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

[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

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.


[/ QUOTE ]

The OP made a blanket statement that religionists do not tolerate difference, "it's their way or the highway," was his claim. In fact, many religionists do not believe their method is special, correct, or privileged in any way, it's simply the way they are used to worshiping. Have you ever met a Wiccan who thinks everyone is going to hell except Wiccans?

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.


[/ QUOTE ]

The OP made a blanket statement that religionists do not tolerate difference, "it's their way or the highway," was his claim. In fact, many religionists do not believe their method is special, correct, or privileged in any way, it's simply the way they are used to worshiping. Have you ever met a Wiccan who thinks everyone is going to hell except Wiccans?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a matter of what they believe. That's not what I'm talking about. The fact that if Wiccans beliefs are a little more pleasant than a Muslim's is beside the point.

The point is that those beliefs are still ridiculous and unfounded and we are expected to respect them. My question is, why? Why should we have to tippy-toe around the obvious and respect that which is ludricrous? What's wrong with laughing in a Wiccan's face the way we might laugh at someone who believes in witchcraft?

[Insp. Clue!So?]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.


[/ QUOTE ]

The OP made a blanket statement that religionists do not tolerate difference, "it's their way or the highway," was his claim. In fact, many religionists do not believe their method is special, correct, or privileged in any way, it's simply the way they are used to worshiping. Have you ever met a Wiccan who thinks everyone is going to hell except Wiccans?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Worship", heh.

They aren't just ways they're used to give praise, they are specific claims about reality that often if not almost always contradict each other at the lower levels. They act in this manner because at the age of 5 years they are told that this is truth.

What in ahotep's name is good about the above process?

We won't get into another patent absurdity, that an all-powerfull being would lay about twidling it's all-poweful thumbs for 13 billion years, and then one bright shiny day decide that he needed a chorus filled with some half-apes to give him the equivalent of a mental back rub by "worshiping" him. And so on...

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.


[/ QUOTE ]

The OP made a blanket statement that religionists do not tolerate difference, "it's their way or the highway," was his claim. In fact, many religionists do not believe their method is special, correct, or privileged in any way, it's simply the way they are used to worshiping.

[/ QUOTE ]

They don't think their belief is correct but they believe it anyway? And these are the people I'm supposed to give respect to their ideas ( or them for holding them)? I seriously do have more respect/understanding for someone who sticks to believing those things they think are true, even the more wacko ones. The other approach is bold-faced self-delusion worse than normal intellectual dishonesty. It's openly admitting "I believe it because I want/need it to be true". No respect for that here.

are you sure they don't believe it's correct?
( I'm not questioning the polite/impolite, but the concept of which fantasies are more deserving of respect than other similar ones).

luckyme

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
They don't think their belief is correct but they believe it anyway?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. They aren't exclusive at all. It's still God, whether it comes in a bottle or a can.