Posted on 11/16/2010 10:21:55 AM PST by pastorbillrandles
“The “new Atheists” believe that the old atheists were too tolerant of religion, and not aggressive enough in their attacks upon it.”
In other words, the “new Atheists” are going to make Hitler and Stalin look like pussy cats.
I would venture to say that the Golden Rule, which cuts across religions and cultures, might be a good start. And the Wiccan Rede: Do what thou wilt, an it harm none.
Articles(and some of the responses here) like this do more to drive people to Atheism and/or away from Christianity than Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins or any other “New” Atheist (whoever they are) could ever dream of doing by themselves.
Please explain how an article like this could “send anyone into atheism”? I am truly curious
Actually they aren't. The new atheists are not nearly as intelligent or intellectually forceful as the old atheists. Russel, Hume and Flew were brilliant (but wrong) and used metaphysically consistent arguments strongly grounded in logic. The new atheists are nothing of the sort. Dawkins book makes clear that he has never been schooled in basic logic at all and virtually none of his conclusions follow from his premises. (and he doesn't even attempt to quantify his premises in the first place) His, and most of the other new athiests', arguments are nothing more than angry polemics against religion. Hitchens was beaten so badly when he debated William Lane Craig that he gave up and waived his closing statement, electing to just take questions where he could fall back on his glib sophistries in an vain attempt to win back the audience who had just watched him get stomped. This too will pass and it shouldn't take long at all.
I would also note ever since the Hitchens debacle Dawkins has pointedly refused to ever debate William Lane Craig. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out why.
If they chose to obey the golden rule that would simply be their personal preference. Or they can chose Power, per Nietzche, and that would also be a personal preference. Neither one is better than the other, its simply a choice, and in the end who cares what the choice is as we all end up in oblivion anyway.
In any case, Athiests are responsible for the worst genocides of all time, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro etc. And that makes sense given that, in an Athiest world, anything goes to get the job done, and getting the job done is considered “good” and “moral.”
“They also insist that one doesn’t need God to be moral,”
Then who gets to decide? A Hitler? A Stalin? An Aztec?
The Self gets to be god and decide what is “good.” A truly satanic ideal that drives moral relativism. “Do As Thy Will.”
“The “new Atheists” believe that the old atheists were too tolerant of religion, and not aggressive enough in their attacks upon it.”
Gee how tolerant and diverse.
Ever have any sort of a math course beyond HS algebra?
Ben Stein's movie "Expelled" makes it clear that Dawkins is basically an idiot with a 180 IQ.
What? You mean you don't believe that somehow life sponaneously emerged from crystals? (no really...Dawkins actually said that in "Expelled")
The article makes a valid point: the new atheist activists are functionally evil. They are harming many people. Scientific studies of religious people have found a God advantage: religious people on average are more optimistic, happy, brave, confident, courageous, charitable, giving, and live longer more successful lives. They are more successful in sports, business, and importantly from a human evolutionary standpoint: tribal warfare. Atheists do not have this scientifically detectable God advantage. An evil motive in promoting their non-beliefs is envy. Envy doesn't seek to have what others have, but to destroy or deny a perceived good that others have. Envy is the evil core of modern leftism.
If scientists could detect the effects of a second moon orbiting Earth through tides and altered orbits but they could not scientifically find this moon in space, should they nuke its calculated location to get rid of the annoyance?
Gee how tolerant and diverse.
Indeed. Of course, here is some real tolerance being taught:
If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet. - Matthew 10:14 NIV - Part of Jesus' teaching the disciples how to preach the Word.
Funny how Jesus doesn't say to scream at people until they agree with you, nor does He force anyone to accept the faith. It all has to be a choice.
They might succeed in blowing up a teapot. :)
Read Sam Harris, who is opposed to using religion to set “morality.”
He cites islam and the fact it preaches so much violence to spread their word.
And he cites Catholicism for their protection of child molestation by priests.
He believes science is capable of discerning the best overall morality.
Does college statistics suffice?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.