New Atheism’s Fatal Arrogance

[G.T.]

Agnostics do generally think better than the atheists, but you are not the poster child for that, though.

you don't know who the hell I am dork

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are a dork, similar to Where R My Keys, who also thinks he is an authority

 

[G.T.]

You are a dork, similar to Where R My Keys, who also thinks he is an authority

seems like it is you in the mirror who thinks they are an authority bub

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are a dork, similar to Where R My Keys, who also thinks he is an authority

seems like it is you in the mirror who thinks they are an authority bub

Why? Because I countered your opinion with mine?

 

[G.T.]

You are a dork, similar to Where R My Keys, who also thinks he is an authority

seems like it is you in the mirror who thinks they are an authority bub

Why? Because I countered your opinion with mine?

Umm.....ditto hello?

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are a dork, similar to Where R My Keys, who also thinks he is an authority

seems like it is you in the mirror who thinks they are an authority bub

Why? Because I countered your opinion with mine?

Umm.....ditto hello?

Hello?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Conflict between theists and those free from faith is inevitable and unavoidable, the consequence of there being no common ground upon which to build trust and consensus. Each will always hold the other suspect, each will always harbor contempt for the other, and each will always perceive the other in a nefarious and menacing context.

 

[Disir]

New Atheism’s Fatal Arrogance: The Glaring Intellectual Laziness of Bill Maher & Richard Dawkins

For all their eloquence, New Atheists show little interest in understanding how believers really think or feel.

....

But there’s something missing in their critiques, something fundamental. For all their eloquence, their arguments are often banal. Regrettably, they’ve shown little interest in understanding the religious compulsion. They talk incessantly about the untruth of religion because they assume truth is what matters most to religious people. And perhaps it does for many, but certainly not all – at least not in the conventional sense of that term. Religious convictions, in many cases, are held not because they’re true but because they’re meaningful, because they’re personally transformative. New Atheists are blind to this brand of belief.

It’s perfectly rational to reject faith as a matter of principle. Many people (myself included) find no practical advantage in believing things without evidence. But what about those who do? If a belief is held because of its effects, not its truth content, why should its falsity matter to the believer? Of course, most religious people consider their beliefs true in some sense, but that’s to be expected: the consolation derived from a belief is greater if its illusory origins are concealed. The point is that such beliefs aren’t held because they’re true as such; they’re accepted on faith because they’re meaningful.


For me, the "falsity" does matter but I liken it to homosexuality.

I don't understand a sexual attraction to one of the same sex. I simply accept that it exists and that others have every right to their own sexuality.

Same with a belief in a god. I don't understand it. Even though I think its a strange delusion, all I can do is accept that some people do believe.

I also don't understand why that belief is "meaningful" or what the benefit of it is. I do accept that, for some, it is and, apparently, there are people who do benefit from it.

And what about the other side of this coin?

Exchange the positions of atheism and belief and the op/ed is just as true.

Is it possible for either side to 'understanding how the other really thinks or feels'? Is it important? Do you even want to understand how others feel and think?

Thoughts?

What is intellectually lazy is the author of the piece talking about what a meanie Dawkins is.

Has the religious right stopped trying to insert creationism into science text books?

Are we not still fighting some wing nut theory that religion is necessary for morality and therefore, must be pushed down onto the public?

Is David Barton still lying about American history AND using it to con people?

Are there no more jihadists?

Dawkins was Anglican. Mahar is agnostic.

Some people need to believe that there is meaning to their life. They need to believe that whatever they have to put up with now wins them a prize when it's over. Some need to believe that the people that they have lost will be there when they pass on. They need someway to face the day. They need to find some type of guidance occasionally and they need to let go when they can't find an answer.

What is to understand?

 

[Disir]

And here's the whole first part of the above:

 

[dilloduck]

Conflict between theists and those free from faith is inevitable and unavoidable, the consequence of there being no common ground upon which to build trust and consensus. Each will always hold the other suspect, each will always harbor contempt for the other, and each will always perceive the other in a nefarious and menacing context.

Just like liberals and conservatives.

 

[Disir]

Conflict between theists and those free from faith is inevitable and unavoidable, the consequence of there being no common ground upon which to build trust and consensus. Each will always hold the other suspect, each will always harbor contempt for the other, and each will always perceive the other in a nefarious and menacing context.

Just like liberals and conservatives.

That's a recent development.

 

[dilloduck]

ok--don't like that question ? How about telling us exactly when it was finished serving it's purpose and what is it hindering now ?

It stopped serving its purpose once humanity became smart and advanced enough to think past the questions it temporarily and usually incorrectly sought to answer.

Yet humans still are generating theories by the dozens and swearing by them and cramming them down other peoples throats until they learn that they are wrong----again.

 

[G.T.]

ok--don't like that question ? How about telling us exactly when it was finished serving it's purpose and what is it hindering now ?

It stopped serving its purpose once humanity became smart and advanced enough to think past the questions it temporarily and usually incorrectly sought to answer.

Yet humans still are generating theories by the dozens and swearing by them and cramming them down other peoples throats until they learn that they are wrong----again.

2 wrongs =/= a right.

Circa my gram.

 

[dilloduck]

What is that athiests think humans should be progressing towards ?

 

[Disir]

I was kind of hoping for a more just world and treating humans with dignity. But, currently............the use of turn signals would be acceptable.

 

[Hollie]

Nope, we are what we are, and all the gadgets don't change our basic nature.

It's the very fact that you religious zealots see the world in such black and white comparisons that makes you very poor candidates for critique of a phenomenon such as the internet, which along with gadgets such the personal computer changed people's perceptions of the world.. Why is it when religious zealots cannot understand the vastness and diversity of the range of philosophies present in the world, that they believe in an entitlement to block any avenue for expressions of those philosophies?

It took Jeebus how long to "unite" the world with a doctrine that splintered into hundreds of subgroups? 1500-2000 years (still not there yet)? How long has it taken the internet to make communication between people fast and cheap and easy? 10 years?

And what happens when people communicate and learn about one another and their fears and tribalisms are diminished? They treat one another with respect. They live peacefully together, like the experiment of pluralism the USA has proven. Does it happen in an instant? Is it perfect? No, but it does happen and it happens with the gadgets of technology and science.

 

[dilloduck]

Nope, we are what we are, and all the gadgets don't change our basic nature.

It's the very fact that you religious zealots see the world in such black and white comparisons that makes you very poor candidates for critique of a phenomenon such as the internet, which along with gadgets such the personal computer changed people's perceptions of the world.. Why is it when religious zealots cannot understand the vastness and diversity of the range of philosophies present in the world, that they believe in an entitlement to block any avenue for expressions of those philosophies?

It took Jeebus how long to "unite" the world with a doctrine that splintered into hundreds of subgroups? 1500-2000 years (still not there yet)? How long has it taken the internet to make communication between people fast and cheap and easy? 10 years?

And what happens when people communicate and learn about one another and their fears and tribalisms are diminished? They treat one another with respect. They live peacefully together, like the experiment of pluralism the USA has proven. Does it happen in an instant? Is it perfect? No, but it does happen and it happens with the gadgets of technology and science.

People are no better than they ever have been. Doesn't your internet show beheadings ?

 

[Hollie]

Nope, we are what we are, and all the gadgets don't change our basic nature.

It's the very fact that you religious zealots see the world in such black and white comparisons that makes you very poor candidates for critique of a phenomenon such as the internet, which along with gadgets such the personal computer changed people's perceptions of the world.. Why is it when religious zealots cannot understand the vastness and diversity of the range of philosophies present in the world, that they believe in an entitlement to block any avenue for expressions of those philosophies?

It took Jeebus how long to "unite" the world with a doctrine that splintered into hundreds of subgroups? 1500-2000 years (still not there yet)? How long has it taken the internet to make communication between people fast and cheap and easy? 10 years?

And what happens when people communicate and learn about one another and their fears and tribalisms are diminished? They treat one another with respect. They live peacefully together, like the experiment of pluralism the USA has proven. Does it happen in an instant? Is it perfect? No, but it does happen and it happens with the gadgets of technology and science.

People are no better than they ever have been. Doesn't your internet show beheadings ?

It does.

Let's remember that it is a violent and retrograde religious ideology that has never been able to drag itself out of its violent and retrograde past that is doing the beheadings. If you look around the world today, it is the religious entities that are causing the greatest damage to humanity.

 

[JakeStarkey]

As she ignores the great atheist nation states that slaughtered tens of millions. The fundy atheists are the flip side of the fund theists.

Hollie and Where R My Keys are the same kind of people.

 

[Hollie]

As she ignores the great atheist nation states that slaughtered tens of millions. The fundy atheists are the flip side of the fund theists.

Hollie and Where R My Keys are the same kind of people.

I'm not surprised you're too befuddled to offer anything more than your usual slogans and cliches'.