Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's amusing that despite all the various categories of atheists you have come up with prior to this thread - all accompanied by varying degrees of derision, disapproval and disdain, that you should find a survey that opens your eyes to a whole other gamut of atheists that you were previously unaware existed - ie those that believe in things other than god.
This despite myself and several others repeatedly stating that this was that case - and that you cannot make assumptions about what other people believe.
You showed that despite all of what you thought YOU knew about atheism, you still had a lot to learn.
Shocking!
Then here's what you immediately jump to as your conclusion:
Quote:
the obvious disconnect just shows me that it's really not a reasoned position about the existence or nonexistence of a deity at all.
Pretty astounding.
You can quote all the philosophers and atheists you like Irkle.
You haven't learned anything.
You can tell us over and over that you know us better than we know ourselves. Clearly you do not.
You have a multitude of preconceived ideas based on discussions with supposedly 'higher level' atheists from another forum (oh I really did have to laugh as I typed that) and New Atheists, as if we don't know who they are. We've discussed the New Atheists at length. They are also referred to as The Four Horsemen.
It's not about who shouts the loudest.
If you want to really understand anything and get the full picture you have to listen to everyone, not just those with the loudest voice.
Last edited by mensaguy; 10-14-2021 at 11:51 AM..
Reason: Wording error - member request.
The New Atheism is an aggressive anti-religion atheist proselytizing movement popularized by Richard Dawkins and his cronies over the past 20 years or so. The large majority of New Atheists are quite young and embrace the New Atheism at pretty much the level at which teenyboppers once embraced The Beatles.
So what? What point are you trying to make by ranting on and on about "New Atheists?" They are still just atheists, aren't they?
Did one of them insult you or something?
In my experience, those believers who take the most umbrage at the existence of atheists and certain factions of atheism are those who are the least secure in their own faith. They feel threatened, so they lash out. They also do not realize how very much they sound like those they claim to criticize.
Stridency is stridency, no matter who engages in it.
So what? What point are you trying to make by ranting on and on about "New Atheists?" They are still just atheists, aren't they?
Did one of them insult you or something?
Wait a minute, bubbles: YOU are the one who kept asking about New Atheism until I finally quoted the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy because you seemed so "fascinated." You demonstrate your own ignorance, and then I am "ranting" when I attempt to respond.
The New Atheists are irrelevant to me. I recognized Richard Dawkins for what he was long before he self-destructed.
The ONLY point I make - ranting or otherwise - is that the New Atheists are responsible for a large segment of ostensible atheists whose understanding of atheism is nil. They have absolutely no grasp of the philosophical basis of atheism and have really given no more thought to the existence or nonexistence of God than they've given to the Tooth Fairy.
No, pretty much exactly the opposite - a full 180 degrees the opposite - of what early Christianity was. If you think you are making some clever point, you're going to have to flesh it out because it's lost on me.
Wait a minute, bubbles: YOU are the one who kept asking about New Atheism until I finally quoted the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy because you seemed so "fascinated." You demonstrate your own ignorance, and then I am "ranting" when I attempt to respond.
The New Atheists are irrelevant to me. I recognized Richard Dawkins for what he was long before he self-destructed.
The ONLY point I make - ranting or otherwise - is that the New Atheists are responsible for a large segment of ostensible atheists whose understanding of atheism is nil. They have absolutely no grasp of the philosophical basis of atheism and have really given no more thought to the existence or nonexistence of God than they've given to the Tooth Fairy.
You're one of these guys who tries to make everything complicated.
You're one of these guys who tries to make everything complicated.
I don't believe in god. I'm an atheist.
Gee, that was easy.
Ah, but you are not studying the philosophical arguments against cooked fish being resurrected, Chinese gods firing lightning bolts out of their nostrils, or the philosophical arguments for and against trusting old one eyed men (with a raven) recommending drinking dragon blood so that one can understand the speech of birds.
Wait a minute, bubbles: YOU are the one who kept asking about New Atheism until I finally quoted the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy because you seemed so "fascinated." You demonstrate your own ignorance, and then I am "ranting" when I attempt to respond.
The New Atheists are irrelevant to me. I recognized Richard Dawkins for what he was long before he self-destructed.
The ONLY point I make - ranting or otherwise - is that the New Atheists are responsible for a large segment of ostensible atheists whose understanding of atheism is nil. They have absolutely no grasp of the philosophical basis of atheism and have really given no more thought to the existence or nonexistence of God than they've given to the Tooth Fairy.
It is just about lazy atheism, Irkle. A complete lack of interest in the implications and "givens" that accompany their lack of belief. It is symptomatic of a general lack of philosophical thought, really, although some atheists defending the lack of belief definition are quite interested in such thinking. I would put Cruithne and Arach in the latter group.
Ah, but you are not studying the philosophical arguments against cooked fish being resurrected, Chinese gods firing lightning bolts out of their nostrils, or the philosophical arguments for and against trusting old one eyed men (with a raven) recommending drinking dragon blood so that one can understand the speech of birds.
Alas, guilty as charged.
But I should clarify [for others] that I'm not saying that no one should 'study' religion. If that's what interests them, fine. But for the average person, it just doesn't need to be complicated.
It's sort of like when I lived in Virginia and could easily visit so many Civil War battlefields up and down the coastal states from Pennsylvania through Georgia. I did background reading. After the first couple of biographies of Grant or Lee, things got repetitive, and I didn't need to read more biographies to absorb all the minutiae. Some like to do that. Fine. Doesn't mean that everyone who wants to visit a battlefield and get a sense of what happened there has to read 42 books.
Ten Commandments. Pretty straight forward.
Sermon On The Mount. Pretty straight forward.
Even the crucifixion story. Pretty straightforward.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is just about lazy atheism, Irkle. A complete lack of interest in the implications and "givens" that accompany their lack of belief. It is symptomatic of a general lack of philosophical thought, really, although some atheists defending the lack of belief definition are quite interested in such thinking. I would put Cruithne and Arach in the latter group.
