I know i might get some strongly suggestive replys to this so let me make this clear. This is a question for you to answer. My answer to the question does not matter and I will not state my answer. I am curious as to what your answers will be. 
Let's go to the new atheism theory. "Religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises." Now i will ask you to imagine this ( I understand it is a impossible scenario) A new religion has taken the world by storm. Like us they seek to abolish every belief (or non belief)that is not theirs. They have "evidence" that speaks to religious people but to us would be considered hogwash. This religion has just as many "smart" public speakers as we do as well as authors and (after my last post I will not use the word extremist) the same amount of people who can do evil things in the name of there belief or non belief. 
The questions are 1 What makes us different from each other 2 What should we as atheist do about it 3 Should we still follow the new atheist definition in this case Explain yourself 
I am looking forward to some interesting answers.

Views: 494

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

This is the party line, so to speak, but there are many followers who take a much more radical stance and it is never treated with disapproval by the New Atheist community.

An example?

Not following the evidence

Painting the mass murder of religious people in a positive light

Wanting to abolish peoples beliefs

Associating religious belief and mental illness

Look, this is the same old tired argument that Christians use.  This is what a Christian is according to how they ideologically see themselves ""They dwell in their own countries simply as sojourners.... They are in the flesh, but they do not live after the flesh. They pass their days on earth, but they are citizens of heaven. They obey the prescribed laws, and at the same time, they surpass the laws by their lives. They love all men but are persecuted by all. They are unknown and condemned. They are put to death, but [will be] restored to life. They are poor, yet they make many rich. They possess few things; yet, they abound in all. They are dishonored, but in their very dishonor are glorified.... And those who hate them are unable to give any reason for their hatred."

-The Letter to Diognetus

In both cases, they misrepresent what generally occurs.

I'm still waiting for an actual example.  A few of those things you list were disapproved of within this very thread.  Not all atheists "follow the evidence", which I pointed out earlier in this thread.  I have never seen approval of mass murder, tacitly or otherwise, by the atheist community at large. Abolishment of beliefs can be taken a number of ways as I have already pointed out earlier and it isn't always a bad thing (think abolishing the belief in a flat Earth through education).  And the association of religious beleif with mental illness is a claim I rarely see aside from a few radical voices that I'm happy to disagree with and repudiate. The closest thing I have seen to that claim is that religion can help hide mental illnessnes and I find that argument to be compelling.

 I fail to see how any of these things could be used as an indictment of the so-called "New Atheist" community.

Well, it's not about belief but about what's most rational, right? There's a difference between a belief which is JUST a belief with nothing behind it and a belief supported by evidence or the absence of evidence (like the absence of evidence for Jehovah, for example).


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service