The new Athiest Humanities downfall?

[PureX]

Bollocks (as usual). He said "i cannot be certain" so get over yourself

No one can. It's a meaningless excuse. As evidenced by everything else he says.

 

[Colt]

Watch the video, he was not whining, and people are responsible for their own actions, to excuse them in this way is pathetic. Dictators tend to violate human rights, and atheism is not a requirement or a motivator obviously. I am an atheist, and I have harmed no one, nor would I. Totalitarianism is something I am opposed to, regardless of whether the dictator believes in deities or not, and there have been plenty of barbaric theistic dictators to prove the point.

If the Atheist dictator comes for you and yours then your morals are just an opinion between the two of you. There is no ultimate authority in the rouge state of Atheism.

 

[Colt]

I don't think he especially whines about it, but is more to show how people react to him, obviously this is no different than what other people will experience which have views that greatly differ from others. It was more because I think it is a rather fun video.

Atheists in power in the countries you refer to, I think you will find a difficult time to argue is motivated by atheism, rather than power or control itself. If atheism were the motivation, I would expect to see atheists in these countries having a way better time than those of religious beliefs, yet I think you will find it hard to show that it were in fact the case and that not everyone were treated poorly. Religions can be seen as a threat to a government and especially a dictator as it can motivate people against them. So most likely atheism is not what is important, but simply to get rid of any potential threat. Equally religion can be used to support a given position as it has also been seen throughout history.

An Atheist or Religionist can resort to self-willfulness and refuse the guidance of a moral conscience.

 

[Sheldon]

He lies about being agnostic when he presumes that if gods existed, he would/could find and recognize the evidence of it. He also lies when he presumes gods don't exist because he has found no such evidence. Both presumptions require that he have knowledge of the gods (what is and isn't god evidence), even as he caims to be agnostic.

Like myself he may be agnostic about concepts of a deity that are unfalsifiable, but also disbelieve them, and of course where god claims are falsifiable, and contradicted by evidence, he need not be agnostic. Why this has to be explained repeatedly is unclear.

 

[Sheldon]

When an immoral Atheist dictator comes for you explain to him that your morals are just your opinions and since God is jus

I have no idea what your point is here sorry? Dictators by their nature violate human rights, I fail to see what atheism has to do with that, since as I pointed out there are just as many examples of theistic dictators and regimes who are totalitarian.

If the Atheist dictator comes for you and yours then your morals are just an opinion between the two of you. There is no ultimate authority in the rouge state of Atheism.

All morals are subjective, and if I am unlucky enough to fall under the power of a dictator it wouldn't matter if they believed in a deity or not, obviously. Go and explain to the Taliban that they're destined for hell if they don't submit to your theistic belief, see how you get on.

 

[PureX]

Of course one CAN be agnostic and atheist. But not when one claims to know what evidence of god's existence is, and that the lack of it is the basis for their atheism.

 

[Colt]

I have no idea what your point is here sorry? Dictators by their nature violate human rights, I fail to see what atheism has to do with that, since as I pointed out there are just as many examples of theistic dictators and regimes who are totalitarian.



All morals are subjective, and if I am unlucky enough to fall under the power of a dictator it wouldn't matter if they believed in a deity or not, obviously. Go and explain to the Taliban that they're destined for hell if they don't submit to your theistic belief, see how you get on.

Atheist focus on the worst actors in religion and then cast that broad net. The good done by religion over the ages far outweighs its mistakes.

 

[Sheldon]

Of course one CAN be agnostic and atheist. But not when one claims to know what evidence of god's existence is, and that the lack of it is the basis for their atheism.

Of course you can, your agnosticism just need be specifically confined to unfalsifiable god claims or concepts. I just explained this?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Of course one CAN be agnostic and atheist. But not when one claims to know what evidence of god's existence is, and that the lack of it is the basis for their atheism.

It took me some time to learn that one, since I am by nurture a Westerner and thus have learned through my culture not to doubt science, evidence/truth, rationality and realism in effect for the belief in the real world.

 

[Sheldon]

Atheist focus on the worst actors in religion and then cast that broad net. The good done by religion over the ages far outweighs its mistakes.

You do love your sweeping generalisations, and I'm not sure the second part is true either. However the reason for my atheism has nothing to do with the fact that various religions have behaved, and do behave barbarically.

 

[Brian2]

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

It sounds like an extreme sort of fundamentalism.
Other atheists might not be "militant" but the ideas of the loud militants get around and inform the ideas of other atheists.
Let's hope they don't get too much political power,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,oops it's too late, I forgot that Communism rules much of the world.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Of course you can, your agnosticism just need be specifically confined to unfalsifiable god claims or concepts. I just explained this?

That the world is real is unfalsifiable. It doesn't only apply to god claims or concepts.

 

[ChristineM]

No one can. It's a meaningless excuse. As evidenced by everything else he says.

It is his own words, not the worda of an atheist but those of an agnostic. Sorry you don't like it but thats how things go. You want to call him a liar then provide evidence to back up your claim. Not hairy fairy hearsay and personal opinion

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Rather like this ;-)

View attachment 58662

As long as you understand the limitations of evidence and proof. I suspect that you sometimes don't do that.

 

[PureX]

Of course you can, your agnosticism just need be specifically confined to unfalsifiable god claims or concepts. I just explained this?

'Falsifiable' presumes one knows, or should know god well enough to do so. To demand it as a criteria is therefor a form of gnosticism. Not agnosticism. But you're just blindly auto-defending and will ignore anything I post, so I won't bother responding to it.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Of course you can, your agnosticism just need be specifically confined to unfalsifiable god claims or concepts. I just explained this?

ALL "God claims" are unfalsifiable.

 

[Sheldon]

It sounds like an extreme sort of fundamentalism.

Like ISIS, or the Taliban or the Westborough baptist churhc you mean? I have to say I find this kind of hyperbole both ridiculous and hilarious.

Other atheists might not be "militant" but the ideas of the loud militants get around and inform the ideas of other atheists.

Atheists have only one thing in common, a lack of belief in any deity or deities, so what are these ideas? I might want to be on the look out.

Let's hope they don't get too much political power,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,oops it's too late, I forgot that Communism rules much of the world.

I'm pretty sure it doesn't you know, and communism is an economic ideology that has nothing per se to do with atheism. I'm also certain that Professor Dawkins is not a communist. So you don't mind atheists as long as they are subjugated, and don't have any political influence. Personally I prefer to live in a free society, where everyone has the right to freedom of expression.

 

[Brian2]

Oh dear, Tony, you struggle with atheism don't you.

I've not got time now but ... New Atheism was a term given by theists to describe the likes of Harris, Hitchens, etc and is not a term used by Atheists.
There are no leaders of Atheism, just some who can best express our thoughts.

I'll come back with more when I have time.

It sounds like you are saying that all atheists, deep down, think the same as the list in the OP

 

[Colt]

That the world is real is unfalsifiable. It doesn't only apply to god claims or concepts.

True! To our minds reality is for the most part subjective.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

ALL "God claims" are unfalsifiable.

So is the claim that the world is real.