The Apology of Martiro: Part 2 of 10

I must say, this is a very elegant confession. But it raises a few questions.

First, if you were interested in studying the other side, why sample the writings of Dawkins and Hitchens? Any atheist worth his or her salt knows that the New Atheism movement is not intellectually respectable. They aren't saying anything new, nor are they the best at providing reasoned objections against theism. For that, you'd do better to read Michael Martin's Atheism: A Philosophical Justification or the two volumes Martin edited with Monnier: The Impossibility of God and The Improbability of God. Furthermore, the New Atheists typically end up being far more "fundamentalist" than their religious opponents.

Referencing some of the more well known atheist writers such as Dawkins or Hitchens was merely done for the readers' benefit as these are authors most people are familiar with. I thought it unnecessary to also include George H. Smith, Bertrand Russell, or the oratorical wit of Matt Dillahunty. Few people know of the former two and virtually no one outside of the Austin, Texas community is familiar with the latter.

As an aside, I'm not sure how a "New Atheism Movement" can be accused of not saying anything new. If that is the case, then why call it a "new" anything? I wasn't even aware such a thing existed as I tend not to get caught up in "movements". Also, who said an atheist had to be worth his salt? We lost our saltiness long ago...didn't you know that?