Aw Ye Motherfucker

.

.

Tuesday 31 December 2013

My University Year In Review


 Fuck New Years

This year i finally went back to university. The first thing that struck me about USYD was how very political its students were. I remember walking in on the first day and seeing on either side of the massive walkway a pro palestine table and a pro israel table. I stopped to watch this marvel as both sides were glaring at each other with the intent to kill and i was hoping for some fighting but nothing happened. A few weeks into my course i was approached by a protestor who asked me OI ARE YOU LEFT OR RIGHT. Taken aback i said... what? im right handed. NO MAN I MEAN POLITICALLY. I replied ooooh .. well can you explain it to me? After about 15 minutes of me pretending to give a fuck i finally replied i guess i lean left then. Suddenly all the tension disappeared from my questioners face as he quickly gave me a hi five and insisted that i join and fight for the left liberal cause. For good measure i signed the gay marriage signature thing because why the fuck not and before i left he asked one last question. OI ARE YOU COMING TO THE PROTEST TONIGHT? protest? what protest? OH WE'RE PUSHING TO HAVE JOHN HOWARD PROSECUTED FOR WAR CRIMES..... oh nah mate im sorry i have a lecture (i didnt i just wanted to go back to my bed / didnt give a fuck)

In the first semester i took

1. Music
2. Japanese
3. Sociology
4. Ancient History

1) Music felt extremely challenging desipte me achieving 80 (which for me is pretty fucking extraordinary) I didnt realise until the last few weeks that there was no final exam. I thought up of all these really twisted tunes to help remeber key signatures and sharps and flats and their orders but ive since forgetten them all. The first listening / aural exam felt like a breeze but the second one was so hard that i was convinced that my score for this aural exam would surely result in a fail. It hit me time and time again how lacking in creativity i was to witness all the other students either being naturals themselves or grasping the concepts really easily. I myself struggled as i saw music as strangely mathematical and rigid in its foundations obviously i just needed more studying but hear me out (dont forget how lazy i am). The only reason why i picked up music was because i wanted to learn how to sing. Talking to the coordinators they told me the best they could offer was chamber/ choir classes at the conservatorium of music. They suggested that i take music 1 and 2, joing several musically oriented societies and write a letter to the conservatorium asking to be considered as a transfer student after a year. I joined some musical choirs but felt extremely out of place due to it being full of the types of students who seemed to party from dawn till dusk and do minimal work and just enough to pass and were already in quite tight knit groups of their own. Plus they happened at around 8pm every night which was too late for me. In the end i decided if in future i wanted to learn singing id do it in my spare time if i had enough money and time. Still it was interesting composing eight bars (after all the lecturere said just keep it simple stupid). 80 wasnt too bad i guess. Thus i didnt continue it in semester two.

2) Living in a chinese household has really thrown me off from learning chinese at this point. Since high school i have watched quite a bit of foriegn films / anmations. mostly from japan. Aside from learning to understand these things i find japanese to be a slightly more ejoyable language to hear compared to mandarin which probably due to years of household conditioning just sounds like angry arguing to me. Do i like Japanese people / culture?. Having been to Japan before but not for very long i cant really say anything. No doubt there are good aspects of their culture. I very much enjoy some music like Gackt or the composer Joe Hisashi. I have seen their capactiy for good in the coming of together of community help during the tsunami a few years ago, no bullshit christian praying. Oh thats right Japan once banned Christianity. This little tidbit interested me greatly. Taking Japanese though has revealed that they banned it because how can you serve the emperor if you serve god. So there was no great hidden atheistic or secularist truth. It was merely a political decision. When i went to Japan i was impressed by the architecture and beauty of the landscape (One thing ill never forget is sitting on the bullet train . I liked a few people i met but in the end detested their superficiality and rampant consumerism. Also being a twisted person who browses the web, one finds out alot of disturbing shit about Japan such as the extremity of their pornography and the recent revelations that due to the commercialization of almost every aspect of the human relationship (e.g. ranging from holding hands with a maid in a specialized cafe to flat out extreme sexual encounters usually run by the mafia/yakuza). Fucking weird eh. Still i find that i enjoy the thriller / pscyhological animes / various animated films that are produced as well as appreciating the intricacies of their language and hope that one day i can perhaps pick up a japanese novel and understand its contents.

3. I am currently studying arts/social work, a strange combination since arts really means (take whatever units you want but still remember to pick a major) and social work because some days i care about the world and people (animals more mostly) but some days i really fucking hate humans so this will be an interesting career for me i hope since ill be dealing with people all day every day thus in my regular future day dreaming i thought if im going to be dealing with people on a regular basis id rather come home to a house with just pets and minimal human contact. But im getting wayy ahead of myself. This unit touched on gender, sexuality, ethnicity, class, multiculturalism and indigeneity. What have i to say? As long as liberals dont go too ape shit with their tolerance for cultural bullshit i dont really have much to say about these things. Although it was interesting sitting in tutorials and seeing people argue over mundane shit. I found my heart racing every time i spoke up (though that might just be me being a fat fuck and having high blood pressure) for example, one guy on the subject of aboriginals spoke up and mentioned that the kiwis unlike the aboriginals in australia, stood their ground and fought back with whatever means they had and that is why nowadays they are not in the same dire social situation as most aboriginies in australia. i nodded in agreement but not before the entire class flew into a massive collage of liberal muh feelings outburst of my god you racist pig scum etc.. I once contributed to the class conversation on gun violence by quoting the work of one of my musical heroes Marilyn Manson much to the dislike of many of the uptight scumbags in the class but the same guy gave me an approving nod and a thumbs up and that was good enough for me.

4. In high school i wanted to study ancient history (but was forced by my parents to learn engineering and physics instead of biology and ancient history, although i did enjoy learning about physics in the end) but over time i realised that id rather just occasionally read in my own spare time much like music/singing. I learned all sorts of things about ancient greece, was forced the read the odyssey which turned out to be one of the most brilliant works ive ever read and engaged me to the point of reading it in bed and non stop between classes i think i shall read the illad now. Anyway we learned about festivities, the lecturer made the brialliant comparison between Dionysus and Jesus and the primitive idea of sacrifice (e.g. dionysus god of wine, came down as a bull to be sacrificed and eaten among the people). Reading myths and tales and just understanding the context of everyday life in ancient greece right up to alexander the great was interesting but the lecturer sometimes just bored me to fucking death which his approach to powerpoints. I also felt very out of place because almost everyone else had studied ancient history in high school. I had to do a presentation on Thucydidies (a historian who sought to use an understanding of human nature to explain things like plagues, massacres and wars) whose 'Melian  Dialogue' turned out to be a most riveting exposition which  told of an imaginary dialogue between Athens as it demands the tiny island of Melos to either join tis empire or be taken forcefully.It dealt with the ideas of the corruption of too much power and while the representatives of Melos saw this as a bullying tactic athens merely saw it as the law of the jungle. The one thing that reallllly fucking pissed me off about the exam was that the lecturer laid it out as the following. 60% of the exam was to come from 2 essays and the remaining 40% to come from 25 short possibly one word answer questions. He specified that we should prepare to write about the Odyssey and the topic which we presented in tutorial. In the end theres was none for my topic so i had to bullshit 2 fucking essays on the odyssey. Its a miracle that i even got a credit. The teaching style of this unit, despite its interesting content was what made me shy away from taking further units like ancient rome.



In the second semester i took

1. Japanese 2
2. Writing 1001
3. Atheism, Fundamentalism and New Religions
4. Sociology 2

1. Not much else just more work and a really cool teacher bro who let me barge in on his lunches to ask his questions (which ironically since i havent studied i dont remember shit). After a while he would start offering food demanding that i take a piece of orange or else he would tutor me. The most interesting thing that happened during this unit was being in a group with a korean dude who had recently acquired a prositute for a girlfriend and a portugese guy who apparently had a fight with the vice chancellor of the uni. Basically these two were invovled in things i had only ever read about in the papers on the internet or from tv showsand movie movies. The portugese fellow told me about taxi scams where they somehow rig the credit card readers in taxis to remember all your details but then they wait at least 3 months before they clean your accunt out so you wont remember where you might have used your card last (not too sketchy on details but it soudned something like this). The korean guy during our practice for the japanese speaking test asked loudly would you rather your cocaine be packaged from korea or india, as they both discussed where they were going to meetup to cook up the next batch during the holidays. Well at least in arts you get to meet a wider spectrum of characters. I guess i should start practicising my japanese or else i will forget everything i learned and that would really be a waste of money. I currently own the government at least 5 or 6 k :(

2.Not much happened here, mostly bludged and just fucked around till the last assessment which was an essay that i wrote on New Atheism it was SUPPOSED to be an objective criticism of atheistic work but being biased as an atheist myself i tried to be as critical as possible but couldnt resist showing off stats and rhetorical devices that in my own opinion highlighted why atheists are right are  theistic people are plain fucking stupid with regards to matters of spirituality.

3. At first it was interesting. The lecturer who i suspect is an agnostic kept issues fairly evenly spread and i was most amused by his constant walking around sometimes looking like he was about to walk right into the wall. However soon we hit fundamentalisms and their cult like behaviours, fear of modernity and a desire for the end of the world/ return to traditional values (or was i like to think of it, a return to theocracy so they can begin enslaving everyone again for their fucking stupid ideas, think the vatican in medieval times, bring on the tortures you medieval faggots). Anyway it soon started diverting into shit that was either boring to me or just downright retarded like people believing the realm of the lord of the rings and its characters were real, people who believed they were fucking vampires or fairies or other weird mythical bullshit or psychics and bullshit artists like Deeprak Chopra making money off gullible idiots looking for a quick and easy guide sprituality by choosing a variety of spiritual beliefs and mystical customs and forging their own religious / mystical perspective. (e.g. mix some taoism with quantum blah blah and some other fairy shit) Because atheism has become a major part of my identity i the last couple years, i naturally just bludged the rest of term until i had to write the essay on 'What is New about the New Atheism".

4. This term in sociology things became slightly more interesting covering topics such as deviance, family, religion and spirituality and contemporary media with issues like religion and wikileaks and government corruption and war being tasty topics for classmates to bicker on about as i sat there listening with intent. There was one dude who kept running off his mouth about how if you didnt realise the jews were behind most of the conflicts in our world then you were blind as batshit (i took every fibre of my being not to burst out laughing in the silent classroom at this fellow /pol/lack). I was extremely glad that the sociology lecturer was kind enough to let us all take 90 multiple choice questions exams as our final. However next year ill have to take very essay heavy units on mundane yet necessary ( for my degree ) units such as introduction to aboriginality, social research and inquiry methods and australian social policy. I am absolutely NOT looking forward to this year.

Saturday 16 November 2013

A very poorly researched and written university essay

What is New about the New Atheism


Vincent Molina



‘The New Atheists will not let us off the hook simply because we are not doctrinaire believers; they condemn not just belief in God but respect for belief in God. Religion is not only wrong; it’s evil. Now that the battle has been joined there is no excuse for shirking’[1]. ‘New Atheism’ identifies secular thinkers who argue that religious faith is potentially dangerous and destructive because it encourages anti scientific thinking. Through understanding the capabilities of global multimedia as a tool spreading atheism and the arguments employed by the New Atheism, it will become clear that overall what is new about new atheism is its heavy promotion of rationality and scientific reasoning and the means of mobilization and counter mobilization both offline and online due to its relationship with the virtual realm of the internet.

In reality, outspoken atheism is nothing new. But the publicity surrounding ‘New Atheism’ clouds the scholarship that came before them. For example Sam Harris in The End of Faith says

‘Either God can do nothing to stop catastrophes like this, or he doesn’t care to, or he doesn’t exist. God is impotent, evil or imaginary.[2]

Epicurus is generally credited as the first person to have originally formulated the problem of evil[3].  Similarly Christopher Hitchens in God is not Great writes ‘George Orwell wrote in 1946 … a totalitarian state is in effect a theocracy[4], citing Orwell as he explains why a theistic heaven is much like the totalitarian regime of Big Brother. 

Hitchens discusses the work of past intellectuals such Thomas Paine, Spinoza, Charles Darwin and Albert Einstein among others, showing that these men were to be found all over the spectrum from agnostics to pantheists, reinforcing the fact there already exists works of a secular nature from past authors and thinkers.

A 2009 study on the unification of secularists found that by the 1980s, secularists of all walks of life had significantly decreased their focus on fighting for church-state separation and have gradually stressed the need for logical debate and argument as a means of propagating atheism[5]. An example of this would be Madelyn Murray O’Hair. If militant secularism and public activism against the evils of religion are part of the New Atheism, then she was an early candidate with her aggressive push to alter legislation.

She won a several court cases such as Murray v. Curlett, which, combined with Abington v. Schempp ended organised prayers in public school.[6] Before her murder in 1995[7], Madelyn Murray O’ Hair had founded the organisation American Atheists which ran a publication by the same name, while another organisation, the Council on Secular Humanism also ran its own publication called the ‘Free Inquiry’. Between January 2006 and March 2008, around when New Atheism was at its peak in book sales and media attention[8], both publications ran various articles ranging from approval to disdain.

Both the Free Inquiry[9] and American Atheists[10] are atheistic organisations that have since moved from simple print publications to the platform of the Internet. Thus it is important to understand how global electronic media challenges public and private issues by giving personal and sensitive topics such as religion a public platform. Cimino & Smith (2011) observes that atheist activism is actually a mixture of participants and groups that could identify as secularists, atheists agnostics, and humanists. There are smaller identity groupings within a larger general (and increasingly global) “secularist” collective.[11]

“Atheism is not itself an ideology; there is no such thing as an atheist mindset”. [12]

While the notion of an atheist mindset is debatable, the quote does make the point that secularism is a highly individualised movement with multiple minor factions involving people with diverse and sometimes incompatible political and philosophical stances.
Indeed even Richard Dawkins has compared organising atheists to ‘herding cats because they tend to think independently and will not conform to authority.’[13] To continue the quote, ‘But a good first step would be to build up a critical mass of those willing to “come out”.’ The old website of the Richard Dawkins Foundation had a convert’s corner[14] where people could leave messages and anecdotes about their new found atheism. Cinimo and Smith (2007) explain that the stigma that once surrounded the idea of coming out is weakening

‘Since the emergence of new atheism, as there has been a growth of organisations and activism among secularists attempting to make a place for themselves in American Society’[15]

While the books of the ‘Four Horsemen’ seem to reflect the initial bulk of New Atheism, thanks to the global capabilities of online media, there are now numerous websites, blogs, online forums and various other individuals who can be identified participants of New Atheism. Cimino and Smith (2012) in their investigation of cyber secularist culture, performed a search on Google with the terms “atheism,” “atheist,” “new atheism,” and “secular humanism” among others.[16] This led to a plethora of various websites such as richarddawkins.net, the blog of P.Z. Myers, an evolutionary biologist and as such considered Dawkins ‘partner in crime’[17] as well as many popular Youtube channel video atheists such as Thunderf00t and The Amazing Atheist.

Cimino & Smith (2011) recognise the importance of blogs and Youtube videos in mobilizing and counter mobilizing within secular activism and culture online. They quote the owners of Atheist Revolutions ‘vjack’ and ‘Austin Cline (who writes about atheism on about.com) with Cline quoting vjack,

“The sad fact is, atheists were not getting positive press before the “New Atheists” … being less assertive and submissive is no way to promote change” [18]

Once again because atheism is merely a default stance, the individuals who put up videos of an atheistic nature cannot be said to be directly collaborating under the banner of New Atheism, rather they are indirectly related videos of individuals who, thanks to the cultural explosion set alight by New Atheism, post videos discussing debating issues that are reflect their social standings and background. Youtube with its slogan of “Broadcast Yourself” has created a network within which atheists can broadcast their views and opinions. Thunderf00t’s popular video series “Why People Laugh at Creationists’[19] for example showcases numerous clips of creationists and religious conservatives who support intelligent design accompanied by voiceover criticism by Thunderf00t himself. The Atheist Experience[20] is a live cable access TV show in Austin Texas which regularly uploads segments from its live show to Youtube for viewers to see along with its own website and show archive.

Echoing the work of the late Madelyn Murray O’Hair legal endeavours, Youtubers such as the former have taken advantage of the fair use clause in U.S.copyright law which allows users to legally use segments of others videos in their own. In this way Youtubers of a secular nature can take material from pro creationist channels such as VenomFangX[21] and HowTheWorldWorks[22] to debate, debunk and critique.

When charges were filed against secularist channels such as the former, an alliance of secularist users, including Thunderf00t, was formed, setting up a channel called DMCAabuse (Digital Millenium Copyright Act). They drafted a statement that seems to reflect the values of New Atheism.

“We all share an interest in science and we have respect for the advancements and benefits that science has brought us. The Internet is one example of this. …. In order for people to fully benefit from the Internet, freedom of speech, freedom of expression and a lack of censorship are essential.”[23]

The landscape of contemporary electronic media allows the creation of virtual personas on websites such as Youtube with little or no consequence should an individual choose to create an aggressive standpoint to certain issues.[24]  Part of the appeal of the Internet for secularists as a medium rather than regular mainstream press is that it encourages mobilisation on a personal level for secular activism[25]. But what of the offline world?

Books and debates aside, the New Atheism advocates a shared vision of rationality and science that has given secularists of all shades a sense of community. The Global Atheist Convention[26] has been held in Melbourne twice with attendees numbering in the several thousands and sponsored by the Atheist Foundation of Australia and Atheist Alliance International. On the website you can see a four panel image of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and the late Christopher Hitchens, a testament to the influence that New Atheism along with the internet has had. The two different conventions were named ‘The Rise of Atheism’ and ‘A Celebration of Reason’, reflections of the values of New Atheism. Events such as these provide an offline forum where everyday atheists and even secularist Youtube atheists such as anti-creationist AronRa[27] and Mr Deity[28]  can attend and be a part of a community.

The term ‘New Atheism’ was coined in an article in 2006[29] which identified Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins, with Christopher Hitchens being included after the fact. As (Perkins, 2008) stated earlier there is a lack of a collective identity and an institutional lightness[30] in the entire secularist movement. Thus it is not surprising that even the Four Horsemen of the New Atheist movement would have different approaches to the same overall goal of criticising religion as well as disagreements in certain areas and may not even identify themselves as strictly ‘New Atheists’.

For example Richard Dawkins in his book The God Delusion tries his hand philosophy, utilising past secularist arguments such as Bertrand Russell’s teapot analogy[31] which he uses to demonstrate that believers carry the burden of proof.
He is an Oxford-based evolutionary biologist, as well as a science advocate and writer and has since founded the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science[32] which has its own website with the subheading ‘Innovating for a Secular World’.

‘The mission of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science is to support scientific education, critical thinking and evidence-based understanding of the natural world in the quest to overcome religious fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and human suffering.’

Indeed with the aid of global multimedia and the strength of public conventions and debates such a mission may slowly be realized. Having a biology based background in academia explains the various other books which Dawkins has under his name such as ‘The Selfish Gene’, the ‘Blind Watchmaker’ and ‘The Greatest Show on Earth’ (which is his main rebuttal to creationism to date). Two of his most notable campaigns is the ‘Come Out’ campaign[33] which assumingly states that

Atheists have always been at the forefront of rational thinking and beacons of enlightenment, and now you can share your idealism by being part of the OUT Campaign.’

It encourages atheists to “come out of the closet” similar to the how the gay community encourages its folk. Another is his suggestion that atheists take on the term ‘Brights’. It has a separate website[34] where it proclaims that Brights are those whose worldview is free of supernatural or mystical elements and whose ethics and actions are based on such a worldview.

Fellow Horsemen Daniel Dennett is also a supporter of designating non-believers with Brights having written a lengthy article on the very same website espousing the view that

‘The time has come for us brights to come out of the closet. …. We disagree about many things, and hold a variety of views about morality, politics and the meaning of life, but we share a disbelief about life after death. …. Don't confuse the noun with the adjective: "I'm a bright" is not a boast but a proud avowal of an inquisitive world view.[35]

Dennett is an American philosopher and cognitive scientist who works on philosophy of mind in areas relevant to evolutionary biology. In his book Breaking The Spell: Religion As A Natural Phenomenon, one of his central arguments is that the existence of religion can be explained with memes (non genetic information) whose usage becomes more or less frequent dee to its adaptation to local conditions. Dennett draws comparisons between the evolution of religion to the evolution and adaptation of Latin into French/Spanish[36]. Like Dawkins, Dennett has founded a group that promotes secularist activism. Through the global capacity and anonymity of the internet, the Clergy Project began in 2011 with the purpose of providing a safe haven online for active and former professional clergy/religious leaders who do not hold supernatural beliefs, but may have no other choice than to remain in their positions or potentially lose their careers and suffer from serious loss of social status.

Sam Harris is an American neuroscientist and author, and is the Chairman of Project Reason. Letter to a Christian Nation cemented his position among the New Atheists and has since then published The End of Faith which further argues that in the face of contemporary apocalyptic weaponry, we can no longer tolerate the irrationality of religion and The Moral Landscape which Harris uses to promote the science of morality arguing that such questions should not be left to religion but can and should be investigated through science. While Dawkins and Dennett have embraced the term ‘Brights’, Harris was noted as saying at an American Atheists conference,

‘I never thought of myself as an atheist before being inducted to speak as one. I didn’t even use the term in The End of Faith, which remains my most substantial criticism of religion.[37]

Harris avoids using the term, arguing that the label is unnecessary and not a worldview or philosophy

We are consenting to be viewed as a marginal interest group that meets in hotel ballrooms. I’m not saying that meetings like this aren’t important. I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t think it was important.”[38]

Harris is also unique among the New Atheists because he is a supporter of Eastern Mysticism and has been quoted as saying some Asian cultures have also developed some wondrous insights into consciousness by direct experimentation with meditation. He also argues that this spirituality or mysticism does not need to be attached to a single dogma and can be experienced and experimented with in a scientific manner.[39]

The late Christopher Hitchens was an English-American author and journalist who came to be known as the fourth horsemen after publishing his book God Is Not Great. Just as Sam Harris has an issue with the label of New Atheism, Hitchens explained that

 "I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful.”[40]

He is also unique among the Four Horsemen for having no scientific background yet in God Is Not Great after reflecting on the work of past academics and thinkers; Hitchens in his conclusion stresses that “Above all, we are in need of a renewed Enlightenment, which will base itself on the proposition that the proper study of mankind is man, and woman.”[41]

What is ‘New’ then about the New Atheism is the global multimedia context which has allowed various people from all over the atheistic spectrum to mobilize and counter mobilize both online through forums such as Youtube and offline through live debates and conventions. However it must be remembered that atheism as a position has been around for quite a while and the Four Horsemen have paid homage and utilized arguments from past scholars and thinkers yet, calling into question whether ‘New Atheism’ is simply another unnecessary media constructed label and  just another interchangeable term such as anti-theist, secularist, humanist etc. Nevertheless those affiliated with ‘New Atheism’ are merely exercising their right to free speech and call for a new Enlightenment where religion is subject to criticism by new and contemporary methods of scientific reason and rationality.


References


Theobald, S. (2009) Faith, Interfaith, and YouTube: Dialogue,
or Derision? Literature & Aesthetics 19 (2)
Cimio, R., & C. Smith (2007, Winter). Secular Humanism ad atheism beyond progressive secularism. Sociology of Religion 407-424
Cimino, R. & C., Smith (2011) The New Atheism And The Formation Of The Imagined Community: Journal of Media and Religion, Taylor & Francis Group , LLC.
Cimino, R. & C., Smith (2012) Atheisms Unbound: The Role of the New Media in the Formation of a Secularist Identity: Secularism & Nonreligion. Published at: www.secularismandnonreligion.org.

Cline, A. (2010b). Weekly Poll: Are so-called ‘New Atheists’ Too Assertive or Not Assertive Enough?, About.com, Agnosticism/Atheism, http://atheism.about.com/b/2010/07/22/weeklypoll-are-so-called-new-atheists-too-assertive-or-not-assertive-enough.htm (Retrieved 2 April
2011).

DMCAabuse. (2008). Creationist DMCA abuse. Found on DMCAabuse’s YouTube channel, http://www.youtube.com/DMCAabuse#p/u/11/aWZ9XcdbO0w (Retrieved 22 October 2011).

Harris, S (2004).The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason.W.W. Norton & Company

Hitchens, C. (2007) God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Warner Books, Inc., New York.
Harris, S. 2004. The End of Faith: Religion, terror and the future of
reason. W.W. Norton & Co., New York.
Mayer, A. (2007). “Nothing sacred-Journalist and provocateur  Chrtopher Hitchens picks a fight with God”. Canadian Broadcasting  Corporation.
Nabors, B. (2009)The Changing Forms Of Organized Belief : The Case Of The Pacific City Atheists. Unpublished paper presented at the meeting of the Association for the Sociology of Religion, San Francisco, C.A.
Tooley, Michael, "The Problem of Evil", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2013/entries/evil/>.

(William Lane Craig vs. Sam Harris) Is the Foundation of Morality Natural or Supernatural? University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana, United States – April 2011
Retrieved From:
 http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-the-foundation-of-morality-natural-or-supernatural-the-craig-harris#ixzz2iovMW9Ql

 

Wolf, G. (2006). The Church of the Non-Believers: A band of intellectual brothers is mounting a crusade against belief in God. Are they winning converts, or merely preaching to the choir? Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html?pg=2&topic=atheism&topic_set=





[2] Harris, S.(2004)
[3] Tooley, M. (2013)  http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2013/entries/evil/
[4] Hitchens, C. (2007) pg. 80
[5] Nabors (2007)
[8] Cimino, R. & C.Smith (2011) pg.27
[11] Cimino & Smith (2011) pg.
[12] Perkins (2008) pg.36
[13] Dawkins R. (2006) pg. 5
[15] Cimino & Smith (2007)
[16] Cimino & Smith (2012)
[18] Cline, Austin. (2010b) http://atheism.about.com/b/2010/07/22/weeklypoll-
are-so-called-new-atheists-too-assertive-or-not-assertive-enough.htm
[23] DMCA abuse (2008)
[24] Theobald, S. (2009) pg.341
[25] Cimino & Smith (2011) pg.34
[30] Cimino & Smith (2011) pg.36
[31] Dawkins, R. (2006) p.g. 51
[36] Dennett, D (200) p.g.78
[37] http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-problem-with-atheism/#sthash.jhkZyxhj.dpuf
[38] http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-problem-with-atheism/#sthash.jhkZyxhj.dpuf
[39] Harris, S. (2006) p.g.215-217
[41] Hitchens, C. God Is Not Great p.g.