The new Athiest Humanities downfall?

[danieldemol]

I found this interesting.

"The ‘new atheism’ is the name given to contemporary atheism as spear-headed by the work of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett.

The new atheism has twelve characteristics that define its nature:

(1) A commitment to explicit, strong or dogmatic atheism as the only rational
choice for modern, independent, free thinking individuals. The new atheists reject
agnosticism as too weak a response to the dangers of religion.
(2) A categorical rejection of any and all super-sensible beings and realities and a
corresponding commitment to ontological (metaphysical) materialism in explaining all phenomena;
(3) A militant agenda and tone which opposes not just of religion itself but even the tolerance of any religious beliefs in others; this agenda and tone is driven by the belief that religion per se is pathological in nature;
(4) A strident, aggressive, provocative and insulting way of expressing themselves and
indulgence in all kinds of polemical and rhetorical shenanigans;
(5) Commitment to the ability of science to answer all human questions by means of the scientific method with its criteria of measurability, repeatability, predictability,
falsifiability; quantifiability;
(6) A belief that faith is inherently an enemy of reason and science and no reconciliation
between them is possible. Religion is inherently irrational. They are naturally in a
perpetual conflict that must end with the victory of one or the other. Faith is defined
as “belief without evidence.” They adhere to the conflict model of the relationship
between religion/faith and reason;
(7) A belief that religion is part of our past but not of our future, i.e. part of our evolutionary heritage that we must learn to overcome;
(8) An insistence of reading scriptures literally (in order to condemn religion) and a
consistent rejection of centuries of non-literal theological interpretations of the
relevant scriptures;
(9) An insistence that humankind has an innate and reliable moral sense or intuition that does not require the guidance of religion; morality is not inherently connected to or based on religion and our morals have less to do with religion than we tend to think.
(10) Presentism: judging past ages by the standards of today, which is, in effect, a failure to recognise progressive revelation. (also the logical error of anachronism);
(11) Their belief that religious faith is either a mental illness or a criminal offense
comparable to child-molesting or an anti-social act that ‘dumbs down’ society as a
whole;
(12) Their rejection of the freedom to be religious; because religion is so damaging
religion is not a legitimate choice in society."

Spoiler: Source

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...cQFnoECAYQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2oB623Tqdht2YN3zoQRQ6K

Edit - A Link that is not a PDF The New Atheism

This may become mankind's greatest challenge, is it the height of materialism, the downfall of the human race as described in prophecy?

How do you see it?

Personally I can leave them to their thoughts, but since some here come up with these replies in their posts on religious threads, I thought it worth discussing.

Regards Tony

Its easy to make a polemic, but I would want reliable citations to the works of the four mentioned for at least points (3), (11) and (12), otherwise this work you refer to is most probably slander and its author and promoters should be at least suspected of dishonesty (in the case of the author) and failure to carry out due diligence in cross checking a work before they promoted it in the case of the promoters.

In my opinion.

 

[danieldemol]

That is what radical faith can also do, so be careful.

Regards Tony

Radical faith is often spread by people failing in due diligence to cross check polemical stories before they promote them, so perhaps you too should exercise caution Tony.

 

[VoidCat]

Clearly the person who wrote it don't know many atheists in real life...

 

[oldbadger]

I found this interesting.

"The ‘new atheism’ is the name given to contemporary atheism as spear-headed by the work of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett.

The new atheism has twelve characteristics that define its nature:

Hello TS!
Wot? Dawkins? He's as extremist as some religious nuts! But let's have a look at your list of definitions:-

(1) A commitment to explicit, strong or dogmatic atheism as the only rational
choice for modern, independent, free thinking individuals. The new atheists reject
agnosticism as too weak a response to the dangers of religion.

Well, they're looking for supporters, TS. They are using the 'with us or against us' message which is extreme but nowhere near as bad as the 'join us or burn in hell' stuff that religions try on.

(2) A categorical rejection of any and all super-sensible beings and realities and a
corresponding commitment to ontological (metaphysical) materialism in explaining all phenomena;

They'll have trouble with that because even atheists can be superstitious about stuff.

(3) A militant agenda and tone which opposes not just of religion itself but even the tolerance of any religious beliefs in others; this agenda and tone is driven by the belief that religion per se is pathological in nature;

So long as they don't use any kind of force, that's lawful, TS.
Not as bad as Bahai which threatens to withold voting rights from non Bahais.
Have you thought all this through, TS?

(4) A strident, aggressive, provocative and insulting way of expressing themselves and
indulgence in all kinds of polemical and rhetorical shenanigans;

Ha ha ha!
One Bahai once wrote on RF that people against Bahai hide their identities behind avatar names and soon afterwards hid his name!
A Bahai once referred to me on RF as being of or about the devil.
Dawky might be a bit of a nut imo, but he doesn't seem like he could do bad things to people who offend his non-beliefs.

(5) Commitment to the ability of science to answer all human questions by means of the scientific method with its criteria of measurability, repeatability, predictability,
falsifiability; quantifiability;

That might be much safer than a bunch of blokes gathering and then making decisions for the world which they think they got from God, TS.

(6) A belief that faith is inherently an enemy of reason and science and no reconciliation
between them is possible. Religion is inherently irrational. They are naturally in a
perpetual conflict that must end with the victory of one or the other. Faith is defined
as “belief without evidence.” They adhere to the conflict model of the relationship
between religion/faith and reason;

If I had to choose one or t'other world for my great grand kids to live in, it would have to be the Dawky world as lesser of two evils..... (my apologies to Dawky for mentioning evil there. )

(7) A belief that religion is part of our past but not of our future, i.e. part of our evolutionary heritage that we must learn to overcome;

From a government pov that's not so dangerous.

(8) An insistence of reading scriptures literally (in order to condemn religion) and a
consistent rejection of centuries of non-literal theological interpretations of the
relevant scriptures;

Very good! Excellent suggestion!
Religion cherry picks it's scriptures to suit it's needs and then body-swerves off in some or any other direction as and when required.

(9) An insistence that humankind has an innate and reliable moral sense or intuition that does not require the guidance of religion; morality is not inherently connected to or based on religion and our morals have less to do with religion than we tend to think.

Well, although dodgy that's a lot safer than leaders getting messages from God.

(10) Presentism: judging past ages by the standards of today, which is, in effect, a failure to recognise progressive revelation. (also the logical error of anachronism);

Presentism is ok by me.

(11) Their belief that religious faith is either a mental illness or a criminal offense
comparable to child-molesting or an anti-social act that ‘dumbs down’ society as a
whole;

Rubbish! Prove that!
Are you trying to tell us that Dawky's world would be raiding households and arresting families because they have a religion?
Totally dishonest claim, if that's what you are pretending.

(12) Their rejection of the freedom to be religious; because religion is so damaging
religion is not a legitimate choice in society."

That's two different conditioins scrambled in to one.......
Please prove that Dawky's world would seek out and arrest people for believing things.

Spoiler: Source

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...cQFnoECAYQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2oB623Tqdht2YN3zoQRQ6K

Edit - A Link that is not a PDF The New Atheism

This may become mankind's greatest challenge, is it the height of materialism, the downfall of the human race as described in prophecy?

There it is! Dreamed up by Bahai.
Propaganda or what?

How do you see it?

Personally I can leave them to their thoughts, but since some here come up with these replies in their posts on religious threads, I thought it worth discussing.

Regards Tony

No Tony, you cannot leave them to their thoughts.
Dawkins and his band of poor old extremists would probably be a much safer bet for my great grand kids than Bahai or any controlling religion.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Unless your source is God, " his"
is not a proper noun, nor is "author".

What are you trying to imply.

Sorry, my English was not good.

The person that wrote the article quoted sources.

Regards Tony

 

[oldbadger]

Unfortunately, I think its the most extreme who speak the loudest(and not just when it comes to atheism).

I suspect the atheists who would agree with this 'new atheism' are probably few and far between.

On the other side, have you heard of Ingersoll atheism? I spent a lot of time at religious gatherings with one, who was firm in her disbelief, but loved the beauty in religious rituals and learning from people different from herself.

Wow!
I've never heard of 'Ingersoll Atheism'. I want to find out more.
Atheists can be superstitious and spiritually inclined, I know....... but Ingersoll Atheism really sounds very interesting.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Just as I suspected, a religious perspective about atheism. Of course it's going to be objective and honest.

As I read the list it was obvious this was not a genuine representation of what atheism means. I could tell it wasn't written or advocated for by actual atheists.

So, this is misinformation and fraud. Why did Tony post it?

Firstly what steps on the list can you remove.

I personally have not considered them all yet, but there a couple that jump out as being used on RF quite often.

The person that wrote the article seems to have done their research and is definitely had more education than I have.

Regards Tony

 

[rational experiences]

A theist is a human who thinks against their own presence who caused the anti effect.

Reasoned.

CH gases in heavens supported by the highest immaculate God O earth history should not have been removed.

Owned no reason to be changed. In reality there is no such status anti Christ otherwise Christ would not exist.

As void vacuum space dealt with burning gases.

What you ignore as the theist is the natural status was first.

Anti was introduced. The teaching. A human thinker owns natural first as the highest.

The teaching stated conditions no human would know as a human thinker using human thinking consciousness.

You don't own change to be changed as you are a human. You live survive life healthy for 100 years. C 100 evidence.

Aging is not anti. It is a cells inability to reproduce.

Christ was not reproduced.

Science however by theory tried to reproduce it in a reaction.

As space owned it's presence as a gas the teaching said Christ cannot be reproduced in science.

The Baha'i taught that updating advice in life by religious science terms was apparent. Religious science is not practicing converting machine science.

Converting is a fixed state science mind agreement.

It is based on theism itself.

Religious science is theism also with different intentions.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I had the pleasure to personally attend the talks of Dawkins, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett. I disagree with many things they have said, but I find their work stimulating rather than threatening.

Some of the ideas are very stimulating in relation to science, that is what some are very good at. In the matter of God, they are all just another opinion and If they have offered God is not a possibility, personally I would see it as the height of ignorance.

Maybe that was not the case for them all? I admired Dawkins for quite some time, I though what a clever man, but then the godless part came out and that was very sad.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Other than your belief in God and in Baha'u'llah as God's messenger, I think in a lot of ways the Baha'i Faith has more in common with a lot of the Atheists here on the forum, than some of the Christians.

But Atheism, I think, is an important reaction to radical religion or even overly fundamentalist types of religions. Maybe some Atheists are way too extreme about their belief, just like some people in some religions are way too extreme about their beliefs.

I see your thoughts are sound.

The list reminded my of an OP started by someone else and it also listed some of the rebuttals that one can see are becoming more often on RF by a selected few.

If nothing else it helps us all consider what we say has wider ramifications.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Radical faith is often spread by people failing in due diligence to cross check polemical stories before they promote them, so perhaps you too should exercise caution Tony.

I am not promoting it, I am discussing it.

I agree that sources are required.

From a personal perspective I do see that taking God out of humanity will not end good for anyone, so that may have motivated me to start the discussion.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Hello TS!
Wot? Dawkins? He's as extremist as some religious nuts! But let's have a look at your list of definitions:-


Well, they're looking for supporters, TS. They are using the 'with us or against us' message which is extreme but nowhere near as bad as the 'join us or burn in hell' stuff that religions try on.


They'll have trouble with that because even atheists can be superstitious about stuff.


So long as they don't use any kind of force, that's lawful, TS.
Not as bad as Bahai which threatens to withold voting rights from non Bahais.
Have you thought all this through, TS?


Ha ha ha!
One Bahai once wrote on RF that people against Bahai hide their identities behind avatar names and soon afterwards hid his name!
A Bahai once referred to me on RF as being of or about the devil.
Dawky might be a bit of a nut imo, but he doesn't seem like he could do bad things to people who offend his non-beliefs.


That might be much safer than a bunch of blokes gathering and then making decisions for the world which they think they got from God, TS.


If I had to choose one or t'other world for my great grand kids to live in, it would have to be the Dawky world as lesser of two evils..... (my apologies to Dawky for mentioning evil there. )


From a government pov that's not so dangerous.


Very good! Excellent suggestion!
Religion cherry picks it's scriptures to suit it's needs and then body-swerves off in some or any other direction as and when required.


Well, although dodgy that's a lot safer than leaders getting messages from God.


Presentism is ok by me.


Rubbish! Prove that!
Are you trying to tell us that Dawky's world would be raiding households and arresting families because they have a religion?
Totally dishonest claim, if that's what you are pretending.


That's two different conditioins scrambled in to one.......
Please prove that Dawky's world would seek out and arrest people for believing things.


There it is! Dreamed up by Bahai.
Propaganda or what?


No Tony, you cannot leave them to their thoughts.
Dawkins and his band of poor old extremists would probably be a much safer bet for my great grand kids than Bahai or any controlling religion.

You went for the slam dunk, your a winner just for doing that.

Hopefully I will get back and respond to your points.

Regards Tony

 

[sayak83]

Some of the ideas are very stimulating in relation to science, that is what some are very good at. In the matter of God, they are all just another opinion and If they have offered God is not a possibility, personally I would see it as the height of ignorance.

Maybe that was not the case for them all? I admired Dawkins for quite some time, I though what a clever man, but then the godless part came out and that was very sad.

Regards Tony

Dawkins is primarily against religious beliefs that try to discredit the science of evolutionary biology. In general new atheists attack religious literalism and anti-scientific positions within them and do not concern themselves with the rest of the religious landscape. Sam Harris is actually a propounder of a secularized version of Buddhist meditation.
In any case, anyone or any group is perfectly entitled to hold and propagate and argue for their views in the public forum...religious or irreligious. I do not consider this as a cause for concern unless they are asking people to do something immoral or socially regressive.

 

[Augustus]

What would be your # 13 that describes the new Athiest?

Not sure I agree with all the previous 12, but this aside the obvious 13th would be:

Rank historical illiteracy and a tendency to be mind-numbingly credulous towards anything negative about religion

 

[epronovost]

I see a lot of replies on RF that are reflected in the list above.

I think that does not help the athiest cause at all.

Regards Tony

Names and quotes or shut up and stop peddling veiled threat, insults and accusations against unnamed party who can't defend themselves of your accusations. If you have beef with someone for something in particular then present your case. If not, stop peddling hate and insults by dressing strawmen and saying it looks a lot like "someone(s)" you see once in a while on the forum.

If want to make an argument against atheism, materialism, naturalism, secular humanist philosophy, skepticism or any other philosophical proposition advanced, defended and popularized by the New Atheist then do it and do it in your name with your own arguments instead of hiding behind that of others to shield yourself from

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The OP sounds just like any other extremist manifesto.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Names and quotes or shut up and stop peddling veiled threat, insults and accusations against unnamed party who can't defend themselves of your accusations. If you have beef with someone for something in particular then present your case. If not, stop peddling hate and insults by dressing strawmen and saying it looks a lot like "someone(s)" you see once in a while on the forum.

If want to make an argument against atheism, materialism, naturalism, secular humanist philosophy, skepticism or any other philosophical proposition advanced, defended and popularized by the New Atheist then do it and do it in your name with your own arguments instead of hiding behind that of others to shield yourself from

Well that did not help the cause.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

The OP sounds just like any other extremist manifesto.

Which one's on the list do you see have not been used on RF.

Regards Tony

 

[rational experiences]

The history reason to argue.

Natural humans family meek existed first.

Radical theist brothers design. Built civilization by slavery. Same for science buildings. Machines.

Reacted machine by maths calculus...
life mind body consciousness changed the teaching. Human life.

Life mind human body healing evolving is not a scientific thesis. Evolution of the human body change.

It was a heavenly state cooling gas mass water pressure changed returned water life spirit to ground state. Re oxygenation supply. Healthy cells could regrow repopulate and not die out.

Sin...sink holes removed evaporated gods stone water put it into atmosphere released a teaching. Water returned human body healing.

Was not a thesis maths beast genesis.

Science says see I proved maths and genesis. As a human living as a human first naturally.

First form a human. Second status I can think. Third status I am applying by choice maths. Ignored.

Yep you proved maths plus machine irradiation causes sacrificed genesis. DNA answer.

Reason spiritual....I am a whole bodied human I am not genesis. Genesis was a human statement about causes of change. Science commends itself. I have proven human maths science caused it.

By a God earth change.

As an ape didn't heal into a human. Heavens status.

The document human healing.

If the documents said an ape had sex as a humans parent then its parent self died.

Ape babies lived on.

Reasonable..mutated ape humans not scientific intelligent could not by human terms be the scientist. If a human says a human parent baby life was an apes sex act.

Whether it is real or not is of no consequence today. Realist.

Humans as first humans had sex. Had babies they also died. Life human baby a human is not by an ape parent.

Firstborn human babies invented human science. Mutated human life.

Reason apes today would still be our parents as the God. Apes would not be enabled to have ape babies.

When maths said ape mutated into a human life into an ape human they proved they did it. By a healthy human review. Maths user.

Human babies owned human parents as humans. Highest form human.

Humans aren't ape babies today are they!

Advice evidence. Apes having sex living in the same atmosphere as humans own ape babies.

Humans have human babies.

Science says maths means constant. Where is the biological held constant then?

If an ape had a human baby by human say so the adult human had sex as a human. Not as an ape.

Pretty basic science proof.

To add+. Theism. I am a human. I am only a human. My numbers don't own anything.

Then you build by subtracting earths mass. Then you react by formula subtracting earths mass.

Two subtractions. =.

Maths he said from mass.

Mass first.
Math second.

Numbers came from nowhere.

Power came from mass.

That power radiation mutated biology by maths. Maths proved it caused it.

Whole human life body is a whole human. First seen observed is not theoried as DNA. We are seen human as human.

If you said an apes DNA is mathematical close but not a Human.

I can say I looked at an ape...it is not a human. I don't need maths to tell me.

If science says I want you to believe a biological life form ape is closest to you and not God stone. Obvious human reasons for the advice.

We are not God no man is God told already.

The theme Ark Kra said baboon was changed. By mi nus sun. KK constant advice.

They changed C to be life's constant 100 years health. Just so old science reasons could no longer be used.

Religion was science based but it argued against maths science.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Not sure I agree with all the previous 12, but this aside the obvious 13th would be:

Rank historical illiteracy and a tendency to be mind-numbingly credulous towards anything negative about religion

That's to make the list even more laughable?