Mises and "New Atheism"

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Subjectivist?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ayn Rand is to philosophy as the Spice Girls are to music. Do you get it now?

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're saying Ayn Rand, if alive today, would starve herself, get bad implants, and p-whip a football star and then cheat on him repeatedly ?

[/ QUOTE ]

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How do you characterize the "old brand" of atheism?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess when you would get burned at the stake for atheism, old atheism was not believing in god an not liking being told that you were a bad person for believing that. New atheism is telling other people they're bad people because they believe in god. The ironing is delicious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm...you don't see a bit of difference between "burning at the stake" and "vociferously disagreeing"? There is no irony to be found here.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How do you characterize the "old brand" of atheism?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess when you would get burned at the stake for atheism, old atheism was not believing in god an not liking being told that you were a bad person for believing that. New atheism is telling other people they're bad people because they believe in god. The ironing is delicious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks I'll be interested in what Taraz has to say though.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How do you characterize the "old brand" of atheism?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess when you would get burned at the stake for atheism, old atheism was not believing in god an not liking being told that you were a bad person for believing that. New atheism is telling other people they're bad people because they believe in god. The ironing is delicious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm...you don't see a bit of difference between "burning at the stake" and "vociferously disagreeing"? There is no irony to be found here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I do, I kid.

But seriously, from the view as communicated by the OP, the "new" atheism involves openly attacking the true believers. Old atheism was about seeking accpetance of a minority view, which is a defensive position.

[moorobot]

It simply isn't true that religion doesn't do anything for people.

1) It allows them to fear death less as well as to feel less saddened and get on with there lives when a relative dies.

2) It gives them a universal backing for beliefs that they hold e.g. morality.

3) It gives them a purpose/meaning in life.

4) It allows them to cope with not finding self-realization , happiness etc. in this world, as they will find it in the next.

5) It gives them a community.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How do you characterize the "old brand" of atheism?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess when you would get burned at the stake for atheism, old atheism was not believing in god an not liking being told that you were a bad person for believing that. New atheism is telling other people they're bad people because they believe in god. The ironing is delicious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm...you don't see a bit of difference between "burning at the stake" and "vociferously disagreeing"? There is no irony to be found here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I do, I kid.

But seriously, from the view as communicated by the OP, the "new" atheism involves openly attacking the true believers. Old atheism was about seeking accpetance of a minority view, which is a defensive position.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with your characterization of new atheism, although I tend to think that its prevalence is grossly exaggerated. I'm starting to rethink my position though. I hear all these stories about these atheists who run around saying they are 100% that no God could ever exist and that they God is dumb and all theists are dumb. But I've never met one. I'm assured by theists they exist, and they point me to Dawkins and Hitchens as examples. If Dawkins and Hitchens are the worst of it, it seems like a phantom menace to me. Most of the atheists I know (I'd say all but who says "all" these days?) are nothing like that. Maybe its because I don't hang around too many morons.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
It simply isn't true that religion doesn't do anything for people.

1) It allows them to fear death less as well as to feel less saddened and get on with there lives when a relative dies through denial, which is well known to be a great coping mechanism.

2) It gives them a universal backing for beliefs that they hold e.g. morality, and an excuse for telling everyone else that their morality is wrong.

3) It gives them a purpose/meaning in life and the smugness to assess the purposefulness and meaningfulness of the lives of others.

4) It allows them to cope with not finding self-realization , happiness etc. in this world, as they will find it in the next in their imaginations, which is really a lot better than actually finding self-realization.

5) It gives them a community that pressures them to behave in a certain way and attack all those that behave in a certain way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yay religion.

[moorobot]

Don't misinterpret my post as stating that I am a proponent of religion on pragmatic grounds. Far from it; religiosity in an individual is good for the person who believes in it but bad for the people that person interacts with, as the replies you gave in 2-3 and 5 illustrate.

[ QUOTE ]
1) It allows them to fear death less as well as to feel less saddened and get on with there lives when a relative dies through denial, which is well known to be a great coping mechanism.

[/ QUOTE ] I wouldn't say this is equal to denial. Denial in this case would be person X believing person Y is not really dead i.e. actually is alive in the non-afterlife. Religious people aren't walking around claiming that the corporeal body of true believers is still functioning.

[ QUOTE ]

4) It allows them to cope with not finding self-realization , happiness etc. in this world, as they will find it in the next in their imaginations, which is really a lot better than actually finding self-realization.

[/ QUOTE ] Actually finding self-realization, however, is a lot more difficult than simply positing that they will someday have it for many people. To illustrate why this is important via analogy, consider whether it is better to have a 90% chance of winning $100 or a 30% chance of winning $200.

[moorobot]

Furthermore, if religion doesn't have benefits for a person believing in it, why do so many people believe that religion X or Y is true when there are no good "truth reasons" to believe religion X or Y is true?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, if religion doesn't have benefits for a person believing in it, why do so many people believe that religion X or Y is true when there are no good "truth reasons" to believe religion X or Y is true?

[/ QUOTE ]

I will refer you to Snowball's smoking analogy.