Total Posts:71|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

New Atheism

socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2011 8:56:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Is the new atheist movement finally where atheists stand up to the dogmas of religion and the dangers of unjustified belief or does it hurt the cause of atheism by offending theists?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2011 8:57:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
what new atheism movement?

Typically, any sudden movement is going to cause friction and so conflict.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2011 9:04:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It depends on the approach. Many "new atheists" lack tact which then causes fights instead of debates. The only way the movement will have any lasting effect is if the theist community is open to discussion, which will not happen if they feel that they are being talked at instead of talked to.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2011 9:08:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/1/2011 9:04:54 PM, annhasle wrote:
It depends on the approach. Many "new atheists" lack tact which then causes fights instead of debates. The only way the movement will have any lasting effect is if the theist community is open to discussion, which will not happen if they feel that they are being talked at instead of talked to.

Many atheists feel that they are talked at instead of talked to, which is probably how the new atheist movement got its start. As a reaction to the condescending and cock sure arrogance that is religious fundamentalism.

I agree though, it boils down to communication.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2011 9:20:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/1/2011 9:08:38 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 3/1/2011 9:04:54 PM, annhasle wrote:
It depends on the approach. Many "new atheists" lack tact which then causes fights instead of debates. The only way the movement will have any lasting effect is if the theist community is open to discussion, which will not happen if they feel that they are being talked at instead of talked to.

Many atheists feel that they are talked at instead of talked to, which is probably how the new atheist movement got its start. As a reaction to the condescending and cock sure arrogance that is religious fundamentalism.

Definitely. But to bridge any gap of understanding between the two communities, one needs to step forward with a willingness to stop acting like arrogant pricks. I would hope that the atheists would understand how annoying the condescending attitudes are during debate and act accordingly.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2011 9:42:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Willingness to communicate only goes so far. One must also be willing to think "maybe I'm wrong". However, this is seen very rarely among theists as their beliefs are usually based on faith or indoctrination and rarely on rational or objective analysis. As long as churches preach that faith is a virtue, people will continue to believe that religion is on some higher plane then evidence can reach.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2011 11:19:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The mind be like an umbrella, yo. It doesn't work unless it open.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 12:27:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/1/2011 8:56:25 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Is the new atheist movement finally where atheists stand up to the dogmas of religion and the dangers of unjustified belief

No. See history.

or does it hurt the cause of atheism by offending theists?

No. There is no cause.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 12:46:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/1/2011 9:04:54 PM, annhasle wrote:
It depends on the approach. Many "new atheists" lack tact which then causes fights instead of debates.

Do you believe this about people like Harris, Hitchens, and Dawkins?

I personally think all three of them are doing a great job of representing Atheism!
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 12:49:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/1/2011 8:56:25 PM, socialpinko wrote:
or does it hurt the cause of atheism by offending theists?

As Puck said, there is no cause of Atheism.

However, individual Atheists may have the goal of at least inducing Reason into the world and make people more rational. For example, I'm sure Hitchens does not want to get rid of people like William Lane Craig or Alvin Plantinga, in fact, I'm sure he'd be ecstatic if more Theists became more like these two prominent and rational Theists.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 12:53:24 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/2/2011 12:46:18 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/1/2011 9:04:54 PM, annhasle wrote:
It depends on the approach. Many "new atheists" lack tact which then causes fights instead of debates.

Do you believe this about people like Harris, Hitchens, and Dawkins?

I personally think all three of them are doing a great job of representing Atheism!

Yes, I actually do. I believe them all to be intelligent men and I admire them (especially Hitchens) -- but they come off strong. A little too strong, mainly Dawkins. Even though they have done a great job debating and presenting atheism through mainstream media, I'm not quite sure if I would agree with the idea that they are doing a "great job representing atheism". They have simply made atheism as arrogant as religious fundamentalism.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 1:01:36 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/2/2011 12:53:24 AM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/2/2011 12:46:18 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Do you believe this about people like Harris, Hitchens, and Dawkins?

I personally think all three of them are doing a great job of representing Atheism!

Yes, I actually do. I believe them all to be intelligent men and I admire them (especially Hitchens) -- but they come off strong. A little too strong, mainly Dawkins. Even though they have done a great job debating and presenting atheism through mainstream media, I'm not quite sure if I would agree with the idea that they are doing a "great job representing atheism". They have simply made atheism as arrogant as religious fundamentalism.

It's not their fault that they have British accents! It's the darn British accents that make them sound pompous and snouty! Though, Sam Harris comes off as very light-hearted and unintimidating to me.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 1:05:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/2/2011 1:01:36 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/2/2011 12:53:24 AM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/2/2011 12:46:18 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Do you believe this about people like Harris, Hitchens, and Dawkins?

I personally think all three of them are doing a great job of representing Atheism!

Yes, I actually do. I believe them all to be intelligent men and I admire them (especially Hitchens) -- but they come off strong. A little too strong, mainly Dawkins. Even though they have done a great job debating and presenting atheism through mainstream media, I'm not quite sure if I would agree with the idea that they are doing a "great job representing atheism". They have simply made atheism as arrogant as religious fundamentalism.

It's not their fault that they have British accents! It's the darn British accents that make them sound pompous and snouty! Though, Sam Harris comes off as very light-hearted and unintimidating to me.

Lol, sure -- lets blame it on the accents. :P

Don't get me wrong. Hitchens is one of my idols and I could spend all day reading his material or watching his debates.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 4:31:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/1/2011 9:42:55 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Willingness to communicate only goes so far. One must also be willing to think "maybe I'm wrong". However, this is seen very rarely among theists as their beliefs are usually based on faith or indoctrination and rarely on rational or objective analysis. As long as churches preach that faith is a virtue, people will continue to believe that religion is on some higher plane then evidence can reach.

Yeah? Dunno about that. I see far more theists confront doubts in their faith than i do atheists have the slightest doubt in their position.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 7:44:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/2/2011 12:46:18 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/1/2011 9:04:54 PM, annhasle wrote:
It depends on the approach. Many "new atheists" lack tact which then causes fights instead of debates.

Do you believe this about people like Harris, Hitchens, and Dawkins?

I personally think all three of them are doing a great job of representing Atheism!

Dawkins does not, his arguments are weak, hypocritical and are aimed at atheists... not theists.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 7:45:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/2/2011 1:01:36 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/2/2011 12:53:24 AM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/2/2011 12:46:18 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Do you believe this about people like Harris, Hitchens, and Dawkins?

I personally think all three of them are doing a great job of representing Atheism!

Yes, I actually do. I believe them all to be intelligent men and I admire them (especially Hitchens) -- but they come off strong. A little too strong, mainly Dawkins. Even though they have done a great job debating and presenting atheism through mainstream media, I'm not quite sure if I would agree with the idea that they are doing a "great job representing atheism". They have simply made atheism as arrogant as religious fundamentalism.

It's not their fault that they have British accents! It's the darn British accents that make them sound pompous and snouty! Though, Sam Harris comes off as very light-hearted and unintimidating to me.

Shut up you retarded little troll.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ogan
Posts: 407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 8:01:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/1/2011 8:56:25 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Is the new atheist movement finally where atheists stand up to the dogmas of religion and the dangers of unjustified belief or does it hurt the cause of atheism by offending theists?

The only religion/s known and stood up to by atheists are, bible thumpers, religious extremists and fundamentalists, cranks, superstitious weirdos and like. Were it all to tumble down, only True religion would then be left, and this True Religion cannot be in any shape or form crammed into the box of rational analysis, anymore than Faith could be understood and framed by reason.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 12:15:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/2/2011 7:45:42 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/2/2011 1:01:36 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/2/2011 12:53:24 AM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/2/2011 12:46:18 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Do you believe this about people like Harris, Hitchens, and Dawkins?

I personally think all three of them are doing a great job of representing Atheism!

Yes, I actually do. I believe them all to be intelligent men and I admire them (especially Hitchens) -- but they come off strong. A little too strong, mainly Dawkins. Even though they have done a great job debating and presenting atheism through mainstream media, I'm not quite sure if I would agree with the idea that they are doing a "great job representing atheism". They have simply made atheism as arrogant as religious fundamentalism.

It's not their fault that they have British accents! It's the darn British accents that make them sound pompous and snouty! Though, Sam Harris comes off as very light-hearted and unintimidating to me.

Shut up you retarded little troll.

What was that for? I'm not dissing the British accent. In fact, I wish I could have one! British accents sound more sophisticated and are great for making speaches. I was just pointing out that British accents sound pompous and that's why people get the impression of arrogance.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 12:43:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/2/2011 12:15:18 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/2/2011 7:45:42 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/2/2011 1:01:36 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/2/2011 12:53:24 AM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/2/2011 12:46:18 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Do you believe this about people like Harris, Hitchens, and Dawkins?

I personally think all three of them are doing a great job of representing Atheism!

Yes, I actually do. I believe them all to be intelligent men and I admire them (especially Hitchens) -- but they come off strong. A little too strong, mainly Dawkins. Even though they have done a great job debating and presenting atheism through mainstream media, I'm not quite sure if I would agree with the idea that they are doing a "great job representing atheism". They have simply made atheism as arrogant as religious fundamentalism.

It's not their fault that they have British accents! It's the darn British accents that make them sound pompous and snouty! Though, Sam Harris comes off as very light-hearted and unintimidating to me.

Shut up you retarded little troll.

What was that for? I'm not dissing the British accent. In fact, I wish I could have one! British accents sound more sophisticated and are great for making speaches. I was just pointing out that British accents sound pompous and that's why people get the impression of arrogance.

Not trying to be a smart @ss, but in case you didn't know, there are many different types of British accents. You are thinking of the upper crust British accent. You probably wouldn't think of someone who speaks cockney as having a sophisticated accent! hah
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 1:19:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Philosophically, the New Atheists are pretty much illiterate. Take the example of the God delusion. The main argument as it is summarised is invalid, the theistic arguments are so generic and weakly put forward that they don't even resemble the real arguments theists use. Attempting to refute THE cosmological argument, for example, is absurd. There are so many versions of this argument, and Dawkins doesn't even seem aware of this. I think people who base their atheism on the new atheist material (or large parts of it at least) are far less rational than many, many Christians.

Having said that, there are some good points that they hit upon, things like the role and privellege of religion in society, the consequences of backdated beliefs based in religion, and even in reference to the existence of God at certain times. Definitely a mixed bag!
jmar8542
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 1:31:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/1/2011 9:20:14 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/1/2011 9:08:38 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 3/1/2011 9:04:54 PM, annhasle wrote:
It depends on the approach. Many "new atheists" lack tact which then causes fights instead of debates. The only way the movement will have any lasting effect is if the theist community is open to discussion, which will not happen if they feel that they are being talked at instead of talked to.

Many atheists feel that they are talked at instead of talked to, which is probably how the new atheist movement got its start. As a reaction to the condescending and cock sure arrogance that is religious fundamentalism.

Definitely. But to bridge any gap of understanding between the two communities, one needs to step forward with a willingness to stop acting like arrogant pricks. I would hope that the atheists would understand how annoying the condescending attitudes are during debate and act accordingly.

Exactly...some atheists I know argue from a good perspective, but are respectful about it (such as the host of The Atheist Experience), but some I know from my old high school are just obnoxious about their beliefs and think theist=retard.
"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree, you can fvck off." - Richard Dawkins
Jay_Walk
Posts: 38
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2011 9:52:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Like Andy said, they lack rationality.

We have Dawkins saying parents teaching religion to children is child abuse yet they shouldn't be prosecuted:

And Christopher Hitchens getting called out hiding behind "lack of belief" to promote his claim God doesn't exist:
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2011 11:53:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Jay,
Although I can appreciate that the New Atheists are ridiculous in some of the things in the videos you display, I would point out that being Bill Craig calling Dawkins out for it is a bit like Charlie Sheen telling you to watch your drinking. Some of things that guy has said have been so bone-headed and offensive that it makes Dawkins and Hitchens look moderate. He has, for instance, called homosexuality a "deformity", compared gay people to "sexual predators or child abusers", as well as his views on biblical morality ("genocide is God's punishment for sin") or Hell. Even if he is far better qualified to debate the existence of God than Dawkins or Hitchens (which I agree he is), he has views on society which border on psychotic and the implementation of some of these views would be far more damaging than those of Dawkins or Hitchens.
Jay_Walk
Posts: 38
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2011 2:39:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/3/2011 11:53:32 AM, unitedandy wrote:
Jay,
Although I can appreciate that the New Atheists are ridiculous in some of the things in the videos you display, I would point out that being Bill Craig calling Dawkins out for it is a bit like Charlie Sheen telling you to watch your drinking. Some of things that guy has said have been so bone-headed and offensive that it makes Dawkins and Hitchens look moderate. He has, for instance, called homosexuality a "deformity", compared gay people to "sexual predators or child abusers", as well as his views on biblical morality ("genocide is God's punishment for sin") or Hell. Even if he is far better qualified to debate the existence of God than Dawkins or Hitchens (which I agree he is), he has views on society which border on psychotic and the implementation of some of these views would be far more damaging than those of Dawkins or Hitchens.

Andy that was just a moral rant instead of a logical one where the videos I posted showed true "bone-headedness". I allready know an atheist doesn't accept the standard for morality in the Bible, no need to reilliterate something a Christian hears every single day from an atheist.
jmar8542
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2011 3:19:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It seems like a lose-lose situation. If an atheist says "I believe there is no God", he's told he has the burden of proof, which is ridiculous. If he says "I think there is no God, but I can't know for sure," he's accused of being an agnostic. So the only defense against atheism is twisting words around?
"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree, you can fvck off." - Richard Dawkins
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2011 3:21:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/3/2011 3:19:57 PM, jmar8542 wrote:
It seems like a lose-lose situation. If an atheist says "I believe there is no God", he's told he has the burden of proof, which is ridiculous. If he says "I think there is no God, but I can't know for sure," he's accused of being an agnostic. So the only defense against atheism is twisting words around?

You can be an agnostic atheist -- that's what I am, at least. :)
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2011 3:24:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/3/2011 3:19:57 PM, jmar8542 wrote:
It seems like a lose-lose situation. If an atheist says "I believe there is no God", he's told he has the burden of proof, which is ridiculous. If he says "I think there is no God, but I can't know for sure," he's accused of being an agnostic. So the only defense against atheism is twisting words around?

Yeah, that's it. That's the only defense against atheism.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2011 3:25:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/3/2011 3:24:00 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 3/3/2011 3:19:57 PM, jmar8542 wrote:
It seems like a lose-lose situation. If an atheist says "I believe there is no God", he's told he has the burden of proof, which is ridiculous. If he says "I think there is no God, but I can't know for sure," he's accused of being an agnostic. So the only defense against atheism is twisting words around?

Yeah, that's it. That's the only defense against atheism.

You forgot the "/sarcasm" :P
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,313
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2011 3:26:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/3/2011 3:21:12 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/3/2011 3:19:57 PM, jmar8542 wrote:
It seems like a lose-lose situation. If an atheist says "I believe there is no God", he's told he has the burden of proof, which is ridiculous. If he says "I think there is no God, but I can't know for sure," he's accused of being an agnostic. So the only defense against atheism is twisting words around?

You can be an agnostic atheist -- that's what I am, at least. :)

Or like me! An agnostic Theist! Thanks for that really good sparring last night Ann!