http://www.kentucky.com/2010/06/12/1303777/paul-prather-new-atheists-embody.html
Atheists have gone on the offensive. - Best weapon against outrageous and ridiculous ideas is mockery and it’s perceived offensiveness just serves to proof that such ideas are not to be taken seriously. Since their ideas are “holy” (which in the physical world such term holds no real meaning) any attack or perceived critic against them is seeing as an offense, an offense to the sanctity of their supernatural beliefs/god of which by themselves are not worthy of respect but of scrutiny. Such beliefs do not hold much scrutiny so they fall.
In 2008, comedian Bill Maher got a ton of attention for his anti-faith film Religulous. – What is faith really? To blindly belief in something without the evidence to back it up (“strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof”). That’s why every religion demands a, much conveniently put, “Leap of faith”. Is it healthy to foster such practice in a world where people are currently being taken advantage of? Where instead of educating people, mindless zombies are being continuously manufactured? Where witches, ghosts, the paranormal just seem so natural to them as the ground they stand on or the food they eat? Where healthy habits such as critical reasoning and skepticism and quickly dismissed and replaced by magic and circular logic? Where medicine is replaced by homeopathy? Where children are not being vaccinated do to bogus claims by renowned quacks? Where sexual and gender education is being denied in catholic schools? Where creationism/intelligent design is being taught along side evolution in a “science” classroom? And then they’re telling the kids to choose which one they feel/like more?. Where the pope goes to Africa and claims that the use of condoms actually increases the incidence of STD and HIV/AIDS? Could you possible know the body count of these statements? It is not healthy to not think.
I’m equally intrigued by the online comments that follow every news story online about religion; the responses seem to come disproportionately from readers who jeer at all references to God or piety.
There’s an increase in the number of atheists and of open doubters in the United States. A study of religious identification by Trinity College in Hartford, Conn., found that 15 percent of us now claim no religion, almost twice the percentage found in 1990.
I fail to see the problem here.
Most of these “nones,” as they’re called in the Trinity report, aren’t atheists per se, but rather agnostics, deists and others of similar views.
Agnostics and deists are two very distinct points of view. You know… just like the plethora of people who without thinking put down their religious beliefs as Christian or Catholic without in reality holding any particular set of beliefs themselves. Which one do you think is the largest group the “nones” who are in fact agnostics or the “catholics/christians” who are in fact nones.
Only 2 percent of U.S. adults are atheists, the Trinity study found. Still, by another estimate I saw, that’s three times the percentage of avowed atheists 20 years ago.
“one study classified 2.5% of the world’s population as atheists, and a separate 12.7% as non-religious”
http://www.adherents.com/ -> 16% non-believers
Adherents.com is a growing collection of over 43,870 adherent statistics and religious geography citations: references to published membership/adherent statistics and congregation statistics for over 4,200 religions, churches, denominations, religious bodies, faith groups, tribes, cultures, movements, ultimate concerns, etc. The religions of the world are enumerated here.
Basically, researchers can use this site to answer such questions as “How many Lutherans live in Wisconsin?”, “What are the major religions of India?”, or “What percentage of the world is Muslim?” We present data from both primary research sources such as government census reports, statistical sampling surveys and organizational reporting, as well as citations from secondary literature which mention adherent statistics.
Famous and influential: Adherents.com also has detailed lists of influential and famous adherents of over 100 different religious groups (famous Methodists, famous Jews, famous Catholics, famous Zoroastrians, famous Jehovah’s Witnesses, famous Theosophists, etc.), and lists of prominent people (actors, politicians, authors, U.S. presidents, artists, musicians, Supreme Court justices, film directors, etc.) classified by religious affiliation. These lists are linked to thousands of detailed religious/spiritual biographies.
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=50
wow I wonder which source is the most trustworthy and unbiased. And I have a feeling that the actual number is much higher than 16%.
Isn’t honesty a Christian virtue? Maybe he is not aware he is also cheating himself? Does that make him any less morally bankrupt? Cheating yourself…
The irony is that this current brand of aggressive atheism is just another form of fundamentalism. These particular atheists are zealots on the subject of faith who see no shadings of gray, only black and white. They’re dead-set against religion but weirdly obsessed with it.
First of all I think the author needs to be reminded of a couple of things:
Fundamentalism: “a form of Protestant Christianity that upholds belief in the strict and literal interpretation of the Bible, including its narratives, doctrines, prophecies, and moral laws.” “strict maintenance of ancient or fundamental doctrines of any religion or ideology, notably Islam.”
Zealots: “… is not only intense and eager but possibly irrational in his or her enthusiasm; fanatic suggests extreme devotion and a willingness to go to any length to maintain or carry out one’s beliefs (: a fly-fishing fanatic who hired a helicopter to reach his favorite stream).”
The advocates of this kind of thinking always fail to see the huge different between the 2 concepts, coming out as rather ignorant. To say that a fundamental atheist exists is a rather big oxymoron since such notions are intrinsically opposite.
In order for fundamentalism to exist first of all a set of irrational, faith-based beliefs must exist, meaning a religion or ideology of some sort must be set in motion.
“Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color”
Atheism means that you hold no particular religious belief or ideology whatsoever and since it is the absence of religious belief you cannot be a “fundamentalist” or a “zealot” about it.
Now well, some people most if not all religiously indoctrinated, with no real grasp of science or what it really entails, love to portray passionate scientists as fundamentalist towards their science as lets say evangelists or such. That is of course another oxymoron. Science methodically proves and disproves ideas/hypothesis and converts them in theories or disqualifies them. There is no need for faith in science since it is replaced by facts and evidence. In the event a mistake is found or tackled, changes are performed and the theory is either revised or completely dropped, this can happen has happened and will continue to happen, scientists are completely aware of this and they are open to it, ideas are always being challenged in the realm of science. Religious dogmas by definition can’t be revised they are perfect, unmistaken, holy and timeless. (“a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true : the Christian dogma of the Trinity | the rejection of political dogma”)
If evidence is presented showing that a previously held theory is wrong scientists will be the first ones to acknowledge it. Probably some feelings will be hurt but that will not change the outcome.
Dogmas are not supposed to change even if everything points out to the opposite direction, dogmas are suppose to be held. Why? Because authority dictates so.
The “new atheism,” as it’s called by its adherents, is itself a kind of church. An anti-church church, granted, but a form of lockstep belief nonetheless. It reminds me of Hazel Motes’ Church Without Christ in Flannery O’Connor’s novel Wise Blood.
I didn’t know it was called the “new atheist”. Guess you learn something everyday… sounds like a movie too.
Church “a building used for public Christian worship”
So he is implying that atheists have a public place for the bashing of Christian beliefs. Is he? Seriously, I think he is.
Again, atheism is the lack of religious belief. Nothing less, nothing more. Athiests do not come together and worship “Lord Nothing” either. The idea of such is ridiculous as is the notion the author is trying to sell.
The Science Method systematically decomposes and tests every idea be the idea religious or not, no idea is held to a higher standard or given undeserved respect on the basis of religious authority or any other kind. If it does not hold the idea is dropped and move on to test different ideas. The idea of a creator is as meaningless to a scientist as the fairytales we were told when we were little. But the fact that so many people are obviously deluded is what dazzles.
“A delusion held by one is insanity. A delusion held by a few is a cult. A delusion held by many is a religion”
is all about the numbers, that’s why some people are so “obsessed” by it.
If you weigh the circumstantial evidence for and against the existence of God, there’s about as much evidence on one side as the other. Ultimately, people can find reasons to believe and reasons not to, and various people will arrive at varying conclusions.
This is a lie. There is not 1 piece of evidence in favor of the existence of god. I think the author fails to understand what evidence is. And the “circumstantial” term here is just used to mislead.
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”
And the one who makes such claims is the one responsible for providing the evidence not the other way about.
Even as a longtime Christian minister, I still have days when I wonder whether this whole God thing is a figment of my imagination. I can’t denigrate those who don’t believe at all. That’s between them and their maker — or, if they might prefer, them and their rational senses or their artistic sensibilities.
How condescending of you, thank you. And if what you are trying to say is that my rational senses or artistic sensibilities are some kind of “circumstantial evidence” for the existence of god that is some utterly stupid statement you are making right to there.
It’s that they strike me as hypocrites, which is the charge they unfailingly level, with mixed justification, against the religious. In opposing religion in the manner they do, they betray themselves as possessing the traits they profess to loathe.
Ok atheist “loathe” (your use of words is pesky if all btw…) dogmatic principles, so what you are saying is that advocating against dogmatic principles and practices by expressing the negative aspects of it some how make the atheists dogmatic themselves? Are you in any manner nuts? Can’t help but to wonder.
They’re smug, dogmatic and mean-spirited.
I’d rather just ignore this entirely, honestly…
Smug? “having or showing an excessive pride in oneself or one’s achievements”.
You must be hanging out with a very different crowd of atheists than the ones I know. Though there are some people who feel intimidated by secure, well educated individuals. Are you the kind of person who actually beliefs that a Ph.D. makes you “smug”?
dogmatic “inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true”
Show me the evidence, I’ll be the first to change my mind. So why haven’t you?
mean-spirited unkind and ungenerous; unwilling to help others : the voice of an intolerant scold, narrow and shrill and mean-spirited.
Lies. There are many secular organizations that collaborate with humanitarian and relief causes. And they don’t do it because there is some kind of fatherly figure watching their every movement with a promise of a heavenly paradise or eternal mayhem if they don’t, but because they feel good doing it, a thing call empathy you know? A human value.
And you are an ignorant, deluded and down right annoying piece of work.
They pretend that all Christians are bigots prone to violence. They claim that Christians are by definition illogical bumpkins who mindlessly accept fairy tales.
Noooo.. only the real Christians. You know the ones who follow the perfect and timeless word of god, and don’t pick and choose the parts which seem morally acceptable by our current standards of morality. The bible is seriously one of the most disgusting books I have ever read, and I’ve read a lot of weird shit…
No one who presumes to possess grandiose mental gifts should stoop to lumping all believers of all faiths, or for that matter all Christians, or even all Baptists or Catholics, into a single mindless blob.
Have you actually read any of their works? Maybe if you do you could better disagree with what they are saying? You know if you in fact KNEW what it is they were saying… I have the feeling you have no clue. More importantly do you feel lumped?
And just because you say it’s a single mindless blob doesn’t make it one, is actually an excellent example of critical reasoning and clean logic used to scrutinize the idea of the belief in the existence of supernatural beings and how illogical it really is.
