Posts Tagged ‘New Atheism’

Isn’t Atheism a faith-based non-religion?

October 22, 2016

Thursday at 10:12 PM#112

syncretic wrote:


Yes, basically. I agree with the thread title& premise.

New Atheists. Are they extremists?

January 13, 2016
Post #301

You can use whatever term you like, I was just stating the pretty obvious fact that people understand what New Atheism is, and that the term is neutral rather than a flagrant insult.

I actually posted the article generally accepted as being the one which popularised the term, you conveniently left that part out of your reply though.

The article was written by an atheist and is very reasonable. You can read it if you like; I kindly provided you with a link :)

There’s a certain kind of atheist, often the kind who likes Richard Dawkins and posts about religion on the internet, who belongs to a very strange bunch: exceedingly precious over their sacred cows and as closed minded as a religious fundamentalist.

All I said was that New Atheism is a term that has meaning, which is pretty obvious seeing as we all manage to understand it pretty accurately in this discussion and it is a term that is not uncommon in the mainstream media, has its own Wikipedia page and turns up 307,000 hits if typed into Google in “quotes”. I said I didn’t care much for the term personally, but it’s just a term that stuck so no point in sulking and churlishly pretending you don’t understand it.

For committing the crime of saying that New Atheist as a term carries meaning, and pointing out that it is a neutral term rather than a pejorative one (with evidence to prove the point) I have been accused by various people of:

1. Partaking in conspiracy theories
2. Spreading venom
3. Being an apologist for religion
4. Not being a ‘true’ atheist
5. Being some kind of undercover theist [who is mendaciously trying to undermine atheism by engaging in pointless quibbles on the internet]

It’s quite cute really, certainly raised a smile :grinning:

Thread : “Was the New Atheism Movement a Failed Crisis Cult”

Post #301

Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris, falsely being treated representative of New Atheism: Richard Carrier

April 23, 2014

I have written following comments on Richard Carrier’s “Freethought Blogs”.
Topic: “Minor Corrections to Crossley’s Jesus in an Age of Neoliberalism” by Richard Carrier

April 23, 2014 at 9:22 am (awaiting moderation)

“Similarly, Crossley rightly takes to task the reactionary Islamophobia of Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris, but falsely treats that as representative of New Atheism, when in fact the bulk of the New Atheist movement has been consistently criticizing them for precisely these views.” Unquote

I read Hitchens book “God is not great”; and noticed that he had no in-depth study of Quran/Islam/Muhammad and generalized things from his experience with Christianity and had a biased view of Quran/Islam/Muhammad.

In the entire book Hitchens could not quote even a single verse from Quran in support of his views about Quran/Islam/Muhammad; though the title of the book suggests that his intention was to write the book against Islam.

I appreciate Atheists’ approach of being reason-oriented and hence drawing the attention of the Revealed Religions for reformation of the peripheral, mythical and superstitious creeds. They could go into the process of reformation while keeping the core teachings intact.

Thanks and regards

A purposeless universe giving birth to purposefulness; isn’t it weird?

January 14, 2014

January 14th, 2014 at 10:26 am
@ Arkenaten’s comments
Quoting your words:
“Coyne is probably correct in his assessment that the universe displays no purpose, but humans are not purposeless, and are able to create their own purpose ( if I have understood him correctly, from the piece).”.
A purposeless universe giving birth to humans who could create their own purposes isn’t it a weird concept?

Paarsurrey adds:

It is not only a meaningless concept but also a useless concept like Atheism.

I would like to quote here from Quran:

[23:113] God will say, ‘What number of years did you tarry in the earth?’
[23:114] They will say, ‘We tarried for a day or part of a day, but ask those who keep count.’
[23:115] He will say, ‘You tarried but a little, if only you knew!
[23:116] ‘Did you then think that We had created you without purpose, and that you would not be brought back to Us?’
[23:117] Exalted then be Allah, the True King. There is no God but He, the Lord of the Glorious Throne.

Plug: The Confidence of Jerry Coyne

January 14, 2014

Fide Dubitandum

Ross Douthat has been involved in an interchange with Jerry Coyne. I thought this comment was a very good response to the New Atheist position in general.

I tend to agree that, so long as Coyne and others continue to do exactly the things that Douthat accuses him of doing, their movement will do more to foster interest in religion than destroy it.

View original post

The Atheist Dogma

January 6, 2014

Fide Dubitandum

pope-dawkinsOverwhelmingly, the most common defense of atheism is the (false) claim that atheism need not be defended at all. It is confidently stated that atheism is simply a “lack of belief in any gods”, as opposed to the belief that God does not exist. It is then said that one need not defend a simple lack of belief.

And, personally, I agree on that last point. A lack of belief need not be defended. But there are two very serious problems with the logic of this approach.

First is the reason why no defense is needed. It is not because atheism is somehow true by default. Rather, it is because (by this rather questionable definition) it is simply not a position at all. Anyone who isn’t claiming the non-existence of God, but simply lacks belief, isn’t advancing inquiry–or saying anything at all. Rather, this is simply an attempt to halt…

View original post 275 more words

%d bloggers like this: