What is a New Atheist

[betsy]

Please....re-consider what you're saying or how you are responding.

Your shallow rebuttals - that clearly reflect your shallow understanding - only gives credit to Willaim Craig's assessment of the new atheists: That, they're not intellectually "bright."

It's not just a name-calling response from him. He explained why he came to that conclusion.

And if you look back to some of the ridiculous responses coming from the new atheists on this board - especially the rabid ones - you'll see what he meant.

Edited August 22, 2011 by betsy

[DogOnPorch]

Please....re-consider what you're saying or how you are responding.

Your shallow rebuttals - that clearly reflect your shallow understanding - only gives credit to Willaim Craig's assessment of the new atheists: That they're not intellectually "bright."

It's not just a name-calling response from him. He explained why he came to that conclusion.

[betsy]

Their understanding is too shallow perhaps - that's why they have a hard time finding and responding to the point.

I kept saying and will keep on saying - they can't hit the bullseye!

Somehow.....they seem to be off-kilter...even in their attempt to mock!

Let's take for example their Flying Spaghetti Monster:

The 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' & The Evidence For God

Dr. William Lane Craig

"That people could think that belief in God is anything like the groundless belief in a fantasy monster shows how utterly ignorant they are of the works of Anselm, Aquinas, Leibniz, Paley, Sorley, and a host of others, past and present.

No doubt part of the fault lies with equally ignorant Christians who have no answer when called upon to give a reason for the hope within and who therefore give the impression of arbitrary and groundless belief. But it must also be attributed to poor education, intellectual laziness, and a lack of curiosity."

excerpt from Dr. Craig on www.reasonablefaith.org

Yes, dear brothers and sisters in Christ....we are also at fault.

That's why we have to "arm" ourselves with knowledge (by reading and understanding what we are trying to defend), so we can confidently give answers and act accordingly.

Edited August 22, 2011 by betsy

[Oleg Bach]

An atheist is a person that believes in GOD but not in Betsy.

[cybercoma]

An atheist is a person that believes in GOD but not in Betsy.

No, Oleg. Atheists believe in betsy. If atheists didn't believe in betsy, they wouldn't continue to respond to her in this thread.

[GostHacked]

Good one Betsy, you can't even tell me what an Old Athiest is, never mind a NEW Atheist.

Another Betsy fail.

[dre]

Well, the New Atheist is founded by Dawkins et al. If he does not give a crap about the founders or any of this crap....then why call one's self a new atheist?

There is indeed a differing connotation to new atheists - something that distinguish them from the regular atheists.

They are defined mostly by their attitude and "reason."

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.

You should read the Church of The Non-believers (the openning article) so you can understand the difference.

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.

Thats exactly what people like you do with atheism. You mock it, call it stupid, claim that evolution has been proven wrong... look at all the horseshit you post here... dripping with malice and sarcasm. Now youre crying because some folks on the other side are fighting back.

But the reality is that these people are a minority, and atheists as a group are probably the LEAST evangelical group on the planet. They are a tiny oppressed minority that for the most part is scared of their own shadow. And if they dare speak up they are bombarded with Christian vitriol, or even death threats.

Atheists and scientists are scared to death of the religious mob thats been persecuting non-believers for thousands of years, burning their books, suppressing their ideas, killing them, and arresting their leaders. So in general they have gotten used to tip-toing around and being very carefull not to offend the religious mob.

In MOST OF THE WORLD, even openly admitting that you are an atheist would put you at risk of harm by the religious mob.

But things are slowly changing! The number of atheists is growing as countries industrialize, and as the mountain of usefull works produced by those living in an evidence based reality continues to grow. And if the tables are turned and living in an "evidence based reality" becomese the norm, and religious people become a minority, I hope we treat you better than you treated everyone else that disageed with your views over the last few centuries.

Edited August 22, 2011 by dre

[Oleg Bach]

No, Oleg. Atheists believe in betsy. If atheists didn't believe in betsy, they wouldn't continue to respond to her in this thread.

God point. I mean good point..typo. Betsy is classic and agressive...much like a Muslim who believes that God is weak and needs some assistance in the killing of infidel humans. God does not need help nor do atheists need to kick at the prick. Let them have their debate _ I will be back in a million years to watch the re-runs. What you say is accurate - without Betsy - there would be no atheists - so Betsy must be a god..in the eyes of an athesist - and easier to go after than the big G God..Seein that the Big G GOD...can't be bothered with atheists or believers and for the most part makes himself scarce. The one thing you have to admire about God is it is like a cat - does not give a damn - and Betsy along with the atheists are like puppies that like to cuddle until they learn the importance of food - then everything after that becomes something with ulteriour motives.

[wyly]

Thats exactly what people like you do with atheism. You mock it, call it stupid, claim that evolution has been proven wrong... look at all the horseshit you post here... dripping with malice and sarcasm. Now youre crying because some folks on the other side are fighting back.

But the reality is that these people are a minority, and atheists as a group are probably the LEAST evangelical group on the planet. They are a tiny oppressed minority that for the most part is scared of their own shadow. And if they dare speak up they are bombarded with Christian vitriol, or even death threats.

Atheists and scientists are scared to death of the religious mob thats been persecuting non-believers for thousands of years, burning their books, suppressing their ideas, killing them, and arresting their leaders. So in general they have gotten used to tip-toing around and being very carefull not to offend the religious mob.

In MOST OF THE WORLD, even openly admitting that you are an atheist would put you at risk of harm by the religious mob.

But things are slowly changing! The number of atheists is growing as countries industrialize, and as the mountain of usefull works produced by those living in an evidence based reality continues to grow. And if the tables are turned and living in an "evidence based reality" becomese the norm, and religious people become a minority, I hope we treat you better than you treated everyone else that disageed with your views over the last few centuries.

absolutely correct...growing up I learned to keep my atheist ways to myself the hostility from the followers of the prince peace was enlightening experience...I have a Iranian friend who when he travels to Iran to visit family becomes a devote muslim but he's a confirmed atheist, he says being an atheist in Iran has fatal consequences...now atheists are coming out of the shadows no longer afraid to admit what they are, in a number of countries census stats show them in the majority or approaching majority numbers...

[Moonlight Graham]

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.

Well, i suppose that's true.

[bush_cheney2004]

...But things are slowly changing! The number of atheists is growing as countries industrialize, and as the mountain of usefull works produced by those living in an evidence based reality continues to grow. And if the tables are turned and living in an "evidence based reality" becomese the norm, and religious people become a minority, I hope we treat you better than you treated everyone else that disageed with your views over the last few centuries.

Oh sure, we have enjoyed nothing but wonderful treatment and experiences at the hands of atheists and scientists. They wouldn't harm a fly....LOL!

[cybercoma]

dre, great post!

Oleg, I appreciate you trying to stretch the boundaries of human imagination, but your post falls down on a single point: atheists don't believe in god. The reason they believe in betsy is not because she's a god or some sort of god figure to them, it's because she's not a god. It's because she's human and humanity is worth believing in.

Moonlight Graham, it's not like agnostics can't change their mind later. Most atheists would say that it's very highly improbable that God exists, but it's not impossible. Anything is possible, but highly unlikely if no one is able to prove it. Look at the black swan as an example. People that know a crapload about birds thought that there was no such thing as the black swan. It was really easy to prove them wrong. They found them. The same goes for God. It's really easy to prove the existence of God, but there seems to be no intercessory power, given the millions of prayers that go unanswered every day. Anyway, that's a very different, very specific question: does God exist? The answer to that from me and most other atheists is, "I don't know, but most likely not." Agnostics would answer the question about Gods existence in a similar way, "I don't know."

Now, the question that people really want to know the answer to is "do you believe in God?" An atheist will say without dithering, "No." However, agnostics dodge the question by saying, "I don't know." That's not at all a valid answer to the question. This is something that can only be answered with a yes or a no. It's asking your opinion about something. It's asking you what you believe. An agnostic who doesn't know whether or not God exists pretty much has to answer that question with, "No." How can you believe in something if you don't know whether or not it exists?

Take extra-terrestrial life for example.

Is there life in the universe outside of earth? I don't know.

Do you believe in aliens? No because I don't know whether or not they exist, nor have I seen any other proof for their existence. (Or, if you want to really get into hardcore agnosticism) I don't believe we're even capable of knowing whether or not they exist.

Well if you can't possibly know whether or not aliens exist, then you can't very well believe in them.

I just find agnosticism to be extremely dishonest. As an agnostic, you don't believe in God because you don't know whether or not God exists and in some cases you don't believe you can know. That's enough to get you decapitated in some countries. It's still going to make the faithful think you're a filthy heathen and it's certainly not going to fool the God, if all the stories about his abilities, wishes and desires are true. You might as well just come out and say, "I don't believe in God." In which case, congratulations, you're an atheist.

[bush_cheney2004]

..... You might as well just come out and say, "I don't believe in God." In which case, congratulations, you're an atheist.

Not necessarily...there are many other possibilities. I don't believe in capital "G" "God", but that doesn't make me an atheist.

I am a pagan!

[cybercoma]

Anybody can twist God into meaning anything. You could say, "God is love" or "God is nature" and no one is going to say, "I don't believe in love" or "I don't believe in nature," but that's not what we're talking about and that's not what God is to most people. In any case, if God = X, then why even invoke God at all, just leave it at X.

[Moonlight Graham]

Moonlight Graham, it's not like agnostics can't change their mind later. Most atheists would say that it's very highly improbable that God exists, but it's not impossible. Anything is possible, but highly unlikely if no one is able to prove it. Look at the black swan as an example. People that know a crapload about birds thought that there was no such thing as the black swan. It was really easy to prove them wrong. They found them. The same goes for God. It's really easy to prove the existence of God, but there seems to be no intercessory power, given the millions of prayers that go unanswered every day. Anyway, that's a very different, very specific question: does God exist? The answer to that from me and most other atheists is, "I don't know, but most likely not." Agnostics would answer the question about Gods existence in a similar way, "I don't know."

Now, the question that people really want to know the answer to is "do you believe in God?" An atheist will say without dithering, "No." However, agnostics dodge the question by saying, "I don't know." That's not at all a valid answer to the question. This is something that can only be answered with a yes or a no. It's asking your opinion about something. It's asking you what you believe. An agnostic who doesn't know whether or not God exists pretty much has to answer that question with, "No." How can you believe in something if you don't know whether or not it exists?

Take extra-terrestrial life for example.

Is there life in the universe outside of earth? I don't know.

Do you believe in aliens? No because I don't know whether or not they exist, nor have I seen any other proof for their existence. (Or, if you want to really get into hardcore agnosticism) I don't believe we're even capable of knowing whether or not they exist.

To me, an atheist is somebody who does not believe God exists, and is quite certain of this.

From wiki:

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.

To contrast, a theist is one who believes in a God or Gods, and is quite certain of this.

from wiki:

In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves there is a God, whereas an atheist disbelieves there is a God. In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify knowledge whether God exists or does not. Within agnosticism there are agnostic atheists (who do not believe any deity exists, but do not deny it as a possibility) and agnostic theists (who believe a God exists but do not claim to know that).

To your E.T. analogy, a theist would say yes aliens exist, even if I can't prove it. An atheist would say no aliens don't exist. An agnostic would say something like there's a possibility they exist, but we don't know and therefore can't claim they do or don't exist.

Honestly, I have no freaking clue if God exists or not. I grew up believing because that's how I was raised, then once I hit my late teens my own brain kicked in and began to question it all. I believe in love and in the beauty of the world and the universe, and I guess that's enough to get me by in life

[MiddleClassCentrist]

I know very few diehard atheists. Most are agnostic atheists, in the realm of having no proof and not believing the tales in the bible that were completely written by humans.

I label myself an agnostic atheist. But, I'll still go to church with my wife on occasion because it is important to her and I understand the role of religion in people's lives. My sons can make that decision for themselves as they grow older like I did.

Edited August 23, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

[bush_cheney2004]

Anybody can twist God into meaning anything. You could say, "God is love" or "God is nature" and no one is going to say, "I don't believe in love" or "I don't believe in nature," but that's not what we're talking about and that's not what God is to most people. In any case, if God = X, then why even invoke God at all, just leave it at X.

Because it's my/their "God"....you don't get to define what that means for other people, not even "most of them". That's an atheist hangup!

[dre]

Because it's my/their "God"....you don't get to define what that means for other people, not even "most of them". That's an atheist hangup!

Theres absolutely no need to derail this thread with this. The definition being used here is specified in the title of the thread... in the word ATHEIST.

The word atheism is based on the word theism which contemplates a specific definition... To be a theist you have to believe in at least one diety. The narrow definition applies only to a personal monotheistic deity that created us, but technically the belief in polytheistic dieties meets the general definition and would qualify you as being a theist.

An atheist does not believe in deities. It has nothing to do with anybodies personal definitions of anything. Someone that worships nature is not a theist, and the title atheist prescribes no position on such beliefs whatsoever.

Edited August 23, 2011 by dre

[bush_cheney2004]

Theres absolutely no need to derail this thread with this. The definition being used here is specified in the title of the thread... in the word ATHEIST.

If it's already defined, then why does this thread exist?

The word atheism is based on the word theism which contemplates a specific definition... To be a theist you have to believe in at least one diety. The narrow definition applies only to a personal monotheistic deity that created us, but technically the belief in polytheistic dieties meets the general definition and would qualify you as being a theist.

You don't get to switch the defining bandwidth on and off as you please just to help the "atheist" argument. Pagans can identify as polytheistic or atheists.

An atheist does not believe in deities. It has nothing to do with anybodies personal definitions of anything. Someone that worships nature is not a theist, and the title atheist prescribes no position on such beliefs whatsoever.

So says you...are you a god?

Edited August 23, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[dre]

If it's already defined, then why does this thread exist?

You don't get to switch the defining bandwidth on and off as you please just to help the "atheist" argument. Pagans can identify as polytheistic or atheists.

So says you...are you a god?

If it's already defined, then why does this thread exist?

It exists because some Christians (like Besty) are clammoring for a way to cast themselves as victims.

You don't get to switch the defining bandwidth on and off as you please just to help the "atheist" argument. Pagans can identify as polytheistic or atheists.

Im not trying to help any "atheist" argument. Im trying to explain to you what this thread is about both in terms of the literal meaning of these words, and also the intent of the OP's author.

So says you...are you a god?

[betsy]

Well, i suppose that's true.

Well, there's a clear difference between an atheist and an agnostic.

An atheist is confident in his belief that there is no God/gods/dieties.

An agnostic on the other hand is a skeptic. He is, what you might call, a "fence-sitter."

Although he doubts the existence of God, he is open to the possibility of His existence.

At least, that's how I think they are.

[betsy]

Thats exactly what people like you do with atheism. You mock it, call it stupid, claim that evolution has been proven wrong... look at all the horseshit you post here... dripping with malice and sarcasm. Now youre crying because some folks on the other side are fighting back.

Yooo-hoooo. Hello? Go back to some of the ancient topics posted on this board and see for yourself.

So we say that there is no proof for evolution....what's wrong about that?

Malice, no.

Sarcasm, yes. Why not? The New Atheist give cause for sarcasm! Just look at their code or doctrine...

Intolerance of ignorance, myth and superstition; disregard for the tolerance of religion.

Indoctrination of logic, reason and the advancement of a naturalistic worldview.

Yet who's being ignorant? Believers of a myth called Frog Prince?

Claiming to have logic, and reason?

Do you know the 6th commandment of Dawkins? Well - he doesn't follow it. In fact, he

s running away from it!

New Atheism is a joke! I think the 4 Horsemen found a lucrative way to perpetuate the

ka-ching of their bling-bling by duping their base followers - the religion haters/bashers - whom they know will easily swallow hook, line and sinker!

But the reality is that these people are a minority, and atheists as a group are probably the LEAST evangelical group on the planet. They are a tiny oppressed minority that for the most part is scared of their own shadow. And if they dare speak up they are bombarded with Christian vitriol, or even death threats.

Well, we're talking about the New Atheists. The radicals! The fundamentalist followers of the Church of the Non-Believers.

Atheists and scientists are scared to death of the religious mob thats been persecuting non-believers for thousands of years, burning their books, suppressing their ideas, killing them, and arresting their leaders. So in general they have gotten used to tip-toing around and being very carefull not to offend the religious mob.

Oh boy, digging up bones again.

And of course Dre doesn't mention anything about Christians who've been hunted down and persecuted in history...those who have to practice their belief in hiding....feeding them to the lions!

History to you seems to be crunched up to what....a measly few centuries?

In MOST OF THE WORLD, even openly admitting that you are an atheist would put you at risk of harm by the religious mob.

Where is this religious mob who harm atheists? Which religion do they follow?

But things are slowly changing! The number of atheists is growing as countries industrialize, and as the mountain of usefull works produced by those living in an evidence based reality continues to grow. And if the tables are turned and living in an "evidence based reality" becomese the norm, and religious people become a minority, I hope we treat you better than you treated everyone else that disageed with your views over the last few centuries.

EHHHH? Where'd you pull all this?

Who do you think funded and still funding most of archeological digs? That comes up with archeological finds that support some narratives in the Bible?

The Kikkabuktoos of the Suli-Suli Islands?

Who's funding scientific research? The Science that also says there's no proof for Neo-Darwinist evolution? The proponents of Intelligent Design?

The poor un-industrialized countries?

I mean....it's hard to maintain a straight face when reading some of the arguments and rebuttals being given by the new atheists, let alone take them seriously!

They are relativists! That's another defining feature!

The fact is The New Atheism founders had created a battle that they can't win! They've thought wrong about a Christian duty - defending the faith!

Not through violence, but by reason!

Edited August 23, 2011 by betsy

[g_bambino]

So we say that there is no proof for evolution....what's wrong about that?

It's willful ignorance.

[CANADIEN]

It's willful ignorance.

Nothing wrong with ignorance, willful or othewise, unless it is imposed on others.

[CANADIEN]

Defending faith through reason includes using reason, by acknowledging facts such as evolution.