Why the neo-atheists fall short of their illustrious predecessors (via Marvin).
[…] (HT: A Thinking Reed) […]
Pathetic trash. Do apologists ever think? It all boils down to the moral arguement, transendant arguement and true atheism arguement (for the record- if you don’t believe in god you are a true atheist. Nothing more or less).
“Scientism is a position that is self defeating- it requires faith”
Er… that is completely and utterly false. I’m going to have to assume you are talking about materialism (only the material world exists), naturalism (there is no supernatural) and the scientific method (test things until there is evidence). And you are right- it isn’t self justifing- Godel already discovered it. So how do we justify it? Evidance. You know the external world? We justify the belief that these premises adequately reflect the external world because- they actually reflect the external world! They allow use to make predicitons, new discoveries and new technologies.
Religiousity… what the hack does that mean? New atheism does mean a radical transformation of people’s lives- it is just the religiousity (or piety or whatever the word he abuses next) has declined- the old atheists lived in a time where evolution was new and there were no liberal churches- not to mention few atheists. They had no idea what an atheist society would look like anymore than Marx knew how a Communist Utopia would run. It turns out that theists are people, just like everyone else and once they deconvert life will go on. Heck- it is the same as the fall of racism and the Jim Crow Laws- we have black people not being discriminated against, but for the white people the situation is essentially the same (except we get The Chappel Show and Undercover Brother).
I don’t get this “true atheism” business. Yes the universe is pointless, no there isn’t a supernatural nanny, yes I will die and yes, everthing will be destroyed by either entropy or singularities (which one do you think will win?). So what? Religion is the exact same way- except with immortal life for everyone. You don’t really have purpose- you have marching orders and a boss. The universe will come to an end (See the Book of Relevations) and everything is pointless except for the brownie points it scores you with the big G. Not really a big difference. You could try to come up with some special arguement about how everything you do is of celestial importance, but the truth is you are deluding yourself. So what? I didn’t need a master when I was a kid and I don’t need one know- why should I have another bind me to “their” destiny and “their”goal? How does having a god give a man a goal anymore than being under the whip give a slave one? Is it just because of the power and benificence of the overlord that makes it “special”?
Tolerance is an over rated virtue. Why should we tolerate evil?
Only Dawkins is so Darwinian and that is because he’s an evolutionary biologist. I like the “whole moral and ethical basis of the West will collapse””. This man is a complete and total idiot. Japan is overwhelmingly atheist and although the country is… unique- it is no where near collapsing. In fact Western Europe seems to be doing fine without a mojarity of believers- what they are suffering from now is tolerance!
Darwinian Naturalism is a nonsense statement. The proper statement would be Secular Evidence (proof from this world). I assume if people used reality to deal with reality they would be better off.
Hmm- basically atheists turn out to be normal people and your disappointed that they don’t turn into nihlists. Well here is the thing- there is no position such as true atheism. I’m an atheist (strong atheist). All other people who don”t believe in god are also atheists even if they disagree with me on everything else! There is no required doctrine or conclusion a person must adopt. You think that atheists aren’t being consistant because they aren’t living without a transendant purpose. They are- ask them “do you live for god?”. The answer will be no everytime.
Our bais for hate is in faith itself. Faith is believing that things are true because you believe they they are true. Faith is a declaration that evidence does not matter and that your mind is infallible. Faith is a declaration other people can’t change your mind and that their opinions are valueless.
Value judgements are part of morality- not theology. Thus someone can declare something is evil even if they are an atheist. Of course the definiton is different. For a theist something is evil as an absolute value because “God said so”. For an atheist something is evil because “it is a person causing pain, suffering and death for their own benefit”. Calling a force of nature evil is equivalent to saying “if a person did this…
Spelling errors and horrific grammar aside (helps if you can actually spell evidence if you place it in such high esteem to offer legitimacy to your rant)…
“They allow use to make predicitons, new discoveries and new technologies.”
Why is this the highest value for you? Why this value as opposed to others? God did not invent napalm or the atom bomb. Without science and research dollars neither are possible or would have existed. People are guilty of atrocity. to blame it on religion or faith is as bad as a Christian blaming it on irreligion or lack of faith. Both absolve people from guilt in both instances since the problem is associated with an indirect condition of the action. It is the simplicity of social behavior where so many of the atheist arguments fail. To say that Russell’s essay, for one, is not loaded with fallacies is ignorant. That is, if you can actually read.
“Value judgements are part of morality- not theology.”
Then I would recommend actually reading a little theology because that is wrong. All theology has impact on how people act.
Why I am bothering with your drivel is beyond me. Moth to flame I guess. Or is that mothe too falame?
Oh, no.
Let me see….I suppose I’ll break this down into paragraphs, then. Make it easier to understand.
The first paragraph (and those few sentences which I assume are an introduction) made little sense , if you could rephrase? No matter how I looked at it, it didn’t solidify. I’m sorry. The article you are criticizing, however, did, so point up for the other team.
The second paragraph. I suppose if you ignored all the implications, as amply provided by this “unthinking apologist” life would go on. And the human race is quite good at utter ignorance, so it might actually work. But the problem with ignorance is that somewhere, in the back of your mind, you always know. Things don’t just go away. That leaves the door open for dissention, rebels, and…guess what? Theists.
Third paragraph. Utterly wrong conclusion there. It takes some thought, but you can figure out why God put us here. Let’s go off on a tangent for a moment. Why must our children go to school? It makes them unhappy, certainly. The food isn’t good. The social structure is bad enough to be mocked throughout the ages, so why must they go? To learn, of course. How would they learn otherwise? No one, children included, would do anything if left to their own devices. Children do what they’re told because their parents make them, and the parents control the food (as well as everything else) supply. Adults go to work because if they don’t….well, they don’t get food either. And some enjoy their jobs, certainly. But there are bad days. Who would go, on those days they just don’t feel like it, if they didn’t have to? But children must go…why? Oh, yes. To learn. To better themselves so that they’re worth debating with, working with. Yes, children are cute. I love kids, and I think a child is always worth listening to. After all, who else is so untainted? My Lord believes this as well. But the same child at forty who still believes in the monster under the bed and stork-carrying babies? Exactly. I trust that conclusion can be drawn on its own. So why does God put us through the agony of the world at large? To make us worthy companions. Remember, Adam and Eve, at the beginning, did not understand evil. Nor could they resist it when tested. I don’t think God could have talked to them about evil, could he? Like we can’t talk to kids about politics, straight out of the womb. So they ate of the tree of life….because God let them (why else would He have put the damn thing in the middle of their garden?) and they understood evil. Not the evil of their actions…no, the fruit of the tree itself gave understanding. God punished them for disobediance, and cast them out into a world where they would struggle with sin…and where, eventually, some humans would learn resistance, and trust in their God to deliver them. That’s why we’re here. To be better people. To upgrade from Adam and Eve style innocence into something God can talk to. To understand. Sure, God could have created us understanding. God can do anything. But would it have been the same? And….wait a minute…isn’t that what angels are? But God favors us over them. Why is that? If you think about it, you’ll find it. Make sense now?
The next section (inculding your lonely sentence, and the paragraph beneath). You’re bashing tolerance? Does that even make sense? If no one was taught to turn the other cheek, and accept that, yes, everyone else has free speech too, and don’t have to listen to what you say (before you say, yes, my people are guilty of intolerance too. Humans are a very bull-headed, intolerant people…and they all screw up. Yes, humans suck. Christians are humans, therefore….we suck. We can’t do everything right…or even a majority right. Not one. “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” With the help of God…if we don’t struggle too much…we can do good. But not without Him.)….what happens then? Oh yes. War, death, misery….have fun with that, will you? Then…oh yes, the western side of the world. Take a look at China, will you? And then the rest of the entire world, while you’re at it. The whole thing’s going to hell in a handbasket, and if you don’t believe it, wait a few years. Research some history…and some current topics on how the world’s going. Might help you understand.
Next paragraph. Hm. Yes. Atheists are athiests. Despite being different people, they all do believe there is no God. Nice point. They are also people, as I believe you said. See above for people, humans, and flaws.
The faith paragraph. No. Faith=trust. Figure that out on your own. What you defined as faith is indeed a problem. I’ll give you points for that. But it’s not faith, no matter what it’s followers say.
Deep breath….last paragraph. You know what’s evil, eh? So…pain and suffering is wrong? Ask yourself why. And then try to find the truth in it, not just what you want to believe.
Trying my best,
Shadoe
A Thinking Reed 
Leave a reply to John Haught Offers a Brilliant Critique of the “New Atheists” | Notes From Off-Center Cancel reply