Wikipedians, do something about this

The wikipedia article on "New Atheism" is nothing short of a travesty. It mentions nothing of the fact that the people associated with this "New Atheism" clearly state that there is nothing "new" about it, and the only sources it cites are Andrew Brown, who has become something of a mewling whiner about it, and Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary! It even talks about "Doctrines", as if we have any!

It does list books by Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens…but doesn't bother to say word one about what's actually in them.

This is an article that actually belongs on Conservapædia—it is that bad.


Here's the old version of the page that I was criticizing. If you go to the "New Atheist" page now, it redirects to the entry on atheism in general. Good, fast work!

More like this

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.' 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
I keep hearing people telling me this, but at the same time I keep seeing more and more out atheists, and atheism becoming more and more popular.
Every so often we start a discussion somewhere about who is and who isn't an atheist. PZ Mackers has the poster shown below up on his blog:
Ed Brayton has an interesting post on one of my favorite subjects. It is based on remarks made by two of Ed's commenters. Let's have a look. Commenter Sastra begins with the following: