Friend just sent me this link.

http://creationtoday.org/new-study-exposes-atheist-dogma/

Not sure what to make of it but since there has been so much discussion on this board about the subject, I thought I would pour a bit of fuel on the fire myself. I appreciate what the "atheists" bring to the table. In my opinion they share lot's more clarity than the Bibel Thumpers, the Morgbots, etc.. Am I missing something? Enlighten/educate me more. :)

Doesn't have a word to say in rebuttal to the content...

Oh my, a position that doesn't claim the impossible uses the most certain language? Why ever could that be?

For the record, while being a staunch atheist myself, I have never read any of the "new atheist" works. As much as I would like to, I would not like to be lumped in with the "new atheist" group and dismissed out of hand as a "Dawkins follower", or whichever one makes the best point at the time.
I came by my opinions entirely on my own back in the 80s.

A testimony to the unaggressive nature of atheists. How many atheists get off on criticizing Christians so much that they develop abstract charts, graphs and do studies on them? It does happen occasionally but for the most part we are just too busy trying to live our lives without Christian interference for that. In the cases it does happen, usually atheists merely point to studies and charts made by government, scientific or otherwise neutral parties. Few atheists are on an agenda with the kind of energy that right wing pundits have to dedicate 16 waking hours a day tactically fighting belief systems simply because they differ from their own.

When has any flavor of atheism not been under attack?

This is from a creationist/religious/christian site.

The report's author bases his conclusion on "I noticed that several of them sounded angry. I also noticed that they used rhetorical structures suggesting certainty ".

His claim is that Dawkins and Harris
1. sound angry
2. suggest more certainty (due to using 5 specific words slightly more often)

than people such as Coulter, Beck and Hannity.


Really?

Maybe I am too biased or missing something, but whenever I see/ listen to Coulter and Beck they sound angry and are very certain of their positions.

Dawkins and Harris, in contrast emphasise their position with reasoned argument (whether you agree their reasoning is another matter).

I remember a debate when Lawrence Krauss and Ken Ham (creationist) were each asked what would it take to change their mind. Krauss said 'evidence' and Ham said there was nothing, he would not change his view because it is what the bible says. Which of these 2 are more "certain" in their positions - the scientist/atheist or the Christian creationist?

By their own scriptures, logically most of the religious world is "going to hell" or at least in need of being saved. The amount of people in non-Christian religions that believe what Christians call "false beliefs" far outnumber atheists by their own count. So why the obsession with atheists?
Most of us have read much or all the Bible. We note that in this book, God and the prophets actually don't waste a lot of time criticizing atheists. There is certainly a noticeable amount of such criticism but what REALLY stands out in scriptures is criticism of the worship of alleged "false gods". Indeed, that is supposed to be the most important of the Ten Commandments.

Obviously true Christianity condemns a belief in an alleged false god much more than belief in no god. Add to that the fact that everyone lacks belief in a god for the first part of their life-if but for their being young. The scriptures do not criticize young people unfamiliar with religion in fact in the New Testament Jesus says they are nearest to heaven.

The explanation for this inconsistency-the desire to break with the spirit of their own scriptures and rag on atheists is really very simple: Most Christians are cowardly bullies. Atheists are not organized to fight back when attacked. In general they do not rally around each other and form formidable organizations. Even though Christians' scriptures point out who is doing the worst sinning, they are terrified to attack formidable challenges in people who worship allegedly false gods since those groups can effectively fight back. They need to fight based on who they perceive as weak, not based on who is wrong or in danger of damnation.

Indeed, the article is pretty much 180 degrees off: most atheists don't like to fight-especially aggressively. The title, "new atheist" is probably more a pejorative term and I doubt if it was invented by or is used much by atheists themselves. Rather it sounds like an inherent attack of name-calling of and by itself. In order to keep up with standard Christian love of war and fighting, first they must create, identify and group an enemy. I personally do not like being called an atheist, new atheist or any names at all. I think of atheism as something natural-I was born with it. I don't want to have to form a group or be a member of some exclusive club just to live normally and not pursue silly dogma.

"Most Christians are cowardly bullies." Are you generalizing of have you actually met "most Christians"?

Sigh.
Since when is "I don't believe your claims about magical god-things" a "dogma?"

Another example of the dishonesty of christian apologists, especially "creationists." You have to remember, these are people who deny literally hundreds of millions of verifiable pieces of evidence to claim the universe is 6,000 years old...they aren't the sharpest tools in the shed.

It's reasonable to use "certainty" when discussing facts -- like evolution. The blogger wants to turn discussion of facts into "anger" and "dogma," simply as a way of sliding an ad-hominem fallacy into his rant. Typical.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/30/2014 11:08AM by ificouldhietokolob.

I've never had a satisfactory answer as to what "new" Atheism is. What's new about not accepting a claim with no evidence?

New Atheists use more "Certainty words"? This guy obviously hasn't watched General Conference, sat through numerous SS, PH, RS, YW, lessons, attended any stake conference and so on.

This line of attach essentially accuses the new atheists of hypocrisy. By the way, I think "new" atheist means "rude" atheist. Acceptable atheists were the old atheists who kept their atheism to themselves. The out-and-proud, new atheists keep publically calling theists out and insisting they defend their claims to political power. Like, if the Christian right wants to limit who can marry, let it give a defensible reason why. If it wants to control the science taught in public schools, let it defend its science on scientific grounds. The religious political block much preferred the atheists who shut up. It's like the don't ask, don't tell policy of TSSC: you can sit in church warming the pews thinking any apostate thing you want, just don't tell anyone about it. The political Christian's views dominate the public space, and they'd really like to keep it that way.

So, the Christian right engages in the equivalent of "I know you are but what am I?" Saying, "Atheists accuse us of being dogmatic and being certain of things we can't know; but look at them! They're even more dogmatic and certain! Pot calling the kettle black!" It's a diversion.

In this debate, how you say something is secondary to what you say. The theist/atheist argument is substantive not procedural. It's also a political issue, not a belief issue. In other words, the new atheists are breaking up the theocratic, totalitarian control that the theists used to enjoy. No, you cannot say who can marry--and receive governmental (that is, political) benefits--based on your theory of whom sky-daddy loves best, or who was born in sky-daddy's true image. No you cannot use the public schools as a venue to indoctrinate youth in witch-doctor beliefs about the earth.

This will be a life or death struggle for fundamentalist Christianity. The Pope knows the trains' left the station. The fundies--lovers of totalitarianism--still can't understand they've lost the future. I read a review of Kissinger's new book. It said Kissinger said that a system of morality cannot survive without enforcement. And that's precisely what the Christian right's losing: enforcement. They are losing enforcement power because the outspoken, new atheists are making Enlightenment-style rationality the standard of governmental action. The more they speak up, the more ordinary people take it for granted that separation of Church and State means the State must be run impartially, that is, without reference to a particular image of sky-daddy. It's political power that's at stake for the Christian right, not beliefs, per se.

And they're selling a DVD titled 'How to Answer The Fool'?

"Apologist Sye Ten Bruggencate takes this apologetic to the streets and Universities exposing the logical inconsistencies of the unbeliever (and dare we say some ‘Christians’) by showing that we don’t need ‘evidence’ to prove that God exists."

Pot, meet kettle.

Even if you could "prove" God exists, that doesn't get you anywhere. You can "prove" God exists simply by equating God with the laws that govern the universe. Carl Sagan pointed out years ago that it was sublime that the laws seem to operate equally throughout the entire universe, and it doesn't have to be that way.

But what theists really want is to prove they can "speak" for God. God exists, so what? For God's existence to matter, you've got to be able to claim you know what God wants. You've got the Bible, and so everyone's cherry-picking the Bible. God doesn't matter. What matters is the ability to piggy-back on God's authority in order to control others. It's political.

MCR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> But what theists really want is to prove they can
> "speak" for God. God exists, so what? For God's
> existence to matter, you've got to be able to
> claim you know what God wants.

I would severely qualify this statement with *some* theists, but I wholeheartedly agree that this is the actual problem. It's political.


God's existence seems to be something many have experienced but do not have language to describe the experience (except to point out perhaps what God isn't, that "what God wants" is a non sequitur for example). The minute someone begins claiming to speak for God is the minute of danger.

God can be experienced (perhaps) but cannot be spoken for. You know, if it's God, why would it need a Moses or a Paul or a Joseph Smith to speak for it?

People can speak for themselves, including their experience of God and that's okay, but no one can speak for God; and if someone is trying to, it's perhaps best not to lend your ears to hear etc.

What a slanted article. Agenda driven?

This is the killer for me at the end: "The new atheists have an extreme prejudice that tops even the most right wing political pundits!"

Yes, Agenda.

But in the end the only point he is making is not that one group has merit, or that one group has facts or scientific data. No he is making the point that he has found someone with an even more extreme prejudice that his pets Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Anne Coulter. And all of this from examining word usage because that is the only angle that can paint anyone in a worse light than those three when it comes to prejudice.

Now those three set a pretty high bar for extreme prejudice, so that is quite a claim he is making.

Didn't even need to read further. Hovind is a convicted con for Jeebus. Hahahahaha..

HH =)

Hahaha. Nice catch!

I am really sick and tired of the atheists vs. Christian fundamentalist argument.

It would be nice if we could move past this but as long as atheists continue to argue with zealots well, its not going to really go anywhere because both sides seem to have made up their minds with no room for anything else -- both sides have drawn lines in the sand and won't budge.

I feel we all owe it to ourselves as a human race to keep digging deeper and to question.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/30/2014 05:33PM by rgg.

rgg

What is the "real research" we should do?

Theists disagree on their concept of God. Those with some description are the Christian fundamentalists and their biblical God can be researched and found to be impossible.

Academic theists tend to produce papers and theses on the writings of others.

If a god or gods exist, as theists claim, surely the onus is on theists to produce some evidence or reasoned argument for such a deity?

For instance we can do "real research" on the god of Mormonism and determine him most improbable if not definitely impossible - a polygamous god with a body of flesh and bone the same as man, who procreates by impregnating his goddess wives to produce 'spirit offspring'; who was once a mortal man on a planet like this earth; whose first born Jehovah appeared in spirit form to a prophet on the American continent the day before he was born in Bethlehem to a daughter of Elohim, physically impregnated by the said Elohim due to the 'condescension of God'; this was after Jehovah had been the god of the Old Testament, carrying out the will of Elohim by killing all his creation in a global flood, ordering his prophets to kill and rape, encourage slavery etc. Also Elohim is one of millions (billions/trillions?) of gods.

I could go on but you get the picture. The Mormon God can be defined from Mormon scriptures and the concept tried and tested using "real research".

Similarly the god of fundamentalist Christians can be tested against his attributes as described in the bible. What are the attributes of Zeus et al that can be tested?

Academic theists set aside the bible and each has his or her own concept of god but their evidence relies on personal testimony (where many people have conflicting witnesses); emotion and the 'God of the Gaps'. Science cannot explain something (yet) so God must have done it, though they cannot explain God.

Then, we can do "real research" into those claims. You cannot, however, do "real research" on something that is not described in a manner that lends itself to "real research".

All that an atheist proclaims is that there appears to be no evidence for a god, not that they can prove with 100% certainty that some kind of power or entity outside of our realm of understanding does not exist. If theists have evidence or reason, let that be examined by "real research".

Theists, however, seem to take an attitude of certainty that God exists without evidence or reasoned argument and that such God, though outside of space and time, interferes in our physical world and controls it.

What Richard Dawkins and others have done is seriously look at the theists' argument for God and shown them to be invalid. Science explains what we currently know without a god. Even with the yet unknown abiogenesis, the god proposition adds no explanation, because you then need to consider the abiogenesis of god or gods.

I, like most of us on this board, once "knew" that God exists and His Son, Jesus Christ, was our Savior and Redeemer. How did I "know" that? Not from rgg's suggested "real research" but from upbringing and emotional experiences. Those 'emotional' or 'spiritual' experiences testifying of a truth that was in conflict with the 'spiritual experiences/witnesses' of other Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus etc. etc.

Therefore I, as an atheist, would welcome a description of God from a theist supported by evidence and/or rigorous reason. To date I have seen none but would certainly be extremely interested to receive such that I can then perform "real research" on the specific claims.

If by New Atheists they are talkin about Dawkins,Harris and Hitchens they do have some valid points.These guys are not known for their moderation or tolerance.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/30/2014 05:45PM by bona dea.

There is a difference between being intolerant (as you intimate that Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens are) and "not suffering fools gladly."

I see them speak their minds boldly and plainly. I see them advocate for what they feel strongly about. I see them not suffer fools gladly. I do not see the intolerance you suggest. Could you give some examples?

Dawkins suggestion of mocking believers and Harris stereotyping Muslims.

Dawkins was right. Mock stupid. Mock mock mock...

Harris was wrong. There are liberal Muslims who condem their extreme peers. However, the Koran is still bullshit no matter how much good behavior it reinforces in its liberal adherents.

HH =)

I see as usual that your reply is more in line with the style of this Eric who wrote the article wherein there are no specific quotes listed, or reference given.

I have to give your off the cure remark regarding either Dawkins or Harris a no confidence vote. Just the usual from B.D.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/30/2014 08:32PM by blueorchid.

Believers? Isn't that a bit general? I don't want to lump them all into one big category. :)

The only difference between "old" and "new" atheists is that we finally speak up, even though religionists want to deny that right. Criticizing religions has long had an artificial taboo around it, so it angers and shocks or "offends" them. They need to get used to it. More is coming! They have a very finèly tuned sense of persecution, seldom realizing that criticism of religion is not the same as criticism of the religious person.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/30/2014 06:10PM by rationalist01.

I dont deny the right of anyone to speak up about anything including religion,but that doesnt mean they get to misrepresent facts or stereotype people with impunity. If they do,and the big three certainly do, I reserve the right to my own freedom of expression and I will call them on their crap. We all have the right to speak out and Dawkins and his pals are not exempt from criticism either.

Given that Bona Dea has CLEARLY misrepresented and lied about Sam Harris' statements (out o context.. And she clearly never read any of them herself); it's seems silly to have her hypocritically say that others are wrong and evil to misquote, and take out of context, ANYONE else.

Can I get an Amen!

HH =)

After I read Dawkins the 'God Delusion' I read the various rebuttals from theists such as the 'Dawkins Delusion'.

I found no real rebuttals to his actual arguments, only comments such as 'Dawkins does not understand religion, is not a philosopher' etc. and the usual ad hominems.

On this board there are those who say that Dawkins or Harris are wrong but do not explain why. There have been attacks on the 'morality' or otherwise of Dawkins, Harris and Shermer but those attacks, whether true or not, have no bearing on their arguments as atheists i.e. there is no evidence nor sound reason for a god. Even if there were you would then need to determine which of the thousands of conflicting gods is the true god, or are there many gods.

If Dawkins et al are wrong on their reasoning, then please be specific, with evidence to support that view. Questioning their morality does not help the debate.

Joseph Smith's obvious immorality does not, in itself, disprove Mormonism as he could be a 'fallen prophet'. Mormonism has to be considered based on its scriptures and teachings and truth claims. They can be scientifically researched.

Dawkins et al do not claim to be prophets or to have the ultimate truth of all things. Their morality is a non issue as they are not telling you how to live your life. They are, however, calling out the outlandish claims of theists and challenging them.

Yes.

It is under attack. And they may take it down.

So, what does an atheist do when her unbelief has been crushed?

EXACLTY how has unbeleif been crushed? Please show me how the lack of beleif in Santa has implications on anything at all.

HH =)

This type of character assassination of atheists by theists is just theists "killing the messenger" because they don't like the message, but can't refute the message, have no proof of their own to even contradict the message a little, and so can only go on ad hominem attacks and in this case not even very good ad hominem attacks.

Is that all you got Eric Hovind? Really?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/30/2014 08:49PM by blueorchid.