Activist atheism

[mikkel_the_dane]

Okay, here is how I have learned to do the Internet in part.
If I speak as a human with a label, I am responsible in some sense for all humans and their behavior which are covered by that label. I am religious so I know this.
But if you are an atheist, that doesn't apply to you.
So here is how that is not the case:
https://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/

NO atheist what so ever in any form promotes a world-view beyond that he/she as a single individual lacks a belief in gods.
NEVER!!! It doesn't happen on this forum or any where else. No atheist uses science, philosophy or what not to argue in any broad terms, which includes more than just atheism. You can check it yourself here on this forum and it doesn't happen.
This defense mechanism is so standard as it is somehow akin to dogma. It must not be questioned in any sense.
Now most atheists are reasonable, but some are not. Most religious people are reasonable, not some are not.
But the rule is that I am responsible for everything within religion, but as an atheist that doesn't apply to you, because all atheists only use atheism to state a lack of beliefs in gods.

 

[Windwalker]

The Dalai Lama lived in a palace before he decided that he had to split, so yeah, nothing positive for him and his entourage.

This is just plain ignorance. You should educate yourself about the actual situation.

 

[Audie]

Not according to those whose home it is. Why I see differently is because I am personal friends with people from the Tibetan community who are leaders and well established in ties with the Dalai Lama. I know them personally. There is nothing positive about it.

Remind me not to bother trying to give you a
thoughtful response, you ignore but one line
and come back with an anecdote-about the
upper crust who miss their privileges.

 

[tayla]

May you point me towards any?

I for one have never met anyone that fits your description, nor even heard of them.

And I am fairly aware of activist atheists, such as they exist.

Richard Dawkins for one.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Richard Dawkins for one.

Here:
https://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Never heard of

Freethought Blogs, Elevatorgate, Atheism Plus, the Slyme Pit and/or The Orbit.​

I've heard of all of these-- a Tempest in a Teapot, really. Artificially inflated out of an overwhelming sense of self-importance.

I used to read Freethought Blogs, but one of the principle founders? Specifically PZ Meyers? Not only has an over-inflated sense of his own self, he's something of an <expletative> about it. Loads of passive-aggressive stuff, pretentious "I'm here to help you" (while doing the opposite), letting others speak for him so he can have "plausible deniability" that sort of horse exhaust.

Elevatorgate? Related to PZ and his crowd of sycophants.

Atheism Plus? That was an extension of the above, with all the worst pretentiousness inflated to 1000 percent. Think The Brights movement, only not even a little bit inclusive. Of anyone. The gatekeepers were, frankly, horse's patoots.

The Slyme Pit? I know of it-- took a brief look-- and Left The Building. Think the worst that Reddit has to offer, only with 50% more trolling, and 300% less intelligence.

Never heard of the orbit, though-- I can expect it's Same Stuff, Second Day? Curiosity did not automatically kill the cat, did it? It was following up that did kitty in, in the end.

Well, whatya know? The Orbit? Is just another Blog, similar to Freethought in it's way, but a very quick Once Over, not nearly as diverse. But without PZ? (Is he even a thing anymore? Been several years since I sought his particular form of Dogma out... maybe he's not a major part of Freethought anymore? That would be a plus, if true.... )

I can easily see how someone might be Offended by The Orbit, though-- it's quite Liberal.

Why is it? Many theists are Offended by Liberal Ideas? Now, to be sure-- there are quite a large number of Liberal Theists-- and those folk? I pretty much have no beef of any kind with, what with us sharing a large body of Ideas: Freedom to Be Who You Are and such.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I've heard of all of these...

https://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/

The framework has a metaphysical component, an epistemological component, and an ethical component. Regarding the metaphysical component, the New Atheist authors share the central belief that there is no supernatural or divine reality of any kind. The epistemological component is their common claim that religious belief is irrational. The moral component is the assumption that there is a universal and objective secular moral standard.

As a skeptic and indeed global skeptic all 3 are indeed irrational,

 

[Windwalker]

Remind me not to bother trying to give you a
thoughtful response, you ignore but one line
and come back with an anecdote-about the
upper crust who miss their privileges.

Alright, I apologize. You did put a lot of thought into that, and it is a complex issue. But from what I know from everyone I personally know from the Tibetan community, they are not thinking they're better off at all. To imagine they think taking away their culture is a step forward for them, sounds like Chinese propaganda, like Americans dressing up Native Americans as "Civilized Tribes". Or "Operation Liberate Iraq".

China wants the area strategically. It's not about "liberating" them from a feudal system. And who the hell gets to choose that for another people? To assimilate them, means to control them. Calling it liberation, is just propaganda the government tries to spin it as in order to make people think it's a good thing, "for their best interests". What, they are the saviors of other primitive cultures?

BTW, my friend was one of those who fled Tibet during the Chinese invasion in 1959.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

https://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/


As a skeptic and indeed global skeptic all 3 are indeed irrational,

Who gets to define "new atheism"? Your link purports to be "peer reviewed" but the article linked to? No references-- just lots of Opinion-- in fact, it's one long Opinion Piece.

Regular Wikipedia typically has better references than that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Who gets to define "new atheism"? Your link purports to be "peer reviewed" but the article linked to? No references-- just lots of Opinion-- in fact, it's one long Opinion Piece.

Regular Wikipedia typically has better references than that.

Forget for a moment this and then look for yourself:
You can find it here on this forum. If you don't look, you will not find it.

It has nothing to right or wrong per se. It is a result of cognitive, cultural and moral relativism. But some people can't see their own nature, nurture and culture as that. They can only see other cases as "wrong".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Who gets to define "new atheism"? Your link purports to be "peer reviewed" but the article linked to? No references-- just lots of Opinion-- in fact, it's one long Opinion Piece.

Regular Wikipedia typically has better references than that.

9. References and Further Reading
a. Works by the New Atheists

• Dawkins, Richard. The Selfish Gene, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989).
  • An explanation and defense of biological evolution by natural selection that focuses on the gene.
• Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006).
  • A case for the irrationality and immoral consequences of religious belief that draws primarily on evolutionary biology.
• Dennett, Daniel. Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (New York: Penguin, 2006).
  • A case for studying the history and practice of religion by means of the natural sciences.
• Dennett, Daniel. “Afterword” in Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, 10th anniversary edition (London: Penguin Random House, 2016), pp. 421-26.
  • Dennett’s retrospective about the impact made by the four original New Atheists following the initial publication of their books.
• Harris, Sam. The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason (New York: Norton, 2004).
  • An intellectual and moral critique of faith-based religions that recommends their replacement by science-based spirituality.
• Harris, Sam. Letter to a Christian Nation (New York: Vintage Books, 2008).
  • A revised edition of his 2006 response to Christian reactions to his 2004 book.
• Hitchens, Christopher. God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (New York: Twelve, 2007).
  • A journalistic case against religion and religious belief.

b. Works About the New Atheism

• Berlinski, David. The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions (New York: Crown Forum, 2008).
  • A response to the New Atheists by a secular Jew that defends traditional religious thought.
• Copan, Paul. “Is Yahweh a Moral Monster? The New Atheists and Old Testament Ethics,” Philosophia Christi 10:1, 2008, pp. 7-37.
  • A defense of the God and ethics of the Old Testament against the New Atheists’ criticisms of them.
• Copan, Paul and William Lane Craig, eds. Contending with Christianity’s Critics (Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman and Holman, 2009).
  • A collection of essays by Christian apologists that addresses challenges from New Atheists and other contemporary critics of Christianity.
• Craig, William Lane, ed. God is Great, God is Good: Why Believing in God is Reasonable and Responsible (Grand Rapids: InterVarsity Press, 2009).
  • A collection of essays by philosophers and theologians defending the rationality of theistic belief from the attacks of the New Atheists and others.
• D’Souza, Dinesh. What’s So Great About Christianity (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2007).
  • A defense of Christianity against the criticisms of the New Atheists.
• Eagleton, Terry. Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009).
  • A critical reply to Dawkins and Hitchens (“Ditchkins”) by a Marxist literary critic.
• Keller, Timothy. The Reason for God: Belief in God in an Age of Skepticism (New York: Dutton, 2007).
  • A Christian minister’s reply to objections against Christianity of the sort raised by the New Atheists together with his positive case for Christianity.
• McGrath, Alister and Joanna Collicutt McGrath. The Dawkins Delusion? Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2007).
  • A critical engagement with the arguments set out in Dawkins 2006.
• Ruse, Michael. “Why I think the New Atheists are a Bloody Disaster,” https://biologos.org/blogs/archive/why-i-think-the-new-atheists-are-a-bloody-disaster, posted August 14th, 2009.
  • A criticism of the New Atheists by an atheist.
• Schloss, Jeffrey and Michael Murray, eds. The Believing Primate: Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Reflections on the Origin of Religion (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009).
  • An interdisciplinary discussion of issues raised by the sort of naturalistic account of religion promoted in Dennett 2006 and elsewhere.
• Stenger, Victor. God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows that God does not Exist (Amherst: Prometheus Books, 2008).
  • A scientific case against the existence of God by a physicist who also taught philosophy and who is often classified as a New Atheist.
• Stenger, Victor. The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason (Amherst: Prometheus Books, 2009).
  • A review of and expansion upon the principles of the New Atheism with responses to many of its critics.
• Ward, Keith. Is Religion Dangerous? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006).
  • A defense of religion against the New Atheists’ arguments by a philosopher-theologian.

So you decide better. What scientific standard of better are you using. If not science, then what?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Forget for a moment this and then look for yourself:
You can find it here on this forum. If you don't look, you will not find it.

It has nothing to right or wrong per se. It is a result of cognitive, cultural and moral relativism. But some people can't see their own nature, nurture and culture as that. They can only see other cases as "wrong".

Sounds like another form of "We are Special, and Only We Have The Knowing".

And?

It's a twin bladed cut, is it not? Your very comment falls into this same fallacy: "But some people can't see their own nature..."

Cuts both ways.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

9. References and Further Reading
a. Works by the New Atheists

• Dawkins, Richard. The Selfish Gene, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989).
  • An explanation and defense of biological evolution by natural selection that focuses on the gene.
• Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006).
  • A case for the irrationality and immoral consequences of religious belief that draws primarily on evolutionary biology.
• Dennett, Daniel. Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (New York: Penguin, 2006).
  • A case for studying the history and practice of religion by means of the natural sciences.
• Dennett, Daniel. “Afterword” in Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, 10th anniversary edition (London: Penguin Random House, 2016), pp. 421-26.
  • Dennett’s retrospective about the impact made by the four original New Atheists following the initial publication of their books.
• Harris, Sam. The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason (New York: Norton, 2004).
  • An intellectual and moral critique of faith-based religions that recommends their replacement by science-based spirituality.
• Harris, Sam. Letter to a Christian Nation (New York: Vintage Books, 2008).
  • A revised edition of his 2006 response to Christian reactions to his 2004 book.
• Hitchens, Christopher. God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (New York: Twelve, 2007).
  • A journalistic case against religion and religious belief.

b. Works About the New Atheism

• Berlinski, David. The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions (New York: Crown Forum, 2008).
  • A response to the New Atheists by a secular Jew that defends traditional religious thought.
• Copan, Paul. “Is Yahweh a Moral Monster? The New Atheists and Old Testament Ethics,” Philosophia Christi 10:1, 2008, pp. 7-37.
  • A defense of the God and ethics of the Old Testament against the New Atheists’ criticisms of them.
• Copan, Paul and William Lane Craig, eds. Contending with Christianity’s Critics (Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman and Holman, 2009).
  • A collection of essays by Christian apologists that addresses challenges from New Atheists and other contemporary critics of Christianity.
• Craig, William Lane, ed. God is Great, God is Good: Why Believing in God is Reasonable and Responsible (Grand Rapids: InterVarsity Press, 2009).
  • A collection of essays by philosophers and theologians defending the rationality of theistic belief from the attacks of the New Atheists and others.
• D’Souza, Dinesh. What’s So Great About Christianity (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2007).
  • A defense of Christianity against the criticisms of the New Atheists.
• Eagleton, Terry. Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009).
  • A critical reply to Dawkins and Hitchens (“Ditchkins”) by a Marxist literary critic.
• Keller, Timothy. The Reason for God: Belief in God in an Age of Skepticism (New York: Dutton, 2007).
  • A Christian minister’s reply to objections against Christianity of the sort raised by the New Atheists together with his positive case for Christianity.
• McGrath, Alister and Joanna Collicutt McGrath. The Dawkins Delusion? Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2007).
  • A critical engagement with the arguments set out in Dawkins 2006.
• Ruse, Michael. “Why I think the New Atheists are a Bloody Disaster,” https://biologos.org/blogs/archive/why-i-think-the-new-atheists-are-a-bloody-disaster, posted August 14th, 2009.
  • A criticism of the New Atheists by an atheist.
• Schloss, Jeffrey and Michael Murray, eds. The Believing Primate: Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Reflections on the Origin of Religion (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009).
  • An interdisciplinary discussion of issues raised by the sort of naturalistic account of religion promoted in Dennett 2006 and elsewhere.
• Stenger, Victor. God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows that God does not Exist (Amherst: Prometheus Books, 2008).
  • A scientific case against the existence of God by a physicist who also taught philosophy and who is often classified as a New Atheist.
• Stenger, Victor. The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason (Amherst: Prometheus Books, 2009).
  • A review of and expansion upon the principles of the New Atheism with responses to many of its critics.
• Ward, Keith. Is Religion Dangerous? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006).
  • A defense of religion against the New Atheists’ arguments by a philosopher-theologian.

So you decide better. What scientific standard of better are you using. If not science, then what?

You are 100% ignoring my first question:

Who Gets To Decide? YOU?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You are 100% ignoring my first question:

Who Gets To Decide? YOU?

No, neither you nor I. It is a case of cognitive, cultural and moral relativism. There is no answer with reason, logic and evidence. Neither on your side nor mine.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

9. References and Further Reading
a. Works by the New Atheists

• Dawkins, Richard. The Selfish Gene, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989).
  • An explanation and defense of biological evolution by natural selection that focuses on the gene.
• Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006).
  • A case for the irrationality and immoral consequences of religious belief that draws primarily on evolutionary biology.
• Dennett, Daniel. Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (New York: Penguin, 2006).
  • A case for studying the history and practice of religion by means of the natural sciences.
• Dennett, Daniel. “Afterword” in Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, 10th anniversary edition (London: Penguin Random House, 2016), pp. 421-26.
  • Dennett’s retrospective about the impact made by the four original New Atheists following the initial publication of their books.
• Harris, Sam. The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason (New York: Norton, 2004).
  • An intellectual and moral critique of faith-based religions that recommends their replacement by science-based spirituality.
• Harris, Sam. Letter to a Christian Nation (New York: Vintage Books, 2008).
  • A revised edition of his 2006 response to Christian reactions to his 2004 book.
• Hitchens, Christopher. God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (New York: Twelve, 2007).
  • A journalistic case against religion and religious belief.

b. Works About the New Atheism

• Berlinski, David. The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions (New York: Crown Forum, 2008).
  • A response to the New Atheists by a secular Jew that defends traditional religious thought.
• Copan, Paul. “Is Yahweh a Moral Monster? The New Atheists and Old Testament Ethics,” Philosophia Christi 10:1, 2008, pp. 7-37.
  • A defense of the God and ethics of the Old Testament against the New Atheists’ criticisms of them.
• Copan, Paul and William Lane Craig, eds. Contending with Christianity’s Critics (Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman and Holman, 2009).
  • A collection of essays by Christian apologists that addresses challenges from New Atheists and other contemporary critics of Christianity.
• Craig, William Lane, ed. God is Great, God is Good: Why Believing in God is Reasonable and Responsible (Grand Rapids: InterVarsity Press, 2009).
  • A collection of essays by philosophers and theologians defending the rationality of theistic belief from the attacks of the New Atheists and others.
• D’Souza, Dinesh. What’s So Great About Christianity (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2007).
  • A defense of Christianity against the criticisms of the New Atheists.
• Eagleton, Terry. Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009).
  • A critical reply to Dawkins and Hitchens (“Ditchkins”) by a Marxist literary critic.
• Keller, Timothy. The Reason for God: Belief in God in an Age of Skepticism (New York: Dutton, 2007).
  • A Christian minister’s reply to objections against Christianity of the sort raised by the New Atheists together with his positive case for Christianity.
• McGrath, Alister and Joanna Collicutt McGrath. The Dawkins Delusion? Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2007).
  • A critical engagement with the arguments set out in Dawkins 2006.
• Ruse, Michael. “Why I think the New Atheists are a Bloody Disaster,” https://biologos.org/blogs/archive/why-i-think-the-new-atheists-are-a-bloody-disaster, posted August 14th, 2009.
  • A criticism of the New Atheists by an atheist.
• Schloss, Jeffrey and Michael Murray, eds. The Believing Primate: Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Reflections on the Origin of Religion (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009).
  • An interdisciplinary discussion of issues raised by the sort of naturalistic account of religion promoted in Dennett 2006 and elsewhere.
• Stenger, Victor. God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows that God does not Exist (Amherst: Prometheus Books, 2008).
  • A scientific case against the existence of God by a physicist who also taught philosophy and who is often classified as a New Atheist.
• Stenger, Victor. The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason (Amherst: Prometheus Books, 2009).
  • A review of and expansion upon the principles of the New Atheism with responses to many of its critics.
• Ward, Keith. Is Religion Dangerous? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006).
  • A defense of religion against the New Atheists’ arguments by a philosopher-theologian.

So you decide better. What scientific standard of better are you using. If not science, then what?

Eeeewwwwww! You cited a Liar For Jesus by the Well Known Liar For Jesus, William Lane Craig.

Anything with HIM listed as any sort of "expert"? And NOT marked as "Avoid This dirtbag at All Costs-- he's a pretentious Horse's Patoot"?

IS AUTOMATICALLY SUSPECT.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

No, neither you nor I. It is a case of cognitive, cultural and moral relativism. There is no answer with reason, logic and evidence. Neither on your side nor mine.

Since you listed the Known Horse's Patoot, William Lane Craig as a "resource worth study"?

Everything else you may have to say, is now forever tainted, and cannot be trusted.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sounds like another form of "We are Special, and Only We Have The Knowing".

And?

It's a twin bladed cut, is it not? Your very comment falls into this same fallacy: "But some people can't see their own nature..."

Cuts both ways.

I don't have any kind of Knowing. I am a skeptic, a global one. You confuse me with those who believe in that. I don't.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Eeeewwwwww! You cited a Liar For Jesus by the Well Known Liar For Jesus, William Lane Craig.

Anything with HIM listed as any sort of "expert"? And NOT marked as "Avoid This dirtbag at All Costs-- he's a pretentious Horse's Patoot"?

IS AUTOMATICALLY SUSPECT.

Okay, so you answer with emotions. It stops here.

Have a good life.
Peace

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

No, neither you nor I. It is a case of cognitive, cultural and moral relativism. There is no answer with reason, logic and evidence. Neither on your side nor mine.

Oh. My Stars! I missed this reference: D’Souza, Dinesh.

He makes Craig seem ... almost sane....!

Wow... I can now mark your entire list as "very likely garbage"

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Okay, so you answer with emotions. It stops here.

Have a good life.
Peace

Nope. William Lane Craig is a world renown Liar. That isn't emotion. That is pure observation.