My view of the New-Age Western atheist (True atheists dont need to read this.)

[zaneebaslave]

Link to original post: [drupal=3118]My view of the New-Age Western atheist (True atheists dont need to read this.)[/drupal]



I grieves me to have to write this, especially since it goes against my self-professed credo and my average procedures. In fact, I will never speak about religion unless I feel I have been attacked or hated for my beliefs. I have many atheist friends, to whom we have decided to never talk about the subject of religion, as it causes great tension amongst us all. I have also adopted a mindset that allows me to never judge a person based solely on their religion or belief, as I believe that hating someone's religion or judging them only on religion is worse than racial prejudices. Though many religions, including my own (Christianity), dont adopt my "co-existing" ideas of religion and politics. But I sit here, now, thinking things over, and feel I have to speak out against the most anger-stricken religions in the modern world: the atheist. What I am about to say doesnt attack your beliefs, but rather your hatred and prejudices against other religions, especially Christianity. If any of my atheist friends are reading this, just know that I am not directing these attacks at you, but merely the atheists that cannot coexist among other religions. I am not here to talk science, or start a war. I am only here to state what I have seen throughout my entire life.

Keep in mind, ladies and gentlemen, that I have no quarrel with Darwinism or any scientific theories. In fact, I look to Darwin as one of our greatest scientists in our last few centuries, despite whether I believe his theory or not. Nor do I hate atheism for it's ideals, nor it's earlier predecessors. But something has happened recently (Well within the last 50 years) that turned what was once a firm belief in science and reason: into the dark, sadistic, smart-mouthed religion I see today... the New-Age Western atheist. Darwin, like many of the scientists before him, was a Christian (At one point), and stated that though his theory brings up new possibilities in the way things work, people should believe in whatever they want to believe (I doubt they'll have him say that in the new movie thats being made about him.). But somehow Darwin's own philosophy has been misconstrued by the New-age western atheist, turning his theory into a weapon, and has conjured up the new creed of "Death to all religions and to all their evils" as if to forget that their own religion is also in every sense, a religion as well.

Essentially, the New-age Western atheism has become a hypocrasy. Many of the theories they stand by are only slightly changed representations of Christian ideals (most notably the Big Bang theory), they claim that religion is evil while ignoring the evils their own religion are capable of, and science and reason gives way to sarcastic ramblings and historical fabrications. When you attack Christians for things such as this, you cannot forget that your religion has done the same thing: one way or another.

One will never understand another's religion. Sure, you may have studied their scriptures, and learned their beliefs. But one will never truly understand another's religion, as I will never understand the atheist though I have studied science. A religion is not an opinion that you can side with or against based on facts or fictions. A religion is a personal relationship with God or a god. a person with no relationship with God will never understand the power of a person with a great relationship, as will the person with the great relationship will never understand the power of a person with no relationship. One might say that the greatest truths have many different perspectives. You cannot say that your perspective is the only true perspective without sounding like an idiot, because there is always someone with a different perspective.

Christianity is also prone to some hypocrisy, but this hypocrisy and prejudice on both sides MUST end. I dont expect that i will change the minds of every religion, but I hope to change the minds of some of the religious folk around here. I have no quarrel with true atheists, but the New-age western atheism must be destroyed. Nothing good comes from a New-age western atheist, and science and reason has suffered from their existence.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

Atheism isn't a religion, and science especially isn't a religion. Science is a method for understanding the world, and literally anything science tells us is falsifiable. Any real scientist is willing to give up any scientific theory he believes to be true if he finds evidence that contradicts it. This is fundamentally different from religion where there are unfalsifiable claims and belief comes from faith and not evidence. For instance, if two objects that repeled each other more strongly as a function of mass were found, it would contradict the theory of gravity at which point scientists would have no choice but to discard it. However, there is nothing that could be found that would cause a religious person to stop believing "God created the universe". This isn't a value judgment here; I'm just saying the things are fundamentally incomparable because of this.

 

[Melomaniacal]

Well let me start by saying that I am an atheist. I have very deep thoughts about religion, and I have become very firm with my atheism. It is not something I just decided one day, I came to this conclusion with my beliefs after a very long time of putting a lot of thought into the subject.

So, one thing I agree with you on is that atheists (in my experience) misunderstand religion. A lot of atheists are very "logical" thinkers; if I can't touch it, it doesn't exist. Because of this, many atheists cannot understand how one can believe in god. I hate sounding self-righteous, but I would like to think that I understand this a little better than most atheists. I've always looked at religion like love, it's something very personal. You may have that relationship with god like I may love someone, and you cannot explain to me how that feels. I understand this, so I do not push it too hard when I argue with religious people.

Of course, being an atheist, I would argue that god does not exist and there are many reasons for your beliefs, but I also know that generally nothing bad comes out of ones belief in god. If you believe in god, if god brings you comfort, if god helps you be a better person, that's fantastic. I won't try to take that away from you.

The way I see it... atheists have always been treated as "sinners" by Christians. Even I - a high-schooler - have experienced people trying to convert me or tell me that I'm going to hell. In this sense, Christians do not understand atheists either. Naturally, I will get offended and irritated by this. So, the tables turn. Some atheists deal with this kind of stuff a lot and become very bitter towards religion. Of course there is a lot more to it, but this is just one example. I guess where I'm trying to get at is that it goes both ways.

Similarly, I see plenty of Christians completely misunderstand and disrespect other religions as well. Just last week a Christian in my sociology class was trying to tell us that Christianity is the only true religion, every other religion is made up, etc, etc. Again, it goes both ways. The hypocrisy, the anger, the hatred. All goes both ways.

There will always be a huge disconnect between atheists and religious individuals.


...maybe it's just easier to say that all people are *******s. It's not atheists or Christians who are *******s... just people. We're all *******s.

 

[zaneebaslave]

See, but I dont have a problem with that. If you are an athiest, and you fully believe and love your religion, then thats great! As I said, my quarrel isnt with you, but the New-age atheists the see every other religion as a plague on humanity. And as I said, Christians have much of the blame as well.

Though science isnt a religion, atheism is. You cannot argue that. Though atheism is based more upon more earthly enlightenment instead of spiritual, it all is basically the same.

 

[Falconv1.0]

Simply not believing in God puts you in a religion since when?

 

[mountain_tiger]

...maybe it's just easier to say that all people are *******s. It's not atheists or Christians who are *******s... just people. We're all *******s.

I approve of this.

Also, I can't stand flawed arguments against religion; it makes us atheists look bad. Stuff like 'without the religion there would have been no crusades'. Religion was just an excuse; they'd have found some other reason if religion didn't exist. Or 'Darwin's theory of evolution means that God can't exist'. Who's to say that God couldn't have planned evolution out himself? 'Oh the Bible contradicts itself'. The Bible isn't the word of God; it was written by various people to reflect the morals of the time, which have changed a lot in the past 2000 years (and in fact change a lot from the Old to New Testament). Just because the Bible isn't God's word doesn't mean he can't be real.

Seriously...

 

[UltiMario]

Doesn't atheism EXACTLY mean "No religion"?
Atheism isn't a religion because it is lack of one. Calling it a relgion is contradicting the meaning of the word.

Also, just so I can say it, I'm simply atheists because I think all the damage religion has done to this world is not made up by the goods it has brought. From the Christian Church denying all information from outside world from coming in calling it "Pagan", causing the Dark Ages, to acts of terrorism done now over religion and religion alone. I also happen to have a rather scientific brain, where things like the Big Bang and alien life sound like fact to me whilst ideas like heaven and hell just feel too iffy.

I feel as if religion is slowing down the pace of human understanding, and causing literal and social damages to the world, not because of religion in ITSELF, no, but conflicts between different religions. The world is going to end some day, you know? We should be discussing the topics of how to save the human race from the eventually inflating sun, or possible hits by Gamma Ray Bursts and Asteroid Impacts, rather than blowing eachother up about whos religion is "right".

 

[Mardyke]

One will never understand another's religion. Sure, you may have studied their scriptures, and learned their beliefs. But one will never truly understand another's religion, as I will never understand the atheist though I have studied science. A religion is not an opinion that you can side with or against based on facts or fictions. A religion is a personal relationship with God or a god. a person with no relationship with God will never understand the power of a person with a great relationship, as will the person with the great relationship will never understand the power of a person with no relationship. One might say that the greatest truths have many different perspectives. You cannot say that your perspective is the only true perspective without sounding like an idiot, because there is always someone with a different perspective.

This is a perspective to agree with, if not for its eloquent delivery then most certainly in principle.

To give my opinion, while a person may criticise a religion or a state like athiesm, what they usually end up doing instead is attacking someone's personal connection, and thus attacking that person. And it doesn't get any worse than (even seeming like you're) actually attacking a person because you can't stand who he is, and then list several reasons why you don't, to make yourself seem civilised about it and make him feel he has to agree with the notion that he completely sucks.
The resemblance this has to imposing one faith upon a man of another faith is uncanny, in my eyes. It's mostly a blunder from poor social skills - either the critic lacks the tact to keep his viewpoint clear and comes across far too strongly or simply has a view too strong to begin with, or the religious person holds that connection too close to remember the opinions of others. I don't believe anyone on either side actually wishes ill, but through mishap and slander this is what is construed.

Thanks for making this, it's a useful blog.

 

[Ganonsburg]

I tend not to trust many scientists anymore. One scientist will find something and claim it means one thing, while others will collect some different data and say it means the exact opposite. Since I can't see how they collected the data, where, etc, I always take it with a grain of salt. Because we are all human, with all our bias and imperfections.

But an even bigger reason I distrust scientists now is that they don't use their own scientific method, which is based on one thing: We don't know anything (for sure). Many scientists claim that things like evolution are 100% fact, that the Big Bang must be true, and that global warming (or climate change...I'll get to this in a second) can not be false. They refuse to believe that their theories may be wrong or that they may have made a mistake.

Maybe they ARE right. But until they invent a time machine (ie, never, according to entropy), we can never know with 100% certainty what has happened in the past. We didn't see humans evolve from some ape-like creature (note, I didn't say monkeys....I'm trying to say it how they say it...), and we don't have missing links (I'm pretty sure the neanderthals turned out to be humans, I need to double check). These theories lack much of the evidence needed for us to run around and say they are fact, which is what many people do.

Maybe the alternate theories aren't much better, but they aren't much worse. We all have the same data, and each of our theories are more or less supported by the evidence. To completely ignore theories is exactly the opposite of what science is all about. NOVA did a presentation on how a group of scientists and historians proposed that Native Americans originally came from Europe. The group had evidence, and tried to talk about it, but they were ignored completely because we "know" that Native Americans came from Asia. This is the thinking that has prevented discoveries such as a round earth from being accepted. No one would help look into these theories because the theories went against what we "know." And no, it was not Christianity that suggested the earth was flat. Maybe the Catholics supported it, but the Catholics are/were very absorbent of surrounding cultures that DID say the earth was flat. In fact, the Bible calls the Earth a "circle" or "sphere" (depending on your translation).

With that in mind, that scientists no longer accept theories that they "know" are false, I believe the OP has based his post on. They have become like the old rulers of the world, the Catholic Church. And before them were various Pharisees and rulers who all did these things. Each group had started out trying to correct the old way (Catholics taking the teachings of Jesus, which were meant to clarify, specify, and make absolute the older teachings of Moses, Moses taking God's Word to fulfill God's promise to Abraham, which ultimately was to be an example of God's love (and power and justice, His nature in general) to other people; and scientists trying to correct the Catholic Church) after the old way had corrupted itself (often from outside pressure).

These scientists have in essence taken something good and used it to get money and power for themselves as a group. As people were expected to go to church or go to Hell (as the Catholics said after misconstruing the Bible), people today are expected to become scientists or engineers or be poor and fail.

So while I do not believe in evolution (as a change from one species to another), nor the big bang, nor climate change, I do not criticize people for their beliefs. I will talk to them about it, point out the flaws in their thinking and allow them to do the same for me, and overall we're very polite and never angry. Much more gets accomplished when we realize that we are capable of being wrong.

Now, as for climate change (which really doesn't belong in this post, I guess. I just want to say this), I think it's the dumbest name ever. No matter what happens, as long as the climate changes somehow, the scientists will be right. And because it's come from global warming and has been used to scare people unjustifiably, they can use something that will inevitably happen (the climate changes on it's own...it's just natural for things to change) to scare the public into doing something. Taking care of the environment is a good thing, but not if you're doing it for money or power. And if you're wasting more energy to try and save it, then that's horribly inefficient. Work on one solution, perfect it, then work towards another. If you work on a billion solutions halfheartedly, none of them will work as good as we want them to or as good as they can work. Now, scientists being right isn't a bad thing either, but we need to realize that they're trying to make money just like the rest of us, and they won't always be giving us the full story if it means something better for them.

tl;dr

I agree with Melomaniacal. People are idiots. On both sides of the coin, we are by nature idiots. Which is why it's important to understand that we may be wrong. Of course, that won't stop us from acting as if we're right, or arguing. Which is probably a good thing, because without good, civilized debates and challenges to our thinking, we will never learn. I have a million more thoughts on this, but this post is like a freaking book. If anyone is wondering my religious background, I'm Southern Baptist, although I don't like subscribing to a religion. Rather, I believe what the Bible says, and church is only so I can learn from others (but the Bible will always come out on top for me).

My hand is about to cramp.

 

[zaneebaslave]

Please, Ganonsburg. No science discussion. It'll start an argument that we dont need around here.

Perhaps I should correct myself: Atheism isnt a religion persay, but New-age atheism is. People like "TheAmazingAtheist" and Bill Mahars are a few examples of this new religion. They hide behind a mask of righteousness, fighting for the rights to express their religious point of view. But in the process, are trashing Other religions in the process.

 

[john!]

Atheism might not be a religion, depending on whether you view belief in God as necessary for religion. It's a faith that has a strong tendency to lead towards a certain worldview. It does function much the same as a religion... the only difference being that they don't believe in God.

Otherwise the OP was excellent. I'll let you hold the debate in your own topic, but if someone is really misinformed I might throw my two cents in.

 

[Falconv1.0]

Science isn't a belief, I wish people would stop ****ing talking like it is. There's a difference between stuff that's disputed and things that pretty much every sane scientist views to be fact.

 

[Melomaniacal]

Hey, in my own defense, the whole "people are *******s" line was mostly a joke. I have a pretty optimistic outlook on people and humanity. Yes, there are a lot of *******s, but there are more good people in the world. The *******s are just louder.


I wish poop shoot wasn't censored.

 

[Riddle]

Though science isnt a religion, atheism is. You cannot argue that.

I have to argue that it isn't. Saying atheism is a religion is like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby.

 

[Jim Morrison]

big post making me look inteliggent.

Because we ALL know scientists are evil and all they care about is power and money, because secretly scientists are rich (Lolwut?) and scientists have great powers that might shock the foundations of society.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

Please, Ganonsburg. No science discussion. It'll start an argument that we dont need around here.

Perhaps I should correct myself: Atheism isnt a religion persay, but New-age atheism is. People like "TheAmazingAtheist" and Bill Mahars are a few examples of this new religion. They hide behind a mask of righteousness, fighting for the rights to express their religious point of view. But in the process, are trashing Other religions in the process.

Wow, this is too good.

I think people really miss the point when it comes to atheists sometimes, but I will try to clear it up: Just because you think someone is an a**hole (viz TheAmazingAtheist & Bill Maher), that doesn't take away from the validity of the points they make, because they do have a fair share of valid points when it comes to religion. They just happen to do so a little more sardonically than others.

Ftr, Bill Maher isn't even that horrible when it comes to his points

Spoiler

waits for Crashic to get his AZA on

. Check out an episode of Real Time sometime and you can fully judge for yourself. TAA kind of stated in one of his videos that he is kind of selling out (to become a part of the YT partner machine that we all hate) a few months ago, which definitely made me lose favor with him.

 

[Ganonsburg]

Because we ALL know scientists are evil and all they care about is power and money, because secretly scientists are rich (Lolwut?) and scientists have great powers that might shock the foundations of society.

It's simply human nature to try and gain the most power that we can. My whole point is that people can be wrong and that people do things for wrong reasons sometimes. No one is an exception to this. Our society tends to believe that certain people don't follow this, when really we do. Obama is a good example of this. Scientists are now too. The Catholic Church is (or was...less so now, but still is).

The whole point was that we shouldn't look down on others, because we may be the ones who are wrong. In music, when you're playing a note and you hear someone who's out of tune, you're more than likely the problem. If you aren't, then you should still tune yourself to make sure until you don't have the problem.

Of course, this is the internet. No one is going to listen to anything that says different than what they believe. Carry on believing that you'll always be right. I'm sure you all have always had 100% on every test you've taken. And the ones where you didn't, it was always the teacher's fault. Yes, that must be it.

 

[Jim Morrison]

Yea well, as a scientist you don't really have a chance to gain power or money, the only reason you would ever want to become a scientist is because you like doing it, or for the fame and glory for your AMAZING DISCOVERY (which will be forgotten soon).

Also, I firmly believe that you can not be wrong (inb4 "if you kill someone..." or anything similar), you are the one person that you should care about the most and what your truth is, is the truth.

 

[Ganonsburg]

Yea well, as a scientist you don't really have a chance to gain power or money, the only reason you would ever want to become a scientist is because you like doing it, or for the fame and glory for your AMAZING DISCOVERY (which will be forgotten soon).

Also, I firmly believe that you can not be wrong (inb4 "if you kill someone..." or anything similar), you are the one person that you should care about the most and what your truth is, is the truth.

Well, according to your truth, I'm not wrong. But I'm saying that people are going to be wrong, inevitably. Thus, we have a paradox.

And if you really believe that, why are we even arguing? You can't be any more right, so you have nothing to gain so to speak. I gain knowledge and can adjust my fallible ways in an attempt to be more understanding and efficient, but if you're already right, you have nothing to gain from this.

But I see why we're arguing now, haha. It's because one of your fundamental beliefs is in direct contrast with mine. And because of that, neither of us are going to convince each other.

Glory and fame are just another form of power. With them, your words hold more weight. Not to mention, they're still a motive. Any motive can be corrupted.

 

[Frown]

Ok, so there are:

1. Atheists who simply think religion isn't needed, because science has now explained most things that were once unexplainable.
2. Atheists who take part in an atheist movement. They try to spread their disbelief in God, much like missionaries.

If this is what you mean, I agree.

 

[Jim Morrison]

I'm discussing because I love the intelligent discussion that flows out of it, too bad there's a few people that ruin it and will get this thread locked.

You said it was human nature to go for personal gain, and therefore the money and power. I think those motives are definitly not corrupt, they are equal to doing it because you love it; All of it is for personal gain, so why would a scientist with power (which they don't really have) and money (which you don't earn easily, nor much of it) be any different from a scientist with good motives?

 

[Reaver197]

Bill Maher isn't an atheist, he's agnostic (as he says himself), but is highly critical organized religion.

Atheism isn't a religion, much like not stamp collecting isn't a hobby.

OP, you might have a bit of a strawman presentation going on there in your post.

There is much to be critical of in pretty much all the theistic religions.

 

[Ganonsburg]

A scientist with a true love for what he does would be more open to the possibility that he's wrong. Not that he will be, but he checks and double checks himself for the sake of his own integrity and so that the name of science isn't blemished. He won't be so quick to shoot down other theories because he knows that all humans are fallible and can be wrong.

By compiling all our ideas and pointing out the flaws in each of them calmly, we can achieve the closest thing we can have to true knowledge. You have the same thing in statistics. The more data points you have, the better a pattern you will find, and the better you can draw conclusions about the population.

However, a scientist with (more) flawed motives will be looking to prove that he, and only he (and maybe his friends and close peers) is right. And scientists aren't exactly poor, many are payed by the government or funded by colleges. Not exactly as good as it can get, but not exactly bad either.

Intelligent discussions are good.

 

[Melomaniacal]

A scientist with a true love for what he does would be more open to the possibility that he's wrong. Not that he will be, but he checks and double checks himself for the sake of his own integrity and so that the name of science isn't blemished. He won't be so quick to shoot down other theories because he knows that all humans are fallible and can be wrong.

This is exactly correct.

And how often do you see a scientist who doesn't love what he does? Random power hungry guy #98 can't just decide to go out and be a scientist one day.

 

[Ganonsburg]

Very few people set out with the intent of being power hungry. It's something that happens to us as we become discontent with what we do. I never intended to specifically "hate" on scientists. As I said, all this happens to everyone. I went through the major groups that have started out with great intentions, but end up corrupted. I mean, I could say the same things about priests. They don't exactly set out with the intent of getting power, and they certainly get less money and power than scientists. But some of them turn out to be these awful people who deceive the people around them.

The only problem with scientists is that our society forgets that they too are human, and rarely question them. They don't have to distrust the scientists. They just have to think.

Keep an eye on that #98 though, I hear he's a sly one.

 

[PassWurD]

"There's real poetry in the real world. Science is the poetry of reality."
-Richard Dawkins

PRETTY COOL THREAD.

 

[zaneebaslave]

ugh... I dont want a religious debate in here. Good thing though, I've only seen two New-age atheists in here trying to tell me how evil theistic religion is. Thats better than 3, I guess.

 

[john!]

Don't try to argue against science please. Science will always win. Science is also compatible with religion. Science does not equal atheism. Arguing against science will only promote this bad stereotype encouraged by atheists that religious people are against scientific progress.

 

[zaneebaslave]

Science is the pandora's box that I dont want to open in this thread. Please dont ruin everything.

Also Ultimario... Have you been watching 2012? As I recall, that movie got one star...

 

[Ganonsburg]

Science is simply interpreted data. Data can not be wrong. How we interpret it can be though. Scientists are people, so they can be wrong. That's all.

 

[zaneebaslave]

OP, you might have a bit of a strawman presentation going on there in your post.

The only place that was not stating an opinion was the 3rd paragraph, which is about 4 sentences long, and filled with the hypocrisies I have seen in many of the atheist forums and websites I've seen. So no... I am not using stawmen. I am using what I've seen and heard. This is the things I've seen and hated, and hope to change in the ideals of the atheist. If coexistence is impossible for you, then I dont have the time or place for you.
Also, I just assumed Bill Mahar was an atheist because of his wonderfully atheist movie "religulous," which wasnt at all as funny as Borat...

I dont know... I guess it's just his nose that scares me.

 

[kataklysm336]

But an even bigger reason I distrust scientists now is that they don't use their own scientific method, which is based on one thing: We don't know anything (for sure). Many scientists claim that things like evolution are 100% fact, that the Big Bang must be true, and that global warming (or climate change...I'll get to this in a second) can not be false. They refuse to believe that their theories may be wrong or that they may have made a mistake.

Firstly, you will never hear a scientist say anything is 100% factual. They all know that is untrue, but the reason they don't believe many of their theories to be wrong is because those theories have been fortified with evidence. Also, its not "their" theories to be exact, its just A theory. Someone published it, and then thousands of scientists spent thousands of hours peer reviewing it (essentially everyone is out to prove you wrong), and after they found nothing to contradict the claims, the claim is elevated to a theory. At this point people continually uncover evidence to disprove that theory (after all scientists are just greedy and want power right)

Maybe they ARE right. But until they invent a time machine (ie, never, according to entropy), we can never know with 100% certainty what has happened in the past. We didn't see humans evolve from some ape-like creature (note, I didn't say monkeys....I'm trying to say it how they say it...), and we don't have missing links (I'm pretty sure the neanderthals turned out to be humans, I need to double check). These theories lack much of the evidence needed for us to run around and say they are fact, which is what many people do.

I may eat my words and look like a fool after this, but I don't think entropy prevents time travel. Also, you are correct, we can never be 100% correct about things, but 99.9999% is close enough for me. You didn't see the guy murder his wife, but when the cops came in he was standing over her body with a bloody knife, had been having and affair, and took out an insurance policy on her 4 days before, and was reported saying "I'm going to kill that *****", and we can never say, 100%, that he did it...but we all know he did.

These theories do NOT lack evidence, if they did they wouldn't be scientific theories.

NOVA did a presentation on how a group of scientists and historians proposed that Native Americans originally came from Europe. The group had evidence, and tried to talk about it, but they were ignored completely because we "know" that Native Americans came from Asia. This is the thinking that has prevented discoveries such as a round earth from being accepted. No one would help look into these theories because the theories went against what we "know."

This is a poor example. Primarily because we don't know what evidence the first group had. The likely issue is that they came in, had a poorly supported thesis, had fragile or debatable evidence, and because of that they were disregarded.

Scientology has some pretty good "evidence" for why psychology is evil, but we all know that its crap, because they have weak evidence, and their theory is poorly supported.

So while I do not believe in evolution (as a change from one species to another), nor the big bang, nor climate change, I do not criticize people for their beliefs. I will talk to them about it, point out the flaws in their thinking and allow them to do the same for me, and overall we're very polite and never angry. Much more gets accomplished when we realize that we are capable of being wrong.

****, you are wrong. lrn2lrn

Seriously though if you want to discuss these things sometime PM me!










Now to the OP.

I would say I am one of the "New Age" Atheists you are talking about, but you are casting a pretty harsh light. As others have said atheism is NOT a religion. Secondly, we respond to Christian (and I say Christian because I have had more experience with that than other religions, but that does not exclude other religions) ignorance. I hear people say things like "God I can't believe you think that nothing exploded and then there was everything and we evolved from monkies and fish", and then I just have to correct them. Which usually leads them to tell me how I ****ed for eternity, ect.

This "New Age" Atheism you speak of is really a natural response to ignorance. We don't care about converting, or mouthing off, but people should have the facts before they go condeming atheism, which happens all the time.

Just as a funny story I have a friend who doesn't believe in evolution. When I asked him how he though new species arose he responded "Different kinds of animals had sex." Needless to say I baffled that anyone could say something that stupid, and then actually believe it.







Also, if anyone comes in an attempts to argue, we should just ignore them. Science and Religion are already a pandora's box, and it was opened when this thread was started. We just have to be the hope at the bottom and keep it civilized.

 

[Jon Farron]

The Bible isn't the word of God; it was written by various people to reflect the morals of the time, which have changed a lot in the past 2000 years (and in fact change a lot from the Old to New Testament). Just because the Bible isn't God's word doesn't mean he can't be real.

Seriously...

THAT, made me mad >:[
The Bible is God's word. God spoke to the people telling them what to write.

 

[Falconv1.0]

THAT, made me mad >:[
The Bible is God's word. God spoke to the people telling them what to write.

Why do you get tell him your belief is the law when he has more proof on his side?

 

[kataklysm336]

Why do you get tell him your belief is the law when he has more proof on his side?

Someone just had to take the bait...

 

[zaneebaslave]

Firstly, you will never hear a scientist say anything is 100% factual. They all know that is untrue, but the reason they don't believe many of their theories to be wrong is because those theories have been fortified with evidence. Also, its not "their" theories to be exact, its just A theory. Someone published it, and then thousands of scientists spent thousands of hours peer reviewing it (essentially everyone is out to prove you wrong), and after they found nothing to contradict the claims, the claim is elevated to a theory. At this point people continually uncover evidence to disprove that theory (after all scientists are just greedy and want power right)



I may eat my words and look like a fool after this, but I don't think entropy prevents time travel. Also, you are correct, we can never be 100% correct about things, but 99.9999% is close enough for me. You didn't see the guy murder his wife, but when the cops came in he was standing over her body with a bloody knife, had been having and affair, and took out an insurance policy on her 4 days before, and was reported saying "I'm going to kill that *****", and we can never say, 100%, that he did it...but we all know he did.

These theories do NOT lack evidence, if they did they wouldn't be scientific theories.



This is a poor example. Primarily because we don't know what evidence the first group had. The likely issue is that they came in, had a poorly supported thesis, had fragile or debatable evidence, and because of that they were disregarded.

Scientology has some pretty good "evidence" for why psychology is evil, but we all know that its crap, because they have weak evidence, and their theory is poorly supported.



****, you are wrong. lrn2lrn

Seriously though if you want to discuss these things sometime PM me!










Now to the OP.

I would say I am one of the "New Age" Atheists you are talking about, but you are casting a pretty harsh light. As others have said atheism is NOT a religion. Secondly, we respond to Christian (and I say Christian because I have had more experience with that than other religions, but that does not exclude other religions) ignorance. I hear people say things like "God I can't believe you think that nothing exploded and then there was everything and we evolved from monkies and fish", and then I just have to correct them. Which usually leads them to tell me how I ****ed for eternity, ect.

This "New Age" Atheism you speak of is really a natural response to ignorance. We don't care about converting, or mouthing off, but people should have the facts before they go condeming atheism, which happens all the time.

Just as a funny story I have a friend who doesn't believe in evolution. When I asked him how he though new species arose he responded "Different kinds of animals had sex." Needless to say I baffled that anyone could say something that stupid, and then actually believe it.







Also, if anyone comes in an attempts to argue, we should just ignore them. Science and Religion are already a pandora's box, and it was opened when this thread was started. We just have to be the hope at the bottom and keep it civilized.

You poor unfortunate soul.

But seriously, we have no room for people like you here. If you hate religion, then that in and of itself is the worst kind of prejudice of all, and has no business here with people who want to make peace.

And please, people! Dont start a religion war! You are only proving my point on all sides!

 

[kataklysm336]

You poor unfortunate soul.

But seriously, we have no room for people like you here. If you hate religion, then that in and of itself is the worst kind of prejudice of all, and has no business here with people who want to make peace.

And please, people! Dont start a religion war! You are only proving my point on all sides!

uh...
This is actually the reason people have issues.

I'm assuming that the first part was meant in jest, because their is a laughing face, but if not then your just a prick. I am going to assume the former.

No room for people like me? I can't say I am sure exactly what you mean by this. I never said I wanted to create any agnst or hated religion, I just disagree that the problem starts with atheists.

 

[zaneebaslave]

it was just a joke. Thats why I have ursula.

And As long as you have no problems with religion, then I have no problem with you. Just... Dont call me ignorant. And dont call my faith ignorant. It doesnt help your case and it doesnt hurt my faith.... so dont.


To try and refrain us all from getting onto a big religious fight, I am going to try and get this thread closed and delete my blog entry. It didnt do what I wanted it to do, which I guess is understandable, since I didnt write this too well. I just hope that maybe you all got something from it. It really, truly wasnt an attack on the atheist. It was just me trying to solve a problem that is probably plaguing all of us: which is religious prejudices.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[Teran]

Locked by request.

God you guys are terrible sometimes.