Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Life, The Universe & Everything → Philosophy → The poverty of the new atheism by Scott Stephens

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

Gaza assault
by zeca
November 27, 2024, 07:13 PM
What music are you listen...
by zeca
November 24, 2024, 06:05 PM
Lights on the way
by akay
November 22, 2024, 02:51 PM
Do humans have needed kno...
November 22, 2024, 06:45 AM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
November 21, 2024, 05:07 PM
New Britain
November 20, 2024, 05:41 PM
اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
November 20, 2024, 09:02 AM
Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
November 19, 2024, 11:36 PM
Dutch elections
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 10:11 PM
Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 08:46 PM
AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
November 07, 2024, 09:56 AM
The origins of Judaism
by zeca
November 02, 2024, 12:56 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: The poverty of the new atheism by Scott Stephens

 (Read 17133 times)
  • Previous page 1 23 4 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: The poverty of the new atheism by Scott Stephens
     Reply #30 - August 31, 2011, 11:14 PM

    I haven't.



    "we can smell traitors and country haters"


    Quote from: arX on May 01, 2011, 03:33 AM
    God is Love.
    Love is Blind. Stevie Wonder is blind. Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.

  • Re: The poverty of the new atheism by Scott Stephens
     Reply #31 - August 31, 2011, 11:26 PM
    Quote from: billy on August 31, 2011, 10:49 PM
    OK, atheists without humility are bad.

    Requisite amount and categorisation of humility to be decided by believers, or else bad atheists.




    "The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusions about their condition is a demand to give up a condition that requires illusion. The criticism of religion is therefore the germ of the criticism of the valley of tears whose halo is religion."
    "A belief in hell and the knowledge that every ambition is doomed to frustration at the hands of a skeleton have never prevented the majority of human beings from behaving as though death were no more than an unfounded rumour."
    Aldous Huxley
  • Re: The poverty of the new atheism by Scott Stephens
     Reply #32 - August 31, 2011, 11:27 PM
    Quote from: billy on August 31, 2011, 11:14 PM
    I haven't.







    "The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusions about their condition is a demand to give up a condition that requires illusion. The criticism of religion is therefore the germ of the criticism of the valley of tears whose halo is religion."

    "A belief in hell and the knowledge that every ambition is doomed to frustration at the hands of a skeleton have never prevented the majority of human beings from behaving as though death were no more than an unfounded rumour."
    Aldous Huxley
  • Re: The poverty of the new atheism by Scott Stephens
     Reply #33 - August 31, 2011, 11:32 PM

    If you decry the 'arrogance' of the 'new atheists' and say that the certitude of their expression is their flaw, positing that a supposed rejection of myths and so on and so forth is a hallmark of that, then a lack of humility regarding their assertions and disregard of *insert object of arrogance that is dismissed here* is what is a flaw of their outlook and expression.

    How can you miss your own mark so badly?

    "we can smell traitors and country haters"


    Quote from: arX on May 01, 2011, 03:33 AM
    God is Love.
    Love is Blind. Stevie Wonder is blind. Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.

  • Re: The poverty of the new atheism by Scott Stephens
     Reply #34 - September 01, 2011, 12:05 AM
    Quote from: billy on August 31, 2011, 11:32 PM
    If you decry the 'arrogance' of the 'new atheists' and say that the certitude of their expression is their flaw, positing that a supposed rejection of myths and so on and so forth is a hallmark of that, then a lack of humility regarding their assertions and disregard of *insert object of arrogance that is dismissed here* is what is a flaw of their outlook and expression.

    How can you miss your own mark so badly?


    +1  dance

  • Re: The poverty of the new atheism by Scott Stephens
     Reply #35 - September 01, 2011, 12:31 AM
    Meh, I can't stand those atheists who are militaristic, really annoy me, they should stop acting like such a teenage rebel kind of people.

    You realise there exists no god....:/ then why bother wasting more of your life on him? When there's so many other things to do in life, learn about etc.

    But I'm glad some do exist, to shake up the mentality of those still stuck in religion.
    "Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom." - Viktor E. Frankl

    'Life is just the extreme expression of complex chemistry' - Neil deGrasse Tyson
  • Re: The poverty of the new atheism by Scott Stephens
     Reply #36 - September 01, 2011, 08:32 AM
    Quote from: Lucem Ferre on August 31, 2011, 10:03 PM
    thing is modernism stems from its conversation with post-modernism and modernism facilitated post modernism - weird
    its because the modernist of the past where able to engage with the idea of there being no objective truth, where they where able to come up with a stable systems of objectivity but new atheist simply cant comprehend the idea. They are like the average theist who just cant conceive of there being no god whereas the theist (theologians)of the past (who even atheists respect for there intellectual prowess) could engage with such an argument, they could start of with the position that there is no god and come to a conclusion that there is.The new atheist personify capitalist consumerism where they consume a idea that is being fed to them. Ex-muslim are in a vulnerable position in their vulnerability they have eaten up new atheism and simply cannot comprehend the idea of there being no objective truth. Whats concerning is that the very tool (dialectics) of reason that old atheist and modernist used has degraded to the point of going extinct and this leaves us in a terrible position. I presented a a post-modern argument in my other thread taking into account the use of language, the new atheists just couldn't understand the argument. Its like they have 2d vision, they seem to view religion as something 2d as well as you might have noticed from the responses in this thread , taking the piss out of religion or simply bashing it .


     eusa_boohoo
    Formerly known as Iblis
  • Re: The poverty of the new atheism by Scott Stephens
     Reply #37 - September 01, 2011, 10:01 AM
    Quote from: stardust on September 01, 2011, 12:31 AM
    Meh, I can't stand those atheists who are militaristic, really annoy me, they should stop acting like such a teenage rebel kind of people.


    I watched this vid the other day it's a discussion between the most vocal proponents of 'new atheism'. They actually discuss many of the criticisms aimed at them by post-modernist philosophers like Lucem Ferre.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DKhc1pcDFM
    An alternative to religion;

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2nfXfTg92E

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWNW-NXEudk
  • Re: The poverty of the new atheism by Scott Stephens
     Reply #38 - September 01, 2011, 11:21 AM
    I respect Dawkins and Dennett, they're experts and know what they're talking about. Harris and Hitchens, however, are charlatans, yet they're the ones with the more extreme, bigoted views.
  • Re: The poverty of the new atheism by Scott Stephens
     Reply #39 - September 01, 2011, 01:11 PM
    I like Dawkins but tbh he knows next to noting about the subject he is going against. He is an awesome biologist though.

    I don't like hitchens . I like his debates in which he rips the oppenet but most of the time his responses are not intellectual he is more of a showman with week arguments. Still don't hate the guy though <3

    Sam Harris has been growing on me lately . Some times he goes to far specially with Islam but I like him more then Dawkins and hitchens when talking about religion.

    Dennet seems like a cool guy I haven't heard much of him. I am reading his book "breaking the spell" I'll get back to you when I am done Smiley.



    Lost somewhere between immensity and eternity is our tiny planetary home. [carl sagan]
  • Re: The poverty of the new atheism by Scott Stephens
     Reply #40 - September 01, 2011, 01:13 PM
    Personally speaking I like people like Dan barker and ac grayling more then new atheists ;p



    Lost somewhere between immensity and eternity is our tiny planetary home. [carl sagan]
  • Re: The poverty of the new atheism by Scott Stephens
     Reply #41 - September 01, 2011, 01:41 PM
    The thing I like about Dawkins is that as much as he loves hating on religion, he's a secularist, not an anti-theist. He openly stated that as a liberal he cannot support the niqab ban. He can be condescending towards religious fundamentalists, but he's very charming, and frankly I think we can all agree they deserve someone who attacks with equal zeal. And The God Delusion is one of the best books I've ever read. I thought it would be yet another anti-religious tirade, but it was so much more. Very educational and written with great style and simplicity. He's an awesome writer and is very passionate in what he does, you can even absorb some of the energy yourself when listening to him or reading his work.

    Dan Dennett is a great philosopher. He knows his shit, and I don't think spends as much time attacking religious people endlessly as the other three.

    Hitchens is a thinly veiled xenophobe. He's one of those people who use criticism of Islam to conceal his right-wing bigotry. He and Ayaan Hirsi Ali should get married.

    Sam Harris is an idiot. Letter to a Christian Nation is probably the worst anti-religious tirade imaginable. He was pretty much talking to himself, because even I didn't buy his shit. And his talk of objective morality through science just reeks of turning science into a religion.
  • Re: The poverty of the new atheism by Scott Stephens
     Reply #42 - September 01, 2011, 01:56 PM
    Quote from: billy on August 31, 2011, 11:32 PM
    If you decry the 'arrogance' of the 'new atheists' and say that the certitude of their expression is their flaw, positing that a supposed rejection of myths and so on and so forth is a hallmark of that, then a lack of humility regarding their assertions and disregard of *insert object of arrogance that is dismissed here* is what is a flaw of their outlook and expression.

    How can you miss your own mark so badly?




    lol way to miss the mark again. Are you fucking retarded, this has nothing to do with expression or how you orate a issue (although it plays a part)
    this is about missing part of the formula or missing half of the equation. New atheists have no idea what they are talking about and are ill equipped  
    "A belief in hell and the knowledge that every ambition is doomed to frustration at the hands of a skeleton have never prevented the majority of human beings from behaving as though death were no more than an unfounded rumour."
    Aldous Huxley
  • Re: The poverty of the new atheism by Scott Stephens
     Reply #43 - September 01, 2011, 01:58 PM
    Quote
    Are you fucking retarded


    Yes! You win the argument by asking this question  Wink
    "we can smell traitors and country haters"


    Quote from: arX on May 01, 2011, 03:33 AM
    God is Love.
    Love is Blind. Stevie Wonder is blind. Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.

  • Re: The poverty of the new atheism by Scott Stephens
     Reply #44 - September 01, 2011, 02:03 PM
    Quote from: Skeptic on September 01, 2011, 01:11 PM
    I like Dawkins but tbh he knows next to noting about the subject he is going against. He is an awesome biologist though.

    I don't like hitchens . I like his debates in which he rips the oppenet but most of the time his responses are not intellectual he is more of a showman with week arguments. Still don't hate the guy though <3

    Sam Harris has been growing on me lately . Some times he goes to far specially with Islam but I like him more then Dawkins and hitchens when talking about religion.

    Dennet seems like a cool guy I haven't heard much of him. I am reading his book "breaking the spell" I'll get back to you when I am done Smiley.



    if i was to put your account and Abood account together it would seem that all four are fucking morons
    when four morons are paraded as the poster figures of atheism then its not only misrepresentation but a downright lie.
    its harmful to atheism. also you HAVE to consider capitalism, the whole point of atheism is to get rid of the Myths. Not to leave one and fall for another myth (which obviously wont be apparent to you in the same sense as the old one as the mechanisms of myths and how they fix upon us have evolved, also the myths themselves are no longer linear tales with plots). this 4 horsemen evangelical atheism is just a show.  

    it wouldn't be so bad if they made a comedy out of it instead they stand they and PREACH. morons preaching is more dangerous then a pious and well learned Christin  preaching

    dennet isn't so bad (i read his stuff that is not about riligoen) - for a man of his intellect i would expect something different i guess money/greed corrupts
    "A belief in hell and the knowledge that every ambition is doomed to frustration at the hands of a skeleton have never prevented the majority of human beings from behaving as though death were no more than an unfounded rumour."
    Aldous Huxley
  • Re: The poverty of the new atheism by Scott Stephens
     Reply #45 - September 01, 2011, 02:20 PM
    Quote from: Abood on September 01, 2011, 01:41 PM
    And his talk of objective morality through science just reeks of turning science into a religion.


    Have you read his book explaining his views regarding morality? (I haven't, i'm just curious)

    I'm currently listening to a debate between him and WLC and his position seem to come down to defining morality as the maximization of human well-being, and that science can help us to answer questions regarding human well being (through neurology, psychology, biology, etc).
    An alternative to religion;

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2nfXfTg92E

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWNW-NXEudk
  • Re: The poverty of the new atheism by Scott Stephens
     Reply #46 - September 01, 2011, 02:20 PM
    Quote from: billy on September 01, 2011, 01:58 PM
    Yes! You win the argument by asking this question  Wink


    i guess the vices of the new atheists is affecting me
    "A belief in hell and the knowledge that every ambition is doomed to frustration at the hands of a skeleton have never prevented the majority of human beings from behaving as though death were no more than an unfounded rumour."
    Aldous Huxley
  • Re: The poverty of the new atheism by Scott Stephens
     Reply #47 - September 01, 2011, 02:23 PM

    They're just your own petty failures projected onto others  Afro
    "we can smell traitors and country haters"


    Quote from: arX on May 01, 2011, 03:33 AM
    God is Love.
    Love is Blind. Stevie Wonder is blind. Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.

  • Re: The poverty of the new atheism by Scott Stephens
     Reply #48 - September 01, 2011, 02:35 PM
    Quote
    Hitchens is a thinly veiled xenophobe. He's one of those people who use criticism of Islam to conceal his right-wing bigotry. He and Ayaan Hirsi Ali should get married.


    No argument there i agree with you  Afro

    Quote
    Sam Harris is an idiot. Letter to a Christian Nation is probably the worst anti-religious tirade imaginable. He was pretty much talking to himself, because even I didn't buy his shit. And his talk of objective morality through science just reeks of turning science into a religion.


    I haven't read "letter to a christian nation" So i can't say anything about that :/. ON the the second point , I agree i don't know how some can drive objective morality out of science Any how since his book "the moral Landscape" got posotive reviews from the likes of Lawrence krauss and steven pinker , I bought it though haven't read it yet.

    Quote
    its harmful to atheism. also you HAVE to consider capitalism, the whole point of atheism is to get rid of the Myths

    That would depend on your defination of the word atheism eh . Atheism is by defination "non beleif in a god/gods" A person can be an atheist and beleive in ghosts at the same time.  

    Oh and i have also seen (Apart from dennet though i could be wrong) that dawking, harris and hitchens mostly attack religion and call it irational but they has put some intuelcutal arguments forward.

    Oh and i forgot to respond to this before.
    Quote
    And The God Delusion is one of the best books

    I would strongly disagree i think the god delusion isn't one of the best books. Compare it with the works of Berrtrand Russle and see how short it falls. Dawkins is an exellent biologists and i have nothing but respect for that man but he honestly can't stand his ground if he is arguing against someone like William lane craig.

    @Lucem Ferre Whats your opinion on dan barker ?




    Lost somewhere between immensity and eternity is our tiny planetary home. [carl sagan]
  • Re: The poverty of the new atheism by Scott Stephens
     Reply #49 - September 01, 2011, 02:37 PM
    Does anyone know what lucem ferre is actually talking about?
    So once again I'm left with the classic Irish man's dilemma, do I eat the potato or do I let it ferment so I can drink it later?
    My political philosophy below
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwGat4i8pJI&feature=g-vrec
    Just kidding, here are some true heros
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBTgvK6LQqA
  • Re: The poverty of the new atheism by Scott Stephens
     Reply #50 - September 01, 2011, 02:39 PM
    Quote from: Skeptic on September 01, 2011, 01:13 PM
    Personally speaking I like people like Dan barker and ac grayling more then new atheists ;p

    Ever read Grayling’s Against All Gods? Magnificent and very confrontational — by his standards! Here’s a taster: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/oct/19/acgrayling
  • Re: The poverty of the new atheism by Scott Stephens
     Reply #51 - September 01, 2011, 02:42 PM
    Quote from: strangestdude on September 01, 2011, 02:20 PM
    Have you read his book explaining his views regarding morality? (I haven't, i'm just curious)

    I haven't, but I've seen his TED presentation.

    The thing about building a "moral landscape" through science is that science is ultimately a generalization, yet he seems to want to legislate moral laws based on it. The example he likes talking about is the burqa. He says it can be proven that the burqa makes women unhappy, so it should be banned. For one thing, what if a woman doesn't want to be happy? Maybe she would rather be religious than happy. As much as I hate religion and wish people didn't waste their lives on such bullshit, I have no right telling people how to live their lives and what their morality should be. For another, as I said, science is a generalization. Even assuming that everyone wants to be happy, and that the burqa makes women unhappy, that doesn't mean every woman would be happy without it. It would basically be a tyranny of the majority through science, which is the worst form of tyranny of the majority, because it has a claim of legitimacy. Science has long been used and abused to justify bigotry and oppression, from racism to sexism to homophobia, but the fact that most people would agree on it doesn't make it just. Oppression is oppression, whether the many by the few or the few by the many.

    Sure, the government needs to ensure that women who don't want to cover their faces have the choice to not do so, but it should not legislate morality. It's up to each individual to live the way they see fit, as long as it doesn't harm others.
  • Re: The poverty of the new atheism by Scott Stephens
     Reply #52 - September 01, 2011, 03:49 PM
    Quote from: Skeptic on September 01, 2011, 02:35 PM
    No argument there i agree with you  Afro

    I haven't read "letter to a christian nation" So i can't say anything about that :/. ON the the second point , I agree i don't know how some can drive objective morality out of science Any how since his book "the moral Landscape" got posotive reviews from the likes of Lawrence krauss and steven pinker , I bought it though haven't read it yet.
    That would depend on your defination of the word atheism eh . Atheism is by defination "non beleif in a god/gods" A person can be an atheist and beleive in ghosts at the same time.  

    Oh and i have also seen (Apart from dennet though i could be wrong) that dawking, harris and hitchens mostly attack religion and call it irational but they has put some intuelcutal arguments forward.

    Oh and i forgot to respond to this before.I would strongly disagree i think the god delusion isn't one of the best books. Compare it with the works of Berrtrand Russle and see how short it falls. Dawkins is an exellent biologists and i have nothing but respect for that man but he honestly can't stand his ground if he is arguing against someone like William lane craig.

    @Lucem Ferre Whats your opinion on dan barker ?




    i will be checking out dan barker , never before heard of him
    I agree Bertrand Russel book (essay? don't remember) is really good.
    "A belief in hell and the knowledge that every ambition is doomed to frustration at the hands of a skeleton have never prevented the majority of human beings from behaving as though death were no more than an unfounded rumour."
    Aldous Huxley
  • Re: The poverty of the new atheism by Scott Stephens
     Reply #53 - September 01, 2011, 04:30 PM
    Barker is pretty good. He has deabted muslim apologetics like adam deen. I am not a big fan of debates but if you like em do check his deabtes out  Smiley.

    He also wrote a book called "godless". I can't seem to get hold of it but i heard its pretty good. Do read it if you have the time and let me know if you get it Cheesy.

    and yea sorry about the typo i meant his book :p.


    Speaking of which have you read "why I am not a muslim" by "ibn warraq" ? I haven't but i would like to know if there are any good arguments there rather then just basihing islam Smiley.



    Lost somewhere between immensity and eternity is our tiny planetary home. [carl sagan]
  • Re: The poverty of the new atheism by Scott Stephens
     Reply #54 - September 01, 2011, 04:36 PM
    I've read part of it, and he does make some good arguments, talking about interpolations of text into the Qur'an, the apparent baseness of the Qur'anic paradise, the immorality of the Qur'anic god, etc.

    He seems a lot less vitriolic than the likes of Robert Spencer.
  • Re: The poverty of the new atheism by Scott Stephens
     Reply #55 - September 01, 2011, 04:52 PM
    I will try to get his book then Tongue.

    And i honestly hate the likes of Spencer :/.



    Lost somewhere between immensity and eternity is our tiny planetary home. [carl sagan]
  • Re: The poverty of the new atheism by Scott Stephens
     Reply #56 - September 01, 2011, 04:58 PM
    Quote from: Abood on September 01, 2011, 02:42 PM
    Sure, the government needs to ensure that women who don't want to cover their faces have the choice to not do so, but it should not legislate morality. It's up to each individual to live the way they see fit, as long as it doesn't harm others.


    I didn't know he was advocating banning clothing, I thought he was more liberal politically and advocated a personal model of morality based on science. I lean more towards a libertarian model of government personally, but I think science can help us develop personal models of morality (ie. research into how children psychologically respond to different methods of parenting).
    An alternative to religion;

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2nfXfTg92E

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWNW-NXEudk
  • Re: The poverty of the new atheism by Scott Stephens
     Reply #57 - September 01, 2011, 06:14 PM
    Quote from: Skeptic on September 01, 2011, 04:30 PM
    Barker is pretty good. He has deabted muslim apologetics like adam deen. I am not a big fan of debates but if you like em do check his deabtes out  Smiley.

    He also wrote a book called "godless". I can't seem to get hold of it but i heard its pretty good. Do read it if you have the time and let me know if you get it Cheesy.

    and yea sorry about the typo i meant his book :p.


    Speaking of which have you read "why I am not a muslim" by "ibn warraq" ? I haven't but i would like to know if there are any good arguments there rather then just basihing islam Smiley.


    Warraq approach is very diffrent (historical/philological) but he does not have much substance, allot of his sources are outdated orientalists and he isn't much of a historian and like the new atheists he misses the mark. atheism never asks the question "where is the proof" its a nonsensical absurd question to ask.
    "A belief in hell and the knowledge that every ambition is doomed to frustration at the hands of a skeleton have never prevented the majority of human beings from behaving as though death were no more than an unfounded rumour."
    Aldous Huxley
  • Re: The poverty of the new atheism by Scott Stephens
     Reply #58 - September 01, 2011, 06:20 PM
    So what questions does "atheism" ask, then?
    قل للمليحة في الخمار الأسود
    مـاذا فـعــلت بــناسـك مـتـعـبد

    قـد كـان شـمّر لــلـصلاة ثـيابه
    حتى خـطرت له بباب المسجد

    ردي عليـه صـلاتـه وصيـامــه
    لا تـقــتـلــيه بـحـق ديــن محمد
  • Re: The poverty of the new atheism by Scott Stephens
     Reply #59 - September 01, 2011, 06:26 PM
    Quote from: deusvult on September 01, 2011, 02:37 PM
    Does anyone know what lucem ferre is actually talking about?


    Everyone is a fucking moron, except him, I think.

    "we can smell traitors and country haters"


    Quote from: arX on May 01, 2011, 03:33 AM
    God is Love.
    Love is Blind. Stevie Wonder is blind. Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.

  • Previous page 1 23 4 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »