lukethethird
unknown member
Who are you trying to convince that those that don't believe God exists are humanities downfall?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The new Athiest Humanities downfall?
- Thread starter TransmutingSoul
- Start date
-
- Tags
- atheism
Nobody, it is a point of discussion about New Atheists, does it exist, or is it just a list of aspects of some peoples views? If exists as a movement, would that be the end of Humanity as we know it?
Regards Tony
rational experiences
Veteran Member
In human theism numbers a human says are first.
Maths he says knowingly prove it created everything is a human man of science claim.
As the bible a natural human versus scientific theist destroyer mind against consciousness is real.
Numbers don't exist is the rational human known. As the scientist wants to change earths mass.
Mass first does not exist as numbers the reality.
Men of science lied.
In living science being medical. Healer was the old Term. A theist says without human DNA is an ape.
I look. I see. I say the ape proves no human exists.
So I state maths first does not exist.
As I cannot add by beginning with one onto the apes body.
As it is the ape. It lives within an atmosphere cold water nature oxygenated to be living.
As water by its presence is just water.
Natural human science is observation first said a theist.
Theist versus theist says the number using theist is wrong.
Numbers don't exist first. Natural did.
Just humans.
Maths he says knowingly prove it created everything is a human man of science claim.
As the bible a natural human versus scientific theist destroyer mind against consciousness is real.
Numbers don't exist is the rational human known. As the scientist wants to change earths mass.
Mass first does not exist as numbers the reality.
Men of science lied.
In living science being medical. Healer was the old Term. A theist says without human DNA is an ape.
I look. I see. I say the ape proves no human exists.
So I state maths first does not exist.
As I cannot add by beginning with one onto the apes body.
As it is the ape. It lives within an atmosphere cold water nature oxygenated to be living.
As water by its presence is just water.
Natural human science is observation first said a theist.
Theist versus theist says the number using theist is wrong.
Numbers don't exist first. Natural did.
Just humans.
Orbit
I'm a planet
A group of well-known anti-theists doesn't represent most atheists.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, the American Revolution was a bit more complicated than that.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Dude, don't lie!
Here's the first sentence:
The ‘new atheism’ is the name given to contemporary atheism as spear-headed by the work of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett.
So you single out those 4 as being THE examples of what "new atheists" are.
Your second sentence:
The new atheism has twelve characteristics that define its nature:
Meaning that those 12 points are supposed to describe the opinions / beliefs / position of "new atheists", of which you named 4 in your opening sentence as being the "blue print examples" of what new atheists are.
So yes, your post absolutely is trying to attribute those 12 points to those people.
Even your very thread title is saying that the topic is all about "new atheists" and, again, in your opening sentence, you give 4 names that are supposed to be the "stereotype new atheist".
At least be honest.
And then you wonder why I don't bother with the rest of your post...................
Why would I? It reeks, stinks actually, of intellectual dishonesty from start to finish.
And your replies to my 2 responses only confirm that.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Your list doesn't describe anyone on this forum, nor does it describe the 4 people you mentioned, nor does it describe any atheist that I am aware of.
You have not quoted correctly.
The statement was a quote, not my opinion.
Regards Tony
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
More dishonesty.
It matters not if you were quoting someone else or not.
What matters is the message and context.
That WAS the first sentence.
That WAS the second sentence.
Those two sentences WERE followed up by the 12 points.
My point stands and remains unaddressed. I don't expect you to acknowledge it though, as it would undermine your entire fallacious argument.
Your OP clearly is trying to describe what "new atheists" are by attributing those 12 points to them and the 4 names are clearly supposed to be stereotypical examples of "new atheists".
So yes, the 12 points absolutely were meant to be describing the beliefs / position of those 4 people.
It matters not if you copy pasted it from elsewhere.
They remain strawmen.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
No.
This is not a matter of opinion.
When a poster submits a reference by another author, and uses it as their point of view, then they are endorsing the content. If a poster submits something to criticize or open it to criticism, that's another situation.
Yet you didn't ask this question. You seem to have accepted what the list states without asking any questions by actual atheists.
Now you have answers. Do you acknowledge the list misrepresents atheists and is not a good reference?
Assuming the list is accurate, what would make you think there was any sort of significant movement? Even trump supporters which number over 70 million could not organize to overturn the election results last year.
I suggest atheists as a whole are very tolerant of the freedom to believe. That atheists challenge the beliefs of theists does not mean atheists are motivated to eliminate religion by force.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
What is the list neither accurate nor inaccurate?
What if the list is in effect a checklist of features found in some atheists and not others and even that varies for each point?
What is it with this all or nothing?
Here is how I view that list. It is an overdone in some sense, but there is a kernel of truth in it.
Yazata
Active Member
Does "new atheism" exist? There is certainly a collection of atheist authors who published polemical books trashing "religion" around the same time. These authors' ideas all shared certain similarities that the list in the OP listed pretty well. I don't believe that any of them called themselves "new atheists", that name was applied to them by a book reviewer and the name stuck. Like I said, I consider them militant atheists since nothing they say is really new at all. A certain kind of atheist has been saying pretty much the same things since the 19th century.
Well sure. It isn't an organization if that's what you mean. It's just several rather outspoken authors whose books came out around the same time and caught some journalist's eye.
It doesn't and in my opinion it wouldn't.
For one thing, none of these "new atheist" books seemed aimed at convincing religious people to embrace atheism. There was no attempt to address religious people's ideas or concerns. They all seemed to me to be preaching to the choir, so to speak. The books were aimed at their fellow atheists and seemed intended to harden those atheists in their positions and perhaps to prevent their backsliding.
lukethethird
unknown member
According to your religion, yes
That OP list was written by a religious fanatic and was not representative of the atheists in question. Hardening an atheist's belief, that's like hardening a non golfers decision to not play golf, that makes no sense either.
You write that as if it were a bad thing. This is a feature of critical thought, not a shortcoming. I look around RF and see the thinking of the religious, and am grateful to have chosen a different and better path. One of the realizations I have come to in the past year or two is that empiricism and critical thinking are the only useful methods for determining what is true about the world. There is only one alternative to critical thinking, and that is faith, which is not a path to truth.
People that are interested in being right more than being comforted, and have learned the art of critical thinking, understand that what you are suggesting is a poor way to think. What you want is for the empiricist and critical thinker to relax his standards, because you know that your claims about gods just claims, and cannot be believed except by faith, by which I mean any other mental process other than the proper application of reason to relevant evidence to arrive at sound conclusions that are demonstrably correct. If you admit ideas into your head using any other method, you're believing guesses, not truth.
Incidentally, when it comes to comfort, believing wrong ideas will often do the opposite. Much better to have a realistic view of the world, that it may be almost empty, and may contain no gods at all. One can learn to accept the very real possibility that we may be all there is for light years, that he may be vulnerable and not watched over. One learns to accept the likelihood of his own mortality and finititude, of his insignificance everywhere but earth, and that he might be unloved except by some other people and animals.
At this point, religion has nothing to offer. It cannot comfort those with this outlook. It has no value there. And as I see on these threads, religious belief comes at a cost, one that leads (paradoxically) to discomfort. For one thing, calling faith a virtue is antithetical to becoming a skilled critical thinker. It stunts both intellectual and moral development.
Yet here you are emulating dozens of other theists advocating your other way of knowing as if it offered anything of value to the accomplished critical thinker, a claim none of you can support. This is why one should require evidence before believing. You want to be believed that yours is a better way of knowing, but where's the evidence of that? The opposite is true. You would be better off to become a strict empiricist and require compelling evidence yourself before believing. Your thinking would be more effective.
Your post referred to atheists as dogmatic. Now you want to move the goalposts to gnostic or strong atheists only. Yes, such people can be dogmatic, because they are also faith-based thinkers, at least when it comes to pronouncing that there are no gods. But agnostic atheists, who are the majority, are not that. You probably know that, but still chose to malign all atheists.
People pushing religion are promoting disunity, not the secular humanist community, which doesn't suffer from the bitter internal wars that the religions do. The state of harmony that you envision religion will bring is already present in the secular humanist community. Who else is actually embodying the Golden Rule? Not the religions. Where the humanists advocate for tolerance, the religions are telling the world who to hate. Your religion hates atheists if your OP and your endorsement of it is representative of Baha'i (I just opened your link for the first time and saw that it comes from your religion. I had assumed you got it from a Christian apologetics source. Another strike for Baha'i. Another religion disseminating atheophobic slander, but in the name of unity. That's just as disingenuous as Christianity calling itself a religion of love as it informs its adherents whom to hate.)
What a wonderful world it would be if the religions just disappeared and its adherents had been raised as secular humanists and skilled critical thinkers instead. Just think - nobody would be motivated to start threads to post defamatory, divisive, and offensive descriptions of people whose only "crime" is not agreeing with theists. Wouldn't that be a better world?
This dog doesn't hunt. Your motives are clear. And this passive-aggressive "Who, me? I'm all about unity, and just bringing something interesting to discuss," isn't gaining traction, either. The evidence for that is the complete absence of any expression of empathy or remorse for having attempted to demonize and marginalize atheists. If it weren't your purpose to offend atheists, you would have been surprised by the reaction and offered some kind of expression of regret. But you didn't. This is what you expected and wanted. What else is even possible?
But you use it to drive wedges. You don't seem to know what unity is or how it is achieved. It's not achieved posting defamatory text like you did. That leads to the opposite, as you are experiencing now. I don't think you mind.
That's not how you presented it. You declared that what you call New Atheism is how atheists are, not whether it exists, and atheists they promote humanity's downfall (note the spelling of the possessive form) without ever offering a scintilla of support for that slander. Now, you're walking it back a little. Now, you want to represent that you were just throwing it out there for consideration. Not your fault. You didn't write it, right?
The opposite is the case, as we see in this thread. If you could safely remove the secular humanist "threat" to civilization, you'd be free to revert to the Middle Ages and war amongst yourselves a for few more millennia. But if one did the opposite - removed the organized religions from the world - that would be a better world. The world got better when religion was removed from government and schools.
You'll likely point to the atheistic totalitarian regimes of last century, but I assure you that the genocidal horror they perpetrated was not due to atheism, nor would it have been prevented had they been theocratic totalitarian regimes. Just another slander from the faithful.
This is why the proper term to characterize the typical Western agnostic atheist is secular humanist - a description of what they stand for. That is the community that should be seen as the gold standard for the religions to emulate, none of which can equal this: Affirmations of Humanism | Free Inquiry
Sheldon
Veteran Member
You seem to be creating a god of the gaps polemic, and you might want to do some cursory research before you make sweeping claims.
Scientific American. New Clues Found in Understanding Near-Death Experiences
Scientific American. What Near-Death Experiences Reveal about the Brain
Near-Death Experiences May Stem from the Brain Blending Waking and Dreaming States, Study Suggests
Sheldon
Veteran Member
And you thought the subjective opinion of your own religion on atheism, would be a credible source?
