The New Atheist Threat: The Dangerous Rise of Secular Extremists

by C.J. Werleman

The New Atheist Threat is a devastating examination of the evangelical atheist movement. CJ Werleman, a journalist and former New Atheist, reveals how the muscular and combative atheism championed by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and the late Christopher Hitchens has morphed into a full throated cult that not only threatens secular and democratic values, but also a civil, pluralistic society. Werleman demonstrates how, instead of championing empirical evidence and reason, today’s New Atheists promote white supremacy, anti-Muslim bigotry, secular fundamentalism, and thus have become the unwitting pawns of the military-industrial-complex, the homeland-security-industrial complex, Zionism, and U.S. imperialism.The New Atheist Threat is a timely reminder that fundamentalism and violent extremism is not the sole domain of religion.

Genres: Politics, Religion, Nonfiction, Atheism, Philosophy

299 pages, Kindle Edition

First published September 1, 2015

Reviews

[Rafan Ahmed · Rating 4 out of 5]

বইয়ের লেখক নিজে নাস্তিক সাংবাদিক, এককালে নব্য-নাস্তিকদের মাঝে সেলিব্রেটি ছিলেন। নব্য-নাস্তিকতার জোশে এসে বই লিখেছিলেন দুইটা, বিভিন্ন সম্মেলনে বক্তৃতাও দিতেন। তবে কেন তিনি এই বই লিখলেন?

এক সময় বোধ আসায় তিনি দেখতে পান, নব্য-নাস্তিকতা বুনিয়াদগতভাবে শ্বেত আধিপত্যবাদি, বর্ণবাদি, উপনিবেশি যুদ্ধাবাদি ও সহিংস চেতনার ফেরিওয়ালা। এই আলোচনা যদিও পশ্চিমা অ্যাকাডেমিয়াতে নতুন না, তবে পপুলার লেভেলে এমন আলাপ নেই বললেই চলে। আমাদের দেশে তো একেবারেই নাই। এই ইস্যুতে কিছু অ্যাকাডেমিক বই ঘেটেছিলাম আমি। তাই লেখকের আলোচনার ধারা বুঝতে সহজ হয়েছে। এখন প্রশ্ন হলো—আমাদের এটা জানা কেন জরুরি? কারণ মুক্তমনারা হলো এই নব্য-নাস্তিকদের দেশি ভার্সন। এদের প্রকৃত চেহারা—যেটা অ্যাকাডেমিয়াতে বহুল পরিচিত—জনসম্মুখে আনতে এই বই কাজে লাগতে পারে। তবে পারলে সরাসরি অ্যাকাডেমিক বই পড়াই বেটার।

আরেকটা বিষয় হলো লেখক নিজেকে প্লুরালিস্ট, হিউম্যানিস্ট নাস্তিক বলেন। কিন্তু সেকুলার রাষ্ট্রব্যবস্থার বিপরীত কোনো শাসন প্রচেষ্টাকে তিনি আবার র‍্যাডিকাল, টেররিস্ট বলেন মনে হলো। তাহলে প্রশ্ন আসে তার প্লুরালিজমের দাবি কী আদৌ টিকে? নাকি অন্যসব হিউম্যানিস্টদের মত এটাও নাম-কা-ওয়াস্তে দাবি? তিনি নিজেই বললেন—জঙ্গিবাদ বা নন-স্টেট ভায়োলেনস আসলে রাষ্ট্রীয় সহিংসতার প্রতিক্রিয়ায় হয়। আবার সেই প্রতিক্রিয়াকে তিনি রেজিস্টেনস না বলে টেররিজম বললেন। তিনি শ্বেত আধিপত্যাবাদি লিবারেল সাম্রাজ্যবাদ, উপনিবেশবাদের কঠোর সমালোচনা করলেন—সাধুবাদ জানাই থাকে—কিন্তু এর বিপরীতে মুক্তিকামীদের ঢালাওভাবে ভিলেন বানালেন এটা কী আদৌ ন্যায্য কাজ? তবে হ্যা, এটা স্বীকার করতেই হবে যে বিরোধীগোষ্ঠী কেন সহিংস পথ বেছে নিল তার কিছু মানবিক দিকও তিনি তুলে এনেছেন। তাই লেখককে ধন্যবাদ দিতে হয়।

মোটের উপর উপকারী বই, তবে ব্যাকগ্রাউন্ড পড়াশোনা না থাকলে কিছু ক্ষেত্রে কনফিউশন আসতে পারে। লেখকে ধন্যবাদ জানাই স্রোতের বিপরীতে গিয়ে এমন কিছু লেখার সাহস করার জন্য।

[Mehwish · Rating 5 out of 5]

The New Atheist Threat by CJ Werleman is a hallmark in busting the Anti-Theist, especially Anti-Muslim dominant narratives. I have yet to read other authors who have extensively written on this phenomenon, but I cannot stress enough the importance and timing of this book.

"Things are now so bad that I tend to keep my atheism to myself, and instead mumble something about being a very lapsed Catholic if I'm put on the spot, for fear that uttering the A-word will make people think that I'm a Dawkins drone with a mammoth superiority complex and a hives-like allergy to nurses wearing crucifixes". This quote resonated with me more so once I had seen it in action.

I had this book with me when I was in a shop, one of the guys looked at the title and asked,
“Is that the usual crap, Muslims are the villains?”
I said, “NO, it makes the case against New Atheism”
he said, “New or old, atheists have nothing else to do these days than spread hatred”.
Before I could clarify his doubts, the guy pointed at the next customer and ended the dialogue.

The second instance that cemented my understanding of this book came from Twitter. I tweeted at the author commending his work and was shocked to see the hostility from some of the New Atheists. It was like I had come out as an Atheist in a religious forum.

What I found

As a person who has just started to see the world in more colors, the writing style was extremely accessible.

It was extremely honest. Werleman did not falter from his point of view – not even once, he maintained that there is much more to hatred towards Islam and Muslims beyond what is successfully portrayed as the “victimhood-complex” by the Islamophobes, neo-conservatives, pro-Israel New Atheists.

It had a very clear aim: “My hope is that you will join me in running away from New Atheism. For far too long atheism has been represented by those who champion bigotry and hostility under the guise of reason and science. It’s time to take our non-belief back from the non-believer who threaten a civil society.”

It was good to see that Werleman is not alone in his fight and that there are others like him. He extensively quoted the works of others to drive the point home.

It was honest because Werleman announced his former association with the New Atheist group and gave me an insight into the close-knitted circle:

They are overwhelmingly white
They are overwhelmingly middle to upper-middle class
They are disproportionately male
(Generally speaking) They attend the same events
Listen to the same podcasts and speakers
Read the same books and blogs
Follow the same people

It was raw and passionate. It responded to the New Atheists in their own language and begged them to stop plucking out the events from their geo-political and historical context.

Most of the people I know get their updates of the world from one or two news channels while having their evening dinner or while scrolling through their facebook feed. Fair Enough! Modern life is already very competitive and complicated but for those who are passionate about an issue, can they stop being ignorant and start taking the responsibility? Because these people are the ones who are creating news for the lay-people on their dining table.
We should take responsibility without joining one or the other club. We do not need labels; we do not need to be one or the other. We do not have to blindly follow a group and take on everything. We should be able to filter through the information and stand up to our heroes sometimes when they are absurdly wrong and say No! I do not conform to your views. That was exactly what Werleman set out to help us understand.

If I had read this book 2 years ago I would have labeled Werleman a Muslim apologist/sympathizer etc. but the point to be noted here is that I was onboard the Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris bandwagon. I was not able to see beyond their glory and savior-status and I chanted their slogans and regurgitated their hatred. I am glad I am not stuck in the Echo Chamber anymore and have successfully reclaimed my rationality and autonomy.

As Werleman mentioned in the book, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are scientists and that is their expertise and no one is taking that away from them, but that’s what they are – bloody good scientists. They are not experts on religion. It is exactly the same when you see politicians who deny Climate Change or accounting students who deny Evolution. No one is saying that we limit ourselves to our fields but if we are ready to venture into a new field, we need to be properly be equipped and understand our limitations.

In the end, Werleman pitches his final point that love is the answer, not hate. We are already doomed as a species and the only way we can be liberated is through love. His views are very romantic and idealistic but if he can believe and advocate for it, what is stopping me!

A must read!!!

[Brent · Rating 1 out of 5]

Werleman's Axe Is Ground to a Nub.

After reaching the halfway point in this book, I gave it up as a pointless exercise (and rue the time I spent slogging through the first 125 pages). Werleman's reasoning is by turns juvenile, histrionic, and fallacious. With the zeal of a reformed ex-smoker warning against the dangers of tobacco, Werleman seems happiest when recounting all the luminaries who agree with his position that New Atheism is ignorant and bigoted. He seems particularly intent on demonstrating that many people disagree with and/or dislike Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins (to which half of the polemic content of the book seems devoted).

Unfortunately, Werleman never makes a convincing case for the so-called "danger" represented by New Atheism. Instead, a raft of rhetorical fallacies are engaged in order to outrage and motivate a populace already primed to be intolerant of atheism and more than happy to pretend to persecution by atheists.

If one wants to be treated to how NOT to write a critical work on New Atheism, this is the right text. You will be treated to, in alphabetical order, the following fallacies:
Ad Hominems-- Christopher Hitchens apparently plagiarized two pages in God is Not Great, thus his observations are suspect.
Ad Hominem Tu Quoques--Ayaan Hirsi Ali's claims about her past aren't sufficiently accurate, thus her observations regarding Islam are incorrect.
Appeals to Authority-- Chris Hedges has a bad opinion of Harris and Dawkins.
Appeals to Fear--Anti-theism will lead to a repeat of the anti-theist regimes of the 20th century, complete with their genocides.
Begging the Question-- because New Atheism is critical of religion, it must lead to attempts to eradicate religious believers.
Biased Samples--because Werleman is familiar with New Atheists who have made odious claims, all New Atheists hold such claims to be true.
Circumstantial Ad Hominems-- Because some New Atheists hold political opinions regarding radical Islam, and because those opinions support their own cultural hegemony, those political opinions are false.
Genetic Fallacy-- Hirsi Ali makes her claims because she seeks revenge on Islam.
Hasty Generalizations--New Atheists are zombie-like followers of the cult of Dawkins because Werleman's interactions with some New Atheists suggests they all worship Dawkins. Likewise, all New Atheists want to "eradicate religion", no New Atheists ever acknowledge anything positive about religion, et cetera, et cetera, because Werleman can't recall anything outside that experience.

And so on and so forth all the way through any alphabetical list of fallacies until you reach "Weak Analogy".

Virtually nothing of the published works of any of the so-called Four Horsemen (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens) is actually critically investigated. In fact, Dennett is almost absent from the discussion, most likely because his work-- Breaking the Spell-- so clearly does not fit Werleman's narrative. Few, if any, of the New Atheist arguments against religious belief are critically examined, much less found wanting. Primarily, New Atheism is "bad" because too many New Atheists are rude, and New Atheism is "dangerous" because it might through some winding path in which New Atheists rise to ultimate political power lead to the persecution of the religious.

Which is an awfully long way to go to reach the conclusion that another reviewer, here, who gave a one-star review, summed it up best with in his one-word title-- Tripe.

If you're looking for a well-reasoned critique of New Atheism, save your $17 and skip this book.

[Book Shark · Rating 3 out of 5]

The New Atheist Threat: The Dangerous Rise of Secular Extremists by CJ Werleman


“The New Atheist Threat" is a controversial expose on how the brand of new atheism has become an extreme secular group. Admittedly, this was a very difficult book for this secular progressive to review. I enjoy Mr. Werleman’s books and find them entertaining, provocative and worth reading. This book was a rollercoaster ride of emotions. In general, I agreed with the sentiment to denounce any rhetoric that can lead to violence and harm to others but at the same time I cringed at the use of ad hominems and misrepresentations to make such points. I urge the reader to pick up this book and make that determination yourself. I will include my most noteworthy positives and negatives. This contentious 205-page book includes eleven chapters, afterword, and references.

Positives:
1. Generally well written and accessible.
2. A provocative topic; the rise of secular extremists.
3. Makes perfectly clear what the intent behind this book is. “This book is a plea for atheists to denounce the extremists in their ranks, and by ‘extremists’ I mean anti-theists (New Atheists) masquerading as atheists.”
4. My atheism lines up with Werleman’s definition. “My atheism, for instance, means I believe there are no gods. Atheism is indifferent to whether or not gods and religion are bad or good.”
5. Makes the valid point that religion isn’t at the root of all our societal ills. “What is at fault in the West is not Christianity but free market fascism; mass pollution, climate change, income inequality, wealth disparity, racism, mass incarceration, and immigration overflow from countries that have descended into social chaos – many as a result of Western policies (free trade, climate change, war on terror, and the drug war.)”
6. The horrors of terror illustrated by some personal experiences.
7. The impact of the internet.
8. An interesting look at the echo chamber. “The echo chamber is where our ideas and beliefs are validated, and thus the echo chamber serves to lull us into our collective slumber.”
9. Not all popular atheists are demonized.
10. Does reference some of the most respected intellectuals; including the likes of Noam Chomsky, Hedges (who I respect but disagree on the extreme characterization of atheists), and Reza Aslan.
11. Defines secular fundamentalism “Secular fundamentalism is defined as “the adherence to anti-religious ideology that militantly ridicules, mocks, scorns and satirizes the idea of the existence of a deity or deities and or religion, indifferent of feelings of bigotry, intolerance, hatred and persecution that adherents feel as a result.”
12. Provocative observation that’s worth considering. “Recent history in the Middle East has demonstrated time and time again that when states proactively seek to silence religious or political dissent, more extremist roots take hold.”
13. Some worthy messages. “American Atheists should seek opportunities to work together with other discriminated-against minorities, like Muslim Americans, and stay clear of those who peddle hate and revenge. The road to broader public acceptance does not travel through the persecution of another minority.”
14. Brings to light fear mongering. Shares revealing findings from Gallup.
15. The penchant for humans to commit violence. “Mankind commits violence and atrocities under all kinds of banners, slogans, and causes i.e. nationalism, tribalism, racism, capitalism, colonialism, and even sporting rivalries.”
16. Perhaps one of the biggest mistakes ever made. “The Iraq war, for instance, was a war that was not only executed against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, but a foreign expedition that failed to discover weapons of mass destruction. It was an illegal invasion that resulted in the death of upwards of 1 million Iraqis, including more than 200,000 civilians.” Not to mention, thousands of deaths or own and countless permanently harmed.
17. Interesting observation worth taking note on. “If you haven’t been to Palestine, talked with the Palestinians, you might, like most in the U.S., think the conflict is about religion. It’s not! The conflict is about occupation.”
18. So what has had the greatest effect on Arab attitudes towards the U.S.? Find out.
19. Troubling revelations about wars and greed. “In 2004, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld commissioned a task force to review the impact the Bush administration’s policies in Iraq and Afghanistan were having on the overall effort to combat terrorism. This is what it found: American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically elevated the statute of and support for radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to single-digits in some Arab societies.”
20. The book ends with some keen observations that resonate with me and saves this book. The concept of never-ending violence is the best contribution this book makes. “At the annual 2015 National Prayer Breakfast, President Obama said the twisted ideology of the Islamic State is ‘desperate for legitimacy,’ and those who ‘propagate the notion that America, and the West generally, is at war with Islam’ provides the ISIS with the legitimacy they are so desperate for. ‘That’s how they recruit. That’s how they try to radicalize young people,’ said Obama.”

Negatives:
1. The book includes references but they are not cited directly in the narrative. A must for a book that is as contentious as this is.
2. You will not find the humorous irreverence that was a trademark of Werleman in this book. The tone is much more serious, at times contentious, bombastic, and even mean.
3. I have an issue with characterizing many of my new atheist friends as a cult. To characterize new atheism as the latest threat to our democratic society is a stretch to say the least. I can understand being critical against anyone who espouses hate and uses language that would stymie a civil discussion but to lump all new atheists as a hateful group is just wrong.
4. On one hand Werleman makes a lot of sense, “To reduce religion to a singular meaning and to reduce all believers to a single interpretation is an exercise in anti-intellectualism.” Yet, he does precisely that when he lumps all new atheists in the same boat. Hmmm?
5. I have the utmost respect for the late great Christopher Hitchens but that doesn’t mean I agreed with him blindly on everything. Personally, I thought his stance on the Iraq war was wrong, and time has proved me right.
6. Irresponsible statements that left me speechless. “The cult of science promises to eradicate or reform the tainted and morally inferior populations of the human race. The cult resulted, in Nazi Germany…” Are you kidding me? The use of science for nefarious reasons has no link to science itself! Science is merely a tool.
7. The incessant attacks on Dawkins. Once again, I don’t have to agree with everything Dawkins says to admire his as a scientist and fellow atheist.
8. I find revealing personal conversations with fellow atheists as unethical. As an example, the phone conversation he had with Professor Boghossian.
9. “Hedges points out that New Atheists and Christian fundamentalists alike have attempted to ‘hijack’ King.” It’s not a matter of hijacking King, it’s about having admiration for an icon who did much for our society.
10. “The doctrine of New Atheism unabashedly calls for the eradication of religion.” There’s a doctrine? I missed that meeting. I understand this “eradication” to be an intellectual one, driven by reason and logic, not through force.
11. “New Atheists dabble in the dark arts of scientific racism.” Once again with the cult of science…
12. “Ignorant of history, New Atheists carry forth the myth that asserts, “Most wars were fought over religion,” which is simply untrue. Even the wars one could most obviously be attributed to religion were in fact motivated more by imperial conquest: territory, wealth, and plunder.” Might be correct on this to a point but a country built hard to separate theocracies from such decisions.
13. I’m a capitalist. Capitalism is not to blame, crony capitalism is.
14. To rule out the realm of faith as a contributor to extremism is misguided. It takes blind faith to commit suicide for a religious cause. I understand the point he’s making but religion is clearly a part of the equation and an important one at that. The fact that many extremists are merely following and don’t understand the tenets of their faith is beside the point because they have bowed down to someone who has used their religion to their advantage.
15. Evil dictators that were atheists did not commit atrocities because they were atheists (no such dogma in atheism); they committed atrocities because they were TERRIBLE.
16. Lack of supplementary material.


In summary, this was by far the most conflicted I’ve been about a review. I like CJ Werleman a lot, I’m a big fan of his previous works but this book was a rollercoaster ride. The best way I can summarize this book is by saying that I like the main message of ending the cycle of violence but I couldn’t stand for the tone used and mischaracterizations of atheists to make the case. I do encourage people to read this and to make their own assessments.

Further recommendations: “Fighting Back the Right: Reclaiming America from the Attack on Reason and “Nonbeliever Nation: The Rise of Secular Americans” by David Niose, “Attack of the Theocrats!” by Sean Faircloth, “God’s Defenders” by S.T. Joshi, “The Republican Brain” by Chris Mooney, “Republican Gomorrah” by Max Blumenthal, “Society without God” by Phil Zuckerman, “Why Are You Atheists So Angry?” Great Christina, “Doubt: A History” by Jennifer Hecht, “Can We Be Good Without God?” by Robert Buckman, “The Conservative Assault on the Constitution” by Erwin Chemerinsky, “Why the Religious Right Is Wrong” by Rob Boston and “American Fascists” by Chris Hedges.

[Richard Lawrence · Rating 1 out of 5]

The unraveling of CJ Werleman is complete. I was actually a fan of CJ for a while and enjoyed reading him. Apparently, after being outed for over 14 instances of plagiarism and a much publicized tiff with Sam Harris, CJ has decided to take the road of the intellectual coward in this book. I actually added a new bookshelf on Goodreads (sophistry) to accommodate this pathetic attempt at character assassination of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and other atheists. My own guess is that CJ thought he would be given something he wasn't by his targets and decided to take this perceived affront as a call to battle. This book is a repetition of the various straw man fallacies one hears from Ken Ham, Kirk Cameron and the Hovinds regarding atheists. There is a lot of seething anger in these pages which speaks volumes to Werleman's intellectual and emotional immaturity. Then again, it is what you'd expect from a plagiarist. For those interested in the details, here is a link.https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress....

[mumble · Rating 1 out of 5]

Tripe

It's a tirade as bitter as what it purports to attack. It reduces its enemy to a fiend and then excuses itself in blatant caricature.

Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens are three different persons and their readers react to their words on a large spectrum. I find Harris to be the least sophisticated about Islam, but I find his insights into the psychology and neurophysiology of religion worth contemplation. Dawkins is a very good biologist and can inform you at all relevant points what light evolution and biology can shed on religious belief. Hitchens is a renowned journalist and political commentator and also perhaps the most well read man you will ever read. He embraces the term anti-theism and weaponizes the English language against religious belief where religious arguments affect people in any sort of compulsive or Orwellian way.

Atheism, anti-theism, agnostic, theist, bla bla bla. Don't attach such importance to tags and titles. Every person has a unique perspective and an equally unique perception of the the complexities and diversities of the world. No New Atheist thinks of himself or herself as a New Atheist except that they are "new" to atheism. That is a tag given them by those most annoyed with them. New Atheist literature is rightfully classified under "screed" literature. It is not the result of long, open-minded study, but the stream of consciousness of men who are fed up with being told they have to "respect the beliefs" of others. They should respect (civilly tolerate) beliefs, and they make it plain that they do, but they should not have to "respect" religious compulsion in any form. That is the crux of their arguments, and thousands and thousands of people, most noticeably online, find their reasoning compelling. New Atheism is reactionary to both American Protestantism and Islamic extremism, yes. It is also the opposite of American rightwing evangelical Christianity in many ways — hardly the same thing on any single political point. Zionist my ass. Hitchens has plenty of words for Zionists just as he does for anyone on the far right in any and every country, no matter their particular religion.

In my judgement, Harris will be the one you will dismiss the most easily for being a simpleton on Islam. When Dawkins strays from biology, he loses momentum and depth very quickly, but he's hardly a bigot for writing a book. Hitchens is the most vehement and you will put him down quickly if you don't like his venom, but, again, he is hardly a bigot for being a polemicist. A lot of us can never see our own flawed assumptions if they aren't satirized without mercy. You can have respect for a human being and his human rights and none for the particular conclusions that animate him at the same time. Tolerance is a sticky word the way its quoted meaning changes depending on who is using it.

Having said all that, if you read the book, I hope I have given an alternative opinion to this screed against other screeds.

[Ali · Rating 5 out of 5]

WOW This book is really a breath of Fresh Air!

Great Book, really delves into how the new "Militant" atheists use tactics to put down their opposition. In many cases these "new" atheists are not even well versed in the topics they are debating. For example, Richard Dawkins is not at all sophisticated in Philosophy, yet he is often invited for philosophical debates on an academic level. These "new militant" atheists are so popular and strong because of the great support they enjoy from their supporters and fans. The danger then is that these popular figures such as Dawkins, Harris, et al, are followed blindly by their followers almost in a cult like fashion. For example, If a person gains the courage to critique figures such as Sam Harris, these blind worshipers/followers of Sam Harris will go to huge lengths to put down, defame and demoralize the opposition, usually through Social Media. So ironically, these "new atheists" that critique religious people of "blind worship" are falling into the same trap.

So the book basically discusses the nature of the "new militant atheist" movement.

[Chuck Thompson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Werleman will lose most of his fans who like his earlier books. But it's an important read. Sometimes it's important for us atheists to look in the mirror. This book is certainly that. The language is a little harsh in parts but well worth the read.

[Jenny · Rating 3 out of 5]

With Islamophobia running rampant to an extent not seen since the period immediately after 9/11, a critical examination of the New Atheist movement couldn't be more timely. Though they attempt to distinguish themselves from the cruder bigots like Pamela Geller and Donald Trump, New Atheist (or, as the author more accurately terms them, antitheist) writers such as Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali perform a crucial function for them, providing intellectual cover for more liberal-minded folks to embrace imperialism and white supremacy. And contrary to the meme frequently passed around on atheist pages that "Religious extremists blow up buildings; atheist extremists post science articles online", it's not a harmless tendency. Whether it's right-wing Norwegian terrorist Anders Breivik drawing inspiration from Hirsi Ali, the 2015 murder of three Muslims in Chapel Hill by an atheist neighbor over what some still absurdly frame as a "parking dispute", or the state policies enthusiastically backed by warmongers like Christopher Hitchens, New Atheism's body count certainly isn't zero.

As a fellow recovering New Atheist, I found Werleman's account of how he became one but later saw the error of his ways very interesting. Though I vociferously disagreed with Sam Harris and his ilk on Islam, the Iraq War, and Israel/Palestine, I shared with them what I've come to see as the essence of New Atheism: the idea that religion is the great evil in the world and responsible for most violence and oppression. As I've come to see and as Werleman explains, this view is based on a funhouse-mirror version of religion that has little to do with how the vast majority of people actually practice it, undergirded by an odd mix of anti-intellectualism and elitism of which it's easy to see the appeal to the middle- and upper-class men who make up the movement's core adherents. (I've joked before that if one made a Venn diagram of New Atheists, MRAs, and Gamergaters, there'd just be one circle.)

Werleman devotes much of the book to New Atheism's relationship with Islam, the topic which more than anything else propelled the movement's rise to mainstream respectability. Islamophobic bigotry long predated the movement, but by providing a simplistic explanation for Islamist terrorism and while exonerating Western imperialism (and even worse, providing humanitarian, "White Man's Burden"-esque justification for state violence), New Atheist writers have helped make it a big business. The topic also makes for a convenient case study in the blatant intellectual dishonesty one often finds in the works of prominent writers like Harris and Hirsi Ali; many of their views on Islam and the people who practice it are simply, factually wrong, but there's little sign they or their fans care, because it was never about facts for them.

The book is not without its problems. The main one is that Werleman relies far too heavily on block quotations from the works of others. Still, it's an interesting, well-argued book that will, unfortunately, likely not cease to be relevant anytime soon.

[Mjaballah · Rating 4 out of 5]

C.J. Werleman is a courageous individual. It takes a lot of courage to revise your opinions about big things that have affected your life, but even more so when that thing has been your source of cash. Having been turned into a New Athiest following the Bali bombing where he used to live, Werleman traveled around the world and wrote books preaching hate towards all forms of religions. However, as this book notes, his perspective on war and terrorism around the world is no longer limited to theology, and includes politics, economics and history. A complex reality that the New Atheist continuously overlook or cheery pick.

His book ... while i found his writing simple and easy to read, it was clearly rushed. You can sense that with the increasing quotes, their size, and the numerous missing closing brackets, spelling mistakes, spacing ... etc. Nonetheless, it is in my opinion a great introductory to the argument against New Atheists, from an individual that has lived the experience. Much like a recovering ex-fundamentalist, his point of view is important for those lining up to the drums of New Atheist, it is as Blumenthal states "an important intervention". I don't think they would listen though. At least I now understand why they would not.

I gave this book 4 starts because of the numerous mistakes towards the end (I was going to give it 3, but 4 for all the hate by New Atheists it is getting here). They are too noticeable and therefore tedious for the reader. And because the book that i finished reading prior to this was Edward Said's Covering Islam. Werleman does not have the background or skill for a piercing critique - he is not a trained political scientists, historian, or sociologist. However, he borrows from those who are. And there lies the value of the book: as well as a good simple argument against New Atheists and their preaching, it is a structured review and introduction of the countless political scientists, historians and sociologists who actually specialize in the field of conflict, terrorism and islamic history. He also produces numerous hypocrisies and weird ironies about New Atheists (They spend a lot of time, money and emotions on a god they don't believe in).

At the very end of the book, I can't help but reiterate Edward Said's thesis. That what Sam Harris and his ilk is all about is associating power with knowledge through which they are denying Muslims their right to their own story, on a societal, as well as individual level. Unlike Werleman and the numerous authors he borrows from, New Atheists do not converse much with Muslims, and terrorists for the matter, after all they are not interested in their story, they are only concerned about their own.

[Muniruzzaman · Rating 4 out of 5]

I had high hopes for this book as I liked CJs writing for a good amount of times. While some of the point made about Sam Harris is clear as water, what the book lacks is to represent a neutral view. Sometimes the criticism leaned like it was more of a personal class. Also, while reading the second part I was in a position like reading the first part again.

The attempt is important at this time when Islamophobia is a new rightwing policy of many countries, It just more refining is required to get this in a more authentic tone.

[Peter · Rating 2 out of 5]

Some good points, too much hyperbole.

Agree Rè not calling all believers idiots etc. agree that some atheists are bad people . Agree that too many atheists are over the top. This book seems to have too many atheists as rabid fundamentalists. Sure there's a lot to critique Rè atheists etc. I'd suggest Piglucci, Ruse, Gray and Chompsky ahead of this book . I appreciate and agree with much in the book but overall I think it's an order of magnitude OTT out of order

[Joshua Coyne · Rating 1 out of 5]

Any person that blames the reader of the articall for a mass shooting is someone that only stokes the fire. It is a sad day when guilt is used towards the readers in order to push a political agenda. It also shows the ignorance of the writer and his hatred of the very people he writes for. I would only classify his work as propaganda to push a liberal(if you can really call it that) agenda. If you want to feel like your being scolded by your parents then this is the author for you.

[عبدالواحد الأنصاري · Rating 3 out of 5]

بين أيدينا كتاب حملت ترجمة مركز دلائل له هذا العنوان: «مهددات الإلحاد الجديد، صعود التطرف العلماني»، بقلم سي جي ويرليمان.
في هذا الكتاب يوجه الكاتب الأسترالي والصحافي الملحد اللاديني ومذيع برنامج «جسم غريب» ويرليمان الانتقاد إلى الإلحاد الجديد الاجتثاثي والخطير وإلى مروجيه وأتباعه.
ويستشهد بحادثة مصرع ثلاثة طلاب مسلمين بيد يميني متطرف، معبراً عن صدمته عندما علم أن القاتل قال: «أنا ملحد». وكان رأي الكاتب من قبل أن فكرة ارتكاب جريمة كراهية بدافع إلحادي: تفاهة لا معنى لها: «لذلك كنت غريزياً أشعر بوجود دوافع أخرى للقاتل أكثر من كونه ملحداً».
لكنه بعد زيارته صفحة القاتل (المدعو هيكس) توصل إلى أن الأمر أكثر شرّانية، ووصف السفاح بأنه «محارب للألوهية»، وذكر أنه من المهم تمييز هذا الوصف الأخير من الإلحاد.
ويقول عن كتابه هذا: إنه بمثابة نداء للملحدين ليستنكروا صنيع المتطرفين في صفوفهم، وهو يقصد «الملحدين الجدد» وتهديدهم المتنامي والخبيث، حسب وصفه.
ويذكر في مطلع مقدمته تعريفه الإلحاد الجديد، وهو: الإلحاد التبشيري، وهو: حركة معادية تدعو إلى عدم التسامح مع الدين ومواجهته وانتقاده، وتعُدّ الدينَ أصل الشرور، وأنه عقبة في تحقيق الكمال البشري ويوتوبيا الحضارة الغربية، ويصف ويرليمان الملحد هذا الاعتقاد بأنه «اعتقاد مخادع بلا شك».
ويشير إلى أن الملحدين الجدد غالباً ما يكونون من البيض، ومن الطبقة الوسطى، وغير قادرين على تقدير قيمة الاختلاف، بل يعارضون بشكل أساسي فكرة إمكانية أن يلهم الدين الناس للقيام بالأشياء الخيّرة.
ويضيف: «كنت ملحداً جديداً، لكنني لم أعد كذلك، إنني الآن ملحد من الطراز القديم».
ويذكر ويرليمان أن الإيمان لم يكن أبداً جزءاً من حياته من قبل، وأنه لم يشعر بأن له أي أهمية بالنسبة إليه. بل قد كان يميل إلى عدم المبالاة، ويسرد قصة انتقاله هو وأسرته من أستراليا إلى جزيرة بالي في إندونيسيا، التي وصفها بالجزيرة الشاعرية. ويصور الحادثة المروعة التي واجهها، ويقول: في ليلة الثاني من شهر أكتوبر العام 2005م سيتحطم وهم يوتوبيا، وهم الجزيرة المثالية الذي كنت أعيشه.
لقد كان ويرليمان وأسرته وأصدقاؤه بالقرب من الهجوم الإرهابي العام 2002م على نادي ساري الليلي في بالي، الذي قضى فيه 220 شخصاً. ووصف موقع التفجير بثلاث كلمات فقط: رعب، وهرج، وارتباك.
ويقول: بقيت في الأيام والأسابيع والشهور التي أعقبتها مغموراً تماماً بأهوال ذلك اليوم. وصرت منذ ذلك اليوم على قناعة تامة بأن سبب ذلك: النصوص الدينية. وبشكل مماثل اعتقدت أيضاً أن النصوص الدينية هي التي سببت هجمات الحادي عشر من سبتمبر!
ويروي شطراً من ذكريات تعصبه الإلحادي الجديد: «قررت مسلّحاً بالبحث تأليف أول كتاب لي، وسميته «الإله يكرهك، فلتقابله بالكره»! ويتكلم هذا الكتاب عن كل فصل من فصول الكتاب المقدس بطريقة تبيِّن كيف أنه «متسلط، وغريب الأطوار، ومتنمر ومنتقم».
ويبيّن أنه منذ انتقاله النهائي من إندونيسيا إلى أميركا شارك في عدد من المؤتمرات الإلحادية الكبيرة، وفي العام 2013م دُعيَ كمتحدث رئيس في المؤتمر السنوي لمنظمة الاتحاد الأميركي للملحدين، لكنه حصل في المؤتمر شيء جديد أيضاً، وهذا الأمر علق في ذهنه بشكل خاص، وكان خطوة في طريق تراجعه عن موقفه المتعصب، يقول:
«بعد أن ألقيت خطابي اقتربت مني سيدة في السبعين من عمرها على ما أعتقد. وفاتحتني بالكلام، وقالت: شكراً لك على خطابك، لقد سافرت كل هذه المسافة من كارولينا لأسمعك تتحدث عن كتابك (الدين يكرهك، فلتقابله بالكره) وكتابك هو الذي حوّلني من المسيحية إلى الإلحاد»، وأشارت إلى أن كل أسرتها بمن فيهم أطفالها سيتخلون عنها إذا علموا بإلحادها.
صُدم الكاتب بهذا الأمر، فبالمقارنة مع أميركا فإن معظم مَن في أستراليا لا يبالون بالدين أو عدمه، ويُعدّ فيهم شيئاً ليس له تأثير في الحياة اليومية لل��ستراليين، ثم تدرج به الأمر بعد هذه الصدمة إلى التخلي شيئاً فشيئاً عن تطرفه الإلحادي.
ويضيف: إن الملحدين الجدد لا يدْعون علانية وبشكل بارز إلى القضاء على المتدينين، لكن كثيراً منهم اقتربوا من ذلك بشكل متعمّد، ويستدل على ذلك بقول هيتشينز: «أعتقد بأنه يجب أن يُقهر أعداء الحضارة ويُهزموا ويُقتلوا».
للمزيد:
انضم إلى قناة #خلاصات_الكتب (تلخيص الكتب أو نبذة عنها أو منتقيات منها) على موقع تليغرام:
https://t.me/tl5e6at

[مؤرخ · Rating 3 out of 5]

الكاتب ملحد "تقليدي" كما يصف نفسه، أي أن إلحاده يخصه ولا ينقلب إلى خصومة ضد غير الملحدين. وهو يهاجم في كتابه التطرف الإلحادي، وهم من يُطلَق عليهم الملحدون الجدد، الذين يعادون الديانات -إلا اليهودية- كما صرّح المؤلف، ويركّزون ذلك العداء ضد الإسلام خصوصا. يكثر في الكتاب نقل النصوص، سواء كانت لأولئك الملحدون الجدد أم لمن ردّ عليهم. ويفيد الكتاب من يريد التعرُّف إلى أفكار هؤلاء الذين ناصبوا الإسلام العداء، وكما يشير المؤلف، تحالفوا مع الصهاينة.

[Kazhan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Me as a muslim i really really thank the writer for being such honest about every topic he write.
Its normal to not be acceptable by people because of those real and honest things he says about Atheists.
Its the best bestttt book for understanding the real motive behinde new atheists.