Posted on 01/05/2007 2:07:33 PM PST by shrinkermd
....What is new about the new atheists? It's not their arguments. Spend as much time as you like with a pile of the recent anti-religion books, but you won't encounter a single point you didn't hear in your freshman dormitory. It's their tone that is novel. Belief, in their eyes, is not just misguided but contemptible, the product of provincial minds, the mark of people who need to be told how to think and how to vote -- both of which, the new atheists assure us, they do in lockstep with the pope and Jerry Falwell.
For them, belief in God is beyond childish, it is unsuitable for children. Today's atheists are particularly disgusted by the religious training of young people -- which Dr. Dawkins calls "a form of child abuse." He even floats the idea that the state should intervene to protect children from their parents' religious beliefs.
For the new atheists, believing in God is a form of stupidity, which sets off their own intelligence. They write as if they were the first to discover that biblical miracles are improbable, that Parson Weems was a fabulist, that religion is full of superstition. They write as if great minds had never before wrestled with the big questions of creation, moral law and the contending versions of revealed truth. They argue as if these questions are easily answered by their own blunt materialism....
The faith that the new atheists describe is a simple-minded parody. It is impossible to see within it what might have preoccupied great artists and thinkers like Homer, Milton, Michelangelo, Newton and Spinoza -- let alone Aquinas, Dr. Johnson, Kierkegaard, Goya, Cardinal Newman, Reinhold Niebuhr or, for that matter, Albert Einstein....
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
"...Among the prominent atheists who now sermonize to the believers in their midst are Dr. Dawkins, Daniel C. Dennett ("Breaking the Spell") and Sam Harris ("The End of Faith" and, more recently, "Letter to a Christian Nation"). There are others, too, like Steven Weinberg, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist, Brooke Allen (whose "Moral Minority" was a celebration of the skeptical Founders) and a host of commentators appalled by the Intelligent Design movement. The transcript of a recent symposium on the perils of religious thought can be found at a science Web site called edge.org.
I'm an objectivist (an atheist), who would have thought I'd now have to consider myself part of the old school.
This has little to do with atheism and a lot to do with liberalism. Atheist are all over the map politically, my politics are a lot closer to the average freeper's then to Dawkins.
(my philosophy is nowhere near either but it's political results are closer to libertariana and conservatives.)
let the games begin.
All things being equal, it seems to me that belief in God is the more rational position than non-belief. But when it comes to individuals, give me an honest atheist over a phony Christian every time.
"all persecution begins this way."
Huh? What persecution?
--All things being equal, it seems to me that belief in God is the more rational position than non-belief.--
What is rational about believing in an omni-potent entity?
"But when it comes to individuals, give me an honest atheist over a phony Christian every time."
All things being equal, who would you take, an honest Christian, or honest Atheist? Just curious....
Enough has been seen in human history to say that God is
there and is not silent. If these men don't want to believe,
that is their own solemn choice.
What is rational about not believing in an omnipotent
entity? What is it about the life of the mind that all
human thought and reason must exclude the existence of God?
Homer?
Atheism is the highest expression of arrogance.
In other words...things remain as they always have been, but with new players on both sides.
If we work the way the world works (a fundamental point of materialism) then the world works the way we work. And we work by will, which has at least the physical effect that we talk about it. So the logical presumption is that the world works by will, i.e., God.
Actually, Watson and Crick, both atheist, discovered DNA. Frances Collins was the lead scientist in mapping the human genome. But you are correct, he is a devout Christian.
bump for later reading
Reasoning from first principles I ask myself why anything exists and conclude that some entity must have created it, because something cannot arise from nothing without being caused.
--Reasoning from first principles I ask myself why anything exists and conclude that some entity must have created it, because something cannot arise from nothing without being caused.--
Which directly leads to the often asked question, 'Who created God'?
Well I'd like to think that I'm an honest Christian (not necessarily a good one, mind) so I'd take my own part.
I concur.Phony Christians do God way more harm than the unbelieving set.
I truly think had I not been exposed to such multitudes of unholy"believers"as a child,I would have come to God a lot sooner than I did.
Even to this day,I am skeptical of the plethora of"Christians"on my job who put way more emphasis on money and pop culture than getting their souls saved.
My belief in God is stronger than ever.My faith in people diminishes by the day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.