Michael Hardner Posted August 21, 2011 Report Posted August 21, 2011 Of course it is "reflected"....that is the point. An atheist argument, new or otherwise, does not sit on any more solid ground as another belief system in the abstract. Right, except the OP isn't about validating Atheism but answering 'What is a New Atheist'. Global Warming is a theory that is supported by facts. The two discussions are different, so as I posted: Two different things here: the discussion of popular use of a term versus a scientific idea based on observable facts. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Michael Hardner Posted August 21, 2011 Report Posted August 21, 2011 But they are! I don't think so. One should be able to discuss the merit of the ideas alone. Do you accept people generalizing about Christians in their arguments about the value of Christianity ? I don't. And I've been fair in describing and making sure that New Atheists are not mistaken for the regular Atheists. Because there is a stark difference between the two. So this thread is about disparaging a subgroup of Atheists ? I would submit that such a thread represents an insult thread, which isn't productive or interesting. NEW ATHEISTS. And to support my claim, will you read the openning article in the Church Of The Non-Believers. I'm really not interested. I got the idea of what this is about from the OP, and I have given my take on it. I don't think it should be about insulting people, and I'm not interested in taking time to read articles on that topic if that's what it is. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
BubberMiley Posted August 21, 2011 Report Posted August 21, 2011 Their hostile attitude suggest there's some issues with religion....that they carry like a chip on their shoulders. I think the countless wars in the name of god is starting to bug them. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
betsy Posted August 21, 2011 Author Report Posted August 21, 2011 (edited) I don't think so. One should be able to discuss the merit of the ideas alone. Do you accept people generalizing about Christians in their arguments about the value of Christianity ? I don't. If you are a new atheist, obviously you're going to follow the doctrine of New Atheism. Oh boy, why does this ring a bell again....I'm having deja vu. So this thread is about disparaging a subgroup of Atheists ? I would submit that such a thread represents an insult thread, which isn't productive or interesting. Well, this thread is in response to this initially, Christian - An irritional individual with an uncanny desperate will to appear morally superior. Often someone who warps the teachings of christ to rationalize every decision they make including theft, manipulation, violence and even hate crimes. Your definition only. Thanks - we'll add it to the definition pile. Okay. But let's be fair, shall we? ....but it now became quite interesting. I'm really not interested. I got the idea of what this is about from the OP, and I have given my take on it. I don't think it should be about insulting people, and I'm not interested in taking time to read articles on that topic if that's what it is. Then we cannot discuss since you won't understand what New Atheism is all about and where I'm coming from. Besides, I don't want to force an argument on you if you're not interested. Have a nice day. Edited August 21, 2011 by betsy Quote
betsy Posted August 21, 2011 Author Report Posted August 21, 2011 I think the countless wars in the name of god is starting to bug them. Already? Quote
DogOnPorch Posted August 21, 2011 Report Posted August 21, 2011 So when was the last dinosaur done away with? Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
DogOnPorch Posted August 21, 2011 Report Posted August 21, 2011 In 1272? Last Tuesday? Never? Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Michael Hardner Posted August 21, 2011 Report Posted August 21, 2011 If you are a new atheist, obviously you're going to follow the doctrine of New Atheism. You didn't answer my question. What's good for the goose, etc. And, no, I don't consider myself an Atheist so please don't call me one thanks. Well, this thread is in response to this initially, You're right. My sarcasm wasn't strong enough in my response. MCC's definition is more insulting and off putting than your definition of New Atheists, at least to me. Then we cannot discuss since you won't understand what New Atheism is all about and where I'm coming from. Besides, I don't want to force an argument on you if you're not interested. I think the article speaks against the ideas of NA well enough, and I have nothing to add to them. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
DogOnPorch Posted August 21, 2011 Report Posted August 21, 2011 Atheists are so much about being right...just about not being what is so obviously wrong. Virgin birth? Yeah...nice trick. Didn't happen. We now know how sex works. It takes two to tango. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
betsy Posted August 21, 2011 Author Report Posted August 21, 2011 (edited) You didn't answer my question. What's good for the goose, etc. As for generalizing...I've given you the goose - the initial reason for this gander. Furthermore, if you've read that article I'm asking you to read - that answers your question! But now that I've made this topic (which I was not gonna make if not for that MCC response)....I might as well go with it, since that article confirms...yeah....the gander is the New Atheist. Edited August 21, 2011 by betsy Quote
Moonlight Graham Posted August 21, 2011 Report Posted August 21, 2011 New Atheists are into the in-your-face rudeness in their zero tolerance for religion and faith! Their aim is to ridicule and dis-respect religion/faith at every opportunity they get! And that's no bull. I don't know much about Dawkins at all, but the above sounds like Bill Maher. The only truly logical, scientific, empirically defensible position on religion is to be an agnostic, because you can't prove there is a God(s) (it's based on faith after all, which is unprovable) and you can't prove there is no God(s) (atheist). Being an atheist is about as illogical as being a theist. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
Michael Hardner Posted August 21, 2011 Report Posted August 21, 2011 But now that I've made this topic (which I was not gonna make if not for that MCC response)....I might as well go with it, since that article confirms...yeah....the gander is the New Atheist. Is this an eye-for-an-eye ? Or a thread-for-a-thread ? I called out MCC for his anti-Christian post but that won't stop such posts from happening, nor will it stop response/revenge/reprisal threads such as this one either. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
cybercoma Posted August 21, 2011 Report Posted August 21, 2011 The doctrine of New Atheism? What's that? Not believing in things that haven't been proven? How edgy and extreme. Quote
betsy Posted August 21, 2011 Author Report Posted August 21, 2011 (edited) I don't know much about Dawkins at all, but the above sounds like Bill Maher. Read this and you'll understand where I'm coming from. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18436 The only truly logical, scientific, empirically defensible position on religion is to be an agnostic, If you don't believe in God (yet)....I suppose it's more logical to be an agnostic. Why would you put yourself in a corner making a firm conclusion that there is no God, when science (which atheists rely on) cannot even irrefutably explain how we came to be.....and by the looks of it science is even supporting some of the claims in the Bible. because you can't prove there is a God(s) (it's based on faith after all, which is unprovable) Well you can't make a conclusion either that faith is unprovable. Being an atheist is about as illogical as being a theist. I don't think so. Edited August 21, 2011 by betsy Quote
Michael Hardner Posted August 21, 2011 Report Posted August 21, 2011 The doctrine of New Atheism? What's that? Not believing in things that haven't been proven? How edgy and extreme. I think it's more about baptizing Agnostics as Atheists from the OP. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
cybercoma Posted August 21, 2011 Report Posted August 21, 2011 Well, agnostics are atheists. There really isn't some sort of in between. Either you believe in the existence of God or you don't. If you don't know, then you don't very well believe in His existence. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted August 21, 2011 Report Posted August 21, 2011 Well, agnostics are atheists. There really isn't some sort of in between. Either you believe in the existence of God or you don't. If you don't know, then you don't very well believe in His existence. Sigh... I suppose this is another one of those ideas that comes up now and again... From previous discussions on this, there is "belief in no gods" which is Atheism and "no belief in gods" which is Agnosticism. Do you agree ? Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
betsy Posted August 21, 2011 Author Report Posted August 21, 2011 Is this an eye-for-an-eye ? Or a thread-for-a-thread ? I called out MCC for his anti-Christian post but that won't stop such posts from happening, nor will it stop response/revenge/reprisal threads such as this one either. A thread for a thread. And an answer to New Atheism. Besides, why shouldn't we know and understand the new atheist? No, I'm not faulting you or blaming you for MCC. I've been responded to much much worse than that. But as you can see.....I'm not one to shy from or get disturbed by them. I know where I firmly stand. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted August 21, 2011 Report Posted August 21, 2011 A thread for a thread. And an answer to New Atheism. Besides, why shouldn't we know and understand the new atheist? Oh, we definitely should. Dialogue is a good way to understand people. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
betsy Posted August 21, 2011 Author Report Posted August 21, 2011 What is the best argument for Theism? William Lane Craig has responded to rebuttals made by Richard Dawkins on traditional arguments for God's existence like the cosmological, teleological, moral, and ontological argument for God's existence. Here they are: The New Atheism and Five Arguments for God (must register to read): http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8088 Quote
cybercoma Posted August 21, 2011 Report Posted August 21, 2011 Sigh... I suppose this is another one of those ideas that comes up now and again... From previous discussions on this, there is "belief in no gods" which is Atheism and "no belief in gods" which is Agnosticism. Do you agree ? No I don't. Since, atheism, even linguistically, means without belief in god--"a-" being a prefix meaning the "absence of" or "without". In any case, I think "belief in no gods" and "no belief in gods" is the exact same thing, worded differently for emotional convenience. If you have "no belief in gods", then you don't very well believe in any gods. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted August 21, 2011 Report Posted August 21, 2011 No I don't. Since, atheism, even linguistically, means without belief in god--"a-" being a prefix meaning the "absence of" or "without". In any case, I think "belief in no gods" and "no belief in gods" is the exact same thing, worded differently for emotional convenience. If you have "no belief in gods", then you don't very well believe in any gods. I don't think it follows. "I don't believe there is an 'X'" doesn't say what you do believe. You may not know, in which case you can say you don't believe. "I believe there is no 'X'" says you have a definite belief. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
cybercoma Posted August 21, 2011 Report Posted August 21, 2011 We're talking about degrees of zero. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted August 21, 2011 Report Posted August 21, 2011 (edited) The only thing an atheist knows for sure is that the Universe didn't unfold according to some book written by Bronze/Iron Age humans who thought the Earth was flat among other things. An atheist accepts science's conclusion that our star isn't anything special and was born...as was our Earth...from the remnants of older stars that exploded, spraying the Cosmos with their heavy elements. As well, an atheist concludes that life on this planet evolved from mere chemical building blocks into vast numbers of complex forms according to the fossil record. This didn't happen all at once* a few thousand years ago as the Bible insists, but over billions of years. If there's a supreme being mapping my every thought...it isn't talking. Probably a good thing... That this is even debatable is sad. * that means dinosaurs, trilobites, modern elephants, kangaroos, charnias, 100' tall lepidodendrales, swine flu, etc, all in a big-ass field together. Seriously?? Edited August 21, 2011 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
kimmy Posted August 21, 2011 Report Posted August 21, 2011 What is the best argument for Theism? 1. Contingency "God is the best explanation for why anything at all exists." rofl 2.Cosmological "God is the best explanation for the origin of the universe." rofl 3. Design "God is the best explanation for the fine tuning of the initial conditions of the universe to support intelligent life." rofl 4. Moral "God is the best explanation for the existence of objective moral values." rofl 5. Ontological "The very possibility that God exists implies that God exists." rofl 6. Personal Experience "We can know that God exists by personally experiencing him." rofl -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.