quote:

---

The “new atheists”
by Ken Ham, president, AiG–USA

January 16, 2007

We've warned you about them before on our website—but now they're on a much more aggressive march all across America. No longer are they just staying in their classrooms or writing books and articles in the comfort of their offices. They are “the new atheists,” and they are aggressively going after your children, your liberties, and your faith!

---

quote:

---

According to the print media and websites, the new atheists say “evangelism is a moral imperative” to spread their “good news” in “persuading people of the virtues of atheism.” They are “drawing on evolution,” and are vocally “hostile to religions,” especially “fundamentalist Christianity and Islam.” They are “feeling a real need to convert people,” and preaching an “un-gospel.” In one media report, it was stated that “at some point there is going to be enough pressure that it is just going to be too embarrassing to believe in God.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leoofno

Imagine, writing a book to change minds. I suppose AiG has never done such a thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leoofno

I like this (talking about Dawkins' new book):
"Dawkins is more than just angry, though. He has a purpose, says a reviewer: “the whole book is meant to change people's minds.”"
Like duh! Imagine, writing a book to change minds. I suppose AiG has never done such a thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HalfMooner

So primarily, Ham is warning his faithful that secular humanists are stooping to the same low-down tactics he uses?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ghost_Skeptic

quote:

---

Originally posted by HalfMooner

So primarily, Ham is warning his faithful that secular humanists are stooping to the same low-down tactics he uses?

---

Even worse the secular humans are proseltyzing and evangalizing - the nerve of those godless scoundrels!

---

quote:

---

Monday, November 20, 2006
More from behind the scenes of the Australian/U.S. creationism schism at Answers in Genesis
More information has just come out about the split between the Kentucky-based Answers in Genesis and the Australia-based Creation Ministries International. (UPDATED for clarification: CMI is composed of organizations from Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Canada which were all formerly united with the Kentucky group under the Answers in Genesis name. The Australian group was the Creation Science Foundation prior to the association of the groups under the Answers in Genesis name.) CMI has published a number of documents on its web site about the split. These documents, which I'll describe below, make the case that the U.S. group has acted in bad faith to appropriate for itself many of the resources of the Australian group, as well as to put it into an untenable position of being potentially liable for certain actions of the U.S. group without getting any financial benefits. These documents, on a website headed with tomorrow's date (today in Australia, where it's currently afternoon), were pointed out in comments on my blog post by "JaneD" (presumably the D is for "Doe"), who appears to have set up a new blogger account to bring the information to public attention.

This split, which I pointed out on my blog back in March 2006, along with some financial data about the U.S. group and some speculation about the causes, occurred in late 2005. In that post, I noted that certain information critical of other creationists (and convicted tax evader Kent Hovind in particular) had been removed from the U.S. group's site. A brochure from the CMI suggested that a difference of approach, including ethical considerations, was the primary reason for the split:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by filthy

But I find myself reminded that con-men can be the greatest suckers of all, if you find just the right way to get to them. I wonder if Hammy plays poker.....

---

quote:

---

In fact, for all we know, the "print media" could be some AiG publication, and "websites" could be some blog run by Ham or his colleagues. Or worse, the comments in quote could be completely made up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by marfknox

Dawkins has denounced religious schooling as "child abuse".

---

quote:

---

However, they do want it to be completely socially shunned, which in practice often leads to institutionalized discrimination, and even when it doesn't, it is often as painful and harmful as institutionalized discrimination. So it is sensible for religious people to be offended and frightened by Dawkins and Harris and to speak out against them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by marfknox

OK, I just read the whole article, and as much as I hate fundamentalist Christianity and homophobia, I don't see how this article puts words in Dawkin's mouth or even how it mischaracterizes the "New Atheists" (that term as far as I know originally comes from a recent issue of Wired Magazine, although I have also heard it on NPR commentary.) Atheism and proponents of evolution are more aggressive today than ever. Dawkins and Harris are most certainly attacking religious faith itself. Harris has described himself as evangelical. Dawkins has denounced religious schooling as "child abuse". You may not like the way they are presented in this article, and you may have a beef with certain phrasing, but it isn't exactly "nonesense".

I would argue that saying atheists want to take away religious "liberties" might be taking things too far, since the "New Atheists" don't want to make religion illegal or subject to institutional discrimination. However, they do want it to be completely socially shunned, which in practice often leads to institutionalized discrimination, and even when it doesn't, it is often as painful and harmful as institutionalized discrimination. So it is sensible for religious people to be offended and frightened by Dawkins and Harris and to speak out against them.

I sort of took issue with the word "God-hater", since atheists don't believe in God, but it is clear that Harris hates religion. The rape-religion analogy was true, here's a reference: http://www.thesunmagazine.org/369_Harris.pdf

Cune wrote:

quote:

---

In fact, for all we know, the "print media" could be some AiG publication, and "websites" could be some blog run by Ham or his colleagues. Or worse, the comments in quote could be completely made up.

---

There is a saying, which I now paraphrase: Never attribute to maliciousness what can be attributed to incompetence. The "New Atheists", with Dawkins and Harris as the most major figureheads, have been written about in the New York Times, The Washington Post, on NPR, and Wired Magazine, all of which are major media sources. And those are the only ones I happen to be aware of; I haven't exactly looked into it much. Dawkins was also featured on 2 episodes of South Park

Indeed, the worst part about this article is that most of the quotes aren't attributed to a specific source. But that isn't because they aren't true (I recognize most of them). It is because the author was lazy.

---

quote:

---

When atheists finally begin to gain some power, what then? Here is where Dawkins' analogy breaks down. Gay politics is strictly civil rights: Live and let live. But the atheist movement, by his lights, has no choice but to aggressively spread the good news. Evangelism is a moral imperative. Dawkins does not merely disagree with religious myths. He disagrees with tolerating them, with cooperating in their colonization of the brains of innocent tykes.

---