• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Religion of New Atheism

SmokeAndMirrors said:
That doesn't matter. It demonstrates social intolerance towards atheists in very concrete terms.
Click to expand...

I'm not following, you cited them as instances of discrimination against atheists. I pointed out they are not applied and are unlikely to pass court scrutiny if they ever are.

Second, why would anyone need to approve of your philosophical and ideological positions? To me that isn't discrimination as we are discussing here.
 
Re: New Atheism = Antitheism

Djoop said:
Christopher Hitchens | Book Excerpt
Click to expand...

Hitchens on bestiality

At the end of Christian apologist William Lane Craig vs. atheist Christopher Hitchens debate there was an audience question and answer period. The first audience member to ask a question twice asked Christopher Hitchens to label bestiality as an immoral act, but he refused to do so.[8] Dr. Craig said the question posed to Hitchens was a good one and it helped illustrate that atheism cannot offer objective moral standards (see: Atheism and morality).[9]
Click to expand...
Christopher Hitchens - Conservapedia


The question starts at 1:54:30





Hitchen's self-refutation of his irrational atheistic claims

Hitchen's self-refutation of his irrational atheistic claims

Vox Day wrote:

“ In The Irrational Atheist, I noted that Christopher Hitchens had committed a marvelous exercise in self-evisceration when he declared that “what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence”, then proceeded to pronounce no fewer than 52 different declarations, each of which was presented completely without evidence.[11]
Click to expand...
Christopher Hitchens - Conservapedia



New Oxford Book Review
Exploding the False Claims of the New Atheists
The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens. By Vox Day.

Yet the humor doesn't get in the way of subtle analysis, for he lays bare Dawkins's "incessant shell games," Harris's "exercises in self-parody," and Hitchens's "epic feat of intellectual self-evisceration."

Day divides atheists into high-church and low-church varieties. The "unholy trinity" belong to the high-church type -- i.e., they are university men who hate religion and demand that others enlist in their "anti-theist jihads." The low-church atheists describe themselves simply as of "no religion." In reply to the high-church boast that atheists are more moral than theists, Day points out that, while it is true that high-church atheists comprised only two-tenths of one percent of the criminals imprisoned in England and Wales in the year 2000, the low-church type made up 31.6 percent. Measured against their ratio in the overall population, this meant that atheists were four times more likely to go to jail for crimes than Christians. This is a sample of how Day explodes the false claims of the new atheists.

Perhaps the most engaging chapters in this book are those about war. The high-church atheists assert that religion causes war, but Day proves otherwise. He shows that over the past 232 years, 671,070 American soldiers have died in 17 wars, of which only one-half of one percent can reasonably be attributed to religion. This amounts to the deaths of 14 soldiers per year. Turning next to the Encyclopedia of Wars compiled by C. Phillips and A. Axelrod, Day examines 1,763 wars fought from 2325 B.C. to modern times. Of these wars, only 123 can reasonably be attributed to religion -- 6.92 percent of those recorded. Since half of these religious wars were waged by Muslims, this means that, apart from Islam, the world's religions are responsible for only 3.35 percent of all wars. "The historical evidence is conclusive," Day concludes. "Religion is not a primary cause of war."
Click to expand...
READ MORE...
New Oxford Review
 
Last edited:
Manc Skipper said:
What if you simply want to be left in peace, and don't want the conversation at all? Religionists presume they have a right to have that conversation over your right not to do so.
Click to expand...

lol, some of the most preachy ****s I have met were atheists
 
Amadeus said:
I understand what you're saying, and I have softened my approach since joining DP. At the same time, I can respect someone who tells me that I am morally inferior/bankrupt without having to dance around the issue for 3-4 pages. It saves both of us time. :)
Click to expand...

I'm a big fan of being blunt too... which is often confused with being an asshole <shrugs>
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
who gives people a free pass for doing those things, and why would you use the poor behavior of others to justify your own?

The key is looking at such people as examples on how *not to act*, not as a means to justify your own annoying, preachy mentality
Click to expand...

I'm not justifying anyone's actions, I'm pointing out the inherent hypocrisy when Christians criticise atheists, and solely atheists, for doing things that Christians do.
 
Thrilla said:
I'm a big fan of being blunt too... which is often confused with being an asshole <shrugs>
Click to expand...

Sometimes those with the biggest hearts are the biggest assholes.
 
Thrilla said:
well, speaking as a theist here, I don't want atheist to be silent about their beliefs ...however, I do wish atheists weren't such assholes about it... your post is an xample of being an asshole about it.
Click to expand...

Actually, I was being nice. Now I'm going to stop. First, I'm going to report the OP because it is explicitly about atheism and is thus in the wrong forum.

believe, don't believe, I don't care what goes on in your brain housing group... but when you reach the point where you find yourself to be morally, ethically, and intellectually superior to believers, you find yourself firmly planted in the middle of asshole-land.
I don't think atheists should be ostracized, shunned, scorned, or made fun of.... I simply think assholes should...same thing goes for believers.[/QUOTE]

I am only intellectually superior to people who do and say dumber things than I do. Wearing magic underwear to ward off nonexistent demons? Dumber. Thinking that people who don't belong to a special club are lacking moral compasses? Dumber. Reading a heavily edited book that's been translated through several languages and written by dozens of authors over thousands of years and thinking it's an accurate representation of history? Dumber. Feeling an overwhelming experience and deciding that you're certain that it is a personalized message from the specific deific character from your culture and not someone else's? Dumber.

Those who understand truth, facts, and reality are the superior intellectuals. If you are not basing your worldview and your positions about the nature of the universe on verifiable and observable facts, I must ask, why not? Because you should be.

Thrilla said:
nah,I don't believe that.
Click to expand...

You may not think you do, but your actions suggest that you do. Very few theists on this site actually walk the walk when they say things like this. That's why the special religion board exists, to silence atheists with force.

TacticalEvilDan said:
I see absolutely nothing wrong with taking theists to task when they use their beliefs to justify policy choices -- so long as it's done either respectfully or at least with as much respect as the particular theists being addressed show you.
Click to expand...

There are no religiously informed policies that are founded in respect. They are founded in the idea that it is a fundamental truth of the universe that they, the people wanting to make these rules, are better people and are chosen by an all-powerful creature to control how everyone else lives. Let's start with the SSM bans. They're based on the idea that people are an abomination because they have sex different than you do. Catholic organizations want to disqualify their employees from medical benefits. Name one organization that doesn't invoke god that can do that.

The basis for religious control over society is "I and my super powerful dad know better than you, merely because I say so." The worst atheists do is say "I know better than you, because of this multitude of overwhelming evidence." There is no respect from theists when they try to control the rest of us.

At the same time, if you approach the theists (many flavors of which think that theirs is the one true whatever) with the attitude that yours is the one true reality, your attitude is no better than theirs.
Click to expand...

Reality is reality, no matter what any of us think it is. Those of us who better understand are better off. It's not reality because I think it is. I'm probably wrong about a lot of things. But someone who invokes magic as an explanation is wrong about a lot more than I am. You don't tiptoe around people who think that the Earth is flat, do you? Just because you have the one true reality that this planet is round. So why should anyone who possesses the truth keep silent?

spud_meister said:
What if I did a whole range of things that Christians get a free pass for, obnoxious behaviours that are condescending and arrogant, would I be an asshole atheist? Are all the Christians on here really that incapable of seeing the double standard? That atheists are now a problem, because they're acting just like Christians?
Click to expand...

Not just like. We don't murder our neighbors or try to impose draconian laws to control their behavior. The worst thing we do is not exempt them from paying into a central pool that includes buying birth control pills.
 
Paschendale said:
If you can't handle ridicule of your beliefs, have less ridiculous beliefs.
Click to expand...

My beliefs don't rest upon what other people think about them, so ridicule them all you want. It just so happens that I like discussing different spiritual and philosophical ideas with other people who have the decency to not lash out at me. It's hard to have those kinds of conversations with egotistical people that have superiority complexes.

You know, it's not always about agreeing and disagreeing. Why is it so hard for people to practice active listening and not need to argue with reality all the time?

Atheism may not be a belief system, but you'd swear it is based on the way some of them act. The problem I have with certain atheists is the same problem I have with any polemicists and dogmatists: they live in complete and utter certainty, which to me is the biggest delusion ever. How can you claim to know with 100% certainty, one way or another, and then IMPOSE that on someone else? I have more respect for agnostics, personally.

By the way, studies into neurobiology show that we are not all living in one common reality anyway. Everything is just a projection of our internal world. We all have different perceptual filters. It's laughable to say that atheism is "reality", or that Christianity is "reality". It's YOUR reality, so own it, and stop trying to dominate others.

The people I have 100% complete and utter respect for are the ones who acknowledge and pay hommage to the great mystery, which is possible to be in love with even if you don't understand it. The obsession with certain knowledge and absoluteness is problematic, IMO.
 
spud_meister said:
I'm not justifying anyone's actions, I'm pointing out the inherent hypocrisy when Christians criticise atheists, and solely atheists, for doing things that Christians do.
Click to expand...

I've seen Christians criticise most of those things.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Properly done, the "teapot" thing is an argument about practicality. It's not an argument about belief.

Basically, it's a way of explaining what the difference between an agnostic and an agnostic atheist is, and it goes something like this:

If I have seen no evidence such a thing as god exists, then why should I go about my life, or even my debates, factoring in a god? I have no evidence of it, and furthermore, there are billions of possible gods. Which one do I account for, and why? It doesn't make any practical sense to live your life that way, just like it makes no sense to live your life accounting for the billions of other things for which we have no evidence of their existence (some named and some not).

Agnostic atheism is agnosticism with a practical living element.
Click to expand...

However, it isn't practical since there aren't evidence(s) for some of the theories that atheists claim.
How many times have we heard how society will be much better off without religion?

Ironically, for all their supposed reliance on reason, the new atheists believe in improbable things like "multiple universes." Day observes that this is "an utterly non-scientific theory invented solely to get around the problem of the anthropic principle." Faced with the unwelcome fact that there are 128 fortuitous coincidences in the fundamental constants of physics, which suggests that the existence of life is no accident, atheists postulate "a potentially infinite number of universes" just so "our wildly improbable universe" can be found to be "mathematically probable." Here again, they use a double standard -- the multiverse theory is just as "un*falsifiable" as the "God Hypothesis," and far "more improbable."

Vox Day wisely concludes that there is no proof at all that a society can be established and survive on "an atheist foundation," while there is "a fair amount of evidence to the contrary."
Click to expand...
New Oxford Review
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
I'm not following, you cited them as instances of discrimination against atheists. I pointed out they are not applied and are unlikely to pass court scrutiny if they ever are.

Second, why would anyone need to approve of your philosophical and ideological positions? To me that isn't discrimination as we are discussing here.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between law and sociology.

Just because the law won't stand doesn't mean the sociology doesn't exist. Just because it's technically illegal to discriminate against, say, black people or gays or women doesn't mean that people don't still do it. The same is true of atheists. And of all of those groups, discriminating against atheists is probably the most socially acceptable.

The simple fact that a group of people felt empowered to question the legitimacy of an an atheist representative demonstrates that it is socially acceptable to discriminate against atheists. It demonstrates that they felt no significant fear of social disapproval in doing so, otherwise they probably wouldn't have done it.

It may be theoretically true that more recent laws attempt to protect atheists, but it is very clear that society itself doesn't feel any obligation to do so.
 
tosca1 said:
However, it isn't practical since there aren't evidence(s) for some of the theories that atheists claim.
How many times have we heard how society will be much better off without religion?
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?

There are no "theories of atheism." Atheism is a lack of belief in the proposition of a deity. Nothing else.

The hypothesis of multiple universes is a scientific one. Science and atheism are not the same thing. You can argue atheism and not use science at all, because arguing atheism relies on showing lack of evidence of deities.

And furthermore, scientists don't "believe" in the multiple universe hypothesis. It is just one proposed hypothesis among many for how the universe works, and some scientists argue for it more than others. No scientists will ever try to tell you we have proved multiple universes. And any lay person who tries to tell you that is ignorant.

You obviously have no understanding of what atheism is, or what science is.
 
tosca1 said:
Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris, dubbed, "The Four Horsemen" are the leading members - if not the founders - of the movement called New Atheism. Atheists may strongly deny this, but indeed, Dawkins', Hitchens, Dennett and Harris have become the atheist equivalent of evangelists who proselytize and preach their own doctrine from their pulpits.

[cut for space]

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and looks like a duck.....what else could it be?
Click to expand...
Militant religious people and militant atheists speak to and about people with different beliefs in the same manner. They are dismissive, superior, rude and obnoxious. They thrive on imagining themselves as better than everyone else. They also tend to insist that they criticized and "persecuted" for no other reason than their beliefs while completely ignoring how their own behavior contributes to how little respect they receive from other people.

The ironic thing about militant atheists who do this is that they often criticize religion for the very intolerance, irrationality and bigotry that they display. This is interesting given how many people leave religion because they don't want their differences of opinion to mocked or otherwise denigrated. Another ironic thing about militant atheists is that they criticize religious people for thinking with their emotions when many of them are motivated by anger and resentment.

In short, militant atheists - with their behavior - set up an environment that invites people to dislike them. Then they use that resulting dislike as evidence that theists are intolerant. It's amazing. It's a great way to confirm their biases.
 
Thrilla said:
well, speaking as a theist here, I don't want atheist to be silent about their beliefs ...however, I do wish atheists weren't such assholes about it... your post is an xample of being an asshole about it.

believe, don't believe, I don't care what goes on in your brain housing group... but when you reach the point where you find yourself to be morally, ethically, and intellectually superior to believers, you find yourself firmly planted in the middle of asshole-land.
I don't think atheists should be ostracized, shunned, scorned, or made fun of.... I simply think assholes should...same thing goes for believers.
Click to expand...

Once you call someone an asshole you proclaim yourself to be morally superior. Mr Pot you are black.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Just because the law won't stand doesn't mean the sociology doesn't exist. Just because it's technically illegal to discriminate against, say, black people or gays or women doesn't mean that people don't still do it. The same is true of atheists. And of all of those groups, discriminating against atheists is probably the most socially acceptable.
Click to expand...

Not liking people based on things like sex and skin color are wrong because they are arbitrary and do not speak to the person in question, philosophical positions and ideology do.

Fact in point, I ****ing hate and despise Nazis

The simple fact that a group of people felt empowered to question the legitimacy of an an atheist representative demonstrates that it is socially acceptable to discriminate against atheists.
Click to expand...

If you can't accept that fact that people might hate what you believe, then start faking it and go to church.

It may be theoretically true that more recent laws attempt to protect atheists, but it is very clear that society itself doesn't feel any obligation to do so.
Click to expand...

why does society need to protect you from hurt feelings?
 
spud_meister said:
Yes, it happens, but I see Christians criticise atheists far more frequently.
Click to expand...

and atheists tend to turn a blind eye to it in their own circles. What can you do, we operate under a pack mentality
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Militant religious people and militant atheists speak to and about people with different beliefs in the same manner. They are dismissive, superior, rude and obnoxious. They thrive on imagining themselves as better than everyone else. They also tend to insist that they criticized and "persecuted" for no other reason than their beliefs while completely ignoring how their own behavior contributes to how little respect they receive from other people.

The ironic thing about militant atheists who do this is that they often criticize religion for the very intolerance, irrationality and bigotry that they display. This is interesting given how many people leave religion because they don't want their differences of opinion to mocked or otherwise denigrated. Another ironic thing about militant atheists is that they criticize religious people for thinking with their emotions when many of them are motivated by anger and resentment.

In short, militant atheists - with their behavior - set up an environment that invites people to dislike them. Then they use that resulting dislike as evidence that theists are intolerant. It's amazing. It's a great way to confirm their biases.
Click to expand...

****, I hate agreeing with theplaydrive.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
What are you talking about?

There are no "theories of atheism." Atheism is a lack of belief in the proposition of a deity. Nothing else.

The hypothesis of multiple universes is a scientific one. Science and atheism are not the same thing. You can argue atheism and not use science at all, because arguing atheism relies on showing lack of evidence of deities.

And furthermore, scientists don't "believe" in the multiple universe hypothesis. It is just one proposed hypothesis among many for how the universe works, and some scientists argue for it more than others. No scientists will ever try to tell you we have proved multiple universes. And any lay person who tries to tell you that is ignorant.

You obviously have no understanding of what atheism is, or what science is.
Click to expand...

I was responding to your comment:

If I have seen no evidence such a thing as god exists, then why should I go about my life, or even my debates, factoring in a god? I have no evidence of it, and furthermore, there are billions of possible gods.
Click to expand...
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
Not liking people based on things like sex and skin color are wrong because they are arbitrary and do not speak to the person in question, philosophical positions and ideology do.

Fact in point, I ****ing hate and despise Nazis
Click to expand...

Neither does being an atheist. Someone saying they are an atheist says absolutely nothing about what their ethics or beliefs are like. Atheism is an absence of belief in deities. Nothing else. You don't know anything except that about someone who says they're an atheist.

If you can't accept that fact that people might hate what you believe, then start faking it and go to church.
Click to expand...

Why should atheists be subjected to public discrimination and attempts to ban them from serving, and even from existing?

why does society need to protect you from hurt feelings?
Click to expand...

It doesn't, but it proports to, and fails in reality.

So now that I've proven you wrong, you're just reverting to "Whiny atheists. Deal with people trying to take away your rights or GTFO." Classy.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Another ironic thing about militant atheists is that they criticize religious people for thinking with their emotions when many of them are motivated by anger and resentment.
Click to expand...

Very true.
 
Paschendale said:
I am only intellectually superior to people who do and say dumber things than I do. Wearing magic underwear to ward off nonexistent demons? Dumber. Thinking that people who don't belong to a special club are lacking moral compasses? Dumber. Reading a heavily edited book that's been translated through several languages and written by dozens of authors over thousands of years and thinking it's an accurate representation of history? Dumber. Feeling an overwhelming experience and deciding that you're certain that it is a personalized message from the specific deific character from your culture and not someone else's? Dumber.

Those who understand truth, facts, and reality are the superior intellectuals. If you are not basing your worldview and your positions about the nature of the universe on verifiable and observable facts, I must ask, why not? Because you should be.
Click to expand...

Most of that is your opinion, not verifiable fact. I'll agree with you on the moral compass point, of course, because there are too many special clubs and too many non-members who have fully functional moral compasses.

Paschendale said:
There are no religiously informed policies that are founded in respect. They are founded in the idea that it is a fundamental truth of the universe that they, the people wanting to make these rules, are better people and are chosen by an all-powerful creature to control how everyone else lives.
Click to expand...

Sounds kind of like what you've been saying, minus the all-powerful creature. :lol:

Paschendale said:
Reality is reality, no matter what any of us think it is. Those of us who better understand are better off. It's not reality because I think it is. I'm probably wrong about a lot of things. But someone who invokes magic as an explanation is wrong about a lot more than I am. You don't tiptoe around people who think that the Earth is flat, do you? Just because you have the one true reality that this planet is round. So why should anyone who possesses the truth keep silent?
Click to expand...

I'm not saying anybody should be silent. You're mistaking me for someone else. I'm talking about respect, not silence. All I ask is that people not be assholes.

Paschendale said:
Not just like. We don't murder our neighbors or try to impose draconian laws to control their behavior. The worst thing we do is not exempt them from paying into a central pool that includes buying birth control pills.
Click to expand...

There are lots of religious people out there who don't try to murder their neighbors, and atheists are just as capable of trying to control the behavior of others -- there are many who think themselves superior enough to do so, I'm sure.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Yes, I know. And I fail to see what your post has to do with my statement.
Click to expand...

Origin. How did life start? For the New Atheists, their faith hangs on this. Thus all this tap-dances about multi-universes! Where's the proof?

Their claim that society is better off without religion. Where's the proof for that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom