The new Athiest Humanities downfall?

[Colt]

Since I do not know how life originated on earth, I cannot make any statement about that.

But I point out to you something within your post itself that you probably don't even notice, and it is this: that while you think it is impossible that "life" could exist without a "mind," at the same time you assume that a "mind" could exist without --- well, anything actually.

And you give no reason for such a supposition.

I didn’t imply that life exists without mind. I’m saying mind is mind made, planed by the creator. Reproduction is obviously planned to perpetuate life.

 

[Revoltingest]

The New Atheist seem a bit of a strawman.
Kind of easy to create this idea of what a new atheist is then tear it down with having a conversation with an actual atheist.

Atheist aren't really all that sinister.

How many of the "new atheists" are there?
Reading the OP, it looks like 4 guys who've earned the ire of
believers. Are they new? Madalyn Murray O'Hair was first,
& as much a firebrand as any of them. So what is new here?
It appears that it's the term itself, ie, "new atheists", something
proffered by believers.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I didn’t imply that life exists without mind. I’m saying mind is mind made, planed by the creator. Reproduction is obviously planned to perpetuate life.

That is something for which I guarantee you could provide not even the most miniscule bit of evidence. It may be true, it may be nonsense, it may be wishful thinking, but the one thing it is not is evidenced.

 

[Colt]

No it isn't, that's pure unevidenced assumption. Evolution is an insentient process.

There is a forward purposive potential within the evolution of life, but your opposition to the creator blinds you to the obvious.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

How many of the "new atheists" are there?
Reading the OP, it looks like 4 guys who've earned the ire of
believers. Are they new? Madalyn Murray O'Hair was first,
& as much a firebrand as any of them. So what is new here?
It appears that it's the term itself, ie, "new atheists", something
proffered by believers.

I wish I could be a "new" atheist, but I'm freaking old! Time has passed me by. I moulder even as we speak (I burn joss sticks to make my presence more bearable for visitors).

But, no, I'm an old atheist, the kind who simply realized that I was being told nonsense -- and so pretended to listen while continuing to assemble my jigsaw puzzle of Eeyore's bum getting pinned.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

There is a forward purposive potential within the evolution of life, but your opposition to the creator blinds you to the obvious.

A "forward purposive potential?" Can you provide something that shows that to be true?

 

[Colt]

That is something for which I guarantee you could provide not even the most miniscule bit of evidence. It may be true, it may be nonsense, it may be wishful thinking, but the one thing it is not is evidenced.

Seems self evident to me, but God is so obvious he can be elusive.

 

[Colt]

A "forward purposive potential?" Can you provide something that shows that to be true?

From sponges to a Tesla.

 

[We Never Know]

Seems self evident to me, but God is so obvious he can be elusive.

When my young grandchild sets silently, I cannot see, hear, read, experience, ect his thoughts but I know they are there.

My point of posting this is with some thing's,,, we just know they exist.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Seems self evident to me, but God is so obvious he can be elusive.

Meaningless.

 

[Audie]

No one is going to go through thousands of threads and comment to find and give you specific examples that you will only ignore and deny, anyway. Which, of course, you already know. Which is why you keep pretending that somehow it means something that no one is doing it.

If you really wanted those examples, you could go back through those thousands of posts yourself, looking for them. But of course you aren't going to do it, either. Because that would be absurd. Instead, you'll just keep harping on about it as if it somehow supports your contention that there aren't any examples to find. Because that's the easy, cheap way to pretend you made a point.

Like with " scientism" thread, you claim they are abundant but not one actual example could you show.

Excuses, finger pointing, making up
falsehoods about me.

Challenged again, you cant do it coz its
-my fault coz I wont do it for you
-and besides its hard and
-I won't accept it anyway.
Any more "reasons"?

All that does is call attention to their nonexistence


Why not just say the dog ate them, fewer words
and less calumny..

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

From sponges to a Tesla.

Total non-sequitur. And perhaps just silly.

 

[Audie]

When my young grandchild sets silently, I cannot see, hear, read, experience, ect his thoughts but I know they are there.

My point of posting this is with some thing's,,, we just know they exist.

Ahh, like the missing examples!

 

[We Never Know]

Ahh, like the missing examples!

Lol. Its simply stating we don't know everything. Some thing's exist even if unseen and unknown.
If you can refute that, please do.

 

[F1fan]

Unity will require all these issues to be addressed. That is the intent, a worldwide proactive discussion.

Why is it hard for people to talk about these points?

When the article you reference is not accurate and misrepresents what atheists think then the POINTS we talk about are the dishonesty of a group that claims to want unity.

 

[Revoltingest]

Meaningless.

The meaning is that if something is strongly
felt to be true, then that is enuf. It doesn't
require experimentation & verification.
It cannot be falsified.
Tis a very different way of seeing things, eh.

 

[We Never Know]

When the article you reference is not accurate and misrepresents what atheists think then the POINTS we talk about are the dishonesty of a group that claims to want unity.

But does it misrepresent what some atheists think?

 

[F1fan]

Marxism is an economic ideal that doesn't really work, it has little directly to do with atheism, which is simply a lack of belief in any deity. The suppression of religion had more to do with trying to end the idea of divine right of kings, and of course Stalin's paranoia could not have allowed any organisation to rival the state machine, as he wanted absolute power. Since atheism has no dogma or doctrine and atheists are not an homogenous group in the way Christians were, the rationale quite clearly was that they would be easier to control and manipulate.

I'd never read the Communist Manifesto until it was assigned in a college philosophy class. Well the vast majority of the class acknowledged that it wasn't what they expected and actually thought it was a great ideal to put in place. Of course they huge flaw in it was expecting everyone to be honest and fair, which as we know isn't possible without hard punishments, which at that point why bother?

 

[F1fan]

That’s the magic fairy dust of Atheism, life creating itself.

Not accurate in any way. The magic is how theists assert that a God (where did it come from, who knows, more magic) created life from absolutely nothing. How'd that happen? Theists have no answer. But science can answer how life emerges from inorganic chemicals. So, no need for atheist magic, just trust in intellect and an honest search for truth.

 

[F1fan]

But does it misrepresent what some atheists think?

Yes. That has been covered by numerous posters in great detail and length.

The article was written by a theist, not an atheist.

Tony has yet to acknowledge this and offer any apology.