Re: Mises and \"New Atheism\"
[ QUOTE ]
I've always considered atheism as a non-belief or absence of faith. It isn't really anti anything. I mean, when I was 5 years old I didn't believe in God; thus I was an atheist, or atleast an unconscious atheist. I was not against religion or the idea of a god. I am now but that merely makes me a antitheist atheist as opposed to a "new atheist".
The great thing about atheism IMO is it has no requirements other than absence of faith- not dislike or hatred of faith. This, and the advancement of science, simply makes atheism the rational stance. It is quite irrelivent that there are some atheist who are fervent in their view and wish to intefere with other peoples beliefs. What's important is that unlike religion, hatred and arrogance is not a component or requirement of atheism.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree as long as you arent lumping Dawkins in with "those who wish to interfere with other's beliefs". There are certainly others who would, but in the context of a thread on "new atheism" it is too to confuse those who wish to engage in legitimate discourse with a Joseph Urbanski.
|