A New Breed of Atheist: The Anti-Theist

Breakpoint with Chuck Colson ^ | 8/2/2007 | Chuck Colson

[Mr. Silverback]

There is no contradiction between Christianity and whatever method God chose to bring about creation.

Not true. There is one glaring, irreconcilable contradiction:

What did Adam and Eve bring into the world?

What has to happen for natural selection to work on any real scale?

The answer to both questions is the same: Death.

Even if a Christain believes that the first three chapters of Genesis are a fable/poem/allegory (Jesus didn't, but if you want to argue with Him that's your business) it's an essential Christian doctrine that death came into the world as a result of human separation from God, and that Christ's sacrifice was the cure for this. It's also an essential component of evolutionism that billions of inferior critters had to die in order to bring forth the guy who sat down and wrote Genesis 1-3. Well, they can't both be right.

Like I said, glaring and irreconcilable.

[Mr. Silverback]

LOL!

[Mr. Silverback]

Meanwhile, atheism has no interest in leaving other people alone:

China insists on naming Living Buddhas

[TheDon]

One who worships cars?

Gives new meaning to autoeroticism doesn't it?

[MHGinTN]

Is that what the blonde Hilton did with the hamburger and the car at a car wash? [And no, I don’t want a video of the debauche-car-y.]

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

I believe Rabbi Daniel Lapin made this point in “America’s Real War” (an excellent analysis of the cultural war we are in, by the way).

[Califreak]

Never lose hope! Don’t forget-at the end of the book, we win!

[OriginalIntent]

bump

[AndyTheBear]

Now wait a minute. If the Chinese government declares someone a reincarnation of Buddha, aren't they buying in to some supernatural priori unique to the Buddhist faith?

Somehow we all know that they aren't. They fit so well the role of the "Innovator" as described by C.S. Lewis in "the Abolition of Man".

[Locke_2007]

“Me: Oh? Well, where did the material for that singularity come from in the first place? Did Harry Potter create it with his wand? And what caused the explosion? Magical Teletubbies lighting their flatulence?

This is what you are left with.”

You shouldn’t assume everyone has the same intellectual limitations that you do. There are very pragmatic and logical theories that deal with this, backed up by experimental evidence. If you had a clue about science, you would know this. I suppose you think it’s better just to wallow in your ignorance about science and attack it with nothing but outdated dogma and outright lies from prejudiced Creationist websites. Instead of making utterly ridiculous statements, why don’t you go do a web search on “vacuum fluctuation”?

[Lazamataz]

Atheism has nearly always been with us in one form or another, but the atheists we’ve been hearing the most from lately—chiefly Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris—are a new breed. Unlike the old-school humanists, the new atheists—or anti-theists, as some of them prefer to be called—don’t want to just deny the existence of God, they want to wipe religion off the map.

This isn't new.

They called it the Soviet Union back then.

[Guenevere]

True...and I would add...

They have much bravado (stupidity) this side of eternity.

[stormer]

“The whole world now knows that the tyrannosaur was just a big chicken with sharp teeth who lived a few thousand years ago...”

How stupid are you? Did you read the article that you linked to? Like the first sentence?

[stormer]

“I can’t imagine Carl Sagan...”

Huh? He wrote a book on it called “The Demon Haunted World; Science as a Candle in the Dark”. I suggest you read it and discard your superstitions.

[stormer]

“For that stuff to be 68M years old it would have to have never rained in Montana and the Dakotas for millions of years.”

Is that in your dissertation? Sounds like interesting research.

[DirtyHarryY2K]

Magical Teletubbies lighting their flatulence?

^5 bttt LOL!

[AnotherUnixGeek]

I can't tell you how many times a Buddhist friend of mine has tried to convince me that Buddhist practice is consistent with my faith. Sure, he's doing that because he thinks I'll be happier, but how is that any different from me wanting someone to become a Christian because i think they'll be happier and Jesus told me to?

The difference is that the Buddha didn't tell your friend to proselytize, whereas Jesus did ask you to and a Muslim will say his prophet told him to.

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

As soon as I saw the thread title I said, Dawkins come to mind. He’s the first listed!

[flevit]

actually he used his Word, its far more powerful and more authoritative than yours, or mine for that matter, although it seems we all want in part to have our declarations to be Truth.(after all we like being “as-god” or similarly “you are your own god”). such as your words of “pragmatic and logical” (both are subjective judgments) just because you have declared them as such, does not make them so, I find them illogical and out right speculative. an atheists premise, boils down to, you (and I) are far less creative than complete unintelligence.

[Locke_2007]

Uh hunh. That was a very poorly-written and confusing post, but I think I got the gist of it. Tell ya what - you keep thinking that way - and I’ll stick to using the best tool available in the search for Truth - science. Like it or not, the same tool (Science), is what gave us antibiotics, genetic engineering, surgery, radio, televison, computers, automobiles, aircraft, spaceflight, the internet, nuclear power and a host of other gifts that have made our lives healthier, longer, and far more easy to bear and enjoyable to live than in the past. What has religion ever accomplished, besides being the cause for many if not most of the bloody conflicts in human history? Which is more logical, a scientific theory based on empirical evidence or surrendering one’s will and reason to atavistic (and conflicting) dogma?

“you (and I) are far less creative than complete unintelligence.”

Hunh?