Posts Tagged ‘New Atheists’

“Co-opting Science Shows a Lack of Respect”

April 16, 2014

Paarsurrey says:

Very good points made; I appreciate the post.

Thanks and regards

Fide Dubitandum

fiery_preacher There are few people who disrespect science more consistently, or more flagrantly, than the fans of Richard Dawkins.

A real respect for science, in my view, includes a respect for understanding clearly what science does in general, and what a given experiment  shows in particular.

It makes me uncomfortable to sit in a church and listen to a preacher carelessly speak for God–simply assuming that the divine backs his particular social view without bothering to give a reason.

I have a similar reaction to those who claim to speak for science, insisting that it has shown things that it simply has not. Generally, this involves claims that science has never actually tested, and takes no position on.

As a lover of science, I find this disrespectful.

More often than not, it isn’t even a specific study that is being referenced. Rather, there is simply a vague wave in the direction…

View original post 279 more words

Atheists always pushing others to the answering end

March 15, 2014

I wrote a post on the following blog; the viewers are welcome to give their valuable opinions even if they differ.

“UNCONFIRMEDABSOLUTES”
“WHOSE BURDEN IS IT?”

http://unconfirmedabsolutes.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/whose-burden-is-it/
http://unconfirmedabsolutes.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/whose-burden-is-it/comment-page-1/#comment-120

paarsurrey says:
March 15, 2014 at 8:59 pm

UNCONFIRMEDABSOLUTES wrote: Quote “Even then they insist me to give evidences and proofs. I ask them to define as to what they understand from evidence in their own words rather than quoting from some dictionary; they even avoid it.” Unquote

Paarsurrey says: As I said, burden of proof is not an issue with me; I feel no burden of it; and I deny anybody putting burden of it on me. I immediately know that the person is weak in arguments as also his standpoint is weak, hence he avoids to share the ethical and moral burden of a joint discussion.

I want the Atheists to realize that it is not rational or reasonable for them to always be on the questioning end. But they are always like that; never being on the answering end and always pushing others to the answering end; maybe just for convenience. On this important issue of the “Existence of God or otherwise”; they just sit pretty; never giving any positive evidences that “God does not exist”.

If we give proofs or evidences; they just reject them arrogantly saying these are no proofs and evidences. It is for this that I ask them to define as to what they personally understand from the words “proofs and evidences”; only then we could be on the same page for discussion or understanding.

Thanks and regards

Continuous insistence of New Atheists to shift burden of proof on to others only shows their standpoint is weak

March 15, 2014

I wrote a post on the following blog; the viewers are welcome to give their valuable opinions even if they differ.

“UNCONFIRMEDABSOLUTES”
“WHOSE BURDEN IS IT?”
http://unconfirmedabsolutes.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/whose-burden-is-it/
http://unconfirmedabsolutes.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/whose-burden-is-it/comment-page-1/#comment-118

paarsurrey says:
March 15, 2014 at 8:29 pm

UNCONFIRMEDABSOLUTES wrote:
Quote: “I am an ordinary man in the street without any claim to piety or scholarship. I don’t bother for any burden of proof; there is no burden on me in this connection. ”
I admire your humility.
However, we do not need to have qualifications to have to posses any burden of proof, as long as you are asserting your claim to be the truth, then the burden of proof is on you.
However, if you are keeping the belief strictly to yourself, then yes, I agree that you have no need to prove anything.” Unquote

Paarsurrey says: I don’t agree with you. There was a time when Atheists mostly kept silent; then they could say to the evangelizing Christians, Muslims or others to present their proofs/evidences to them if they were attempting to evangelize them; that could have made a sense, as you say, I think.

Now there is no dearth of evangelizing New Atheists; so their excuse for not presenting evidences is stretching the burden of proof point too much; that is why I say their continuous insistence to it shows that their viewpoint is weak.

UNCONFIRMEDABSOLUTES wrote:
Quote,” They (the Atheists) start the discussion of the burden of proof; and that exposes them, in my opinion, that their position is weak and in fact not a valid standpoint.
I do not understand why the burden of proof exposes our position of questioning your claim as weak or invalid. Do explain.”

Paarsurrey says: I think I have sufficiently explained it above.

I want to make one thing clear here. I am not in a debate to win from you or anybody else necessarily. I just want to understand and want to come on the same page with the Atheists for co-existence in this world peacefully without an ill

Thanks and regards

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

January 14, 2014

http://fidedubitandum.wordpress.com/2014/01/12/plug-the-confidence-of-jerry-coyne/

paarsurrey
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.

http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=23&verse=115

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

Why can’t theists and New Atheists have a meaningful dialogue?

August 1, 2013

Paarsurrey says:
I think discussion and dialogue is always possible if the Atheists stick to reason and don’t use foul words instead.

Questionable Motives

religious confusionIn a nutshell, because theists alone try to moderate it.

I like to comment on other sites, like the give and take of a truncated argument where different people become involved and the original post can be explored in detail. This can be rewarding not just for the participants but for the host who can sometimes gather more hits to a site as they follow along. But sometimes I grow weary of  writing comments to start this kind of thread that end up going into moderation never to be seen again. Most religious sites are notorious for their moderation of comments, where the most outlandish and rude commentary is allowed when in support of the web site author but strangled when it becomes critical supposedly because of ‘militant’ tone!

I commented over at Just Thomism in response to a post about why the claim that ‘science destroys creation myths

View original post 1,770 more words


%d bloggers like this: