The school of thought that is now called “New Atheism” is associated to the attitude of 4 prominent figures that pioneered and spread it in the 21st century: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett. Many things have been said & written about what New Atheism is the New Atheism which stands against psychopathy; which stands for reason, science, thought, art and philophy, has originally been besmirched by its opposition (so-called critiques) rather than having been defined or even manifested by the persons it has been associated with (or by its adherents). Now, it is time to do it, we (new-atheism.org) would want to define it but we are notone of the persons whom the movement has been associated to, as a result, here, we g areoing to define our own proposal: Outspoken Atheism. In this site, Iwe are going to re-define the New Atheism and purify it from the smirches Neotheists threw at it.

In a nutshell, Outspoken Atheism is to oppose the religions in an outspoken way; without restraining from telling the actual and genuine assessment on religions, without respecting or tolerating the cruelty named as “religions”, without compromising anything to the religious people. That is also what New Atheism has been.

OUTSPOKEN ATHEISM

Outspoken Atheism is an honest form of atheism that tells genuine assessment on religions. Outspoken Atheism is to stand against social dictations and cruelties of religions and to do so without any indulgence or tolerations towards the adherents of religions.

MANIFESTO

Outspoken Atheism declares the following:

Atheism is a lack of deluison in a fairytale and/or mythological characters categorized as gods. Atheism is not a world view or something, it is just lack of delusion.
Outspoken Atheism adheres to, and argues for, the Presumption of Atheism: Atheism is a default position. Everyone was/is atheist untill s/he has been brainraped or deluded.
Outspoken Atheism maintains that gods are scientific hypothesis. Claims about existence of mythological characters categorized as gods are suitable to empirical and/or scientific tests.
Outspoken Atheism holds the view that the dictations legitimized as religions should not be tolerated in anyway.
Outspoken Atheism hold the view that there is no difference between mythologies and religions even though the contemporary academy, dominated by theists, invite to the contrary and we attribute this consensus to the human population being dominated by theists.
Outspoken Atheism espouses that religions are hoaxes.
Outspoken Atheism asserts that there are mental, intellectual, societal, philosophical, legal and practical double standards in favour of theism and religions.
Outspoken Atheism maintains that religions are intrinsically and necessarily bigot, irrational and violent. Thus, Outspoken Atheism rejects approaches like “we shall fight bigotry, irrationality, terrorism; not religion“. There is no “bigot piety”: Piety itself is bigotry.
Outspoken Atheism holds the view that religions are mental illness and they are legitimized cruelties.
Outspoken Atheism yells the fact that humanity needs to be cured from religions and theism as soon possible, religions and theism ought to be eradicated as soon as possible, thus, holds the view that religions should be banned.

What is New Atheism? What does it mean and what does it advocate for?

New Atheism is a social and activistic movement that challenges the social oppression, cruelty and dictation of the religion and the religious people. We fight the religions and the oppressive, aggressive, prone-to-violence nature of the religious people. Our battle is not consisted of, nor bounded by, the philosophical discussions – we battle socially and legally, and that is what separates us from the rest of some [so-called] atheists hailed as “intellectual” or “scholar” by others (theists etc.) who are “oppositionist” to Outspoken Atheism.

New Atheists argue that religion has been granted social immunity or I shall call it a Jester’s privilege: People have been brainwashed to respect religions no matter how the religion is and to do so at the cost of compromising – it is a notion we challenge. Indeed, the beginning of the conversation of The Four Horsemen was on this issue. Richard Dawkins started:

One of the things we’ve all met is the accusation
that we are strident or arrogant or vitriolic or shrill. What do we
think about that?

to which a part of Daniel Dennett’s reply was great:

I came to realize that it’s a no-win situation. It’s a
mug’s game. The religions have contrived to make it impossible to
disagree with them critically without being rude.

and the conversation went on:

DENNETT: You know, they sort of play the hurt-feelings card at every
opportunity, and you’re faced with the choice of, Well, am I going to
be rude? Or am I going to—
DAWKINS: Say nothing, yes.
DENNETT: —articulate this criticism? Or I mean am I going to
articulate it or am I just going to button my lip and—?

but the main spot-on moment came from Sam Harris:

Well, that’s what it is to trespass a taboo. I think we’re
all encountering the fact that religion is held off the table of rational
criticism in some kind of formal way, even by, we’re discovering, our
fellow secularists and our fellow atheists. It leaves people to their
own superstitions. Even if it’s abject and causing harm, don’t look
too closely at it

Bullseye! Yes, religion is somehow given immunity from any kind of criticism or even reactions into its stigmatizations! For example, Quran 2:179 describes those who denied Muhammad dumbs:

The example of the disbelievers ˹not responding to the Messenger’s warning˺ is like a flock not comprehending the calls and cries of the shepherd. ˹They are wilfully˺ deaf, dumb and blind so they have no understanding.

but an Austrian woman that called Mohammad a pedophile, which is an assessment drawn from traditionally Islamic biography of Mohammad, is convicted by the European Court of Human Rights. See the whole picture, Muslims can adhere to a book that calls you dumbs, can spread and propogate this book, can recite this book in public but when you make an assessment about their prominent figure from their own sources, you are convicted. I will make so many demonstrations like that, which will be a blog on its own. It is a double standard, it is a dictation! Acceptance, and enforcement, of it is one of the things we Outspoken Atheists challenge. To respond to the smirches thrown at Outspoken Atheism by theists will be one of the main missions and visions of this site and refutations to New Theists will have its own section on site’s top menu.

Outspoken Atheism

As we have already defined above, We, Outspoken Atheists, invite people to NOT respect religions, to be Outspoken against religions. Many people try their best to avoid (and even evade) telling the genuine assessments about religions, just because the adherents of religions may find it harsh due to them seeing religion as something sacred. On the other hand, the religious people do not restrain themselves from stigmatizing any group of people – religions can call homosexuals anything they want, religions can call the adherents of other religions anything they want, religions can say things like “A fool in says “there is no god ‘”, what if I announced “a fool believes there is god”, would the governments stay silent, let alone the same theists that adhere to the book that say “a fool says there is no god“. But somehow, it is us, New/Outspoken Atheists, who are called “disrespecting, intolerant” etc.

We, Outspoken Atheists, invite all those who have recuperated from theism to revolt this theistic cruelty.

OUTSPOKEN ATHEISM: THINKING PEOPLE OF THE WORLD, UNITE!