You are simply wrong. Atheists don't generally complain when people don't qualify what type of atheism that are talking about. There are not "types of atheism", as the atheists on here keep telling you.
I'm an atheist, I understand what atheism is.
The point you are
again missing is what is being discussed is ideological views about religion that are common among atheists, not simply disbelief in gods which is common to all atheists.
Hence New Atheists (not new atheists)
Yes, he is. Christianity did play a part in the downfall of the Roman Empire.
People thought that 250 years ago when Gibbon wrote it, modern historians don't actually think that anymore as they are less ideological and have better evidence.
Anyway, the Christian Roman Empire lasted until 1453, so it didn't seem to weaken it all much.
(Christianity did have something to do with its eventual fall in 1453, but Harris wasn't talking about the 4th Crusade)
Many Greek works were translated into Arabic and built upon by the scholars in the Islamic empire.
Scholars in the Arabic world certainly advanced many fields of knowledge, but that wasn't Harris' point.
He said the main reason we have the originals is they were preserved in the Arabic world which is false.
Every major text was preserved by Christians in the original Greek, none rely on Arabic translations.
Galileo did complain about people from the establishment who refused to look through his telescope.
Wrong again.
No one refused to look through anyone's telescope.
Galileo was in a minority of astronomers, and most scientists still promoted geocentrism.
Galileo couldn't prove his hypothesis at that point, it took another decade or so.
Look it up...
The three things you highlight are all accepted by historians as having some basis in fact.
Ironically, it seems to be you who needs the history lesson. Ouch!
No they aren't, they are what passes for 'common knowledge' among people who don't actually read any actual scholarship.
Thank you for proving my point about New Atheists being ignorant of history though
There have been occasions where science has been in conflict with religion, both on an establishment and individual level. That is undeniable.
Yes, occasions. Far fewer in the pre-modern era than people assume.
How many scientists can you name who were persecuted for scientific research in the medieval period?
Even the one that people can name (but from the Renaissance) was more to do with Galileo being a **** than anything else. After all, Copernicus dedicated his work on heliocentrism to the Pope and it was published by a bishop.
On the other hand, the church was the biggest promoter and funder of scientific research and education for many centuries.
Hence no scholars seriously promote the Conflict Thesis any more. Many New Atheist on the other hand love it and will defend it till their dying breath.