A story has done its job if we can say, "Yes, that captures what living with my father feels like," or "Yes, that’s what being cut from the football team felt like." Structure There are a variety of ways to structure your narrative story....
It is worth noting that the authors quoted above are not merely drawing attention to the ridicule and mockery in the writings of the New Atheists, but to their lack of understanding of the very subject they are criticising and their poor scholarship in general. Perhaps worst of all is the charge that their approach is just like the extreme forms of religion of which they are so critical.
There are no set practices of atheism, or a set list of beliefs.
ii) John F. Haught, God and the New Atheism: a critical response to Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008), xiii.
New Atheists, The | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Eagleton later describes Dawkins as “theologically illiterate”. Philosopher professor Michael Ruse from Florida State University, an atheist, condemns the New Atheists in the strongest of terms:
blame hitchens dawkins & harris essays of a new atheist
One response made by Dawkins is that you do not need to study up on leprechology in order to disbelieve in leprechauns. A similar response, which has gained a lot of popularity in New Atheist circles, is due to P. Z. Myers, a professor of biology at the University of Minnesota and author of the popular atheist blog Pharyngula. It is known as the Courtier’s Reply and is intended to follow on at the end of the fable of the Emperor’s New Clothes. Theology is the Emperor, Dawkins the little boy and theologians the courtiers. It is quoted in part below:
Why would someone be an atheist
He makes a great point when he states, “…I make no apology for doing so, as it is useful for us to remind ourselves of the reasons for and virtues of our beliefs (50).” Whether a theist or an atheist we should know what we believe and why we believe what we believe....
Why do people fear and dislike atheism
..the rhetoric employed by the new atheists is often as hostile and shrill as those of the most vehement religionists … the recent criticism of religion is at times too rabid and disabling of patient and constructive debate.”
Simply stated, atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods
This is wonderful as a piece of rhetoric, but will it really do as a response? Can it be used to excuse the New Atheists’ lack of knowledge of theology and the inadequate engagement with arguments for the existence of God? In an article which criticises Dawkins’ argument that God almost certainly does not exist, but defends an atheistic position, philosopher Erik Wielenberg states why he is not impressed with the Courtier’s Reply. He writes: