Please can you define "new atheism" and tell us why you are so negative about it or your views about it.


Thanks


(Anyone that has something to say on "new atheism" can join )

New Atheism is the name given to the ideas promoted by a collection of modern atheist writers who have advocated the view that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises."[1]

The term is commonly associated with individuals such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens (together called "the Four Horsemen of New Atheism" in a taped 2007 discussion they held on their criticisms of religion, a name that has stuck),[2] along with Victor J. Stenger,[3] Lawrence M. Krauss and A.C. Grayling.[4] Several best-selling books by these authors, published between 2004 and 2007, form the basis for much of the discussion of New Atheism.[5]

Logicboy03: Please can you define "new atheism" and tell us why you are so negative about it or your views about it.


Thanks


(Anyone that has something to say on "new atheism" can join )

New Atheism is the name given to the ideas promoted by a collection of modern atheist writers who have pretended to advocate the view that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises."

The term is commonly associated with individuals such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens (together called "the Four Horsemen of New Atheism" in a taped 2007 discussion they held on their criticisms of religion, a name that has stuck)

It should be noted that the four horsemen have not been known to propose a single argument in favour of atheism. This puts a big question mark on their claim to criticize religion using rational arguments.

Mr anony:
New Atheism is the name given to the ideas promoted by a collection of modern atheist writers who have pretended to advocate the view that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises."

The term is commonly associated with individuals such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens (together called "the Four Horsemen of New Atheism" in a taped 2007 discussion they held on their criticisms of religion, a name that has stuck)

It should be noted that the four horsemen have not been known to propose a single argument in favour of atheism. This puts a big question mark on their claim to criticize religion using rational arguments.

Guy, I want to have a clean discussion like the ones you have with the homer. Or do you prefer me in my debunking mode?

Take this serioulsy, please.


State your views on "new atheism"

Logicboy03: Guy, I want to have a clean discussion like the ones you have with the homer. Or do you prefer me in my debunking mode?

Take this serioulsy, please.


State your views on "new atheism"

Lol, someone is jealous about my relationship with thehomer.

This is me taking it seriously. New atheism is the atheism of Dawkins and co. and basically the problem is that they never make any argument for why atheism is true instead of theism. Rather the movement is characterized by one-liners in mockery of religion and theism.

The claim that they want to criticize religion rationally is always destroyed by the fact that their favourite weapon of choice is irrational mockery.

Mr anony:
Lol, someone is jealous about my relationship with thehomer.

This is me taking it seriously. New atheism is the atheism of Dawkins and co. and basically the problem is that they never make any argument for why atheism is true instead of theism. Rather the movement is characterized by one-liners in mockery of religion and theism.

The claim that they want to criticize religion rationally is always destroyed by the fact that their favourite weapon of choice is irrational mockery.

Sorry, I had to laugh for 2 minutes because of the bold....yes, it is true; we no longer have meaningful debates...our debates used to enter 5 pages and were the reading diets of the religion section...
===========================================


So, on topic- what do you honestly mean by

1) "they never make any argument for why atheism is true instead of theism."
Dawkins and co. have stated that there is no evidence for god....they have explained the world without God- evolution, big bang etc

2) "The claim that they want to criticize religion rationally is always destroyed by the fact that their favourite weapon of choice is irrational mockery."
Dawkins and co, have explained the failures of religion. Hitchens murdered the catholic church on its homophobia...Dawkins talked about the heavy habdedness of the old testament God.



By the way, dont you think that it is a bit fallacious to claim that new atheism is the actions of the most popular new atheists?

Logicboy03:


Sorry, I had to laugh for 2 minutes because of the bold....yes, it is true; we no longer have meaningful debates...our debates used to enter 5 pages and were the reading diets of the religion section...
===========================================


So, on topic- what do you honestly mean by

1) "they never make any argument for why atheism is true instead of theism."
Dawkins and co. have stated that there is no evidence for god....they have explained the world without God- evolution, big bang etc

2) "The claim that they want to criticize religion rationally is always destroyed by the fact that their favourite weapon of choice is irrational mockery."
Dawkins and co, have explained the failures of religion. Hitchens murdered the catholic church on its homophobia...Dawkins talked about the heavy habdedness of the old testament God.



By the way, dont you think that it is a bit fallacious to claim that new atheism is the actions of the most popular new atheists?

Allow me to take some time concerning my response to this.

Mr anony:
Allow me to take some time concerning my response to this.

hmmmm.......seems like a cop out.......but lets see

Logicboy03:


hmmmm.......seems like a cop out.......but lets see

you should know by now that trying to bait me does not work

Dawkins and co. have stated that there is no evidence for god....they have explained the world without God- evolution, big bang etc

You must be having a laugh.

Evolution? Where more numerically successful organisms through natural selection which depends on survival of the fittest, evolve into less numerically successful complex organisms?

The Big B@ng? Where, for no known reason, and no known cause, (a situation entirely unknown and heretical to science) an entire universe explodes into existence - the singularity that it explodes from, also remaining a mystery?

You call these explanations?

Please go and have breakfast.

Deep Sight:

You must be having a laugh.

Evolution? Where more numerically successful organisms through natural selection which depends on survival of the fittest, evolve into less numerically successful complex organisms?

The Big B@ng? Where, for no known reason, and no known cause, (a situation entirely unknown and heretical to science) an entire universe explodes into existence - the singularity that it explodes from, also remaining a mystery?

You call these explanations?

Please go and have breakfast.

Guy, please no derailing. The topic is not about your ignorance about science.

Logicboy03:


Guy, please no derailing. The topic is not about your ignorance about science.

O, those were scientific posers in there, which you are clearly ignorant about.

You see son, there is no difference between the religion-follower who laps up everything he is told by Priests, without thinking for himself, and the Science-follower, who laps up everything he is told by scientists, without thinking for himself. Both the Priest and the Scientist are human, and prone to error and mis-judgment, and it falls to the thinking man to discern truth from error.

Indeed, if anything, science teaches us to think, and it is sad indeed, that so called science-followers, then refuse to think, effectively becoming as brain-washed as the religious on the fallacies conjured by a fellow, fallible man.

Deep Sight:
You see son, there is no difference between the religion-follower who laps up everything he is told by Priests, without thinking for himself, and the Science-follower, who laps up everything he is told by scientists, without thinking for himself. Both the Priest and the Scientist are human, and prone to error and mis-judgment, and it falls to the thinking man to discern truth from error.

Indeed, if anything, science teaches us to think, and it is sad indeed, that so called science-followers, then refuse to think, effectively becoming as brain-washed as the religious on the fallacies conjured by a fellow, fallible man.

it is why a science follower(?) has to be educated enough to have the propensity to discern between actual science and "bad" science aka pseudoscience (every field of study has its quacks and hacks; from evolutionary biology to climatology to the health care sector to even social sciences like history) espoused mostly by people with financial stakes in it or those with a political agenda or...wait for it...those motivated by their own biased "religious" view points.

seriously, people can twist words into any shape or form they want and prove whatever idea they put into their own heads but it still won't make it true...the fundamental difference between science and religion that doesn't go away simply because you rationalize them both is that one "relies on evidence", and the other doesn't...science is about coming up with an idea and not only supporting it, but inviting everyone to show why it's wrong; religion on the other hand is about protecting an idea against any and all evidence that could possibly prove it wrong, and invent arguments for why it's true.

who would you rather take more seriously, those who follow something (religion) notorious for conceiving an idea and then trying to make it true either by propaganda or sometimes by force, or those that follow a field (science) that sets out trying to make a discovery and then immediately sets out trying to disprove of it, just to make sure it's correct before everybody makes idiots of themselves

Logicboy03:
...our debates used to enter 5 pages and were the reading diets of the religion section...
===========================================

smh...i hope you're getting paid for posting on nairaland, if not...oh well..

Mudley, Nairaland is a hobby i like. Furthermore, you shouldnt even try to make such comments...we know your history...

The New Atheist Movement is something I can never associate with. As long as the gullible ones keep their delusions to themselves, why should I not want to tolerate them? I am simply an atheist, there is nothing more to that.

No man can live in isolation and variation is needed for evolution. If there are no believers in myth, evolution would become a truism. I think its OK for people who doesn't understand nature to ask questions. Asking questions and finding answers is how we will evolve intellectually to treat future problems and survive as a species.

Mr anony:
Allow me to take some time concerning my response to this.

Logicboy03:


hmmmm.......seems like a cop out.......but lets see

And it was thus......a cop out!

Anony, you're a tool for wasting my time. Douche

ooman: The New Atheist Movement is something I can never associate with. As long as the gullible ones keep their delusions to themselves, why should I not want to tolerate them? I am simply an atheist, there is nothing more to that.

No man can live in isolation and variation is needed for evolution. If there are no believers in myth, evolution would become a truism. I think its OK for people who doesn't understand nature to ask questions. Asking questions and finding answers is how we will evolve intellectually to treat future problems and survive as a species.

mann u just took the words outta my mouth, dawkins kind of atheism is really disgusting, seriously,

Logicboy03:

Guy, please no derailing. The topic is not about your ignorance about science.

I see. What is dark energy ?

bolaino: mann u just took the words outta my mouth, dawkins kind of atheism is really disgusting, seriously,

What? A whole Daddy G.O Dawkins? Pope of Atheism?

Dont be insolent

Mudley313:

it is why a science follower(?) has to be educated enough to have the propensity to discern between actual science and "bad" science aka pseudoscience (every field of study has its quacks and hacks; from evolutionary biology to climatology to the health care sector to even social sciences like history) espoused mostly by people with financial stakes in it or those with a political agenda or...wait for it...those motivated by their own biased "religious" view points.

seriously, people can twist words into any shape or form they want and prove whatever idea they put into their own heads but it still won't make it true...the fundamental difference between science and religion that doesn't go away simply because you rationalize them both is that one "relies on evidence", and the other doesn't...science is about coming up with an idea and not only supporting it, but inviting everyone to show why it's wrong; religion on the other hand is about protecting an idea against any and all evidence that could possibly prove it wrong, and invent arguments for why it's true.

who would you rather take more seriously, those who follow something (religion) notorious for conceiving an idea and then trying to make it true either by propaganda or sometimes by force, or those that follow a field (science) that sets out trying to make a discovery and then immediately sets out trying to disprove of it, just to make sure it's correct before everybody makes idiots of themselves



smh...i hope you're getting paid for posting on nairaland, if not...oh well..

Evidence like faith is a logical construct. The things used as evidence, those exist. Stop saying it as if an object comes with a theory written with on it. People instead describe objects and events with terms and theories.

Uyi Iredia:

I see. What is dark energy ?

What do you think of new atheism? I am not your science teacher

Logicboy03:


What do you think of new atheism? I am not your science teacher

Atheism in recent times that is aggressive in its promotion and spiteful of religions. I was asking you that question as a teacher to a student not vice-versa.

Logicboy03:


What? A whole Daddy G.O Dawkins? Pope of Atheism?

Dont be insolent

hahahahahah, na really daddy G.O dawkins, lwkmd, but seriously, dawkins form of atheism is gradually evolving into a religious sect, he is slowly becoming what he set off to destroy, every human has his/her fundamental rights to have varying views, if they chose to have foolish views, it's their business, dawkins has become a radical atheist, and this form of new atheism is not healthy, cos it breeds hatred,

Uyi Iredia:

Atheism in recent times that is aggressive in its promotion and spiteful of religions. I was asking you that question as a teacher to a student not vice-versa.

Examples of this "aggressiveness"and "spite"

Logicboy03:

Examples of this "aggressiveness"and "spite"

Here and here

Uyi Iredia:

Here and here

Bullshyt! Quote and bold the parts where you feel that they are spiteful!

Logicboy03:

Bullshyt! Quote and bold the parts where you feel that they are spiteful!

Aah aahh ! Na so u just close eye ni ! You wanna argue over how the words can be interpreted. When one was clearly intent on ridiculing religion. Dey dere !

Originally, I asked to be given some time to respond to this because I wanted to be sure I could pinpoint what the New Atheism actually is but unfortunately I failed at that because the so called "new atheism" is largely undefined and is best recognized by the faces of Dawkins and co. I think the easiest way to honestly define new atheism is to call it the atheism of the 4 horsemen namely: Dawkins, Dennet, Harris and Hitchens. If you don't mind, in order to keep the argument from flying on tangents I'll suggest we focus on these 4. You are free to add other names you feel are New atheists but for the ease of discussion, I'll refer to them as Dawkins et al.

Logicboy03:
Sorry, I had to laugh for 2 minutes because of the bold....yes, it is true; we no longer have meaningful debates...our debates used to enter 5 pages and were the reading diets of the religion section...
===========================================

Lol, oh well.

So, on topic- what do you honestly mean by

1) "they never make any argument for why atheism is true instead of theism."
Dawkins and co. have stated that there is no evidence for god....they have explained the world without God- evolution, big bang etc

Let's see, can you mention any arguments Dawkins et al have made to conclude that God does not exist? If so, please present the argument thus:

According to Dawkins et al (insert name of horseman): God does not exist because.....

Note: I am not talking about counter arguments like "theists claim X but X doesn't really prove that...." I am talking about actual positive arguments made by them.

2) "The claim that they want to criticize religion rationally is always destroyed by the fact that their favourite weapon of choice is irrational mockery."
Dawkins and co, have explained the failures of religion. Hitchens murdered the catholic church on its homophobia...Dawkins talked about the heavy habdedness of the old testament God.

Have they now? I really don't think so. For instance, Dawkins' favourite weapon of choice is to set up the false parallel between science and religion and then proceed to play the game of religion = dumb, science = smart. Ironically, most of his fans do not really learn to actually reason and question things rather they learn instead to trust the "scientist" in a remarkably similar way the religious learn to trust their priests.

By the way, dont you think that it is a bit fallacious to claim that new atheism is the actions of the most popular new atheists?

I would agree that there is something quite wrong with defining new atheism by the actions of dawkins et al, however I know of no better way of defining it. If you present a better definition for us, I would gladly consider it

Mr anony: Originally, I asked to be given some time to respond to this because I wanted to be sure I could pinpoint what the New Atheism actually is but unfortunately I failed at that because the so called "new atheism" is largely undefined and is best recognized by the faces of Dawkins and co. I think the easiest way to honestly define new atheism is to call it the atheism of the 4 horsemen namely: Dawkins, Dennet, Harris and Hitchens. If you don't mind, in order to keep the argument from flying on tangents I'll suggest we focus on these 4. You are free to add other names you feel are New atheists but for the ease of discussion, I'll refer to them as Dawkins et al.

New atheism is simply atheism of the 21st century where atheists are more outspoken on their views. Simple and short. The only difference between atheism of the 21st century and the old atheism is that we have science/technology/internet that is beneficial.

Defining concepts by the most popular proponents is silly and will always be silly.

Mr anony:
Let's see, can you mention any arguments Dawkins et al have made to conclude that God does not exist? If so, please present the argument thus:

According to Dawkins et al (insert name of horseman): God does not exist because.....

Note: I am not talking about counter arguments like "theists claim X but X doesn't really prove that...." I am talking about actual positive arguments made by them.

You have to stop this dubious style of debating. I clearly gave examples of what they (the horsemen) have said on belief in God. But you went to anonynize and ask for arguments that God doesnt exist....


Plain and simple, they have said that there is no reason to believe in a God. Dawkins especially said that he cant prove that God doesnt exist and that as an atheist, he is also an agnostic.

Their argument is simple- there is no valid reason to believe in god. God is useless and unavailable in our current life. Our evolution, our big bang is explained without God. Nothing biological or physical needs God as an explanation.

I wont go into the philosophical arguments on the problem of evil. That is too long.

Mr anony:
Have they now? I really don't think so. For instance, Dawkins' favourite weapon of choice is to set up the false parallel between science and religion and then proceed to play the game of religion = dumb, science = smart. Ironically, most of his fans do not really learn to actually reason and question things rather they learn instead to trust the "scientist" in a remarkably similar way the religious learn to trust their priests.

False claim alert in bold!!!

Dawkins does not set up any parallel between science and religion. Rather, it is you christians and muslims that claim that science and religion can co-exist together or are complimentary.

Dawkins has nothing to do with religion. He actually wants religion removed from science. Let science be. No creationism in evolution classes. So, for you to claim that Dawkins sets up a parallel between science and religion is not only false but slander.


Furthermore, even atheists criticise Dawkins and some take a different stance- take for instace Neil degrasse Tyson who said that Dawkins should focus more on teaching rather than mocking (not that he disagreed with the mocking- he just wanted focus on the teaching of science).


For you to even compare the way many atheist praise Dawkins to the way christians revere their priests......you are very dubious. Apples and oranges.

Mr anony:
I would agree that there is something quite wrong with defining new atheism by the actions of dawkins et al, however I know of no better way of defining it. If you present a better definition for us, I would gladly consider it

Read my first paragraph

Logicboy03:

New atheism is simply atheism of the 21st century where atheists are more outspoken on their views. Simple and short. The only difference between atheism of the 21st century and the old atheism is that we have science/technology/internet that is beneficial.

Lol, if you say so, however, I hope you do realize that this has not in any way given "new atheism any meaningful definition.
We both know that science, technology and the internet have nothing to do with atheism anymore than how we don't proclaim "New Islam" because muslims have become more vocal and now employ science technology and the internet to spread their message

Defining concepts by the most popular proponents is silly and will always be silly.

Yet it is not silly to define Classical Greek Philosophy by the works of Plato, Aristotle and co. neither is it silly to define Renaissance art by the works of Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and co.
Why must we employ special pleading for New Atheism?

You have to stop this dubious style of debating. I clearly gave examples of what they (the horsemen) have said on belief in God. But you went to anonynize and ask for arguments that God doesnt exist....

You really have to stop appealing to "anonyism" when you can't make a point.

Plain and simple, they have said that there is no reason to believe in a God. Dawkins especially said that he cant prove that God doesnt exist and that as an atheist, he is also an agnostic.

This proves my point again. If he cannot provide any arguments to prove that God doesn't exist, then he cannot be an atheist or that his atheism is a properly rational worldview to hold. There is no such thing as "an agnostic atheist"

Their argument is simple- there is no valid reason to believe in god. God is useless and unavailable in our current life. Our evolution, our big bang is explained without God. Nothing biological or physical needs God as an explanation.

Again exactly what I've been saying: They haven't actually made any argument to lead to their conclusion. All they've done is sit back and claim that arguments made in favour of God are not good. Please provide an actual New Atheist argument that disproves God for us to talk about.

I wont go into the philosophical arguments on the problem of evil. That is too long.

Good choice for you. Besides, The problem of evil argument is not a new atheist argument.

False claim alert in bold!!!

Dawkins does not set up any parallel between science and religion. Rather, it is you christians and muslims that claim that science and religion can co-exist together or are complimentary.

i wonder why Christians and muslims would need to do that. Maybe it's because someone is suggesting they are not compatible.

Dawkins has nothing to do with religion. He actually wants religion removed from science. Let science be. No creationism in evolution classes. So, for you to claim that Dawkins sets up a parallel between science and religion is not only false but slander.

@ bold. Yet he thinks they can coexist? I think the problem here is that you don't seem to understand what it means to set up parallels. Mr Dawkins simply doesn't think that it is right for one to be both religious and at the same time scientific. He thinks they a parallels that shouldn't meet. You have confirmed as much in your post. My contention is that Dawkins and co are wrong and such a parallel is a false one. Science and religious beliefs can and do co-exist and that both inform us about the true nature of reality.

Furthermore, even atheists criticise Dawkins and some take a different stance- take for instace Neil degrasse Tyson who said that Dawkins should focus more on teaching rather than mocking (not that he disagreed with the mocking- he just wanted focus on the teaching of science).

You have conceded that Dawkins at least employs mockery as a tool to a large extent and that Neil DeGrrasse does not disagree with employing mockery as a tool though he would like to see more teaching.

For you to even compare the way many atheist praise Dawkins to the way christians revere their priests......you are very dubious. Apples and oranges.

Lol really? You should watch how the crowd responds to Dawkins at atheist conferences and compare it to how the crowd responds to Oyedepo at Winners chapel conferences

Read my first paragraph

Read mine too

Mr anony:
Lol, if you say so, however, I hope you do realize that this has not in any way given "new atheism any meaningful definition.
We both know that science, technology and the internet have nothing to do with atheism anymore than how we don't proclaim "New Islam" because muslims have become more vocal and now employ science technology and the internet to spread their message

Seriously? Seriously? Dude, you really need to change your dubious style of argument!

You just avoided the first sentence of my definition and then claimed that I didnt give any meaningful definition. Are you silly or just a liar?

Here is my definition;

Logicboy:
New atheism is simply atheism of the 21st century where atheists are more outspoken on their views. Simple and short.

This is a very good and concise definition

Note that the wikipedia and rational wiki both agree with my definition that
-new atheism is a 21st century phenomena
-they are more outspoken (compared to their predecessors)

You then went to make 2 failed arguments

-"science/technology/internet have nothing to do with atheism". Fail. These three things are all secular by nature. Also they have everything to do with anything in this modern life.

-"there is no new islam/muslims are more vocal". How silly for you to make this false parallel! First and foremost atheists were actually silent and silenced in the past. Can that be said of christians and muslims? Can it even be compared? Both christians and muslims went on crusades- conquering and pillaging in the name of their god for hundreds of years while atheism has no organisation till the enlightenment period.

How are muslims more vocal? Anything less vocal that conquering and converting different continents just soon after Muhammad's death?

Mr anony:
Yet it is not silly to define Classical Greek Philosophy by the works of Plato, Aristotle and co. neither is it silly to define Renaissance art by the works of Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and co.
Why must we employ special pleading for New Atheism?

Stop this dubious anonyism.

Renaissance art is not defined by Leonardo Da vinci's works anymore than football is defined by Ronaldo.

The wikipedia entry does not even mention Da Vinci in its first paragraph defining it.

Reinaissance art is defined as art refkecting interest in classical values of ancient Greece and Rome. Da Vinci is just one of its most popular artists. There was a whole century in reinassance art before Da Vinci works were even recognised.

Normally, the same argument goes for Greek philosophy.


It is silly to define a concept by it's most popular proponents.

Mr anony:
You really have to stop appealing to "anonyism" when you can't make a point.

Even more anonyism.

With or without my claims of anonyism, my points still hold.

Mr anony:
This proves my point again. If he cannot provide any arguments to prove that God doesn't exist, then he cannot be an atheist or that his atheism is a properly rational worldview to hold. There is no such thing as "an agnostic atheist"

Seriously dude?

Atheism- disbelief in God. Atheism is not the belief that God does not exist.

Dawkins says that he can not prove that God doesnt exist just as he can not prove that the spaghetti monster doesnt exist. Dawkins never said that God doesnt exist. He never made such a claim. Stop lying and using strawmen

Every agnostic is an atheist. You forget that these two words have very little boundaries between each other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
"Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact"
===============

Summary; Anony fails again!

Mr anony:
Again exactly what I've been saying: They haven't actually made any argument to lead to their conclusion. All they've done is sit back and claim that arguments made in favour of God are not good. Please provide an actual New Atheist argument that disproves God for us to talk about.

Strawman- their position is not that God doesnt exist. Their position is that there is no valid reason to believe that God does not exist.

Russel's teapot is one
problem of evil is another

Mr anony:
Good choice for you. Besides, The problem of evil argument is not a new atheist argument.

I never made such a claim. Besides, the problem of evil keeps being fine-tuned with every passing teachnological advancement. For instance; abortion- we now know (with the help of modern science) that spontaneous/natural abortions are the most common abortions that happen. This means that God/nature is the king of abortion.

Mr anony:
i wonder why Christians and muslims would need to do that. Maybe it's because someone is suggesting they are not compatible.

How does this change the fact that you lied that Dawkins was creating a false parallel?

Furthermore, who was claiming that they were not compatible (science v religion) when the catholic church was the ruling body of science in Europe?

You have no point here. Try again

Mr anony:
@ bold. Yet he thinks they can coexist? I think the problem here is that you don't seem to understand what it means to set up parallels. Mr Dawkins simply doesn't think that it is right for one to be both religious and at the same time scientific. He thinks they a parallels that shouldn't meet. You have confirmed as much in your post. My contention is that Dawkins and co are wrong and such a parallel is a false one. Science and religious beliefs can and do co-exist and that both inform us about the true nature of reality.

Fail. Dawkins has never said such (in bold). Infact, there are numerous videos of him showing that he keeps telling people that they are free to believe what they believe but they should not teach faith/religion in science classes. Simple. You can teach whatever you want in your religion/faith classes.

Dawkins doesnt care what anyone believes as long as it doesnt interfere with other peoples rights and right to knowledge.

So you have lied again against Dawkins.

Mr anony:
You have conceded that Dawkins at least employs mockery as a tool to a large extent and that Neil DeGrrasse does not disagree with employing mockery as a tool though he would like to see more teaching.

So?

Mr anony:
Lol really? You should watch how the crowd responds to Dawkins at atheist conferences and compare it to how the crowd responds to Oyedepo at Winners chapel conferences

Yes because Oyedepo gets questioned at his convention by christians, scientists, muslims and atheists just like how Dawkins is bombarded.

Stop lying bro.

Mr anony:
Read mine too

Yawn

Logicboy03:



Atheism- disbelief in God. Atheism is not the belief that God does not exist.

Obversion is a well-known fact of logic. By obversion any affirmative statement can be asserted negatively. Example: logicboy is a fool. Its obverse: logicboy is not an unfoolish person. Now let's see if your obversion of the proposition that:

Atheism is the belief that God does not exist.

is correct.

The obverse is

Atheism is not the belief (the disbelief) that God exists.

logicboy states: "Atheism is not the belief that God does not exist." Put obversely: "Atheism is the belief that God exists."

Clearly, the positive obverse of logicboy's FALSE statement contradicts the previous and valid definition of atheism and its obverse. The right thing for him to say is: Atheism is not the belief that God exists. Trying to state otherwise via logicboyism has made him contradict his sorry a$$.

Wallow in your logicboyism my dear friend, wallow in it.

Logicboy03: Our evolution, our big bang is explained without God.

Not only is this remarkably foollish, it is also a blatant lie.

Oya, go ahead and explain how and why the big b.ang occurred.