Wednesday, September 7, 2011

How did New Atheism evolve?

Where did New Atheism come from?

It's remarkable that evolutionary biologists (atheists) obsess about the evolutionary origins of religion, churning out fairy tale after fairy tale, in good evolutionary style.

But they never speculate about the evolutionary origin of atheism.  Curious, huh?

Well, I'm going to speculate. Not about atheism generally, but about New Atheism. And not about the evolutionary origin, which is b.s., but about the cultural origin, which is not b.s.

My observations:

Atheism has always been with us. In the West, there were classical atheists Diagorus, Democritous, Epicurus, Lucretious, etc. In the middle ages, few people openly espoused atheism, although there is no reason to believe that atheism didn't persist among a fringe, unspoken. In the early modern period, atheism became a lot more vocal (de Sade, the Jacobians, Feuerbach, Marx, etc.

Modern polls show that explicit atheist belief constitutes less than 5% of the public (in the US).  There are larger numbers who are practical atheists. They don't have organized beliefs that God does not exist. They merely live their lives without reference to Him.

I don't see any evidence to suggest that atheism as a coherent viewpoint is any more common today than it ever was. It is, and has always been, a fringe belief. Practical atheism may be on the rise, especially in the dying secular cultures of Europe.

Why does atheism, in the form of New Atheism, seem to be on the rise?

I suggest three reasons:

1) Actual coherent explicit atheist belief (ala Dawkins, etc) is not really on the rise. It is a fringe, and has always been. Practical atheism is on the rise. The reason is that modern amenities provide a remarkably effective cushion between us and the shocks our flesh is heir to. C.S. Lewis made this remarkable observation: for most of the history of man, religion was practiced in a world without anesthesia. The reality of life and death were inescapable. Pain and suffering at a level we cannot imagine were a normal part of life. Infected tooth: pull it out with pliers. Injured leg: cut it off with a saw. No novocain, no anesthesia. Get appendicitis? You die, in about a week, in unspeakable agony.

Modern medicine provides us with the opportunity to live our lives without significant pain. We are born, live, and die in an anesthetic cocoon. Why bother thinking about ultimate reality, when we have Vicodin, Prosac and Valium? Practical atheism is now, for the first time, a real option. Aldous Huxley understood.

2) Science has been hijacked by atheists as a new religion. Unreflective people can accept the assertion that 'science explains everything. Why do we need God?' Of course, this viewpoint is stupid. Science is the methodological exploration of nature, whereas religion is the exploration of ultimate reality.  Science is not philosophy; it cannot explain itself. It cannot explain ultimate origins. It cannot explain 'ought'; it can only explain 'is', and even that only in a limited way. Scientism is perhaps the second most idiotic philosophical error of modern times. It is ubiquitous among atheists, who are devotees of the most idiotic philosophical error.

3) New atheists have more outlets for their view than atheists had in the past. Any crank can have a blog (I know.. I know.. I have a blog..), and it's a safe bet that 99% of the New Atheists today would never have had a public forum for their nonsense before the internet and the explosion in information in the public sphere. Crazy stuff sells. P.Z. Myers' bigoted rants attract a massive audience. A fraud like Dawkins who tried to peddle his ignorant elementary-school disproofs of God's existence at Oxford several centuries ago would have been kicked out, not for irreligion, but for incompetence.

Today, incompetence has a market.

That's all for now. Writing too much about atheists at a time gives me a headache. I'll discuss other reasons for the apparent rise of New Atheism if I think of any.

50 comments:

  1. Michael,

    Absolute piffle again, as usual.

    Atheism is the assertion that there is no evidence for the existence of a god or gods. Science merely demonstrates that there's no necessity to postulate the existence of a god.

    Laplace expressed it in 1802 when he was asked by Napoleon why his 5 volume tretise on solar system mechanics didn't include god and he replied that he didn't require that hypothesis (Newton had thought that god would have had to give the planets a nudge now and then to keep them in orbit).

    1802 was also the year William Paley published his 'Natural Theology'. You still haven't corrected yourself in the previous thread for calling Paley a biologist. He was of course a theologian, and at best an amateur science writer. You'd rubbished me earlier for recommending 'Microcosm' because it had been written by a professional science writer, Carl Zimmer.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Scientism is perhaps the second most idiotic philosophical error of modern times. It is ubiquitous among atheists, who are devotees of the most idiotic philosophical error."
    Hear, hear!

    ReplyDelete
  3. By all accounts the numbered of self described atheists in America is rising. I think there are several reasons for this.

    First and perhaps most importantly, is the continuing expansion of human knowledge and understanding provided by science. There are simply fewer and fewer places for a “God of the gaps” to hide.

    Second, the New Atheist movement has emboldened many would-be atheists to come out of the closet. I myself have several friends and acquaintances that have pronounced themselves atheists after a few discussions with me on the subject. When they see they are not alone in their beliefs, that there are people who will respect and admire them for coming out of the closet, it’s amazing how easily some people can shed the intellectual shackles that are religion.

    Third, Christianity in the U.S. has become so synominous with bigotry, intolerance, the interests of the mega wealthy, disregard for the environment, unjust war, indifference to suffering, and anti-intellectualism, that many people want no part of it.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
  4. "god of the gaps'
    LOL
    What a silly little argument in itself.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "god of the gaps'
    LOL
    What a silly little argument in itself.


    You got that right! Dr. Egnore and his ilk are dedicated to keeping those gaps in our knowledge as wide as possible so there are more nooks and crannies to accommodate his God.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
  6. Atheists are morons. Enjoy your afterlife, when your all-loving creator sends you to Hell were Satan will assrape you for eternity.

    ReplyDelete
  7. You have mistaken my snicker, Anon (KW).
    I am laughing at the argument itself.
    It's such a silly little thing. I mean come on now!
    The 'gaps' in human knowledge? That's like saying 'the gaps' between worlds or planets. Or perhaps the seas are just 'gaps' between landmasses.
    The 'gaps' are the RULE, not the exception.
    Gaps? The only gaps I sense here between experience and comprehension.
    But it does not surprise me that an Atheist would bring a Deist knife to a Theist gun fight. We all sound the same to you, and you don't understand ANY of it anyway...so why not make the 'gaps'.
    Is there not some sort of dark poetry that this 'gaps' thing should issue from Plato's Cave? I think so.
    Silly little thing, the 'gaps' argument.

    ReplyDelete
  8. crusadeREX,

    You are such a pitiful example of a know-nothing that I cannot help but sympathize with you. Here is a good starting point to learn about the term God of the gaps. From the article, you will learn that, amazingly, the term was coined by a God-fearing Christian.

    ReplyDelete
  9. A 'pitiful example of a know nothing'? Well I am glad that I am not an excellent example of a 'know nothing'. I am touched by the need to sympathize, Oleg. But it's okay. Save your kin selection for those in need.
    I am quite a happy guy for the most part. I have a loving family, pets, my own home in a nice town, and am winding up a successful military career. I live in the same same comfy world you do - thanks to the efforts of our ever diligent forces in which I have the honour of serving... I am doing fine.
    I am glad you're reading my posts, Oleg. Regarding the 'gaps' (yawns) I am aware of the origins and refutation of the silly little thing. I chose to write, as I often do, in my OWN words and without citation.
    This is a BLOG, Oleg - not a personal dissertation or thesis of mine. It's not even MY blog. LOL
    But thanks for the link. I'll have a look at it at lunch time. Why don't you come out of the Cave for yours?

    ReplyDelete
  10. You know, Dr Egnor, your post really got me thinking this morning. Several aspects of it, actually. One lead to conversation with a colleague.
    You wrote
    "Today, incompetence has a market."
    I tend to agree, and would go further. That this kind of engineered stupidity is prevalent in much of today's popular culture. In order to SELL 'stuff'; material things. This is a different type of materialism than what we normally chat about here... but still I think it ties in.
    In short, I suggested this was a cynical marketing ploy to WIDEN the target by increasing the allure. EVERYONE can act stupid. So market DUMB and sell a lot. A lot of movie tickets, music, TV's, add space, bad art, dumbed down religion, philosophy-lite, and of course 'science'.
    My colleague, a young dentist by trade, agreed there was a general 'dumbing down' that seems to defy the title of 'information age' . He very astutely countered that he felt this trend in 'stupidification' is bottom up, not top down. Not engineered, but the natural side effect of modern 'affluenza'. That the markets were simply reacting to it naturally, and that it was being transmitted like some sort of idiot virus to other affluent cultures and regions.
    We both noted the lack of these counter-productive and lazy elements in less privileged groups/regions.
    Here's my new quandary: Could such a wave of innumerable voluntary idiots be considered an immaterial force? A force of WILL and MIND, without a material cause?
    Consider: They CHOOSE against nature to be stupid, in order to conform to an artificial and almost wholly unnatural condition; to live in a designed, regulated, technically advanced / addicted, and very COMFY 'modern' society (as Dr Egnor well noted the past was " a world without anesthesia").
    If so considered and even sceptically semi-accepted as a maybe.... then, regardless of which caused which, this is another possible evidence of the Mind's NON MATERIAL nature and force. In this case a negative effect.
    The final (and weird) outcome of the conversation was a rather stark consensus.
    Rather than an enlightenment of minds at the end of a hard warring period when much of our learning needed to be rediscovered, we see a dimming during a period of wealth, relative peace, and of meticulous record keeping.
    I know...I know....'shit happens'.
    But for all the world, it LOOKS as if there is a balance of some sort here.
    Thoughts folks?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Atheism is the assertion that there is no evidence for the existence of a god or gods. Science merely demonstrates that there's no necessity to postulate the existence of a god.

    ________________________________________________

    Actually the broadest sense of atheism is the rejection of believe in God or gods.

    You are using scientism to define atheism.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Atheism can also mean a doctrine that posits that there is no Deity

    but the first sense is the most common among atheists...even though... many atheists follow the second.

    ReplyDelete
  13. First and perhaps most importantly, is the continuing expansion of human knowledge and understanding provided by science. There are simply fewer and fewer places for a “God of the gaps” to hide.

    ________________________________________________

    God is far more philosophical issue than a scientific one. This is the gap argument... and of course it only works in scientism.

    This is not the the God of the gaps argument. Don't know if you people didn't get what Crusader meant or you just pretented to not get.

    First this is an argument agains the necessity of God. It simply means that human knowledge ( science and only science in this case ) has no need for God.

    Science tries to be as pragmatic as possible, so postulating God is a problem because God is Omnipotent. It will be the same thing for everything that can do anything that you desire it to do. The multiverse is the same thing, suffers from the same problem.

    Without saying that this argument only works for people that have total believe in scientism sooo...

    ReplyDelete
  14. Techinically Oleg is right about the God of the Gaps...but what KW said was something else.

    Things just got confusing I suppose.

    ReplyDelete
  15. It's remarkable that evolutionary biologists (atheists) obsess about the evolutionary origins of religion, churning out fairy tale after fairy tale, in good evolutionary style.

    _________________________________________________

    I remember reading somewhere that people with bad relation with parents had more tendency to become atheists.

    You know because of the Father figure spoused by Christianity.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Dr Egnor.

    My take on the matter is pretty much the sum of all the 3 possible reasons but with some changes I suppose.

    Our society is extremely secular in its inner workings. If religion was to fail at a certain moment and disappear, we would have a HUGE commontion but society would hold, we would still be able to continue our lifes by replacing Religion with something else. Pleasure is a good choice XD.

    On the second topic, I would oppose the idea that atheists have hijacked Science. I think that Humanism in it's broadest sense has hijacked science. Humans are now seen by many scientists as pretty mcuh Demi-Gods, the wisest, the strongest, the fastest. Apparently...and I didn't know that until some days ago, but Humanism puts man as some sort of divine creature. so i think that scientists are very found of Humanism and that some times entail atheism.

    On the third topic, I think that mdeia attention plays a huge hole on New Atheism. So perhaps it sounds like POP atheism ?

    ReplyDelete
  17. I'm happy I was born in a mostly non-religious country.

    ReplyDelete
  18. “A little philosophy inclineth men's minds to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds to religion.”

    Francis Bacon

    ReplyDelete
  19. @ Edward: Oleg's link gave the typical outline of the 'gaps'. The standard fare. And you're right - the application of it in KW's post is strange to say the least.... but even stranger again is Oleg's DEFENCE of it. Maybe he just could NOT resist an attempt at arguing my point any longer. Maybe somewhere DEEP inside, Oleg's soul begins to stir? I hope so.
    On the other hand, he may have just enjoyed an excuse to post a link.

    ReplyDelete
  20. @ Edward
    You wrote:
    "I remember reading somewhere that people with bad relation with parents had more tendency to become atheists."
    I have observed that in my adult life all the atheists I have know, save ONE, had a very bad relationship with their FATHER. Daddy issues are HUGE in the atheists I have / do have contact with. In a couple of cases the reverse has worked too. Returned to God, forgave and mended their ties with Dad.
    Oh and Edward, thanks for actually READING my post. Apparently Oleg et al did not get all the way through it.

    ReplyDelete
  21. @crusade

    Personally I think ... and I will be a arrogant prick XD just like Danoso in the last thread, to say that if we find Explanation for theism... then we have found explanation for atheism.
    I mean one if believe the other is lack of it XD, is just like light and dark. If you find the explanation for light ... boom you get the explanation for dark. Simple as logic.


    Crusade I do not blame Oleg for not throughly reading a comment... or misunderstanding the same. I have done that many times before. I am not THAT of an XD arrogant prick * danoso for the win XD *

    Danoso means damaging by the way XD what the heck XD

    ReplyDelete
  22. @Edward
    "Yeah, writing a sentence between quotation marks makes it absolutely true."

    @crusadeREX
    "I have observed that in my adult life all the atheists I have know, save ONE, had a very bad relationship with their FATHER."
    I derped a little inside.

    ReplyDelete
  23. @ Edward
    As I have stated before I think the explanation, by way of purpose, is an exercise in thought. Atheism is a shadow cast by Theism when explained in terms of light and dark (good metaphor!).It exists only to contrast.
    Is that arrogant? I don't think so. I think it arrogant of the shadow to assume it casts the man.
    As far as Oleg goes, I don't blame him either. He has no free will by his own admission. Probably an errant proton prevented him from understanding :P

    ReplyDelete
  24. Yeah, writing a sentence between quotation marks makes it absolutely true.

    ________________________________________________

    Actually the quotation was meant for Dr Egnor. Not for you atheists. You can conclude anything from what I said... I just quoted Bacon that is all.

    And denying that deeper philosophical understaning turns Men to religion is not an argument as well.

    ReplyDelete
  25. @ Edward
    As I have stated before I think the explanation, by way of purpose, is an exercise in thought. Atheism is a shadow cast by Theism when explained in terms of light and dark (good metaphor!).It exists only to contrast.
    Is that arrogant? I don't think so. I think it arrogant of the shadow to assume it casts the man.
    As far as Oleg goes, I don't blame him either. He has no free will by his own admission. Probably an errant proton prevented him from understanding :P

    _______________________________________________

    I was thinking more in terms of positive and negative idea.

    hahahaha the shadow cast the man huh. that remind of an atheist charge.

    Bloody protons XD. Yeah if you think of determinism, Oleg had no choice ... whatever Oleg is to being with.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Here I go quote-mining again! ;-)

    Atheism is a disease of the soul, before it becomes an error of the understanding.
    Plato

    The leitmotiv in this quote is error of the understanding as Dr. Egnor as demonstrated time and time again!

    CQFD!

    ReplyDelete
  27. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Herpy wrote:
    'I derped a little inside.'

    I feel for you there, Herp.

    ReplyDelete
  29. @crusadeREX
    I feel for you there, Herp.

    Bull's eye! LOL.

    ReplyDelete
  30. “God is far more philosophical issue than a scientific one. This is the gap argument... and of course it only works in scientism.”

    I really don't know what you are talking about. “God of the gaps” refers to the incremental retreat of religious explanations of physical phenomena as scientific explanations become more encompassing. It's not an “argument”.

    My original assertion was simply that as more scientific explanations are provided, people will see less and less reason to rely on God as an explanation of anything.

    When Dr. Egnor isn't simplly calling atheists stupid and immoral, he's almost invariably attacking the veracity of scientific findings to discredit their explanatory power. Evolution, being the one scientific theory that totally negates the Bible, is invariblly the most important target.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
  31. Sorry if you didn't meant as argument, but I have seen this a lot of times from atheists as an argument and it works as an argument really XD.

    Second you people always fall straight into epystemology. Our epystemological grounds are completely different from the past.

    Pragmatism is king and Science is pragmatic.

    People don't need necessarily to rely on God as an explanation although you can use God as explanation in certain types of epystemologies. But true, the more we know the less we need to infer or postulate super-natural forces, because let's say ... it is nor parsymonous.

    Depends how you interpret the Bible. The biblical interpretation of creation was target of discussion since the Second century After Christ.

    The only problem is because religion is so secundary today, people can invent any shit and say anything about religion and other people will believe ... ANYTHING...


    ________________________________________________

    @ ALL ... anyway folks it was a delightful moment posting here... I think the time has come for me to stop posting and just lurk XD which is far best.

    Truly I haven't learn much, aside from our evolution discussions, all rest has unfortunately stayed the same and gotten worse.

    Anyway peace, God bless for the theists... errr good speed for you atheists I suppose XD.

    ReplyDelete
  32. @KW:

    [When Dr. Egnor isn't simplly calling atheists stupid and immoral,]

    I'm certainly saying that you're wrong about atheism. Many of your arguments are so poor that 'stupid' does seem appropriate for the arguments. I'm not saying that you're personally stupid. The opposite seems to be true.

    [he's almost invariably attacking the veracity of scientific findings to discredit their explanatory power.]

    I'm denying the explanatory power of natural selection. That's not a 'scientific finding'.

    [Evolution, being the one scientific theory that totally negates the Bible, is invariblly the most important target.]

    Such gibberish to untangle. 'Evolution' has many different meanings. It's not really a theory, but rather the observation that living populations change with time, which is obviously true.

    'Evolution' understood as meaning RM + NS is a theory, and a banal one.

    'Evolution' understood as a theory that disproves God/Bible is simply a philosophical error, and is atheism's creation myth.

    [“God of the gaps” refers to the incremental retreat of religious explanations of physical phenomena as scientific explanations become more encompassing. It's not an “argument”.]

    Causation is on many levels. Creation, grounding existence, etc are primary causes, and are directly caused by God. Natural laws are secondary causes, and are completely consistent with God's existence and agency. Your argument that scientific explanations 'disprove God' is a rudimentary logical error.

    [My original assertion was simply that as more scientific explanations are provided, people will see less and less reason to rely on God as an explanation of anything]

    That's true, because many people don't understand the genuine philosophical issues involved.

    The belief that verifying a scientific explanation for an aspect of nature (secondary cause) disproves God (primary cause) is bizarre.

    ReplyDelete
  33. “The belief that verifying a scientific explanation for an aspect of nature (secondary cause) disproves God (primary cause) is bizarre.”
    From now on please assume that when I say evolution I'm talking about the foundational theory of biology, not simply change observed over time.

    I imagine that there are atheist who seek to disprove god with scientific arguments, but I don't know of any. Verifying a scientific explanation simply makes God superfluous in that case.

    I wouldn't waste my time trying to disprove the appearance of unicorns in my local park because that is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence by the claimants in order for me to take it seriously. I'm perfectly comfortable knowing I can't disprove any number of extraordinary claims.

    There is no doubt, that for many Christians scientific understanding has influenced their interpretation of the Bible. For instance there are plenty of good Christians who no longer take the 6 days of creation literally. There is a certain compatibility between the biblical creation story and our scientific understanding that allows Christians some flexibility to incorporate scientific ideas.

    Evolution is no exception. Many Christians accept micro evolution. Some even seem to unwittingly suggest super rapid macro evolution after the flood. The real problem comes when Christians face macro evolution over geographical time scales. Adam and Eve in the garden is a very specific historical claim, and if Evolution is true, then there is no Adam and Eve, no garden, no fall, and no need for redemption. Evolution certainly does not disprove the existence of any number of gods. Those gods of the gaps will always be lurking. Evolution does however, challenge factual claims that are at the heart of Christian doctrine.

    So while I can't disprove the existence of some vague creator god any more then I can disprove the existence of a toaster on Pluto, and I agree that to try would be bizarre, I can certainly challenge the much more specific truth claims for any number of religions.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
  34. Anon/KW wrote:
    "I can certainly challenge the much more specific truth claims for any number of religions."

    You can? Okay. So what? Why would you?
    A logical challenge can be made to all inferred reality; so long as we are willing to bend logic a bit here and there. But WHY? And then there is the 'how' part. Will you rely on hearsay (history/myth), and interpret / deduce from those tales just as the faithful do... or will you somehow travel through TIME to get real evidence to 'disprove' or prove these events real / genuine.
    You're tilting at windmills, Don Anon.
    The weird part, to me, is that you don't even seem to know WHY you do it. Sure you believe they're dragons. But what do YOU have against these dragons?
    Look, maybe I am wrong here? Maybe you can explain WHY you are so ANTI-Theist that would need to assert targeted efforts to 'disprove'. Why the evangelism? This fascinates me - the motivator. Care to elaborate on this Anon/KW?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Another great post with accurate observations.

    I would add 2 points:

    1. The appalling ignorance that exists today among atheists, (this includes Dawkins et al.) - and especially the internet cockroach-like atheists - is one of the major reasons for the rise in public atheism.

    How so?
    They think they understand something because they read the "arguments" (mere raving is the appropriate term) of professional posers Mr. Dawkins and his drones and Dollys (clones).

    2. The public education system was long ago taken over by the secular humanists.
    The system has been indoctrinating the public in atheist relativism ever since, unhindered by any constitutional clause. Because of the stealth methodology used to infest the system no one really took notice, until too late.
    (This is easy to prove)

    Thus, not having a clue as to the rules of logic or any real knowledge of historical philosophy, theology, etc., yet having already been brainwashed in postmodern secularism, these blind followers of the blind are near incapable of discerning the multitudinous errors of both reason and history that permeate the writings of these frauds.

    Ignorance, indoctrination from childhood and personal foolishness, combined with a selfish heart, make one an easy prey for such metaphysical predators as Dawkins, Harris, et al.

    A. Plantinga, in his Naturalism Defeated, said, "naturalism and evolution--'N&E'for short--furnishes one who accepts it with a defeater for the belief that our cognitive faculties are reliable--a defeater that can't be defeated. But then this conjunction also furnishes a defeater for any belief produced by our cognitive faculties, including, in the case of one who accepts it, N&E itself: hence its self-defeating character."

    The "defeaters" of NE (atheisms origins myth) are salient.

    However, those who have succumbed to the many sophisms of the new high priests of this materialism can't see it, because, having been indoctrinated since youth, the lies presented sound true.

    They become largely unable to "get" even the simplest of logical conclusions.
    Perpetual cognitive dissonance results and cripples the mind.

    "Endless vicious circles", describes atheist "logic" to a T.
    It's like an infinite loop in computer code. You have to set a break in the loop code and track down the error or the 'puter will run that loop forever.

    Only something like debugging (repentance) can help.

    I often think that atheists stuck in these "mental loops" need something more radical, something akin to deprogramming - like those caught in a demonic cult.

    In fact, that's what blogs like this exist for - a means to deprogramming the lies of secular humanism.

    Hopefully, some will see the light, "get it", and be set free by the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Indeed, the new atheism has all the earmarks of a religious cult.

    ReplyDelete
  37. CrusadeRex, I do this because the politics of religious people has a direct affect on the quality of our and future generations lives. Republicans in this country have targeted those who show a propensity for dogmatic and faith based belief because it is those voters that are most easily manipulated. The dogma of Christianity and dogma of Republican politics have become so intertwined that people refuse to listen to the opinions of those ungodly people outside the club.

    On a forum like this I hope to demonstrate that an ungodly liberal can make a reasonable defense of their positions and beliefs. I’m not here to convert anyone, I just want to defend my beliefs from sometimes viscous, and always unreasonable attacks. If over the course of time, a handful of people come away with a better understanding why I believe what I do, then I will consider this time well spent.

    Take Edward for example; before he bailed he stated that he learned something about evolution. I’ll bet dollars to doughnuts that he learned it from me and not from Dr. Egnor. He probably doesn’t believe everything I said, but I hope because of the quality of my arguments and my willingness to answer questions honestly that he comes away with a little more respect for those that hold opinions different from his.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
  38. Anon, KW said ...

    "The dogma of Christianity and dogma of Republican politics have become so intertwined"

    Ridiculous credulity in the mainstream media's version of things. And simply wrong.

    "..that people refuse to listen to the opinions of those ungodly people outside the club."

    There are very good reasons for refusing to listen to any atheism based dogma.

    "On a forum like this I hope to demonstrate that an ungodly liberal can make a reasonable defense of their positions and beliefs."

    Good luck on that. There is no reasonable defense of atheism.

    There is NO evidence that supports atheism. None.

    Therefore the atheist can ONLY hold his position by blind faith. Which, ironically enough, is exactly his accusation against the theist!!

    Atheism is also anything but reasonable.
    It's utterly unreasonable and without foundations, either in logic or science.

    Atheism in politics -and socially applied- leads to dystopia.

    Atheists are also moral parasites.

    Having no foundations for ethics, they must borrow from religion and conscience whatever morals that please them. And those morals are whims, changeable on demand, depending on who's running the show.

    All is permitted if there be no God.

    Nothing created everything, for no reason and all will end in eternal oblivion? Atheism in a nutshell.

    What a wonderful philosophy huh?!

    Atheism sucks.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Gary H:

    There is NO evidence that supports atheism. None.

    Indeed, the lack of evidence for gods does support atheism. Thanks for pointing that out.

    I can see that you are emotionally not prepared to accept that death = oblivion. But I'm afraid that's how it is. Good luck dealing with it, and try to have some fun, preferably not at the expense of other people, as you wingnuts like to do thinking this life is nothing compared to the afterlife.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Nothing created everything, for no reason and all will end in eternal oblivion?

    Your personal dislike of something does not mean it isn't true.

    ReplyDelete
  41. “All is permitted if there be no God.”

    Oh My! If there is no God then we would have to deal with rapists, murderers, aggressive war, slavery, and genocide! How Horrible! Thank God we have a God so this stuff isn’t permitted.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
  42. @KW:

    [“All is permitted if there be no God.”

    Oh My! If there is no God then we would have to deal with rapists, murderers, aggressive war, slavery, and genocide! How Horrible! Thank God we have a God so this stuff isn’t permitted.]

    You misunderstand. If there is no God, there is no objective standard of right and wrong. There are merely opinions, and morality devolves into exercise of power.

    ReplyDelete
  43. There are merely opinions, and morality devolves into exercise of power.

    You left out persuasion and consensus. But that doesn't fit your narrative, so your lie of omission is fairly predictable.

    ReplyDelete
  44. troy said...

    " Indeed, the lack of evidence for gods does support atheism. Thanks for pointing that out."

    Right. What evidence do you have for atheism? None. Right. My point.

    Can you prove there is no evidence for a creator?
    Didn't think so.

    Thus your inane unsupported claim is one of blind faith and nothing more.
    Way to go troy, you're now a certified religious fanatic.

    ... emotionally not prepared ... bla bla nonsense.

    No one (except you of course), is impressed by your idiotic psychobabble.

    "But I'm afraid that's how it is."

    Prove it.
    I await your proof there is no life after death. Good luck on that.

    I would also appreciate an explanation as to how nothing created everything.

    "... more psychobabble unworthy of even a 5 year old"

    Thus far a great rebuttal there troy.

    Your mentis bombulum is truly impressive.

    Why are web forum atheists, like you, ubiquitously such clueless and incompetent kerns?

    ReplyDelete
  45. KW said ...

    Your personal dislike of something does not mean it isn't true.

    Wow, so deep. Your personal wishing thinking of something doesn't make it true.

    “All is permitted if there be no God.”

    " Oh My! If there is no God then we would have to deal with rapists, murderers, aggressive war, slavery, and genocide! How Horrible! Thank God we have a God so this stuff isn’t permitted."


    I see your IQ is approximately equal to bit more than your shoe size. Oh well, I expected little more.

    No God = "this stuff" IS permitted.

    Hey Mike, yet another atheist that doesn't even understand his own position and its implications.

    I miss the old atheists, at least they had a bit more of a clue.
    The so-called "new atheists" are flagrantly deficient in gray matter.

    Sciolism reigns supreme among them.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Wow, so deep. Your personal wishing thinking of something doesn't make it true.

    So, you are claiming you have some actual evidence for a deity? Sorry, metaphysics doesn't count. Unless you have some evidence to back it up, metaphysics can't actually tell you anything about the nature of reality.

    ReplyDelete
  47. @anon:

    [Unless you have some evidence to back it up, metaphysics can't actually tell you anything about the nature of reality.]

    Metaphysics is defined as the study as being. You just don't know much about it. You use metaphysics as much as I do, you just don't know it.

    Which is the problem.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Metaphysics is defined as the study as being.

    And until you have evidence to bridge the gap between speculation and reality, it is a thought toy and little else. I know you think that you have some sort of silver bullet here, but you are just playing hypothetical thought games until you have something that can tie your ruminations to reality.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Anon said ...

    "So, you are claiming you have some actual evidence for a deity? "

    Absolutely.
    Denial of any and all evidence is not an argument. Atheists live in denial of reality.

    "Unless you have some evidence to back it up, metaphysics can't actually tell you anything about the nature of reality."

    The metaphysic you're using to claim this is what exactly?

    " until you have evidence ... it is a thought toy and little else."

    This response is thus also a "thought toy". It's based on what reality?

    "...but you are just playing hypothetical thought games until you have something that can tie your ruminations to reality."

    And what ties these ruminations of yours to reality?

    You're only in denial of reality.

    As Mike said, clearly you don't understand metaphysics and thus are talking nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Here's a recent photo of a popular atheist, revealing his true reasons for not seeing evidence against God.

    no evidence for God

    He's finally been exposed, and with photographuic evidence!
    ;-)

    ReplyDelete