What do you think of New Atheism, Veeky Forums?

...

Jesus really didn't like it when people blasphemed. This image of him as a milquetoast nice guy is a myth of the 20th Century.

Did I fucking say or imply that he was the docile flower fabricated by white Europeans? No, I said he would frown upon you. Because he would. Jesus believes in justice, not being a petty, hateful asshole just because someone has opinions that hurt your sensitive feelings.

Do you think Jesus only associated with people who completely agreed with his philosophies? Don't be a retard. Hitchens never harmed anyone, and did the best he could to help people in the way he knew how. Jesus would prefer that sincerity over a "believer" who hates people just for having opinions and speaks ill of them when they die. In case you forgot, he died for all of humanity. Not just the people you like.

Krauss is the only truly awful one. Tyson is naive. Nye and Dawkins are not bad, just not very insightful.

They don't have to be insightful. It's better that their message stay as easy to understand as possible. Because sadly people are seriously that retarded and can't comprehend even the most basic rational concepts. I want there to be more children's books and books written like they're for children but marketed as for adults so people will finally allow themselves to absorb basic information. There is nothing more genuinely sad to me than seeing grown men still clinging to fairytales and imaginary friends unironically.

time to get saved user

Don't talk to be about being saved when you post on a chinese pornographic cartoon image board.

>what is sola fide

>what is sola fide
heresy

>being this judgemental and spiteful

christcucks are a strange bunch

I like Sam Harris :3

I liked him in Night at the Museum too

Hello, Reddit!
Failures, all of them, they rely upon egdelords and weirdos at cocktail parties, they are nothing in the face of Men like Epicurus, Aurelius, or Epictetus.
Complete, flat out, utter failures.

>literally making a religion out of not believing in gods.

Why are you being so semantic? Who gives a fuck if people mix the word science with the body of knowledge it spawned. I think we all know what they're talking about when they say science and that still says nothing about the validity of the system. Is there a reason we shouldn't trust science or revere the knowledge it has revealed? We weren't getting any closer with alchemy or witchcraft, even though I still practice them in my garage.

Liberal moral absolutists can fuck off. They merely erect a new god, Humanity, to lie prostrate before.

>What do you think of New Atheism, Veeky Forums?
It is and will continue to be a growing cultural force. The question is only whether the future of western theology belongs to atheism and greater secularism or Islam, Christianity is on the decline either way.

As for the Horsemen it's a mixed bag. Hitchens was based as fuck and a genuinely smart guy, Dawkins is not a great thinker but deserves credit for educating the general public about science, Harris is better when he sticks to concrete issues rather than philosophy and I still don't know shit about beard man.

>Is there anything ''new'' to it?
Atheism and anti-religion being a movement unto itself rather than a means to affect larger social reform. New Atheism doesn't like being associated with political movements. See the backlash against Atheism Plus even though most atheists are left-leaning.

>Could it be considered a religion?
No, that's dumb. Religion is much more than what books you read and what you believe about God.

It has all the hallmarks of religion, albeit a non-organized one. Including ridiculous levels of intolerance that their own beliefs can't justify.

A poor derivative of pic related

"Old" atheism is not believing in God. "New" atheism is being a smug prick about it.

desu i think its more similar to a football firm

>It has all the hallmarks of religion

What. The. Actual. Fuck. Are you really this dumb? There's one pretty important distinction between atheism and religion. Do I really have to say it? Actually I probably do. Atheists don't believe in a magical superbeing.

>not being a petty, hateful asshole just because someone has opinions that hurt your sensitive feelings.
philosophy is fine as a hobby, however, i dont understand people who study it, expecting to make their living with it

A passing fad.

It's long since peaked and now on decline.

>What do you think of New Atheism, Veeky Forums?
It's shit
>Is there anything ''new'' to it?
Yes, is even more degenerate than classical atheism
>Could it be considered a religion?
At this point, yes

>They are good public thinkers.

Not even!

>speaks ill of the dead
>oh but I'm just politely condoning his painful demise

And yet... Memes are still more videly known than anything invented by Epicurus, Aurelius or fucking Epictetus. This is power or real insight that trumps ancient name throwing everytime.

le picky choosey :^)

Hitchens himself taught that it was horrifying to never do the wrong thing. So sometimes, we should be childish and spiteful, and so I see no reason not to direct that at Hitchens.

Why Christians with literally billions of people and thousands of years behind them are scared of like four boring guys that aren't even trying that much?

ITT: Narcissistic Christians confuse Ideology with Religion

In the long run of human history, Christianity hasn't been around that long. We also don't practice the same Christianity Eusebius, Augustine, and Aquinas did.

We don't stretch out our hands and stand during the whole mass to pray anymore (unless your Orthodox). We don't take Genesis literally anymore. The laity isn't illiterate anymore. The Church can't levy tithes on the laity in exchange for access to the sacraments or recognizing their marriages/children as legitimate anymore.

>inb4 but Augustine didn't take Genesis literally
Yet Jesus was the literal "New Adam", contrasting the first man who chose rebellion instead of complete submission to the will of Yahweh. Though Augustine may've been writing for posterity when he said that Christians should keep their options open for how the world started, the concept of original sin tainting all humanity from birth is undermined by the process of evolution. There was no singular event or primate who disobeyed the eternal law and cursed all his descendants with original sin, suffering, and death.

Underrated post

>Imagine if almost all surviving monotheists were fucking retards who don't even understand their own religion

You mean the present day?

because they seem to be under the impression that science is infallible, and produces a priori truths instead of a posteriori truth statements.

>Is there a reason we shouldn't trust science

the same reason we shouldn't trust our senses, as science is only an extension of sensory perception.

> Is there a reason we shouldn't trust science
The reason is that you should test the science and its knowledge.

Why are our mental faculties any less susceptible to error and deception?

This is the biggest problem I have with rationalists, they talk about how easily the senses can be fooled, yet they hold up reason as something that's less prone to misguidance.

Reason not backed external experience is madness. Most of what humans consider to be firm thinking is often fallacious. Only experience can remove these errors.

/thread

Because errors in logic can be easily found out by their contradictions, given a certain level of expertise. Just because a child is unable to figure out a math problem doesn't mean deductive logic is flawed. That same child may be fully capable of experiencing something, but without reason the child may well attribute causal connection between unrelated sensory phenomenon inappropriately.

Experience without reason is madness, and taking experience at face value for truth is equally mad.

>Only experience can remove these errors.

What errors? Error arises because of experience, not in spite of it.

The problem with logic is that it is as right as its base and to prove a base assumption you need direct expierence or something else, but a logic.

>the same reason we shouldn't trust our senses
Which is?

>taking experience at face value for truth is equally mad.
but this isn't what science does. this is really only an argument against positivism, not empiricism

(((They))) can misguide you.

>this isn't what science does

The assumption that sensory experience can be used to draw conclusions about the actual nature of reality seems to me to be important in the scientific process.

have you even looked at a mirror before? An optical illusion? Ever thought a dream was real?

>it is as right as its base and to prove a base assumption you need direct expierence or something else, but a logic.

you're gonna need to restructure that sentence for me.

But science is good at avoiding that by using precise instruments, repeating experiments, controlling as many variables as possible etc.

>avoiding that by using precise instruments, repeating experiments, controlling as many variables as possible etc

why not add squinting your eyes, or cupping your hands behind your ears?

While impressive, these methods and instruments don't actually fix the actual issue here.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

>Because errors in logic can be easily found out by their contradictions
The individual may not recognize the existence of such contradictions without an external resistance that highlights it.
>given a certain level of expertise
This can only be achieved through external experience. One does not determine sound logic on their own.
>That same child may be fully capable of experiencing something, but without reason the child may well attribute causal connection between unrelated sensory phenomenon inappropriately.
Sure, but can't children make inappropriate connections between two unrelated streams of thought? Attributing a causality between the two that doesn't actually exist, and would prove absurd upon external experience?
>Experience without reason is madness, and taking experience at face value for truth is equally mad.
You're right, rationalism and empiricism are both vital. But sound logic is founded on our senses, allowing for connection between our minds and external reality. No one has ever pondered the existence of god without first achieving the language and ideas necessary to begin expounding on such a subject. These come to us from the external world via our senses.
>Error arises because of experience, not in spite of it.
I know you don't believe that.

You're being deliberately obtuse.

History is bunk.
History is bunk.
History is bunk.

>have you even looked at a mirror before? An optical illusion? Ever thought a dream was real?
The senses may be fooled for a time, but the ability to recognize when one is dreaming or not comes from prior experiences of being in the state where one is dreaming.

One would not know the difference between illusion and reality without prior experience of what reality is.

what are you talking about? jesus hung out with all kinds of perverts, the sick need a doctor and all that

>may not recognize the existence of such contradictions

retards probably exist, so says Science. Sometimes even the greatest resistance cannot change someones mind.

>can only be achieved through external experience

external experience?

>One does not determine sound logic on their own.

No, that's literally how you do it.

>sound logic is founded on our senses

No.

>Attributing a causality between the two that doesn't actually exist, and would prove absurd upon external experience?

The Aztecs attributed a causal connection between human sacrifice and the sun rising every day. This idea was actually reinforced by their experience.

No, the effect of squinting to see a star more clearly is of the same type as looking through a telescope. The only difference is in scale.

There is nothing wrong with being pedophile and there is no need for doctor.

>senses may be fooled for a time

if so, they may even be fooled for many consecutive times. Potentially all the time.

>the ability to recognize when one is dreaming or not comes from prior experiences of being in the state where one is dreaming

ever have a dream within a dream?

>prior experience of what reality is

Notice the assumption here. You are assuming your senses have given you an accurate picture of reality already, despite the fact that you have no other picture of reality with which to compare it.

a question for religious folks

how do you justify believing in 1 religion?
not asking about believing in a deity, can understand that perfectly fine

pedos hurt children!

>retards probably exist, so says Science. Sometimes even the greatest resistance cannot change someones mind.
Sure, but one who can't break through the distorted sensing of reality the mentally handicap may have, doesn't expect their internal reasoning to be well established or profound.
>external experience?
Empiricism.
>No, that's literally how you do it.
No that's not, you don't literally do it on your own. You may ruminate on a subject from time to time, but you check your reasoning against external factors to ensure your logic is still sound. One doesn't determine truth without reference to external things, the knowledge of which is brought to us by the senses.
>The Aztecs attributed a causal connection between human sacrifice and the sun rising every day. This idea was actually reinforced by their experience.
Could that false causality been based on an inappropriate rational connection between two sensed external events?

>Notice the assumption here. You are assuming your senses have given you an accurate picture of reality already, despite the fact that you have no other picture of reality with which to compare it.
How would you have a reality to compare your concept of reality with without sensory channels to discover it? One must not assume that the mind has more accurate picture of the external world, it collects it's information of what's true and false through the senses. But if the senses are always fooled and we live in a solipsistic universe, how would the mind be able to know of such an idea except through gathered external ideas? The mind may not be able to comprehend such an idea as a solipsistic universe without finding the idea from an external source through the senses.

it's a way for people to feel edgy by taking something that at some level is societal consensus in most western societies today (non-belief and taking science to be the best way to explain the universe) and stating it over and over in the most crass terms imaginable until you finally get people to argue against you, so you can "debate" them and feel superior about disregarding emotions and humanity in favor of numbers and facts

religion in the west (US excluded) is now mostly reduced to being a crutch and a comfort for old people nu-atheists delight in kicking that crutch and stealing that comfort, because they feel wronged by the world somehow and want to feel better and smarter than everyone else

the arguments aren't new at all and they are not sophisticated in the least
they basically amount to
"i can't see god so he isn't there"

>religion in the west (US excluded) is now mostly reduced to being a crutch and a comfort for old people
Speak for yourself. Not everyone has such a distorted picture of what religion is.

>external
>experience
>Empiricism

Hume btfo Empiricism

>inappropriate rational connection

Informed every single day by blood sacrifice and the rising of the sun.

>check your reasoning against external factors

Like what? Animal entrails? Long walks with Aristotle?

thing is
how exactly would you refute an "don't have any evidence god affects the world in any way, so not going to pay attention to what others say god would want" attitude?

why was jesus such a judgemental dick? tell him to mind his own business

>mfw orthodox
>mfw not a disgusting heretic
>mfw the only true christianity

that's not my opinion, i was talking about the standing of religion in society. for the vast majority of young people today it is just completely irrelevant.
that says nothing about the value of religion itself

>Informed every single day by blood sacrifice and the rising of the sun
The only thing that led to such a connection between the two external events was an internal, unproved, rationalistic connection. They had no sensory proof that one directly caused another, they made that connection themselves. Now of course we know that blood sacrifice has no effect on the orbit of the planet earth, thanks to our senses of the wider universe allowing us to better figure and experience what this planet is. We can use our senses to witness the histories of other societies on the other side of the globe who did not practice routine blood sacrifice, information unavailable to our minds on their own.

you do you even know that Hume exists? you have to trust your senses to read Hume, to learn what deductive logic even is

He was trying to reduce the destructive nature of immorality. Not only does lying, adultery, and murder bring self-ruin to the one committing the act, it harms the greater community as well.

When one commits a rape, the entire world will eventually be affected in even the smallest of ways. Immorality harms everyone, therefore it's everyone's business what you do.

Basically, the same reason why people shouldn't be closet atheists and actively try to fight clearly amoral position that is religion. Starting with The Islam, most immoral oou of all of them.

Just present scientific evidence if you have one. It is pretty rational position to disregard anyone who can't back up his claims.

Yeah but philosophical positions that have remained so widespread for thousands of years should at least be granted some leniency. The skeptic can take some of the burden on himself.

>most people in Europe will not even know who those 4 guys are
>most people in Europe are not "atheists", they just don't with religion anymore
>every fucking day a thread from some hysteric amerifat that thinks evolution and science threatens his 'religion'
Why is it always you fatties?

> i can't see god so he isn't there
If you want non denial argument, you will just end with one more cult about what kind of entity exist and what it wants you to do.

>Could it be considered a religion?
Religion is a very specific term, including things like requiring scriptures, a defined leader that's dead, etc. Even if people have the same "belief" in it as religious people do, Atheism will never be a religion.

New Atheism feels like a petty reaction to the injustices and inherently illogical beliefs of the previous religious generations. They usually completely ignore the good things religion brought, which is almost as illogical as the arguments people use against them.

Most of the time they're not wrong, they just go about it the wrong way to further their own careers. Hatred inciting headlines get more attention than reasonable ones.

Burden of proof exist for both sides. You shouldn't hide behind your idea being slightly more popular. Like atheists shouldn't hide behind their excuses like inability to prove negative claims.

I don't hold atheism in general in any regard. Despite claiming that it's based on rationality it is rather irrational.

>Not being able to rationally disprove the logic of the ontological proof.

>Proclaiming that humans can't glimpse into the essence of either things or God but convienently forgetting that the statement that humans can't perceive the essence of things is already a statement about the essence itself. Thus I. Kant stated a contradiction.

>Feuerbach stating a logical fallacy by saying that the human wish for God to exist is proof of his inexistence. Analogous to this thirst would be logical proof for the inexistence of water.

>Marx didn't even state any logical proof for the inexistence of God. He simply said that there can't be God because that would go against his theory and debunk it all.

>Nietzsche wasn't even an atheist. He was an antitheist who very well said that there is a God. it's just an entity that humans should fight against to become God themselves.

Fuck irrational atheism.

>entity is framed in a way that is literally impossible to prove or disprove unless it just straight up appears wearing a nametag
>b-b-but you can't disprove it!

> logic of the ontological proof
1. Everything must have a cause.
2. God clearly doesn't have a cause.
There is clear contradiction here. What else is to disprove in so called proof after that? If you deny first than Universe can just be uncaused, but by denying second your discredit entire your proof.

It's hard to disprove an argument that's completely reliant on an assumed premise not justified by experience, then "proved" through logical means its desired conclusion from the beginning.

Do you guys really think that Irreligion is on the rise because a couple Atheists. Or is it just that people have given up on religion in the western world?
Every year there us less and less religious people because organized religion doesn't make a whole lot of sense anymore.
Atheists are just a backlash at religious people that still think they have the right to force down their opinion on other in our todays world, but they re not the cause for the downfall of Religion.

Christians themselves caused the downfall of even longer tradition of paganism. They have no right to complain.

aWell, not todays Christians, besides, everybody complains when their "world" and values and way of life go down the drain.
And of course they try to react by bolstering their Religion every way possible, which then brings up Atheists to fight this forcing of religion on other people.

>What do you think of New Atheism, Veeky Forums?
gay

>Is there anything ''new'' to it?
Nothing interesting anyway.

>Could it be considered a religion?
No, and anyone who says this is a retard.

The issue people seem to have with atheists is they say that there absolutely is no god, which is impossible to prove or disprove because of how god is described.
It's also an easy way to sidestep actually discussing beliefs because they can shift the argument to say "you can't DISprove it!" then spam the thread with pictures of fedoras

>The only thing that led to such a connection between the two external events was an internal, unproved, rationalistic connection.

Perfectly logical in fact. But their axioms were derived from religious experience, sensory phenomenon. Are you saying religious experience is less valid than other perceptual fields? Can you substantiate this?

>sensory proof

lol.

>they say that there absolutely is no god
"hard atheists" are an extremely small share of atheists.

you sound more like one of the people on the right of that image than one of the people on the left when you say that.

>Are you saying religious experience is less valid than other perceptual fields?
Not necessarily. But connecting two external events through internal reasoning doesn't lead to a more accurate understanding of reality. In the case of the Aztecs, rationalism lead to far less understanding of how the world worked.

Better luck next time with the bait.