New Atheism’s Fatal Arrogance

[JakeStarkey]

Says Ms. Befuddlement.

 

[usfan]

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.

I think you could word this better: 'Conflict between humans & their different ideologies'... should be how your sentence starts.

 

[Hollie]

Says Ms. Befuddlement.

I learned a long time ago that religious zealots are best confronted with sound arguments.

As we saw from my earlier comments, the fundies are helplessly overwhelmed by facts and so they're left to respond with pointless piffle.

 

[JakeStarkey]

But you, Hollie, have no sound arguments.

Your arguments for no God have always been destroyed.

Your dislike of religion does not matter.

You run in circles. All you do is assert, then stand back as if you have made "goal" when in fact you are the only one on the field.

 

[Hollie]

But you, Hollie, have no sound arguments.

Your arguments for no God have always been destroyed.

Your dislike of religion does not matter.

You run in circles. All you do is assert, then stand back as if you have made "goal" when in fact you are the only one on the field.

Your whining is a poor sidestep and deflection on your part for the arguments I've put forth which you failed to address. Your pointless spam was meant to cover a hasty retreat on your part.

 

[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 ?

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.

Really ? Are they the ones polluting our world too ?
We really need athiests to stand up and take responsibility for what they do so we can keep score.

 

[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.

Really ? Are they the ones polluting our world too ?
We really need athiests to stand up and take responsibility for what they do so we can keep score.

On the other hand, why be concerned? Won't the gawds provide?

 

[dilloduck]

Good point. They can certainly at least do as well as man has.

 

[Hollie]

Good point. They can certainly at least do as well as man has.

That's possible. The gawds should unionize to maximize their effectiveness.

 

[dilloduck]

Why ? Unions are for pussies.

 

[G.T.]

So are dildos.

 

[Agit8r]

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?

Obviously the effects are the most disagreeable part of religion. Were it not for the anti-social tendencies, the hypocritical greed, the desire to subvert democracy--that most act as if it is a get-out-of-jail-free-card for all their misdeeds, for which they owe no accountability except to their imaginary friend, I might agree.

And that isn't even to mention the overt acts of terroristic zealotry.