Why Arrogant "New Atheists" Annoy Me

[Thermos aquaticus]

Religions are of men.

That's fine and all, but what do theists mean when they say "atheists don't know enough about religion"? I would suspect that most atheists know much more about Christianity than most Christians know about Hinduism, yet I suspect that most Christians think they know enough to not believe in Vishnu.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'm no longer able to use the "funny" frubal in an ironic way, so let me just say, your post is positively bursting with logical fallacies. We can start with ad hominem. An argument should be assessed on its own merits, not on the merits of whoever made the argument. So even if your assessment of the new atheists was correct, it in no invalidates the arguments they've made.

What are you babbling about? I'm just saying that the "New Atheist" movement is pretty much dead and its "Four Horseman" aren't really respected anymore. No surprise that you'll rush to their defense, though.

 

[icehorse]

What are you babbling about? I'm just saying that the "New Atheist" movement is pretty much dead and its "Four Horseman" aren't really respected anymore. No surprise that you'll rush to their defense, though.

Followed by by more ad hominem attacks - you could give a class.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Followed by by more ad hominem attacks - you could give a class.

Do you have something of substance to say or should I just go ahead and click ignore? It's not like I've ever given a squat about your opinion as it is.

 

[icehorse]

Do you have something of substance to say or should I just go ahead and click ignore? It's not like I've ever given a squat about your opinion as it is.

We're all volunteers in a debate forum. You chose to make some claims that IMO were filled with fallacies. If you're here to debate, then good form would be for you to restate your claims without relying on fallacy arguments. As it stands, all you've done is bloviate. So, maybe you've got claims worth debating, you simply haven't made any yet...

 

[stvdv]

because falsely believing oneself to be smarter than one actually is can lead to a lessened desire for learning new things

You put this very mildly.
Believing oneself smarter = arrogance
When it is on matters of spirituality
This is called spiritual arrogance/ego
In India the scriptures declare "Spiritual Ego is the biggest obstacle on the spiritual path"

 

[icehorse]

You put this very mildly.
Believing oneself smarter = arrogance
When it is on matters of spirituality
This is called spiritual arrogance/ego
In India the scriptures declare "Spiritual Ego is the biggest obstacle on the spiritual path"

To value critical thinking doesn't you think you're smarter, it just means you're willing to stand on the shoulders of the smart people that came before you and developed critical thinking.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This may be a surprising thread coming from myself, an agnostic, who probably fits many definitions of "atheist." However, I'd like to address my opinion of many individuals in the atheist community, particularly young people who have left the church and been influenced by the New Atheist movement. The arrogance of many of them is laughable. Many of them seem to think that because they have read "The God Delusion" or some such book, that they are now somehow enlightened and intellectually superior to the rest of the population who are not atheists. This is certainly not true, and it is somewhat laughable and somewhat disconcerting, because falsely believing oneself to be smarter than one actually is can lead to a lessened desire for learning new things. Many of these young "new atheist" types are deluding themselves into the belief that they are thinking for themselves, when in actuality, they are simply letting popular atheists like Dawkins, Harris et. al. do their thinking for them.

There are many theistic intellectuals that I can guarantee were much more intelligent than any of the know-it-all atheist keyboard warriors of today. For instance, Rene Descartes, Blaise Pascal, and Isaac Newton were all brilliant mathematicians (definitely some of the smartest people in all of recorded history) and also devout Christian believers. The point of my post is to simply offer my opinion on many of the atheists, particularly young atheists, that are found so abundantly on the Internet today and seem to love looking down their noses at others whose beliefs differ from theirs. The fact is, you're not as smart as you think you are, so don't forget to listen to the thoughts of others, and keep an open mind.

If you think Dawkins and Harris are bad, I wonder what you think of people like Russell and Ingersoll.

 

[Revoltingest]

An irrelevant but amusing diversion....

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

We're all volunteers in a debate forum. You chose to make some claims that IMO were filled with fallacies. If you're here to debate, then good form would be for you to restate your claims without relying on fallacy arguments. As it stands, all you've done is bloviate. So, maybe you've got claims worth debating, you simply haven't made any yet...

I was simply making observations and you're throwing a childish tantrum (seems I hit a nerve and you're all defensive). I haven't made an argument so what is it you so desperately wish to debate with me about?

 

[Glaurung]

Out of curiosity, exactly what do you expect us atheists to know about religion in order to have an opinion on it?

In order to have an opinion, you don't need to know much at all.

But if you're going to present yourself as a brave intellectual crushing the delusions of the less enlightened with cold reason and hard fact, then you better make sure your own views are more than convenient anti-religious talking points.

 

[Augustus]

Out of curiosity, exactly what do you expect us atheists to know about religion in order to have an opinion on it?

We can have an opinion from pure ignorance if it tickles our fancy. That doesn't mean it deserves respect though.

 

[Augustus]

Followed by by more ad hominem attacks - you could give a class.

You could attend

They weren't really ad hom as he was posting 'why they are not widely respected', not 'New Atheism is false'.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

My biggest issue with the new atheists is the high level of philosophical illiteracy among them. They often don't understand the problems a philosopher might have with their underpinning everything they accept with pretty much nothing. They also don't tend to appreciate how serious things like meaning actually are.

 

[Mock Turtle]

My biggest issue with the new atheists is the high level of philosophical illiteracy among them. They often don't understand the problems a philosopher might have with their underpinning everything they accept with pretty much nothing. They also don't tend to appreciate how serious things like meaning actually are.

Only because many of the religious tend to imbue things with such seriousness. Protection mechanism much?

 

[Mock Turtle]

You put this very mildly.
Believing oneself smarter = arrogance
When it is on matters of spirituality
This is called spiritual arrogance/ego
In India the scriptures declare "Spiritual Ego is the biggest obstacle on the spiritual path"

Believing oneself more spiritual than others can be just as arrogant - and pathetic. My belief is better than yours - na na na na nah!

 

[Glaurung]

Only because many of the religious tend to imbue things with such seriousness. Protection mechanism much?

You're proving his point.

 

[Mock Turtle]

You're proving his point.

Really? Like to explain why one belief system has any more rights over another? Or deserves more respect?

 

[Glaurung]

Really? Like to explain why one belief system has any more rights over another? Or deserves more respect?

Buddha Dharma states his view that new atheists are by in large philosophically illiterate. Your response to this charge is to point out your opposition to 'religious people'.

All you demonstrate is that the new atheist worldview isn't built on serious thought. It's built on a dislike for religion and an inflated sense of one's own rationality. If you think that's worth respect as a serious worldview then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Jumi]

Everyone's in their trenches and battle lines are drawn. In battle everything is trivialized. People in between, they're pushed into neat boxes so they can be trivialized as well... as being part of either fighting side.