Things atheists could do without...

You could probably devise quite a long list, but one thing would surely be anti-religious video games. A graduate of the University of Virginia has designed a game where the object is to prevent the spread of Christianity and Islam by travelling through history killing those religions' key prophets. As if that wasn't inflammatory enough, the ultimate aim of the game is to behead the prophet Muhammad.

Perhaps unsurprisingly the developer has chosen to keep his identity secret though, given the fact that publishers are fairly unlikely to be queuing up for the rights to his game, he's probably pretty low on al-Qaeda's hitlist right now.

Still, as the report from Virginia news channel WSLS10 shows, silly ideas like this give people a good excuse to have a go at atheism in general. The game's creator seems to think he's doing non-believers a huge favour – "Atheists have never really had anything to speak for them like this" – but with any luck few people will agree. If this game does actually exist, it sounds just as bad as the fundamentalist Christian title Left Behind: Eternal Forces (aim: convert or kill the infidels) and we think we'll give it a miss.

Archbishop admits Christianity is just a story

In a speech seemingly confirming what we've long suspected, that is, representatives of the Church of England probably don't really believe half the things they're supposed to, Rowan Williams this week stated that Christianity is just a story and admitted the religion is "vulnerable".

He was delivering a Holy Week lecture ominously named "Faith and Science" and while he took time to criticise Creationism ("slightly questionable science pretending to be theology") it sounds like he spent much of his time attacking the likes of Richard Dawkins, who he seems to have named "neo-Darwinists": "Science can be seduced into making exaggerated claims. Neo Darwinism of Dawkins' kind carries with it a rather subjective agenda ... It is as vulnerable as Christianity"

Still, at least he admitted his own position is pretty tenuous. And in the week when Christians recall a monumental event which may or may not have actually happened, but which shaped the following 2,000 years of human history, this seems somewhat appropriate. According to The Times, which unfortunately lacks a direct quote for this bit, Williams said that "Both Neo Darwinism and Christianity are telling stories ... Christianity acknowledges that fact, Neo Darwinism doesn't."

Well, just a couple of issues with that statement. The Times kindly explain that "Neo Darwinists argue that culture is subject to evolutionary forces which will eventually weed out religion", which presumably means Dawkins and his memes theory. Whether it's tenuous or not, I'm not sure advancing a theory is quite the same as telling a story. Saying someone rose from the dead, walked on water and turned some other water into wine is telling a story. But it's okay, because apparently Christians "acknowledge that fact". Try telling that to a lot of the Christians celebrating (is celebrate the right word?) Easter this coming weekend – like these sensible people, for example.

AC Grayling hits back at John Gray on Comment is Free

The attack on the "New Atheists" by John Gray in Saturday's Guardian has caused a fair bit of debate online, and New Humanist regular AC Grayling has responded to him on the paper's Comment is Free site.

Since Gray's article was actually just an extract from his book Black Mass (published last year, but due out soon in paperback), Grayling has responded in kind by directing Guardian readers to the damning review he wrote for this magazine last year.

Anyone interested in John Gray may wish to read Laurie Taylor's interview, also from New Humanist (where else?).

John Gray attacks the New Atheists

Yesterday we reported Chris Hedges' attack on the "New Atheists", and sticking with the same theme today's Guardian features philosopher John Gray providing a similar analysis of what he terms "secular fundamentalism".

It's Saturday and I'm about to go out, but I thought I'd quickly blog it to give people something to mull over for the weekend. More to follow on Monday...

Chris Hedges on the "fundamentalism" of the New Atheists

It's interesting to see that Chris Hedges' new book is an attack on the New Atheists. Perhaps best known as a foreign correspondent, early last year Hedges published American Fascists, which compared the Christian Right in America to the early European fascist movements. Around that time, he wrote an article for New Humanist on the opening of the Creation Museum in Kentucky.

Having attacked Christian fundamentalism, Hedges is now training his sights on what he perceives as "atheist fundamentalism" in his new book I Don't Believe In Atheists, which has just been published in America.

There's an intriguing interview with Hedges on Salon that I urge you all to read. He says he's only recently found the New Atheists on his "radar screen", but suggests that he finds them every bit as dangerous as the Christian right, putting his view that "Hitchens and Harris do for the neocon agenda in a secular way what the religious right does in a so-called religious way."

Hedges even expresses a fear that the religious right and New Atheism might one day join together in an attack on Islam: "What I worry about is that in a moment of collective humiliation and fear, these two strands come together and call for an assault on Muslims, both outside our gates and on the 6 million Muslims who live within our borders."

Much of this seems somewhat over the top, but it's certainly interesting that someone like Hedges would launch such an attack on the New Atheists. You only have to read the article he wrote for us last year to see that he would be in broad agreement with atheists on many issues – indeed, his views on the Christian Right should really mark him out as a potential ally for the New Atheists – but there's just something in the aggressive tone of Hitchens et al that's really troubled him.

Have a read of what Hedges has to say and let us know what you think. Is he right to accuse the New Atheists of fundamentalism, or is it outrageous and offence to compare them to the Christian Right?

Hear Dawkins take on Madeleine Bunting

The Guardian website has a podcast of a debate between Richard Dawkins and Catholic columnist Madeleine Bunting which is well worth listening to. Suffice to say our man comes out on top. We particularly enjoyed the bit where he asks Bunting if she believes in the Virgin birth – she says she's unsure and that this makes her an "agnostic Catholic". Yes, one of those.

Christian group hold "funeral" for Richard Dawkins

You may not have thought it possible, but here's a group capable of rivalling the wretched Westboro Baptist Church. The Ministry of Pilgrim Baptist Church (or King of Terrors Ministry) run the website Preaching Your Funeral ... Before You Die, which produces videos of mock funerals for figures they believe have betrayed their Lord's teachings. The website gives their mission statement as follows:

"Preaching your funeral before you die is a dramatization of what will happen when individiuals die rejecting Christ. We Live in a generation that has grown cold toward God, We feel it takes something radical to show mankind who die rejecting Jesus Christ, their fate! If you are currently rejecting Christ, and have not sought forgiveness of your sin from him, then sadly Hell is a reality for you if you were to die in this state."

The group have already produced a video marking the actual death of actor Heath Ledger, which rehashes the Westboro Baptist Church line about Brokeback Mountain, and this has been followed up by the Dawkins video, which features the group's "preacher" urging the God Delusion author to repent before burning an effigy of him in a field. This last scene is accompanied by screams that seem to have been lifted from a bad 80s horror movie. Have a look at the video below.

The group's website claims their next "funeral" will take place this Friday for the American comedian and gay activist Rosie O'Donnell, who in their words "has proven to be one of the most wicked human beings to ever walk the earth, with her open support and lifestyle of homosexuality."

Banned: MySpace deletes world's largest atheist group

Social networking site MySpace, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, has sparked controversy by deleting the world's largest online atheist group following complaints from people who find atheism "offensive".

"Atheist and Agnostic Group" boasted 35,000 members until it was deleted on 1 January for the third time in as many years. It was founded in 2004 by Bryan Pesta, an assistant professor at Cleveland University who established it as a social network "specifically for godless people."

The group was closed down for the first time two years ago after an organised campaign by Christians persuaded MySpace to delete it. It was eventually restored and MySpace promised to protect it. This time, despite a petition from 500 users and repeated emails to customer services, MySpace seems reluctant to reverse its actions.

Pesta is understandably furious, particularly given the treatment Christian groups have received in the past: “When the largest Christian group was hacked, MySpace’s Founder, Tom Anderson, personally restored the group, and promised to protect it from future deletions.”

Last April the atheist group won the Harvard Humanist Chaplaincy's Excellence in Humanist Communication Award and the chaplain, Greg Epstein, has expressed his displeasure at MySpace's actions: “It is an outrage if Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation and the world’s largest social networking site tolerate discrimination against atheists and agnostics – and if this situation goes unresolved I’ll have little choice but to believe they do.”

The decision has caused much debate on the Richard Dawkins website, where users have been discussing what action should be taken against MySpace. Suggestions include:

• Is there someone we can contact to complain?
• Should Professor Dawkins continue to support and promote these sites in the light of what has happened ??
• I'll be deleting my account at the end of the day when I get home.
• My account is now closed! My personal protest!
• But isn't Myspace just for ridiculous wankers anyway?
• Create multiple accounts and tag all of the as Atheist
• Fuck 'em I've no use for these social network sites anyway

Pulling all this together, we thought we'd run an opinion poll to see what people think should be done about this. Get your vote in at the top right of this page:

Also, check out Bill Thompson's web exclusive article "Facebook knows I'm an atheist", where he wonders what the consequences might be of letting social networking sites know about your unbelief.

Web Exclusive: Facebook knows I'm an atheist

In our latest web exclusive article, technology writer Bill Thompson reveals how millions of social networkers are identifying themselves as atheists on Facebook, and asks what the consequences of this might be.

There's been a lot written recently on whether Facebook users are risking their privacy by giving too much information away (see Tom Hodkinson's recent attack in the Guardian on the people behind the site), and Bill's article provides an atheist take on all this. Are the self-identified godless networkers leaving themselves open to snooping from both advertisers and the CIA, or are they doing their bit to help raise the profile of atheism?

Hitchens debates Intelligent Design at Stanford University

Rationalist heavyweight Christopher Hitchens took on prominent Intelligent Design proponent Jay Richards in a debate at Stanford University on Sunday. It was hardly a fair contest pitching the Hitch against Richards, whose links with the ridiculous Discovery Institute preclude him from being taken seriously by pretty much anyone, and if reports are anything to go by it seems the atheist champion didn't take long to floor the arguments in favour of ID.

Informed by chair Ben Stein, who narrates the upcoming ID "documentary" Expelled, that each speaker would have 14 minutes for opening remarks, Hitchens remarked "I can't imagine it'll take me 14 minutes to demolish intelligent design, as I refuse to call it."

Round one to the Hitch. And after Richards had reeled off the regular "scientific" arguments for design, our man decided to weigh in with a killer question:

Hitchens: “Do you believe Jesus Christ was born of a virgin? Do you believe he was resurrected from the dead?”

Richards: "Yes"

Hitchens: “I rest my case. This is an honest guy, who has just made it very clear [that] science has nothing to do with his world view.”

Nice. Let's hope a video of this appears on YouTube before long – I can assure you we'll post it on here when it does.

AC Grayling blasts back at Theodore Dalrymple's attack on the New Atheists

In the latest addition to our web-exclusive articles, regular New Humanist contributor AC Grayling has penned a response to Theodore Dalrymple's attack on the New Atheists from the autumn edition of the City Journal.

In his article Dalrymple (the pen name of the retired prison doctor and psychiatrist Anthony Daniels) accuses the New Atheists – among whom he includes Grayling – of failing to say anything new, and of underestimating the role of religion in culture and morality.

In his response, Grayling refutes Dalrymple's criticisms, arguing that "where we are now in historical terms owes far more to the struggle against religion than to the very nice [religious] music, buildings and paintings which jointly seem to exhaust Mr Dalrymple's idea of civilisation."

As always, please feel free to leave your comments on this post.

The Atheism Tapes: full interviews from Jonathan Miller's A Rough History of Disbelief

The extended interviews from Rationalist Association president Jonathan Miller's BBC4 series Atheism: A Rough History of Disbelief are available on YouTube, featuring the likes of Richard Dawkins, Arthur Miller, Daniel Dennett and Colin McGinn.

Simply search for "Atheism Tapes" (or follow the link above) to access the full list. To get you started, here's the first part of the interview with Dawkins:

The New Humanist cartoon controversy

Richard Norman's cover story on the New Atheists from the new issue of New Humanist has attracted a great deal of attention online. The atheist biologist PZ Myers linked to it on his lively Pharyngula blog alongside his own comprehensive response, and the article was republished on RichardDawkins.net. Both postings have led to lively discussions from readers, many of which tie in to the debate over atheism and humanism triggered by Sam Harris's recent speech to Atheist Alliance International conference.

An interesting, and to us surprising, side issue has arisen in those discussions over Martin Rowson's illustration for Norman's article.

On Pharyngula and in two places on Richard Dawkins' site (here and here), some have accused the cartoon of bein offensive, and not just generally offensive to Dawkins and Hitchens – "This cartoon is aggressive and mean. I reserve fat jokes for people I truly despise." (Dr Benway, richarddawkins.net) – several readers have interpreted the depiction of Dawkins as homophobic. One poster kindly listed the reasons why he is offended:

"It is clearly trying to illustrate a link between the 'out' campaign for atheists and the campaign for gay rights (a valid link), by making Dawkins look like a figure of fun - a grinning limp-wristed effeminate. It is offensive on so many levels. It says 'look - Dawkins is funny because he is like a gay man'. In other words, gayness is something to laugh at. It is not offensive because it attacks Dawkins and Hitchens - that kind of cartooning has a long and distinguished history. It is offensive because of the way it does it." (Steve99, richarddawkins.net)

Ok, though he could of course have noted that the link to the campaign for gay rights is not something we invented, but an inevitable result of calling a campaign "Out". Richard Dawkins himself recognises this in this article.

Encouragingly, several participants in the discussion have leapt to the cartoon's defence, most notably one "Cartomancer". In one post he identifies himself as gay, and here's a selection of what he had to say:

"I thought the cartoon wasn't all that bad really. Grossly and exaggeratedly parodic perhaps, but then again that's what cartoons, and indeed satire in general, are for. I do not believe that Dawkins is being presented as a gay stereotype, rather his characteristic exuberance and sense of wonder are being exaggerated ... I see it as mildly affectionate even - portraying him as a daft, batty old uncle figure, a harmless, sandal-wearing innocent enthralled by the wonders of nature in a very child-like fashion. I would not see that as a terrific disservice to the man. It certainly makes a change from the shrill, ranting demagogue of popular myth." (Cartomancer, richarddawkins.net)

What do you think? Is the cartoon offensive, or even homophobic? Let us know by leaving your comments on this post and voting in our poll at the top right of this page.

The "New Atheists" on podcast

This month's podcast from Institute of Humanist Studies' Humanist Network News features the "New Atheist" gang talking about organised freethought in the wake of Sam Harris's comments on the word "atheist" at the Atheist Alliance International conference. There's interviews with Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett.

Sam Harris responds to critics

Sam Harris has responded to critics of the speech he delivered to last week's Atheist Alliance, clarifying his assertion that non-believers should stop describing themselves as "atheists". Writing on his website, Harris restates his point that "the use of a label invites a variety of misunderstandings that are harmful to our cause" and may put off non-believers who "have no interest whatsoever in joining a cult of such critics".

Expanding on his use of the word "cult", Harris makes an interesting point about the nature of the "New Atheism": "There is something cult-like about the culture of atheism. In fact, much of the criticism I have received of my speech is so utterly lacking in content that I can only interpret it as a product of offended atheist piety".

It's a stark warning, unlikely to endear Harris further to his critics. But I think he's right. When we ran our recent poll asking whether Dawkins and Hitchens are good for humanism, some of the comments we received displayed a "thou shalt not criticise Dawkins" mentality. One of the favourite points used by critics of the "New Atheism" is that it is dogmatic, and at times it seems like some atheists are playing into their hands.

Don't forget to vote in our latest poll on whether Harris is right - see the top right of this page.

New Humanist poll: Is Sam Harris right to reject labels like "Atheist" and "Humanist"?

Following Sam Harris's speech to last week's Atheist Alliance International Conference in Virginia, our new opinion poll asks whether he was right to suggest that non-believers should discard the word "atheist", along with other labels such as "humanist", "secular humanist", "rationalist", "naturalist", "sceptic" and so on.

Harris argued that there is no need for the godless to define themselves by something they don't believe in, saying: "atheist is a term we do not need, in the same way that we don't need a word for someone who rejects astrology". He even goes so far as to say that using the term "atheist" could be counter-productive, running the risk of "squander[ing] the trust of people who would otherwise agree with us on specific issues." Instead of forming organised groups under these labels, Harris suggests non-believers "should not call ourselves anything. . . We should go under the radar - for the rest of our lives. And while there, we should be decent, responsible people who destroy bad ideas wherever we find them."

This stands in stark contrast to the approach taken by Richard Dawkins, particularly his US-based "Out Campaign", which encourages non-believers to "come out" and express their lack of faith by wearing t-shirts emblazoned with a giant letter "A" for "Atheist".

Let us know what you think by voting in the poll in the top right corner of this page? Do you agree with Harris in his rejection of these labels, or is it essential that atheists unite under a common label in order to take on the might of organised religion?

Once you've voted, please feel free to expand on your views by commenting on this post. If you're new to our site and blog, stay and have a browse around the main New Humanist site. There's articles from the past 8 years, and you can also sign up for a FREE trial copy.

New Humanist editor: How should we brand non-belief?

Our editor Caspar Melville posted on the Guardian's "Comment is Free" site late last week with a piece on Sam Harris's suggestion that atheists should ditch the term "atheist", along with the endless list of other labels the godless tend to employ - "humanist", "secular humanists", "rationalists", "brights" and so on.

Harris's words stand in stark contrast to Richard Dawkins' US-based "Out Campaign", aimed at encouraging atheists to "come out" and admit their non-belief, wearing T-shirts emblazoned with a big red "A" for Atheist. Dawkins was in the audience for Harris's speech to the Atheists Alliance International Conference, and afterwards said he was still thinking about his reaction to it. On Comment is Free our editor jokingly suggests he may be considering rebranding his "Out Campaign", and asks what "A" stands for if it no longer stands for "Atheist"? Needless to say Comment is Free's readers have weighed in with their suggestions. Take a look, it's all good fun.

Our survey says...

In lieu of any real poll in the near future, the British electorate can take great comfort in the fact that our survey on whether Dawkins and Hitchens are good for humanism is now closed and the results are in.

The Returning Officer (i.e. Blogger via myself) is pleased to announce that from a staggeringly high turnout of 5,350 people, the responses to the question "Are Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens a good thing for humanism?" came in as follows:

Yes, it's time to get serious in our rejection of religion – 4,186 (78%)

Yes, they enliven the debate – 943 (17%)

No, their aggressive tone is unhelpful – 186 (3%)

No, they're a menace to humanism – 35 (0%)

So what does it all mean? No doubt pollsters will be debating this result for months on end, but in the meantime I'll offer one obvious observation – Dawkins and the Hitch have whipped up a real following, many of whom will passionately jump at the opportunity to defend them. Some will even take offence at any attempt to question their writings – just take a look at the many comments we received about this poll. What do readers think? Leave us your comments on this post.

Watch out for our next poll, launching later today...

"We should not call ourselves athiests" - Sam Harris

... the plot thickens. Just as Dawkins' launches his campaign to reclaim atheism, Sam Harris, another of the so-called New Atheists, appalls the Atheist Alliance International Conference audience with the "seditious proposal" that labels like atheist, secularist, humanist and sceptic are counter-productive and should be scrapped: "We should not call ourselves anything. We should go under the radar - for the rest of our lives. And while there we should be decent, responsible people who destroy bad ideas wherever we find them." Perhaps he's going to start an in" campaign? Also in the audience that night was Dawkins himself who reportedly said "I think he was making a very interesting point, and I'm still thinking about my reaction to it."

This comes courtesy of our friends at Humanist Network News. read Duncan Crary's report, and listen out for their next podcast which will features interviews with Harris, Hitch, Dennett and Dawkins. The Washington Post have published and edited extract of Harris' talk, which has received 333 comments so far. We love a good fight we... um... humans.

What does 'A' stand for...?

Well, what do we think of Richard Dawkins' Out campaign, encouraging atheists to be out, loud and proud about what they don't believe in (Guardian write-up here)? Judging by the response to the poll on the right I guess a lot of you agree it's a good idea. I'm not so sure, being a committed Marxist, Grouch that is, I have an aversion to joining clubs of any kind, and an even stronger one to T-Shirts with slogans. I'll keep you appraised of the discussion about it, first up Norman Geras who detects a certain... ahem... evangelism in the whole thing. Let us know what you think in the comment section.