New atheism

[Cypress]

The term New Atheism describes the positions of some atheist academics, writers, scientists, and philosophers of the 20th and 21st centuries. New Atheism advocates the view that superstition, religion, and irrationalism should not simply be tolerated. Instead, they advocate the antitheist view that the various forms of theism should be criticised, countered, examined, and challenged by rational argument, especially when they exert strong influence on the broader society, such as in government, education, and politics.

Major figures of New Atheism include Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett, collectively referred to as the "Four Horsemen" of the movement, as well as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, until her conversion to Christianity in 2023.

New Atheism - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Hume]

Hitchens and Dennett are dead. Just thought you'd like to know.

 

[Cypress]

Peter William Atkins is an English chemist and a Fellow of Lincoln College at the University of Oxford. Atkins is a well-known atheist. He has written and spoken on issues of humanism, atheism, and conflicts between science and religion.


Quotes by Peter Atkins

[Religious belief is] outmoded and ridiculous. [Belief in gods was a] worn out but once useful crutch in mankind's journey towards truth. We consider the time has come for that crutch to be abandoned.

I regard teaching religion as purveying lies.

[Religion is] a fantasy [and is] completely empty of any explanatory content. It is also evil.

My aim is to argue that the universe can come into existence without intervention, and that there is no need to invoke the idea of a Supreme Being in one of its numerous manifestations.


https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/7164718.Peter_Atkins#:~:text=[Religious belief is] outmoded and,in mankind's journey towards truth.

 

[Hume]

You don't like atheists. Fascinating.

 

[Hume]

the universe can come into existence without intervention, and that there is no need to invoke the idea of a Supreme Being in one of its numerous manifestations.

Or, the universe always existed and never came into existence.

 

[Cypress]

Or, the universe always existed and never came into existence.

If we define the universe as the collection of stars and galaxies we observe, it had an origin 13.7 billion years ago.

Any speculations about what happened before the initial conditions of cosmic inflation, or the possibility of an eternal multiverse is sheer speculation

 

[Hume]

If we define the universe as the collection of stars and galaxies we observe, it had an origin 13.7 billion years ago.

Any speculations about what happened before the initial conditions of cosmic inflation, or the possibility of an eternal multiverse is sheer speculation

And the big bang used to be sheer speculation. How science works.

 

[Cypress]

And the big bang used to be sheer speculation. How science works.

None of us are positioned to claim what science may or may not discover in 200 years.

 

[Hume]

None of us are positioned to claim what science may or may not discover in 200 years.

ok

 

[Cypress]

I think the New Atheists are right that blind faith should be questioned, and religious orthodoxy challenged.

On the other hand, I don't think the New Atheists are educated and trained in theories of human knowledge. They seem to have almost no awareness of epistomology, and seem to believe a radical positivist reliance on empiricism is the only source of all knowledge and truth.

They don't seem to have actually read any of the primary sacred texts of the major world religions, outside of a passing and cursory familiarity with the Christian bible.

There also don't seem to be any physicists among the New Atheists. Dawkins training in biology is vested in emergent properties of nature. He doesn't have the training and background in the fundamental nature of reality that physicists have

 

[Hume]

I think the New Atheists are right that blind faith should be questioned, and religious orthodoxy challenged.

On the other hand, I don't think the New Atheists are educated and trained in theories of human knowledge. They seem to have almost no awareness of epistomology, and seem to believe a radical positivist reliance on empiricism is the only source of all knowledge and truth.

They don't seem to have actually read any of the primary sacred texts of the major world religions, outside of a passing and cursory familiarity with the Christian bible.

There also don't seem to be any physicists among the New Atheists. Dawkins training in biology is vested in emergent properties of nature. He doesn't have the training and background in the fundamental nature of reality that physicists have

Why are you debating people who are not on this forum?

 

[ZenMode]

The term New Atheism describes the positions of some atheist academics, writers, scientists, and philosophers of the 20th and 21st centuries. New Atheism advocates the view that superstition, religion, and irrationalism should not simply be tolerated. Instead, they advocate the antitheist view that the various forms of theism should be criticised, countered, examined, and challenged by rational argument, especially when they exert strong influence on the broader society, such as in government, education, and politics.

Major figures of New Atheism include Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett, collectively referred to as the "Four Horsemen" of the movement, as well as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, until her conversion to Christianity in 2023.

New Atheism - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Sure. Why not. The largest religions in the US all actively try to convert people. "When in Rome.....", right?

 

[Cypress]

Sure. Why not. The largest religions in the US all actively try to convert people. "When in Rome.....", right?

Questioning religious orthodoxy is healthy, and goes back to Martin Luther King, and earlier. You wouldn't have Quakers, Unitarians, let alone atheists, if people didn't question religious orthodoxy.

I don't think there is much to be gained in the grand scheme of things by calling religion evil, and believers idiots. Which is where the New Atheists tend to go.

 

[Hume]

Questioning religious orthodoxy is healthy, and goes back to Martin Luther King, and earlier.

I don't think there is much to be gained in the grand of things by calling religion evil, and believers idiots. Which is where the New Atheists tend to go.

Maybe believers are not idiots. But they are not smart.

 

[Cypress]

Maybe believers are not idiots. But they are not smart.

I saw a debate yesterday between professors Peter Atkins and John Lennox of Oxford University, and Atkins was openly calling professor Lennox senile and delusional for having religious faith.

That's basically the same tactic some Bible thumpers use when they harangue people for not being Christian. Neither tactic are effective.

 

[Hume]

I saw a debate yesterday between professors Peter Atkins and John Lennox of Oxford University, and Atkins was openly calling professor Lennox senile and delusional for having religious faith.

That's basically the same tactic some Bible thumpers use when they harangue people for not being Christian.

I don't know who they are. Maybe go to the forum you saw the debate on and talk to those people.

 

[goat]

Sure. Why not. The largest religions in the US all actively try to convert people. "When in Rome.....", right?

GWB and Obama signed faith-based initiative into law which gives grants to churches making them government contractors that take care of the poor and homeless. It sounds good in theory but human nature tells us a lot of that money gets pocketed (stolen) by those high up in the church.

Most of those churches were about to close their doors for financial reasons, so faith-based initiative is another federal bailout of our failed culture.

 

[Hume]

our failed culture.

Are you one of those desperate people who hate the world?

 

[ZenMode]

Questioning religious orthodoxy is healthy, and goes back to Martin Luther King, and earlier. You wouldn't have Quakers, Unitarians, let alone atheists, if people didn't question religious orthodoxy.

I don't think there is much to be gained in the grand scheme of things by calling religion evil, and believers idiots. Which is where the New Atheists tend to go.

There's a fine line between pointing out that a grown adult believes fairy tale stories and calling them an idiot or other insulting names.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Peter William Atkins is an English chemist and a Fellow of Lincoln College at the University of Oxford. Atkins is a well-known atheist. He has written and spoken on issues of humanism, atheism, and conflicts between science and religion.


Quotes by Peter Atkins

[Religious belief is] outmoded and ridiculous. [Belief in gods was a] worn out but once useful crutch in mankind's journey towards truth. We consider the time has come for that crutch to be abandoned.

I regard teaching religion as purveying lies.

[Religion is] a fantasy [and is] completely empty of any explanatory content. It is also evil.

My aim is to argue that the universe can come into existence without intervention, and that there is no need to invoke the idea of a Supreme Being in one of its numerous manifestations.


https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/7164718.Peter_Atkins#:~:text=[Religious belief is] outmoded and,in mankind's journey towards truth.

Peter William Atkins sounds like a jerk to me.

He seems to be saying that his belief (guess, opinion, estimation, supposition) is that there are no gods...and that his belief (guess, opinion, estimation, supposition) is somehow "better" than the beliefs (guesses, opinions, estimations, suppositions) of theists.

He also seems to be suggesting that since the universe CAN come into existence without intervention (I also suspect it CAN)...there is no need to invoke the idea of a Supreme Being in one of its numerous manifestations.

Okay...let's grant him that.

BUT what if the universe was the creation of...something?

It can come into existence without intervention, but maybe it did anyway.

Just because it can come into existence without intervention is not a logical reason to say that it didn't.

Anyway...Atkins seems like a jerk to me.