The New Atheists Did Not Have “the Slightest Idea” of What They Were Dealing With

Overview

The video argues that prominent “new atheist” public intellectuals—especially Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins—did not genuinely understand the philosophical/theological arguments they criticized. It claims they often either misunderstood key concepts or ignored important context, substituting rhetoric for substance.

Key Claims and Examples

1) Misunderstanding theology/philosophy instead of engaging it

The speaker argues the “new atheists” often handled arguments superficially—using rhetoric and cleverness (“Hitch slaps”) rather than addressing the underlying reasoning. The overall criticism is that they failed to read (or fully understand) the material they were opposing.

2) The Flat Earth experiment as a contrast case

A story is used as a counterexample: an experiment takes both flat-earthers and globe-earthers to the South Pole to observe the 24-hour sun.

• Will Duffy is described as a young Earth creationist who collaborates monthly with a science-minded channel (Erica).
• The speaker uses this to argue that even with creationist beliefs, a person can still engage seriously with evidence—unlike what the video portrays as the new atheists’ lack of engagement.

3) Dawkins and Thomas Aquinas

The speaker claims Dawkins misrepresents Aquinas, particularly in The God Delusion, where Aquinas’s “Five Ways” are treated as if easily dismissible.

A central point is that Dawkins allegedly attacks Aquinas’s initial notion of a first cause (or “terminator” idea) without accounting for Aquinas’s next step:

• Aquinas distinguishes that once the existence of a first cause is established, the next question concerns the cause’s attributes.
• The speaker suggests Dawkins didn’t read enough of Aquinas—even if he disagreed—because the rebuttal supposedly misses the framework Aquinas continues into immediately.

4) Hitchens’ rhetorical style versus argument substance

The video contrasts debate tactics (witty one-liners, insinuations) with actual logical engagement. It claims audiences may find Hitchens persuasive partly due to entertainment value, while his responses often bypass the relevant premises and reasoning.

An example is referenced from Hitchens’ interaction with William Lane Craig, in debates involving the Kalam/cosmological arguments: the speaker argues that what seems compelling on stage doesn’t necessarily address the full argument.

5) Inflated retorts to “first cause” arguments

The speaker recounts a specific Hitchens response related to “something from nothing,” comparing it to scenarios like cosmic events or heat death (referencing Lawrence Krauss).

The critique is that these responses may address a different question—for example, what happens later—rather than explaining why there exists something rather than nothing.

6) Free will and shallow engagement

The video claims Hitchens handles complex issues—such as free will—with simplistic statements. It also argues that interview/talk-show formats allow him to “get away with it” without receiving sustained scrutiny.

7) Evaluation of The God Delusion

While acknowledging that there is “a lot to like” in Dawkins’s broader work, the speaker argues Dawkins’s sections on arguments for God’s existence are so weak that they should be skipped even by philosophy students—because they would lead to failing an exam.

8) “Scientists can be corrected” analogy

When asked whether earlier thinkers (including scientists) can be seen as making foundational steps later corrected, the speaker responds that philosophy/religion debates don’t follow the same model as science’s iterative progress.

Instead of “Newton then Einstein,” the video portrays the new atheists’ moves as a step in the wrong direction, followed by later course-correction.

Overall Message

Overall, the video presents the new atheists as influential but argues they are insufficiently literate in the deeper philosophical material. It concludes that their public success came more from performance and rhetorical style than from accurate engagement with the arguments they criticized.

Presenters or Contributors (Mentioned)

• Matt Dillahunty
• Forest Valkai
• Erica (channel host; full name not provided)
• Will Duffy
• Christopher Hitchens
• Anderson Cooper (identified as the CNN presenter in an anecdote)
• Richard Dawkins
• Peter Hitchens
• Sam Harris
• William Lane Craig / Bill Craig
• Frank Turek
• Lawrence Krauss