The agressive "new" atheism

The "heavyweights" of the (so-called) "new" atheist movement (??) are commonly understood and accepted to be Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris -- aka "The Four Horsemen". This is of course yet another internet "meme". I do not denigrate these fine gentlemen for their excellent schorlarship, willingness to debate and prolific public appearences all focused on speaking out for the many of us who do not have the stature or ability, but are yet -- to varying degrees of course -- affected by societa and political norms, mores and laws grounded in some form of organised religiousity.

One individual who is also well deserving of more "fame" -- he is however a favourite on YouTube -- is Pat Condell. I find his scholarship brilliant, his communicative power (through YouTube video) engaging... and he bloody well makes damn good sense. Pat is clearly worried about what is happening in his native Great Britain, and in Europe.

Even The Guardian is concerned and weighed into the debate: Where are all these militant atheists ruining Britain?

Out here in Australia, the patently obvious secular society -- based on good old fashioned Aussie mistrust of authority -- whatever and whoever they claim to be -- we are relitively "safe" from any of these medieval desert monotheistic superstitions -- although fundamentalist groups occasionally surface and try one on us. However that is not to suggest we in Australia be complacent, and freedom is only possible by keeping vigilant.

Back to Pat Condell: there is an ongoing argument in secular, agnostic and atheist "movements' everywhere about whether "militant" or "agressive" atheism is the way to go, or if it comes on too strongly and annoys would-be allies -- like the modertely reigious and deists -- and in fact turns these would-be allies against secularism.

Frankly, it depends. The fact is freedom of speech is freedom of speech. I don't listen to anything which doesn't make sense to me and thus annoys me. Even if what is said is true, but I am annoyed for other reasons, I tune out or turn it off, or leave. I don't try and silence the people saying it. Freedom of speech, and freedom of association go hand in hand -- they both stem from sovereign individuality -- the right to be and do as you choose as long as you allow others to do the same.

In that respect, I fully support the efforts o individuals like the Four Horsemen, Pat Condell, the fine folks who produce podcasts like Irreligiousity, The Amateur Scientist, Point Of Inquiry, The Good Atheist, The Shallow Gene Pool, Dave Hitt...among others who are similarly committed in relentlessly attacking these bad medieval ideas -- which; agreeing with Hitchens; POISONS EVERYTHING -- by introducing unnecessary cognitive errors in already imperfect human conciousness.

Is agressive atheism necessary? Of course. ANY FORM of directed individual action toward achieving a specific goal/value/outcome is "necessary". No one is forced to listen to it -- even if it mkes them mad. Let it rip, Pat: