From 1986: The New Atheism and the Erosion of Freedom

Hey, this sounds really, really familiar:

The New Atheism and the Erosion of Freedom

Militancy is the difference between what was historically known as “atheism” and the modern movement of “antitheism.” The atheists of the old school took a rather relaxed, passive attitude toward God and the Bible. They felt that if people were foolish enough to believe in religion, that was their problem. These atheists did not feel the need to read through the Bible, desperately seeking contradictions or errors. They did not sit up night after night feverishly trying to formulate attacks against religion. They simply ignored religion.
...

Anyone who reads its literature or debates its leaders finds that modern Anti-theism is fueled by such ignoble motives as bitterness, rage, and hatred. Its spokesmen manifest an angry spirit which rages first against God and then (because they cannot confront God directly) against those who dare believe in Him.

This irrational rage motivates some of them to read the Bible, frantically searching for ways to attack it. Obsessed with the need to debunk the Bible, they cannot rest until they have rooted out all faith in the Bible as God’s Word. Modern anti-theists are on a crusade against the Bible as well as God.
...

This movement should not be viewed as a sophomoric, philosophical discussion of the proofs for the existence of God. Its adherents have a political agenda that calls for the suppression of all religious freedom. Thus this is not a philosophic game which is to be played by philosophers in their ivory towers. The ultimate issues deal with the future of religious liberty.



http://faithdefenders.com/the-new-atheism

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=4031

We're a bunch of Benjamin Buttons, we get newer and newer every year. Or maybe we're just Born Again every time they notice us.

Th meme did seem to be catching on for a while recently, even here on DU. It may have faded again. I hope so.

it'll probably be because calling us "fundamental atheists" is so much more satisfying :)

I prefer to think of myself of an "evangelical atheist". I don't mind spreading the good news.

(Exactly what are the fundamentals--"There isn't a god and religion is a false social construct and...."? It's not like we have a big book with a bunch of non-rules and non-beliefs in it. I wonder why faith-having folk use that term for us, other than its sounding derisive and kind of "I'm rubber and you're glue....")

But I'll admit that I do it in R&T mostly to be annoying. I'm also waiting for a believer to say: "Look, there's one! He says so himself! See, they DO exist!"

The more I think about it, though, the more I think the name fits.

I'm an evidence-based non-believer. That means I'll be happy to reconsider my atheism if...oh, I don't know, maybe if a flaming hand suddenly materialized in this room and wrote across the wall: "I'm god, and I approve this message." .

But I would still want any such miracle investigated by James Randi and Joe Nickell. :-)

That phrase "New Atheism" still grates on my ears. There is absolutely nothing new about atheism.

According to that unimpeachable source, Stuff I Read Somewhere, even the ancient Greeks became alarmed about the spread of a "New Atheism."

The city-state of Athens passed a law banning "impiety." And one of its first victims was Socrates.

I think it's a black mark on humanity that, from that day to this, believers have generally cut off the debate by aligning themselves with the State to shut up non-believers.

Specifically, what doctrine do you follow that will never change in the face of evidence? You can't be a fundamentalist without one.

What's to be fundamentalist about? We're either all fundamentalists or we're all not, which makes it a useless term.

The "science is dogmatic" and "atheists are fundamentalists" tripe is recycled garbage.

they can blow that out their ass....Atheism has been around longer then belief, silly dogmas and invisible magic men.