New Atheists

[etimodnar]

"For the new atheists, believing in God is a form of stupidity, which sets off their own intelligence. They write as if great minds had never before wrestled with the big questions of creation, moral law and the contending versions of revealed truth. They argue as if these questions are easily answered by their own blunt materialism. Most of all,

Comments

[nicwhite86]

So?

[leemur]

The lack of elegance as claimed in the article doesn't make us wrong.

(Which I think is the point Nic made more succinctly.)

Furthermore the divide between what is correct has its foundations in what form of rhetoric you prefer - the 'pathos' of religion or the 'logos' of science. As I firm believer in science over the supernatural, I have to say that the scientific arguments to the ecclesiastical.

[leemur]

Sorry, didn't finish that last sentence properly.

As I firm believer in science over the supernatural, I have to say that the scientific argument is more elegant, not to mention satisfying, than the ecclesiastical.

[kegzilla]

Admitedly some Atheist types can be a bit heavy with their opinions and how they classify those who believe in big scary men as being stupid or whatever.

I do however wonder how many Religious folk realise how VERY frustrating and sometimes hurtful it is when they say we are without morals or are not trustworthy.

At the end of the day, lets all be thankful we can believe what we want to believe and still be able to get along. Because that's always the best option :)

[etimodnar]

I think we're all a bit heavy with what we believe in.

I'm sorry for saying that you're without morals. I've never actually said it to an atheist directly ( i don't think I have), but I've wondered where you get them from, where your moral source of authority comes from. And I've never even considered that you're not trustworthy! But I can understand how many people would say that.
And now having apologised, I've known many, very moralistic atheists in my time! :D

At the end of the day, let's all be thankful we can believe what we want to believe and still be able to get along. Because that's always the best option :)
Amen!

[kegzilla]

Personally my moral standards come from how I would want other to act towards myself and those I care about. So really i'm cool with people doing whatever they like as long as it doesn't get in the way of the personal freedoms of another.

I think Bill and Ted summed it up best when they said "Be excellent to each other" :P

Btw, I don't think you've said anything bad. I was more cranky at the guy who wrote that article. :P

[stawberi]

There's actually a great philosophical argument in there about where people do get their morality from. I think most atheists would say that they don't need to fear higher retribution in order to do good, but rather that as adults they are capable of using reason to determine right from wrong, and choose right of their own accord.

As for where that sense of right and wrong comes from... it's actually biological to a large extent. *That* is the part of Dawkins' book that I'd most like you to get in to really, not the part that addresses Christianity at all.

[stawberi]

Please read Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion before you go any further. It is an written not as your quote describes atheist discourse, but rather more clear, fair and even elegant.

[etimodnar]

clear, fair and even elegant

I've read Christian reviews for it, and they've told me very different things. I've really no desire to read it, I think it'll just make me angry and ranty. I don't want to be ranty about another thing.

Apparently, he does make some good points about Christians, but is unfair by making too many generalisations.

[stawberi]

I would hope it would make you think, rather than make you rant. I'm just... idunno, closed-mindedness like that makes me sad. Too each their own, I guess.

[etimodnar]

The reviews I've read have gone into the book rather open minded. They are mindful of highlighting what good points the book makes, as well as providing information on the negative points. All the Christian reviews see this book as rather close-minded, and that makes us sad.

Close minded all round is sad, it's just what we perceive as close minded that differs for us. There are many things that makes me think, I just don't think this will. I know myself, and I know what things set me off.

[ritos_revenge]

An issue might be with how scientists, and people who think like scientists, determine fact. Nothing is fact without evidence - without a repeatable experiment. The Christian idea of a "leap of faith" clashes directly with this - the scientists shakes his head and wonders why anyone would believe something they don't have evidence of. When a Christian then counters that they've "felt God's presence" or "just knows" the scientist probably thinks the person he's talking to is stupid.

[etimodnar]

tee hee, I was talking about this very thing with a friend last night

[stawberi]

But the thing about theories is that even if we can't know for certain, we can determine probability to a certain extent. Just because we cannot prove or disprove God doesn't mean it's a 50/50 bet. There are so many more things to consider.

I guess the thing that bugs scientist about religion is that we so rarely see you guys trying to test your theories. (Well, not in any real way. There have been token tests as to the power of prayer with terminal patients, the results were inconclusive.)

[etimodnar]

pah, testing prayer like that... pah! I have disdain for it.
God is sovereign, and I have no idea why he chooses people to die at this time or that time, but he does what he does, and not much can change it. Yes, he can heal people in a miraculous healing overnight, but he often doesn't.

What can we test our beliefs with? With what measures shall we use? My firm foundation and source is the Bible. If you won't believe that, then with what other evidence can I provide you with? In my opinion, there is no other evidence that I would want to provide you with, it would be horridly secondary IMHO.