And then there’s the group of atheists (new and old) who just wish some of the very prominent new atheists (present company excluded) would get a clue about how geopolitics and imperialism actually affects issues like terrorism before they switch their megaphones on.

It’s the term used to refer to the Four Horsemen – Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris, and those who support their approach. Also in that group are people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Jerry Coyne, David Silverman, Bill Maher etc. i.e. speaking up for ourselves and against religion where we consider we should.

There is now a new group of regressive atheists who find any expressed negativity towards religion, especially Islam, to be offensive. They deride the New Atheists. I consider myself a New Atheist.

What the hell is new atheist? Sorry I must have missed something. It sounds like a term made up to give nits something to talk about.

I’m 70 years old and I have been an atheist the whole time and was raised in a family of atheists that goes back quite a ways. In fact religion, god, etc. was never and is never discussed much like we don’t discuss ice ants, wood fairies and snow weasels.

“But the problem of both American and foreign terrorism will not end until Islam itself undergoes a profound reform. Not just ISIS and other terrorist organizations, but Muslims as a whole, who, by and large, hold views incompatible with democracy, equality, and Enlightenment values.”

This is no truism. Coyne is claiming Islamic terrorism has no other causes, and he holds Muslims collectively responsible to boot. If it’s the only cause, it must be necessary.

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2016/06/16/how-do-we-stop-the-madness-harvard-professors-weigh-in-ineffectually/

Indeed Coel, Jerry Coyne considers Islam is fundamental in Islamic inspired violence (nearly a truism), but not ‘necessary’. I hiccuped at the same conflagration of ‘necessary’ and ‘fundamental’.
I’ve been reading Jerry Coyne’s WEIT for years now, but there is nothing to support the claim he considers it a ‘necessary’ driver.

Yes, the naivety (if that’s what it was) is quite astonishing, given his quite impeccable record of opposing US military violence and incompetence.

(Thanks for comments above, BTW.)

Heather, Cenk isn’t talking to NAs, he is talking to the wider American public at a time when a huge debate has developed over whether to close the doors to refugees and when leading Republican candidates for President are arguing for a religions test to keep out all Muslims. So I’m afraid the obvious must be stated. Stupid, ignorant children is what they are, yes. I’ve already said I agree with the criticism of Cenk regarding the NAs, but that doesn’t change the worth of what he’s saying here.

I started watching the Cenk piece, but couldn’t finish it. I was really annoyed at the way he was going on that all Muslims aren’t like DAESH, as if that’s what all New Atheists think. It was patronizing and he was speaking to us as if he felt like he was speaking to stupid, ignorant children in pointing this out.

I’m not totally opposed to him, but I like him a lot less now than I used to. Basically since he took the side against Sam Harris following the infamous Bill Maher show I’ve liked him less.

Yes, I remember him talking about Wolfowitz and thinking, WTF? It’s not his rationale for deposing Hussein that I have issue with, so much as his logic of marrying that to the mostly very different neocon agenda and tactics. That he never seems to have asked the question, what could possibly go wrong here?