he wasn't.

Dawkins has said for years that he's culturally Christian. That doesn't mean he believes nonsensical stories about magic men in the sky.

4:13 religion is "the underpinning factor which allowed things like scientific inquiriy". What?! Say that again. Oh, yes, now that I think harder, most of the Nobel prises in science or scientific advancements these days are from deeply religious societies. 😅😅😅 People are conflating two different ideas with the word "religion". The one that allows science to flourish is "religio". Religion is about belief in a supernatural entity. Religio is about the psychological phenomenon behind the cohesion in socie

Religion is the first science.

So you believe Dawkins, at his word only, now, but you don't believe Dawkins, at his word only, 17 years ago when he made the exact same claim... Whatever floats your boat.

Tell me what you mean by "New Atheism"? I'm an Atheist I don't see any reason why I should believe in the supernatural. We don't need religion anymore. Now please explain what you mean by Woke? Our culture is fine without lies.