www.nairaland.com/attachments/4304131_s2481772edit_pnge980d2ab89d180ca566cac14c28b614a


Atheist Jeff Sparrow believes that atheism is need of some saving, particularly some saving from the New Atheists. Sparrow, an Australian writer, editor and former socialist activist, is just one of an ever increasing number of atheists calling into question the actions of their New Atheist brethren.


Sparrow believes that the anti-religious hate espoused by the likes of “Dawkins and Harris [who] are still, by far and away, the most recognisable frontmen for the New Atheist show” has warped their abilities to maintain rationality. Sparrow asks: “So how did a movement ostensibly full of progressives end up so identified with writers who sound less and less like incarnations of pure reason and more and more like your Islamophobic uncle after he chugs his sixth pint?”


Sparrow informs us that the “New Atheists were popularisers rather than innovators, using advances in biology and neuroscience to illustrate pretty well-worn arguments against religion.” Similarly Christian philosopher of science John Lennox argues that “What is more, at the intellectual level, their arguments were never really unique”. Sparrow believes that they have instead taken an “intellectual step backward,” which would run contrary to their claims of being the pinnacle of reason.


And although Sparrow is a non-believer he, unlike the New Atheists, sees at least some value in religion, he writes: “You don’t have to be a believer to see that religion genuinely offers something to its adherents (often when nothing else is available) and that what it provides is neither inconsequential nor silly.” Atheist writer John Steinrucken would agree, writing that “Western civilization’s survival, including the survival of open secular thought, depends on the continuance within our society of the Judeo-Christian tradition”. He then concedes that “Secularism has never offered the people a practical substitute for religion.”


Furthermore, Sparrow appears agitated by how New Atheism is now increasingly being viewed by the public. He believes that the New Atheists antagonistic streak is “the basis for the dickishness that so many people now associate from the New Atheism, a movement too often exemplified by privileged know-it-alls telling the poor that they’re idiots.”


Source: https://jamesbishopblog./2016/01/22/atheist-jeff-sparrow-criticizes-new-atheism/

CC: Seun , Plaetton , ilovetheline, JackBizzle, Kay17, AgentOfAllah, Ayomikun37 , hahn , sonOfLucifer , frank317 muskeeto , Decker , PastorAIO , ValentineMary , Pyrrho , braithwaite , dragonEmperor , theoneJabulani , lepasharon , cloudgoddess , ifenes , Hopefullandlord , brigance , stephenmorris , thehomer , dalaman , Ranchhoddas , CAPSLOCKED , lilbrown007 , Elohim1, RaphieMontella , Weah96 , SirWere , sonofluc1fer , CEOmyn , beejay

winner01... He should...

www.nairaland.com/attachments/4304220_s7857773edit_jpeg257b67c2b7d264ad8c98f8c7fea6a000


Atheist writer Eric MacDonald has distanced himself from the New Atheism movement though previously being a follower: “I have found myself, over the last year or two, distancing myself more and more from the new atheism, although I was, I think, once associated more closely to it.”


One reason is that he could no longer agree with the mass misrepresentations so prevalent within New Atheist literature: “However, as time went on I found myself at loggerheads with much that sailed under the banner of the New Atheism, finding its conception of religion so contrary to anything that I would have said about my faith in earlier years that I find myself no longer able to associate myself with this movement. Much that new atheists say about religion is simply so much straw.“


MacDonald soon found himself disagreeing with the atheist Peter Boghossian. He finds Boghossian particularly threatening: “in his book on making atheists — [he] repeats the accusation that faith is pathological in his book so often that one is reminded of the George Orwell’s 1984, or the common practice in the Soviet Union of placing dissidents in psychiatric hospitals. There is a deeply threatening aspect to the belief that those whose ideas you oppose are somehow mentally ill, or victims of pathological ways of thinking in need of a cure.“


Also the failure of the New “atheists to engage with what theologians and other religious believers have to say in defence of their worldview” had caught his attention. The New Atheists are well-known to produce a flick of the hand without engaging with the arguments other have forwarded. They also appear ignorant, as exegete & philosopher, Paul Copan seems to believe: “The Neo-atheists are often profoundly ignorant of what they criticize, and they typically receive the greatest laughs and cheers from the philosophically and theologically challenged. True, they effectively utilize a combination of emotion and verbal rhetoric, but they aren’t known for logically carrying thoughts through from beginning to end”.


It is also true that New Atheists hold to the logically incoherent view of scientism. Philosopher William Craig explains that this it the “view that we should believe only what can be proven scientifically. In other words, science is the sole source of knowledge and the sole arbiter of truth” and that “if adopted, [it would] compel us to abandon wide swaths of what most of us take to be fields of human knowledge.”. Likwise, MacDonald agrees that “Empirical science is not the only source of truth or understanding.”


He notices that “new atheism is quickly attaching itself to beliefs that are as dogmatic and irrational as many religious dogmas, and to a kind of ideological certitude that may be as dangerous as the ideologies of the past that caused so much harm.”


One could point to the likes of Al Stefanelli who, in reference to Islam & Christianity, says that “hey must, must, must be eradicated”. Or as New Atheist Sam Harris claims: “If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion”. According to Steven Weinberg  anything that can “weaken the hold of religion should be done, and may in fact be our greatest contribution to civilization”. These are men that are giving their fellow atheists a bad name and thus many “Atheists are clearly divided about the aggressive approach of the New Atheists, and some find it positively embarrassing”




source:https://jamesbishopblog./2016/01/13/atheist-eric-macdonald-calls-new-atheism-threatening-dangerous-irrational/

Hmm

Today alone, Winner01 created 2 (two) threads on atheists that converted to Christianity, calling his fellow Christian apologists as usual

Only one or two atheists graced the thread because they've learnt not to feed his ego

He then felt so disappointed that he quickly googled and made this thread

Yet calls us "insignificant" but apparently we hold a special place in his heart

This guy needs help

www.nairaland.com/attachments/4304335_s19476774edit_png485bee477c4b71bf8cfd1792fa1c4288




Philosopher/biologist Massimo Pigliucci has decided to separate himself from the atheist movement.

Apparently, this has been something that has been happening gradually, but the straw that broke the camel’s back was the embarrassing behavior of Gnu activist Sam Harris:

[b]"My disengagement has been gradual and not really planned, but rather the result of an organic change of priorities and interests. It has, however, also been accelerated by a number of observations and individual incidents. The most recent one, which finally prompted me to write these reflections for public consumption, was a private email exchange between Noam Chomsky and Sam Harris, which was eventually made public by the latter ".


"So I began reading the exchange with trepidation, and gradually my stomach got more and more turned by what I was seeing. I invite you to put down your iPad or Kindle, or whatever you are using to read this post, and go read the exchange in full to make up your own mind about it. If your reaction is that Harris was trying to have a genuine intellectual discussion and that Chomsky was unfairly dismissive, then there probably is no point in you wasting time with the rest of this essay."

"If however, like me, you come out of the reading with the impression that Harris was looking for easy publicity, that he displays an astounding combination of arrogance, narcissism and rudeness, and that Chomsky simply did what many of us perhaps should do more often, which is to not suffer fools gladly, then you may enjoy what I’m about to say next."[/b]

Pigliucci then notes that the problem is not specific to a celebrity like Sam Harris, but extends to the rest of the New Atheist movement:


"The Harris-Chomsky exchange, in my mind, summarizes a lot of what I find unpleasant about SAM: a community who worships celebrities who are often intellectual dilettantes, or at the very least have a tendency to talk about things of which they manifestly know very little; an ugly undertone of in-your-face confrontation and I’m-smarter-than-you-because-I-agree-with [insert your favorite New Atheist or equivalent]; loud proclamations about following reason and evidence wherever they may lead, accompanied by a degree of groupthink and unwillingness to change one’s mind that is trumped only by religious fundamentalists; and, lately, a willingness to engage in public shaming and other vicious social networking practices any time someone says something that doesn’t fit our own opinions, all the while of course claiming to protect “free speech” at all costs."

Such “unpleasantness”has been rampant ever since Dawkins encouraged a large crowd of his followers to mock and ridicule religious people. Of course, it has been always easy for these I am an eeevil Christian. How do they dismiss the same observations independently coming from a highly educated atheist?

As for Pigliucci, I think there is one other factor involved in his disengagement – I think he wants to distance himself from the New atheists for the simple reason that the new atheists are embarrassing. Pigliucci seems to recognize that the new atheists are entrenching a public perception of atheists – the perception where Madalyn Murray O’Hair lives on.


Source: https://shadowtolight./2015/05/12/another-atheist-distances-himself-from-the-new-atheist-movement/

hopefulLandlord:
Today alone, Winner01 created 2 (two) threads on atheists that converted to Christianity, calling his fellow Christian apologists as usual

Only one or two atheists graced the thread because they've learnt not to feed his ego

He then felt so disappointed that he quickly googled and made this thread, calling all atheists alone

Yet calls us "insignificant" but apparently we hold a special place in his heart

This guy needs help

Lol.
Is that the truth or is that what you want to think?

winner01:
Lol.
Is that the truth or is that what you want to think?

Lol! The signs are there already

Your two threads were ignored by most atheists, we usually use it to discuss and argue but seems almost all of us have learnt not to feed your ego

You then try to turn atheists against each other by opening this thread

I wish you best of luck in this endeavor

Oh! You've even changed the title from "Atheist Jeff Sparrow Criticizes New Atheism" to this one because the former title isn't getting enough attention

You need help fast!

Atheists don't know that GOD is beyond the scope of science. There is no topic in science called GOD. Neo-atheists(and even the ignorant ones among them) quickly attach themselves to science as if it is a tool with which to fight GOD.

DoctorAlien:
Atheists don't know that GOD is beyond the scope of science. There is no topic in science called GOD. Neo-atheists(and even the ignorant ones among them) quickly attach themselves to science as if it is a tool with which to fight GOD.

Hello; Doctor. When you say "the topic of God is beyond science"; what do you mean From holy scriptures; we see God(s) performing magnificent feats; feats that defy the laws of science. We see amputees being healed; Seas dividing; rocks bringing forth water; magical foods; pillars of fire; talking snakes; 300 spartans kind of fighting ( Remeber Gideon?? ) and numerous resurrections.



These case MUST obviously be true because they are recorded in the scriptures and the scriptures cannot lie.


Then; if these miraculous, logic and reason-defying feats have been performed before; it falls to reason that they can be done again!



Science; as a tool; is used to find out more about the universe and the reason for its existence.

God is termed as the creator and originator of the universe. By that rule alone; the existence/non-existence of God should fall within its realm.



And we're not fighting God for crissake!

We're simply doubting his/her/its existence.

hopefulLandlord:
Today alone, Winner01 created 2 (two) threads on atheists that converted to Christianity, calling his fellow Christian apologists as usual

Only one or two atheists graced the thread because they've learnt not to feed his ego

He then felt so disappointed that he quickly googled and made this thread

Yet calls us "insignificant" but apparently we hold a special place in his heart

This guy needs help

Address the post and do it reasonably .

A fine thread will be released by me tonight the usual time

www.nairaland.com/attachments/4304446_s22107775edit_jpeg823482656baced0f148543df357e765f


As an atheist myself, I’ve found these “new atheist” writers to be an embarrassment.

First, none of the prominent ones are genuine religious scholars, historians of religion, or cultural anthropologists who can, for instance, examine  the cultural, historical, literary, or linguistic contexts in which the varying parts of the Bible were written to provide an explanation of why fundamentalist biblical literalists are, well, mistaken and ignorant. There are plenty of genuine scholars of religion whose work examines religious beliefs and sacred texts within their proper framework, such as Robert Price, John Loftus, Daniel Barker, Hector Avalos, Bart Ehrman, and D.M. Murdoch. These are the skeptics who are worth paying attention to.

Second, they typically conflate atheism with stereotypical liberal or radical left-wing politics when there’s no inherent relationship whatsoever. See Machiavelli, Hobbes, Hume, Nietzsche, and Mencken.

Third, like the late Madalyn Murray O’Hair, they come across as narrow-minded and ill-informed bigots whose only purpose is to antagonize religious people.


I haven’t been thrilled by the atheist movement.  First, who is the audience?  Is it religious extremists?  Say right-wing evangelical Christians like George Bush (as you rightly point out)?  Or is it very prominent Rabbis in Israel who call for visiting the judgment of Amalek on all Palestinians (total destruction, down to their animals)?  Or is it the radical Islamic fundamentalists who have been Washington’s most valued allies in the Middle East for 75 years (note that Bush’s current trip to the Middle East celebrates two events: the 60th anniversary of the State of Israel, and the 75th anniversary of establishment of US-Saudi relations, each of which merits more comment)?  If those are the intended audiences, the effort is plainly a waste of time.  Is the audience atheists?  Again a waste of time.  Is it the grieving mother who consoles herself by thinking that she will see her dying child again in heaven?  If so, only the most morally depraved will deliver solemn lectures to her about the falsity of her beliefs.  Is it those who have religious affiliations and beliefs, but don’t have to be reminded of what they knew as teenagers about the genocidal character of the Bible, the fact that biblical accounts are not literal truths, or that religion has often been the banner under which hideous crimes were carried out?  Plainly not.  The message is old hat, and irrelevant, at least for those whose religious affiliations are a way of finding some sort of community and mutual support in an atomized society lacking social bonds.  Who, in fact, is the audience?


Furthermore, if it is to be even minimally serious, the “new atheism” should focus its concerns on the virulent secular religions of state worship, so well exemplified by those who laud huge atrocities like the invasion of Iraq, or cannot comprehend why they might have some concern when their own state, with their support, carries out some of its minor peccadilloes, like killing probably tens of thousands of poor Africans by destroying their main source of pharmaceutical supplies on a whim — arguably more morally depraved than intentional killing, for reasons I’ve discussed elsewhere.  In brief, to be minimally serious the “new atheism” should begin by looking in the mirror.


Source: https://attackthesystem.com/2012/03/11/noam-chomsky-on-the-new-atheism/

hopefulLandlord:


Lol! The signs are there already

Your two threads were ignored by most atheists, we usually use it to discuss and argue but seems almost all of us have learnt not to feed your ego

You then try to turn atheists against each other by opening this thread

I wish you best of luck in this endeavor

Oh! You've even changed the title from "Atheist Jeff Sparrow Criticizes New Atheism" to this one because the former title isn't getting enough attention

You need help fast!

Lol.
Stop wailing, it doesnt get to me.

You cant ignore my threads can you? And the stories are not made up.
Why not call ColdHardTruth and spend some more minutes of your life hating on your God, while you keep embarassing other atheists.

www.nairaland.com/attachments/4248359_s24436567edit_jpeg401d2debacaaa7bc94e81e470f99f708

OK so there is some disagreement about what atheists should do. Fine with me; debate and discussion should be a part of any thinker's repertoire.

I personally tend to take the side of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens (PBUH) in the sense that atheists need at least some of us to be outspoken in the same sense that missionaries and preachers are. It is not for every atheist to speak openly about their non-belief, but at least some of us should be. People who grow up in deeply religious communities need to see that there is an alternative way of looking at the world.

SirWere:

Hello; Doctor. When you say "the topic of God is beyond science"; what do you mean

Science studies and documents knowledge about the Universe.

GOD is the sole Creator and Sustainer and not a part of the Universe.

DoctorAlien:

Science studies and documents knowledge about the Universe.
GOD is the sole Creator and Sustainer and not a part of the Universe.

Don't just mind the fool!

DoctorAlien:

Science studies and documents knowledge about the Universe.
GOD is the sole Creator and Sustainer and not a part of the Universe.

Don't just mind the fool!

DoctorAlien:


GOD is the sole Creator and Sustainer and not a part of the Universe.

Can you provide testable evidence for this?

onetrack:


Can you provide testable evidence for this?

How will you test the evidence when it is presented ?

onetrack:


Can you provide testable evidence for this?

The fact that GOD is not a part of the Universe should tell you that His existence cannot be proved by employing skeptical empiricism.

www.nairaland.com/3343566/war-against-christianity....by-christians
winner01...here is your answer....

Winners01, are you surprised? I'm not cause devil is the author of confusion

Keep the good work going Sir, God bless

i

raphieMontella:
www.nairaland.com/3343566/war-against-christianity....by-christians

winner01...here is your answer....

Sorry I dont remember asking a question.

The devil is the only person who wages war against the truth. We can see his manifestations in you for instance.

DoctorAlien:


Science studies and documents knowledge about the Universe.

GOD is the sole Creator and Sustainer and not a part of the Universe.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most Religious belief still hold that God is still ACTIVE in this universe.

Yes, yes, he is spirit and all but he still performs wonderous works like before right?


Therefore, in a quest to gain more knowledge about the universe; should we not seek to gain more knowledge about such a creator?

To inquire exactly how he did it and the processes involved



And now; if proofs emerge that the actual truth of something is this and NOT as the holy books say it ( say; the earth is flat or the world being created in 7 days or Plants before sun); and assumed "facts" which are obviously not possible; (the sun stopping for a day or a flood wiping out every inhavbitants) One would have to question whether or not such feats actually occured. One would wonder even; whether such a creator occurs.



Luckily; science explains phenomena previously attributed to God(s). That's why most atheists like its principle.

SirWere:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but most Religious belief still hold that God is still ACTIVE in this universe.

Yes, yes, he is spirit and all but he still performs wonderous works like before right?


Therefore, in a quest to gain more knowledge about the universe; should we not seek to gain more knowledge about such a creator?

To inquire exactly how he did it and the processes involved

GOD is not a part of the Universe. However, He is very active in the Universe. He, in fact, created the Universe.

You cannot gain knowledge of the Creator by employing skeptical empiricism.

hopefulLandlord, shey you fit gym reach the rock?

www.nairaland.com/attachments/4304900_s27044783edit_png55ec248b144fcb624d36389f8d3baf0a

Atheist Rob Grant calls New Atheists “shallow” & “dangerous.”

Robert Grant works in the Department of Philosophy at Trinity College in Dublin where he is a tutor of philosophy. He is also a research analyst with RelateCare.

It is not only religious people that take issue with the New Atheists (NA), namely the likes of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkings & Christopher Hitchens, and their vitriolic methodology & rhetoric against religion. Grant explains that the NA argue that “religion should be banished. It obstructs the progress of the human race; and progress based on the pursuit of science and reason.” Grant goes on to say that:

“At first I was sympathetic to their cause. I too was angry with the hypocrisy and false piety of religious leaders, their cover-up of abuse, their oppressive views on homosexuality, contraception and the treatment of women. Not to mention that I don’t believe in heaven, hell, miracles or the power of prayer.”

However, when Grant took the time to consider the arguments of the NAs he found “their understanding of religion intellectually shallow, and their faith in science and reason naive and dangerous.”

It was the implication of ridding the world of religion or the NA idea that if “we get rid of religion we get rid of evil” that Grant finds dangerous. In fact, 20th century history has well proven this to be a dangerous idea, and past  secular attempts for utopia, writes the atheist John Steinrucken “have not merely come to naught. Attempts during those two centuries to put into practice utopian visions have caused huge sufferings”.

However, as Grant believes, it is not religion that is the source of all evil and the NA argument that it is “is a fool’s errand: the capacity for oppression and intolerance is not unique to the religious, or the secular. Rather it is part of our corruptible nature.” Philosopher Paul Copan argues that “Because Atheists are not constrained by any moral principles except those of their own devising, they find themselves free to pursue their heart’s desires, unhampered by any constraints. This is moral anarchy, and it is a direct result of Atheism as a worldview”.

Furthermore, regarding science and reason the NAs “argue that we ought to put our faith in science and reason to deliver us from evil and usher in a future of unfettered human progress,” however, argues Grant “This kind of thinking misunderstands the role of science and technology” especially because “Technology and science are morally neutral: they are tools that can be used for good and for bad. We use science to feed the hungry, explore the universe, cure disease, and to create nuclear weapons, chemical and biological warfare, gas chambers, and bureaucratic systems of surveillance and oppression.”

“The danger in assuming that science and technology are inherently good is that it tempts us to have blind faith in whatever they allow us to do. We are seduced into assuming we no longer need to be cautious and wary of our tendencies for violence and domination.” According to Grant it is our nature that is “something we have not yet mastered.”



source: https://jamesbishopblog./2015/12/19/4544/

winner01:
iSorry I dont remember asking a question.

The devil is the only person who wages war against the truth. We can see his manifestations in you for instance.

read your topic title...and see where you asked a ''?''
who is the devil?

onetrack:

Can you provide testable evidence for this?

Lie selfies and video comedies right?
Enjoy your foolishness jare!

onetrack:

Can you provide testable evidence for this?

Like selfies and video comedies right?
Enjoy your foolishness jare!