Read for yourself and prepare to facepalm.
By the "straw man" reference I was already groaning. The new atheists, apparantly, only attacked the least defendable faith and yet the author of this moronic article doesn't mention just which faith is not so easy to destroy through simple critical thinking. Worse, the author claims it is easy to destroy the literalists because of their uneducated and throughtless views of one of the worlds "greatest" religious tradition. Just like Dr. Bob, the author has no problem dismissing fellow Christians and claiming their view of faith is better...yet spectacularly failed to say just what their view is or submit it to any reasonable criticism.
The author complains that the New Atheists work's are full of insults yet he goes on to insult all four of them and leaves his greatest insult for Dennett of which he offers no less than half a dozen.
But having read a couple other articles on "The Week" I wouldn't have expected anything less from them.
Thus why I posted it because it is so dumb theres no such thing as "new atheists"
Yeah I got that. There is a sub-culture of "New Atheism" which is centred around the tone of the four writers and a few others. I was even debating writing a scholarly article on the rhetorical language that the four used in their principle books. So I'm not so sure that there is NO such thing as new-atheists. I simply think that it is a movement that isn't well defined other than the level of frustration they show with religion and their often lack of tact. One the other hand, many theists paint all atheists as Christopher Hitchenses or Dawkinses, as though all of us who reject the claim that God exists, have severe attitude problems and are relentless in trashing fundamentalist christians and muslims (even though all four authors have attacked in some way or another Hinduism and even Bhuddism) and are obsessed with being assholes.
What is dissapointing is that this author could have called out one of the Horsemen for the feminism-unfriendly ass that Dawkins can be or Sam Harris's shoddy book on Free Will or Hitchen's unconditional support for the Iraq war.
Sadly the four horsemen was how I was introduced to atheism so frankly I like all four sure they arent perfect but great men...am I wrong in thinking this?
No of course not. I highly respect all four of them as intellectuals. They are giants in their respective fields as well as on religion. What I meant was, if there is anything worth criticising about them, it is what I mentionted earlier: Hitchens' support for Iraq, Dawkin's pugnacious attitude towards feminism and Harris's elipsical book on Free Will. Appart from that, I eat up much of what they write. Dennet's books on cognition/free will are amazing, Hitchen's collection of essays and his book on Mother Theresa were amazing, Harris's book On Lying is a quick fun read and Dawkins books on Evolution were the only ones that really got through to me and truly explained the intricacies of evolution and made me appreciate the beauty behind natural selections ability to solve almost any problem.
Would someone please explain to Damon Linker what the word “trend” means? He treats the statistics he quotes as some kind of static artifact, pointing out that, even if the percentage of believers drops to 66%, that still leaves them a strong majority. The thing he fails to acknowledge is that this downward TREND is likely to continue indefinitely, just as it has in Europe and Asia where disbelief has been in long, continuous, increasingly precipitous decline for years, leaving Christians in the minority. If there is a single event that has accelerated the decline in recent years it is the unconscionable hypocrisy of the Catholic Church in response to its child abuse scandal. It caused a lot of people to start to question what their priests were telling them about God on Sunday as compared to what many of them were doing beneath their robes the rest of the week. After all, if these pinnacles of religious rectitude were anointed by God, what does that say about Him?
Also, Linker probably doesn’t know the meaning of “exponential.” In this instance, it refers to what is likely to be true in the coming century: that the percentage of unbelievers will not only grow, but grow faster and faster. Why do I believe that? Because almost everyone I talk to who professes belief in God, admits to doubts. When push comes to shove, the majority of believers are intimidated by the dominance of religion in America; but when this dominance starts to wane, watch out! The exodus (not an accidental choice of words) of believers will become a flood (also not accidental). My only regret is that I won’t be around to see it.
I'm going to coin a new phrase for this: "TS;DR" (Too Stupid; Didn't Read)
Can I get an AMEN?! No? To much?
While "Amen" has been co-opted by Christianity, it simply means something like "I agree" or "so be it" "right on!" It's not a religious term.
Hmmm I agree and disagree :P yeah I guess that may be true but it is now a religions term because "here here" "I concur" is like i agree :P
Look out more dumness ! http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/ben-carson-evolution-...