Battle of the New Atheism

[Musopticon?]

Consider that I'm a believer, yet I don't really take the bible seriously, Enuma-Elish is abut as believable as it, I also don't view the old-fashioned and fairly high-horse church system as all that good. I still believe in god(s ), an entity that's good and poweful and watchful. Freud would probably tell that I'm lost without a daddy. :D So, how does the New Atheism profile me, what should I do and and how?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Having no grounds to speak to it, nor have I even gotten Dawkins new book yet, I'll give it a shot (also, I note some import differences between Dawkins and the other profiled, so I'm going by how the article defines the "movement". Rather than any one guy):

 

My guess? You're more against them than with them. Maybe even "worse" than the hardcore believer, depending on how you spin it.

 

From the articles perspective: At best you give power to the religion you believe in. You may have no problems with gays or condoms, but when your church speaks against them, it's credited with having you in it's numbers. They don't say: "There is X amount of Catholics/Christians in the word and X% of them are partial believers". You may not want to stone gays, but you help give power to those that do.

 

This could be solved by me just getting away from organised religions and believeing what I will on my own, right? If I ask the church to take me off the list, won't that eradicate my support fo them? Or will I still be counted among the supporting ones, just like I'm supportive for this New Atheism-movement, which at least tried to be decently polite abut it all?

The worst case scenario would be that you "understand" but choose to be ignorant.  You see the flaws, you see the problems with it all (article, remember) and you choose to "kinda" believe anyways. So they may argue that you are worse than those that believe out of ignorance or stupidity, because you get it, but believe out of fear, blind hope, or something else.  I suppose it's viewed sorta like hearing gun shots outside and hearing someone screaming for help, but instead of helping, you just pull down the shades and ignore it.  ....Good men do nothing and all that

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ah, what a comparison. Harsh, man!

 

But I guess I agree. I don't view organised religion as evil, nor do I choose to go against it and try to exalt others to my view. I understand the arguments against the "halfway" approach to this, since I'm doing more bad than good, right? Yet, I wouldn't want to really get into this argument at all, since it would cause me to question my beliefs even more. Hahhah, I guess one could argue that it is the lack of blind faith that really keeps you going, the will and thought to question your beliefs every day and yet keep them. Unbenign obedience is an antediluvian subject. However, I do not wish to question my more than what I do every day. I fear what would happen if I didn't believe at the end.

 

I think that religion...no, not religion but faith, is one of the principle things that make me what I am. I used to be an atheist, not a strong one, but one still. And when I found my faith again, I felt changed. In every way that matters. I feel good when praying, really good. Even if is a stupid thing I'm praying for. Yet, praying doesn't feel right anymore and everything that happens in the world, what happens to me, keeps me on my toes. The "Teodikean problem" is just a funny way to label something and toss it aside, since it cannot be explained. Established systems ask for blind faith, while there are serious problems with that. "You just need to believe!" Well, what if I don't know what to believe in anymore?

 

If I choose to believe in all possibilities of gods and supernatural, like I used to, I have a pretty big chance of going to hell, or to Hel. That is, I if I choose to believe in those things. And why would I, doesn't the promise of eternal happiness no matter what tickle everyones fancy? ****, I used to argue against that, based simply on the idea of having to earn everything, equivalent trade, you could say. There's no point of gaining something without consequences, without the journey. But nowadays that feels pretty hollow. Yes, in principle it is a good notion, but when it comes to practice; everything fails. The only way to get to heaven by Lutheran standards is to have faith. To accept God and Jesus as your saviors and believe. All your sins are already forgiven and anyone can get in that way. So, like 3 billion buddhists will rot in hell? And what about fanatic murderers? Do they get in?

 

I could, of course, just adapt my faith somewhat to get better results, but that just means that religion for me is something like a trinket to bring happiness. A toy, you can snap and whose hair you can cut to your liking. And that kind of thinking, my friends, sucks. With all this in mind, you'd think it would be easy for me to just go unbeliever on the church. But I don't think I would be myself anymore. I read somewhere that every major change in ones life has several periods of acceptance and denial, like sorrow and blind denial and finally comfort and growth. I don't think I could emerge from the first period. Not yet, anyway.

 

Mus going overboard yet again. Have a cute puppy to rest your eyes.

Edited October 27, 2006 by Musopticon?

[Dark_Raven]

I don't worship anything or believe in some creator deity.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Just an odd question, if you got undisputed proof that God exist, like he pops in Says "Hi" would you worship him or would you tell him "Oh, you do exist. Now go away."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

No. As far as I know it could be an alien using our belief system to its advantage impersonating god for what ever reason it has to do so. With our technology and knowledge, if we went back in time a thousand years we could be called gods by primitive people.

Edited October 27, 2006 by Dark_Raven

[Sand]

Oh yes, an alien would be far more plausible than a "god."

 

 

Well, maybe.

[Dark_Raven]

Or a human that has technology that we have yet to see.

[Hurlshort]

I disagree.  If you're running off reason, then you are "open" by definition, it's whatever makes the most sense (obviously, to the amount humanity allows). I don't dispute there is no chance that god exists, however the odds are VERY low imo, and there for I don't believe. As, to me, that's blind belief.

 

I'm open to peoples ideas, just don't expect blind faith.

 

Obviously though, if someone is combative and dismissive, then they are not open.  This is far different than someone who questions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Speaking of odds, the actual odds of the universe just being a random action aren't too great either.

[Dark_Raven]

We live in a time when we no longer need to be attached to god idols to answer our

[kumquatq3]

I disagree.  If you're running off reason, then you are "open" by definition, it's whatever makes the most sense (obviously, to the amount humanity allows). I don't dispute there is no chance that god exists, however the odds are VERY low imo, and there for I don't believe. As, to me, that's blind belief.

 

I'm open to peoples ideas, just don't expect blind faith.

 

Obviously though, if someone is combative and dismissive, then they are not open.  This is far different than someone who questions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Speaking of odds, the actual odds of the universe just being a random action aren't too great either.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually, Dawkins has a GREAT (imo) argument about that. I'll try to dig it up in a bit.

[Sand]

Or a human that has technology that we have yet to see.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Humans tend to bleed.

[kumquatq3]

Mus going overboard yet again. Have a cute puppy to rest your eyes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

1. I don't really know what would happen in their eyes if you changed your support (to answer the first part)

 

But:

 

Reporter: "Now a lot of people find great comfort from religion. Not everybody is as you are---well-favored, handsome, wealthy, with a good job, happy family life. I mean, your life is good---not everybody's life is good, and religion brings them comfort."

Dawkins: "There are all sorts of things that would be comforting. I expect an injection of morphine would be comforting---it might be more comforting, for all I know. But to say that something is comforting is not to say that it's true."

 

that might be a reply to your second part

 

2. That puppies head look alot like Fox McCloud's head. I kept waiting for him to get into an Arwing.

Edited October 28, 2006 by kumquatq3

[Musopticon?]

In conclusion(yeah, right. like I would get peace that easily), I really need to read the God Delusion, no matter if Dawkings is part of the smug and condescending Brights movement.

[kumquatq3]

In conclusion(yeah, right. like I would get peace that easily), I really need to read the God Delusion, no matter if Dawkings is part of the smug and condescending Brights movement.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But it makes them seem so smart

 

We need a "doe-eyed" smiley

[Pop]

Dawkins is smart, but completely without a sense of irony. Unless this is all a big satire.

 

I've followed this debate for a number of years, and I have yet to unearth any argument that is both sufficient and necessary to prove either viewpoint. Plenty of necessary, not nearly enough sufficient.

 

The problem I have with this "evangelical atheism" is that it's just as reactionary as religious evangelism, with its "Faith in God must be destroyed" rather than "non-faith in God must be destroyed". They're functionally the same. Instead of God's chosen people, keepers of His covenant, we've got Brights, keepers of the one truth. The same desire for an oligarchy of power, not among those most connected to God, but those least connected to God. Instead of a pope and cardinals, we have a provost and professors. What Dawkins calls for is nothing radical, but in fact transferrence from one orthodoxy to another.

 

On top of that, you have Sam Harris declaring "There would be a religion of reason, we would have realized the rational means to maximize human happiness." Which is the most self-deluding crock of **** I've ever heard. As if excising faith from the public consciousness would allow all reasonable people to agree on things. ****, humanists can't agree on something like abortion. Reason has its own doctrine, which many times flies in the face of our sentiment.

 

It all flirts with subjectivism. The idea that absence of proof is proof of absence, that one can throw metaphysics under an empiricist lens and discern truth. It's laughable. It's unreasonable.

[Diamond]

Speaking of odds, the actual odds of the universe just being a random action aren't too great either.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If the universe is the result of a random act, there are infinite number of possible outcomes, and hence, every possible outcome has the probability of happening approaching 0. It can be that we observe one of the outcomes with infinitely small probability, and conclude that it can't happen.

 

 

And, wow, I see a constructive discussion of religion this time.

[WITHTEETH]

I disagree.  If you're running off reason, then you are "open" by definition, it's whatever makes the most sense (obviously, to the amount humanity allows). I don't dispute there is no chance that god exists, however the odds are VERY low imo, and there for I don't believe. As, to me, that's blind belief.

 

I'm open to peoples ideas, just don't expect blind faith.

 

Obviously though, if someone is combative and dismissive, then they are not open.  This is far different than someone who questions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Speaking of odds, the actual odds of the universe just being a random action aren't too great either.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Given that time is infinite, a random event occurring, even with odds of 10 to the power of 119,000, is not astonishing. By the way, how do you formulate an equation without knowing all of the variables in the equation?

 

Random chances find compatibility in the Universe set first by the big bang, or atleast the catalyst. Look around, the universe is full of teetering, why might you ask? because it trying to find compatibility, and what doesn't work is not exist.

[Krookie]

I'm going to ignore what everyone else is saying and just throw in my two cents.

 

I believe in God, and Jesus Christ. I believe in Heaven, and Hell.

I believe the Bible isn't 100% right.

I believe that there are others out there, just like us.

[Lucius]

I just saw the interview, man that Dawkins fellar is smart, I like him.

[WITHTEETH]

I'm going to ignore what everyone else is saying and just throw in my two cents.

 

I believe in God, and Jesus Christ. I believe in Heaven, and Hell.

I believe the Bible isn't 100% right.

I believe that there  are others out there, just like us.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You do not have any sensible evidence for backing this up unless your are one of the very few chosen god has chosen to reveal himself to, and even then I'd still question you. I think ill stick to the consistent natural world history then some guy saying he believes in something that just states it without reason why he does so.

 

Belief through faith is jumping into an abyss of unreason. taking this unreason and applying it to the real world is dangerous, it has restricted Gay rights, stem cell research, Abortion, education and its gone all the way to even infect the presidency.

 

There is no proof of a soul, god, devil, angels, heaven, hell, or of the bible being 100% correct.

 

THere is proof of evolution, the physical brain, the here and now, and what the mind wants to believe, it will. especially with a book so incoherent that it can make out whatever it wants.

 

The burden of proof is on the theist, the theist still just says he/she believes because faith. Thats not a good enough excuse to people dying in their hospital beds, teachers and students in Pennsylvania, gay couples, and much of the united states. This country is governed for the people by the people making it a secular nation excluding god aiding it by making it a successful one.

Edited October 28, 2006 by WITHTEETH

[Pidesco]

I think it has been firmly established that Angles existed. :D

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angles

[Dark_Raven]

There are no angels. They are nothing more than a hallucination either by naughty

Edited October 28, 2006 by Dark_Raven

[Xard]

That is what you wan't to believe

[Sand]

If angels do exist where is the physical evidence? There is physical evidence of dinosaurs yet nothing on angels. One cannot disprove existence till existence is proven.

[kumquatq3]

If angels do exist where is the physical evidence?  There is physical evidence of dinosaurs yet nothing on angels.  One cannot disprove existence till existence is proven.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Teradactyl = Pre-Historic angels of death

[Hurlshort]

You do not have any sensible evidence for backing this up unless your are one of the very few chosen god has chosen to reveal himself to, and even then I'd still question you. I think ill stick to the consistent natural world history then some guy saying he believes in something that just states it without reason why he does so.

 

Belief through faith is jumping into an abyss of unreason. taking this unreason and applying it to the real world is dangerous, it has restricted Gay rights, stem cell research, Abortion, education and its gone all the way to even infect the presidency.

 

There is no proof of a soul, god, devil, angels, heaven, hell, or of the bible being 100% correct. 

 

THere is proof of evolution, the physical brain, the here and now, and what the mind wants to believe, it will. especially with a book so incoherent that it can make out whatever it wants.

 

The burden of proof is on the theist, the theist still just says he/she believes because faith.  Thats not a good enough excuse to people dying in their hospital beds, teachers and students in Pennsylvania, gay couples, and much of the united states. This country is governed for the people by the people making it a secular nation excluding god aiding it by making it a successful one.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Right here you are only looking at the negative effects of religion and faith. Religion and humanity are tied together. You can look at almost every major event in history, whether it's good or bad, and find the influence of religion. Religion has done great harm, but the argument can be made that it has done even greater good. Religion is the first set of laws. It's the original code of conduct. Can a civilization grow and succeed without religion?

 

On the subject of odds, I don't doubt evolution. I don't even doubt that the big bang theory has some validity. I just have faith in something greater. It is almost impossible to explain, hence the plethora of different religions in our world. I believe the human spirit is far too complex to dismiss as an act of science.

 

Do I believe that God spoke to Abraham, Moses, and Muhammad? I believe that the human spirit can achieve amazing things. Whether the stories are true or not, no one can dismiss the impact these humans had on the history of man.

[metadigital]

i'm not sure i understand the concept of "new atheism."  are they redefining the term atheist?

 

i've always felt that atheists just don't believe, nor accept the possibility of belief.

 

agnostics, on the other hand, are trying to back door their way in to good graces should they be wrong about not believing.  i.e. "hey god, i always said you _might_ exist, i just never saw any proof until now!"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am aware of the distinction between weak and strong atheism: weak is basically a strong form of agnosticism (there is no proof for or against a deity) versus strong (THERE IS NO GOD!!1!!one!!).

[Pidesco]

Do I believe that God spoke to Abraham, Moses, and Muhammad?  I believe that the human spirit can achieve amazing things.  Whether the stories are true or not, no one can dismiss the impact these humans had on the history of man.

 

 

Is it known whether Abraham and Moses actually existed?