The Religion of New Atheism

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Origin. How did life start? For the New Atheists, their faith hangs on this. Thus all this tap-dances about multi-universes!

Their claim that society is better off without religion. Where's the proof for that?

Uh, who cares? I don't know. It doesn't matter.

What does that have to do with the argument for atheism, which is that there is no evidence of deities?

What you're basically arguing is that since I don't know the root of abiogensis, that means "god didit." That is a lazy, uneducated, ridiculous argument.

 

[Amadeus]

The ironic thing about militant atheists who do this is that they often criticize religion for the very intolerance, irrationality and bigotry that they display. This is interesting given how many people leave religion because they don't want their differences of opinion to mocked or otherwise denigrated.

Do you have anything to back up that statement?

Another ironic thing about militant atheists is that they criticize religious people for thinking with their emotions when many of them are motivated by anger and resentment.

Certainly there is anger and resentment, but I don't recall any atheist mocking emotion.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Neither does being an atheist. Someone saying they are an atheist says absolutely nothing about what their ethics or beliefs are like.

Me being an atheist has a rather profound impact on how I see and interact with the world.

Why should atheists be subjected to public discrimination and attempts to ban them from serving, and even from existing?

Because no one has to like you, your ideological wares, or even respect your ability to operate legally within society. What they can't do is limit your ability to do so.

It doesn't, but it proports to, and fails in reality.

It proports to? I am unfamiliar with any right to be free of offence

So now that I've proven you wrong

What did you prove me wrong on? You claimed there were instances of 'athesits being chased out of town", that they are disliked, and that they have the abiulity to hold office challenged.

1) you haven't even attempted to supported.

2) isn't a big deal and there is no legal or ethical obligation that people need to like what you believe

3) I underlined that those challenges had no credibility or legal leg to stand on

you're just reverting to "Whiny atheists. Deal with people trying to take away your rights or GTFO." Classy.

I'm an atheist, and you haven't raised any credible instance of someone trying to take away your rights. You cited some people trying to push a law that merely exists on the books, was nullified by current applicable law, and which would have no chance being implamented.

And yes, crying about people not liking what you believe is, indeed, whiny. but that has nothing to do with your views on god and religion

 

[tosca1]

Uh, who cares? I don't know. It doesn't matter.

What does that have to do with the argument for atheism, which is that there is no evidence of deities?

What you're basically arguing is that since I don't know the root of abiogensis, that means "god didit." That is a lazy, uneducated, ridiculous argument.

No, it's not without reasonable argument. In fact, it's more probable than what Dawkins and followers dream about.
However, you're right....that line would lead to something that has nothing to do with this thread.

 

[Bonzai]

"Religiosity" in and of itself is not the problem. There were many religious outlooks that were very beautiful, if not exciting. They died off and were replaced, in most of the world, by the religious outlooks we have today. And they are ugly....................

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Me being an atheist has a rather profound impact on how I see and interact with the world.

Maybe so, but not because of what atheism is. Atheism itself has no tenants that follow from it. You can combine atheism with any ethos in existence.

Because no one has to like you, your ideological wares, or even respect your ability to operate legally within society. What they can't do is limit your ability to do so.

It's not about people liking you. It's about how socially acceptable it is to harass atheists.

This is obviously about your apologist reaction on this issue. Nothing below is worth addressing because it's all the same thing.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

No, it's not without reasonable argument. In fact, it's more probable than what Dawkins and followers dream about.
However, you're right....that line would lead to something that has nothing to do with this thread.

No, it isn't, simply by the odds.

There are billions of ways that life could have started that are "not god."

However, a religious person believes in the specific myths of their religion. Just one way.

Statistically, the non-religious person who admits that we just don't know, but we have no reason to believe "god didit" is more likely to be right. And they are certainly more likely to accept the real answer, whenever we find it.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

If you can't handle ridicule of your beliefs, have less ridiculous beliefs.

This first line undermines any valid point you could have made. It's funny though. Atheists often complain about how they are treated poorly by theists and yet many of them - like you - behave in a way that demands nothing more.

That said, there are an amount of atheists who are unfairly criticized. These are atheists who are genuinely denigrated just because of their beliefs (or non-belief). No matter how they behave or treat the theists they interact with, they are insulted or demonized because of prejudice and intolerance.

There is another group of atheists, however, who are fairly criticized. These are atheists who are denigrated because they behave like jerks - they behave in a way that is entirely incompatible with effective communication and mutual respect. This is you.

 

[Fisher]

I think the main evidence for gods, and also, perhaps, God, is personal experience.

That's not evidence.

Strange that so much of science is based upon personal experience--that is what observation is--but when people of faith base their opinions on personal experience, suddenly it isn't evidence. How very convenient life is with blinders is for the "intellectually superior" folks.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Maybe so, but not because of what atheism is. Atheism itself has no tenants that follow from it.

what would you call a lack of deity?

It's not about people liking you. It's about how socially acceptable it is to harass atheists.

like how?

This is obviously about your apologist reaction on this issue. Nothing below is worth addressing because it's all the same thing.

Yes, go back to cowering in the corner because people don't like your views. The inhumanity of it all ...

 

[ThePlayDrive]

It's about how socially acceptable it is to harass atheists.

It's not though. It may be in certain areas, but not in others. I can't even imagine anyone that I know over the age of 18 thinking it's acceptable to "harass" anybody. I get the impression that you are taking the behavior of a subset of the population and applying it to the rest of society.

 

[tosca1]

No, it isn't, simply by the odds.

There are billions of ways that life could have started that are "not god."

If there are a billion ways that life could've started....why would you exclude the possibility that life was created? :thinking
On what proof would you base that?

Especially when Dawkins himself had publicly admitted that he cannot be sure that God doesn't exist?

Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist
He is regarded as the most famous atheist in the world but last night Professor Richard Dawkins admitted he could not be sure that God does not exist.

Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist - Telegraph

 

[Ray410]

Atheism, has historically been defined as simply the absence of religious faith and nothing more.

Now however, with the homosexual usurpation of Atheism as a weapon, those Atheistic non-believers may be viewed much like the followers of Islam in that present day Atheism departs from the simple historical definition and expands to incorporate the additional shocking components of seemingly intractable, all consuming rage and hatred of all things Christian as well as individual Christians themselves.

This is a sea change departure from the simplistic historical definition.

 

[bubbabgone]

"Religiosity" in and of itself is not the problem.

There were many religious outlooks that were very beautiful, if not exciting

. They died off and were replaced, in most of the world, by the religious outlooks we have today. And they are ugly....................

I sense I'm gonna regret asking but ... which religions excited you, Bonz?

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Atheism, has historically been simply the absence of faith and nothing more.


Now however, with the homosexual usurpation of Atheism as a utilitarian weapon, those non-believers may be viewed much like Islam in that atheism departs from the simple historical definition and contains the additional shocking components of seemingly intractable, all consuming rage and hatred of all things Christian.


This is a sea change departure from the simplistic historical definition.

Homosexual usurpation? Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?

 

[Bonzai]

If there are a billion ways that life could've started....why would you exclude the possibility that life was created? :thinking
On what proof would you base that?
Especially when Dawkins himself had admitted that he cannot be sure that God doesn't exist?



Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist - Telegraph

As our mortality closes in on us, especially as we age, there is a tendency to run to the security of old fetishes...........It's just a sign of decay and the uncomforting fact that death awaits us all.....................

 

[Paschendale]

Hey, did you know that we have a 13000 character limit on posts? I know that now. Part 1 of 2.

My beliefs don't rest upon what other people think about them, so ridicule them all you want. It just so happens that I like discussing different spiritual and philosophical ideas with other people who have the decency to not lash out at me. It's hard to have those kinds of conversations with egotistical people that have superiority complexes.

I'm not sure what kind of decency you expect then, if it doesn't include "you're wrong and here's why." Or if I somehow have to be uncertain in my position so you can feel better about yours.

You know, it's not always about agreeing and disagreeing. Why is it so hard for people to practice active listening and not need to argue with reality all the time?

You do know this is DEBATE politics, right? You offer your position to have it opposed by people, and hopefully supported. You don't do it so people will say "ho hum, that's nice, it's great how entitled to your opinion you are." I don't care how you feel about your positions. I care about truth. I argue with people and debate with them in an attempt to ascertain the truth.

But I notice that little slip "argue with reality." What are you asserting as reality? You mean the "reality" of your spiritual experiences and rocks talking to each other? Because that's not actual reality. And there are no subjective realities. There is no x's reality and z's reality. There's just reality, and our ideas about it and how close to the truth they are.

Atheism may not be a belief system, but you'd swear it is based on the way some of them act. The problem I have with certain atheists is the same problem I have with any polemicists and dogmatists: they live in complete and utter certainty, which to me is the biggest delusion ever. How can you claim to know with 100% certainty, one way or another, and then IMPOSE that on someone else? I have more respect for agnostics, personally.

That's because you don't really understand what agnosticism is, but that's a topic for another day. And no, no prominent atheist asserts 100% certainty of knowledge about the nature of the universe. We don't know what the right answer is. We just know that your answer is wrong. We have the evidence. We have the evidence to show that a lot of answers are wrong.

By the way, studies into neurobiology show that we are not all living in one common reality anyway. Everything is just a projection of our internal world. We all have different perceptual filters. It's laughable to say that atheism is "reality", or that Christianity is "reality". It's YOUR reality, so own it, and stop trying to dominate others.

Show me the studies, by all means. Please don't just link to some guy's personal website like last time. And no, there are not my reality and your reality. There's just reality. Whatever it is, that's what it is. If it were a god of some sort, that would be true no matter how much I didn't like it. Truth is truth. It is not subject to a person's desires. You are either right or you are wrong. Thus far, everyone has been wrong. We may not ever be able to figure out what right is. But we do know what is wrong. Magic and superstition are wrong.

The people I have 100% complete and utter respect for are the ones who acknowledge and pay hommage to the great mystery, which is possible to be in love with even if you don't understand it. The obsession with certain knowledge and absoluteness is problematic, IMO.

What great mystery? The exact physical nature of the universe? The complexities of the human condition? The soaring emotions we feel when we fall in love? Paying homage to those IS searching for understanding. Shrugging your shoulders and saying that the world around us can't be understood is a disservice to this amazing world that we live in.

I've seen Christians criticise most of those things.

I've seen a lot more apologists than criticisms.

However, it isn't practical since there aren't evidence(s) for some of the theories that atheists claim.
How many times have we heard how society will be much better off without religion?

All of those "fortuitous coincidences" merely show that if the universe were too hostile to life for us to be here, then we wouldn't be here to notice. That these unlikely chances have played out over a greater sample size than 1 is much more reasonable than magical intervention setting things up this way.

The ironic thing about militant atheists who do this is that they often criticize religion for the very intolerance, irrationality and bigotry that they display. This is interesting given how many people leave religion because they don't want their differences of opinion to mocked or otherwise denigrated. Another ironic thing about militant atheists is that they criticize religious people for thinking with their emotions when many of them are motivated by anger and resentment.

Awww, we're so bad cuz we're rude. It's almost like we were burning people at the stake, trying to pass a constitutional amendment to keep them from marrying, waging wars in the name of Darwin, or demanding that our organizations not have to pay taxes. That's just like being dismissive of someone with no evidence to back up their positions, right?

I was just being mean to you. Why? Because you're wrong. So wrong that I find your position impossible to respond to seriously. So I mocked you. That's my only option address the sheer willful ignorance of what you're saying, or the bizarre false equivalency of atheists not coddling the feelings of people who think that we are intrinsically evil and deserve to be set on fire for millions of years and wouldn't lift a finger to rescue us from that to the thousands of years of violence and discrimination that have been visited upon us and continue to be visited today.

Actually, that was less rude. But it was a lot more accusatory. Take your pick. You can have jokes that call theists idiots, or serious criticism that calls them monsters. Which would you prefer?

Most of that is your opinion, not verifiable fact. I'll agree with you on the moral compass point, of course, because there are too many special clubs and too many non-members who have fully functional moral compasses.

Which of "that"? That demons are nonexistent? That the bible has been translated and edited? That people have supposedly transcendent experiences regardless of what spiritual situation they believe in and those experiences far more often than not reaffirm the position they already had rather than lead them towards any kind of objective truth? Which parts of that aren't verifiable?

Sounds kind of like what you've been saying, minus the all-powerful creature. :lol:

Which makes all the difference. I'll show you evidence for my positions, and when better evidence comes along, my positions will be abandoned for superior ones. I don't fall back on an appeal to authority to force my outdated positions to stick around.

I'm not saying anybody should be silent. You're mistaking me for someone else. I'm talking about respect, not silence. All I ask is that people not be assholes.

So what version of respect precludes "you're wrong and here's why"? You wouldn't worry about tempering your position when informing a Flat-Earther that they're wrong, would you? Of course not. You know the truth and they're nuts for thinking something so obviously wrong. Guess what, you're the Flat-Earther here.

There are lots of religious people out there who don't try to murder their neighbors, and atheists are just as capable of trying to control the behavior of others -- there are many who think themselves superior enough to do so, I'm sure.

Show me a single law in this country that is rooted in enforcing atheism. Let me also try to understand all this drivel about atheists "feeling superior". Let's go back to the Flat-Earther. Aren't you superior to him? There are satellites flying around the round planet that make our cell phones work. People fly around the world in airplanes. We've taken pictures of the round world from the moon. From the freaking moon! Doesn't being right actually make a person superior? And if it doesn't, what does?

 

[Paschendale]

Part 2 of 2.

Certainly there is anger and resentment, but I don't recall any atheist mocking emotion.

We do mock emotional attachment to fantasies. Maybe that's what he's talking about. When people's worldview is so rooted in being a part of the chosen people or the special club that they just can't handle being down to the level of the rest of us. If they're not special and saved, then they can't cope. That we mock. I'm frankly upset by anyone who doesn't mock that. But we certainly don't mock making decisions based on our emotions. We mock excusing based decisions based on frankly pathetic emotional reactions.

No, it's not without reasonable argument. In fact, it's more probable than what Dawkins and followers dream about.
However, you're right....that line would lead to something that has nothing to do with this thread.

Please back up this assertion of probability.

ARGH! This thread moves too fast to keep up with!!

This first line undermines any valid point you could have made. It's funny though. Atheists often complain about how they are treated poorly by theists and yet many of them - like you - behave in a way that demands nothing more.

That said, there are an amount of atheists who are unfairly criticized. These are atheists who are genuinely denigrated just because of their beliefs (or non-belief). No matter how they behave or treat the theists they interact with, they are insulted or demonized because of prejudice and intolerance.

There is another group of atheists, however, who are fairly criticized. These are atheists who are denigrated because they behave like jerks - they behave in a way that is entirely incompatible with effective communication and mutual respect. This is you.

It is impossible to convince me that you respect me when you think that I am flawed because I don't think that there is an invisible sky man controlling the universe who demands that I tell him how wonderful he is and conclude with no doubt that he is real and that I owe him something despite him hiding himself from me. I don't respect your intellect if you think that.

It is not intolerance to tell someone that they are wrong when you can prove that they are almost certainly wrong. Tolerance does not mean accepting the evil of the world and letting it fester. Tolerance does not mean me telling you that your position is legitimate. It's not. I have and will many times again tell you why.

But let's talk real intolerance. Do you think that Tosca was infracted for putting this thread in the religion forum? If I made an anti-religion thread in the religion forum, wouldn't I be?. That is the standard by which theists and atheists are judged and interact in this country, and in most of the world. Not a single person today was killed merely for being a theist. Lots of people were killed today for being atheist. No one was treated like a second class citizen today merely for being a theist. Lots of people are stripped of basic human rights for being atheist. Don't get me wrong, plenty of theists treat theists of other religions as poorly as they treat atheists, but that just shows how there's little difference between the various faiths.

So by all means, tell me how awful I am for daring to stand up for myself and my position. And not only just asserting its truth, but having evidence for it. Tell me how much of a bully I am when I'm less than 12% of the US population compared to 71% Christian. 86% of Americans think that the Abrahamic god exists. But somehow I'm oppressing them because I take them to court when they pass laws to enforce their religion over me and use the first amendment to protect myself from them.

Strange that so much of science is based upon personal experience--that is what observation is--but when people of faith base their opinions on personal experience, suddenly it isn't evidence. How very convenient life is with blinders is for the "intellectually superior" folks.

No, it's not personal experience. It's a whole lot of people experiencing the same thing and showing how no one's experience differs even a little bit, and then offering that same experience to literally everyone who wants to see it, and still getting the same result. If you want to examine their data and prove them wrong, go ahead. There's probably a Nobel prize in it for you.

What believers do is have an experience that only they experience and no one else can ever examine, and then claim that it means this or that, but no one can prove them wrong because the experience can't be repeated by anyone else.

If you can't understand the flaws in an experiment with a sample size of 1, then you don't know very much about science or truth.

 

[Bonzai]

I sense I'm gonna regret asking but ... which religions excited you, Bonz?

I wasn't speaking of myself, I was speaking of their effect on people in general. Though, the spectacle of Samantha praying, naked on a Greek beach at midnight in the midst of a candlelit pentagram, to Hecate the witch queen to force her exlover to return to her is about as wild as it gets...............lol..................

 

[Thrilla]

Once you call someone an asshole you proclaim yourself to be morally superior. Mr Pot you are black.

good lord :lol:

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

But let's talk real intolerance. Do you think that Tosca was infracted for putting this thread in the religion forum? If I made an anti-religion thread in the religion forum, wouldn't I be?.

was he and would you?

 

[ThePlayDrive]

Awww, we're so bad cuz we're rude. It's almost like we were burning people at the stake, trying to pass a constitutional amendment to keep them from marrying, waging wars in the name of Darwin, or demanding that our organizations not have to pay taxes. That's just like being dismissive of someone with no evidence to back up their positions, right?

I was just being mean to you. Why? Because you're wrong. So wrong that I find your position impossible to respond to seriously. So I mocked you. That's my only option address the sheer willful ignorance of what you're saying, or the bizarre false equivalency of atheists not coddling the feelings of people who think that we are intrinsically evil and deserve to be set on fire for millions of years and wouldn't lift a finger to rescue us from that to the thousands of years of violence and discrimination that have been visited upon us and continue to be visited today.

Actually, that was less rude. But it was a lot more accusatory. Take your pick. You can have jokes that call theists idiots, or serious criticism that calls them monsters. Which would you prefer?

I don't think you understand. When you ridicule my and others' beliefs as you have above, it reflects on nobody but yourself. I'm okay with you mocking my beliefs because I don't need you to validate them. My point is that atheists like you behave poorly and hypocritically and haven't done anything to earn the respect that you desire. I don't desire your respect so how you perceive me is irrelevant.

I agree with your condemnation of religious intolerance and theocratic type behavior, though.

 

[tosca1]

Originally Posted by tosca1 View Post

No, it's not without reasonable argument. In fact, it's more probable than what Dawkins and followers dream about.

Part 2 of 2.

Please back up this assertion of probability.

Is the Universe Too Precise to Be Randomly Formed?

 

[Cephus]

Do New Atheists admit to believing there is no god, or do they also attempt the end-run around Russell's Teapot?

No, by and large they actually understand what the terminology means and use the words properly.

Unlike most theists.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

It is impossible to convince me that you respect me when you think that I am flawed because I don't think that there is an invisible sky man controlling the universe who demands that I tell him how wonderful he is and conclude with no doubt that he is real and that I owe him something despite him hiding himself from me. I don't respect your intellect if you think that.

I don't think you're flawed because you don't believe in God. You're confusing me with someone else.

It is not intolerance to tell someone that they are wrong when you can prove that they are almost certainly wrong. Tolerance does not mean accepting the evil of the world and letting it fester. Tolerance does not mean me telling you that your position is legitimate. It's not. I have and will many times again tell you why.

I've never argued that intolerance and tolerance are any of those things. Again, you are confusing me with someone else.

But let's talk real intolerance. Do you think that Tosca was infracted for putting this thread in the religion forum? If I made an anti-religion thread in the religion forum, wouldn't I be?. That is the standard by which theists and atheists are judged and interact in this country, and in most of the world. Not a single person today was killed merely for being a theist. Lots of people were killed today for being atheist. No one was treated like a second class citizen today merely for being a theist. Lots of people are stripped of basic human rights for being atheist. Don't get me wrong, plenty of theists treat theists of other religions as poorly as they treat atheists, but that just shows how there's little difference between the various faiths.

I literally just said, in the post you quoted, that certain atheists are treated unfairly because of prejudice and intolerance. You literally just repeated what I just said, but with examples, and then acted like you were teaching me something. Wow.

So by all means, tell me how awful I am for daring to stand up for myself and my position. And not only just asserting its truth, but having evidence for it. Tell me how much of a bully I am when I'm less than 12% of the US population compared to 71% Christian. 86% of Americans think that the Abrahamic god exists. But somehow I'm oppressing them because I take them to court when they pass laws to enforce their religion over me and use the first amendment to protect myself from them.

You're fighting ghosts, dude. I never said that you were oppressing anybody. I said that you behave like a jerk. You do. You behave like someone who creates negativity and then uses people's reactions to that negativity as proof that you are being persecuted. It's not a good look.

Also, I wonder why it is that, instead of addressing what I actually said, you created a bunch of arguments, attributed them to me and then argued against them. Weird.