Atheism 2.0

A few months ago, in October 2006, Wired News ran a story titled “The Crusade Against Religion” where the author investigated the re-emergence (or emergence?) of atheism powered by some very brilliant scientists and writers. Many people around the world have been involved with this New Atheism, but the most well-known and recognizable figure is Richard Dawkins who is a professor at Oxford University.

There is no “type” of person who might be an atheist, but if you look at Web 2.0 community sites like Digg and YouTube, you’ll see a growing number of users there who display anti-religion or pro-Atheism sentiments. I would go so far as to argue that without large tech-oriented sites like Digg and YouTube, the Atheism 2.0 movement would not have taken off as quickly as it has.

[Read]

I wonder how Christianity 2.0 will fit into the world of personal digital identity?

Asides

January 03

Comments

 

About the Author, Dan Cameron:

I'm the owner and solution engineer at Sprout Venture, a web solutions company that specializes in web development including WordPress.

I started my first blog in 2003 and transitioned to WordPress in 2004. Since moving to WordPress I've written a few plugins and themes for public consumption. Lately I'm busy engineering/building/coding and have only been able to share a few code snippets.

If you're in need of some web development, web design or custom WordPress plugins and/or themes contact me, I'll be happy to discuss it with you.

Read More »

  • I've been thinking about what affect the web is having on this new wave of atheism. I personally think the books written by Hawkins and Harris are responsible for most of the interest, and that's why the magazines and newspapers are covering them and then stuff gets posted on digg and YouTube. So what's the affect? Judging from what I've read on newsvine, If the only part of the conversation people are getting is the part that ends up on Web 2.0 then they there selling themselves short. I'm wondering if it has increased book sells. Actually, know that I think about it, my recent interest in this sort of thing kind of started with an add for _The_God_That_Wasn't_There_ (not a good film by the way) on MetaFilter but I can also trace it back to some other non-web related things I was introduced to. I guess I'm just thinking that if all the information you are taking in is the sort of thing that takes up most the space on the web you are going to be a pretty bad (or at least stupid) atheist, Christian, or whatever. I think the high quality stuff is still mostly in found in books published the old school way.
  • nstryker
    are you trying to encourage me to rename the web 2.0 article without the .0 ?
  • Dan
    Keep in mind the whole web 2.0 term is just marketing speak and no matter how meaningless it's meant to be catchy, which it has.
  • JaredB
    Agreed, I don't really like the whole 2.0 term either. But surprisingly, in spite of our disapproval, "Web 2.0" is Wikipedia's most cited article of 2006.
  • nstryker
    i never understood why people do 2.0 anyways. it's completely meaningless.
  • Dan
    Wonder how that would work out, X.X or II or II dot 0.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals#Zero
  • Dan
    Jared: How biblical.
  • Yeah, I'm going to start using roman numerals and see if it catches on.
  • putting 2.0 after everything makes Jesus cry.
blog comments powered by Disqus