Is Neo-Atheism The Way to Go? [Poll]

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and Dennett

[/ QUOTE ]
They're a bit too serious. The problem with serious debate is its like using a hammer to tighten screws - its a damn fine tool but the wrong one. You can't have rational discourse with people who believe there is good evidence for biblical truth or naming a teddy bear isn't unimportant.

So find the right tool for the job, silly beliefs need to be addressed by ridicule. The more fervent the lunatics the more we should take the piss and laugh at them. Don't under-estimate just how much the nutty wing of the church hated Monty Pythons life of Brian, Bill Hicks etc. Not only do they hate being laughed at, it undermines their authority and authority is all they have.

chez

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
So find the right tool for the job, silly beliefs need to be addressed by ridicule. The more fervent the lunatics the more we should take the piss and laugh at them. Don't under-estimate just how much the nutty wing of the church hated Monty Pythons life of Brian, Bill Hicks etc. Not only do they hate being laughed at, it undermines their authority and authority is all they have.


[/ QUOTE ]

Chez's comments struck me as true. There is no doubt that the religous are NOT interested in reasonable debate. They consider it hubris and sinful to even question God. To apply man's logic to him is just silly to them. They consider it a virtue that they have Faith DESPITE the lack of evidence or reason to believe.

I think the hope is for future generations. And humor is one of the best ways to expose the weakness of a position.

[madnak]

You can respect a person without respecting their beliefs. And even if you don't respect a person, you don't need to be an [censored].

I don't think we should tiptoe around, and I think it's fine to acknowledge patently ridiculous beliefs for what they are. Making fun of them is great - regardless of how it affects them, it's entertaining. And sometimes humor can make points that are hard to make rationally.

But crossing the line into antagonism and self-importance isn't justified. Religious beliefs are idiotic, but it's clear that religious people aren't necessarily idiots. And I think the ultimate goal is for everyone to have laugh at the absurdity of the beliefs. I don't think it's an "us versus them" issue (though it can turn into one when people are persecuted on the basis of belief).

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
but it's clear that religious people aren't necessarily idiots.

[/ QUOTE ]

true, it does seem something you can opt for, or at least it's a nuture/nature thing... like being tall isn't mandatory to be a good basketball player.

luckyme

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> I don't think it's an "us versus them" issue (though it can turn into one when people are persecuted on the basis of belief). </font>

I think this is an excellent point.

[kurto]

I'm a little confused about the term neo-atheist. Since 'neo' implies new... what is new? Is the only new part that they're outspoken? Or is there supposed to be some other differences?

I've considered myself an atheist for about 14 years or so... just not sure if I'm a neo-atheist or just a regular atheist.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm a little confused about the term neo-atheist. Since 'neo' implies new... what is new? Is the only new part that they're outspoken? Or is there supposed to be some other differences?

I've considered myself an atheist for about 14 years or so... just not sure if I'm a neo-atheist or just a regular atheist.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have been an Atheist for 50 years - am I a paleo-atheist?

[Kaj]

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
H. L. Mencken

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
It's non-negotiable if you're religious. To a Christian/Muslim/Hindu/etc., there's nothing to talk about. It's either their way, or the highway.

[/ QUOTE ]

That just isn't true. Many, many believers are very ecumenical. They believe in a divinity that is legitimately accessed through all sorts of religions. (Why do you think that word "ecumenical" exists?) Plenty more believers are theists, they believe in a divine creator, but that does not interact with its creation. So a theist doesn't give a phuc how anyone worships, because the creator isn't listening anyway.

To me, a point of atheism is to avoid dogmatism, not create a new version using scientific jargon.

This whole "all religion is ignorant stupidity" business isn't science, it's just arrogance. Dawkins should shut the hell up. He's just using science to justify his personal trip -- snobbery. That, and sell books to the angry egghead market, which is large.

People trash fish on this board all the time. Substitute the word "believer" for "fish" and it's the same conversation -- supercilious wanking.

And I've been an atheist since grade school, nearly four decades, so can the kool-aid cracks.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
That just isn't true. Many, many believers are very ecumenical. They believe in a divinity that is legitimately accessed through all sorts of religions.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does that make it untrue?
It's just a different claim of the traits of their god, just as any other believer claims they know theirs.
Catholics claim "god is X-like".
Mormons claim "god is Y-like."
Ecu's claim "god is XYZ and a touch of W-like"

luckyme