What does /his/ think of New Atheism?

Nassim Taleb soundly crushed it in his writings, although in public speaking he's terrible.

>>1680425

THERE IS NOTHING NEW TO IT.

>>1680425
Besides being blubbering idiots with hardly any worth, not much.

It's a shit term and people who use it are certified retards.

>>1680425

Atheism seems to be unable to create viable replacements for the civic and cultural institutions that are provided by religions, and which I think is more important than the actual theological basis for the religion. With that in mind, I don't particularly care if there is a God or not, I find their ideas to be abhorrent.

>>1680454
>Atheism seems to be unable to create viable replacements for the civic and cultural institutions
what? The US government is secular. having religious creators doesn't mean that it's tied to religion. Culture, especially in the West, isn't wholly defined by religion

>>1680467
>US government
>Secular
Its new religion is Progressivism. The god of equality demands the destruction of individual rights.

I like Dawkins and Hitchens. Sam Harris seems like a fag. Dennet's got a great beard so he's probably alright. Anyone with facial hair like that probably at least has a tolerable or interesting demeanor.
I don't know how they differ from "the old atheists" other than just being quick-witted and harsh, if that's even different. It might be more accurate to call them "celebrity atheists".

File: david_bentley_hart_600px[1].jpg (35KB, 200x250px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 200x250px

>It seems obvious to me that the peculiar vapidity of New Atheist literature is simply a reflection of the more general vapidity of all public religious discourse these days, believing and unbelieving alike. In part, of course, this is because the modern media encourage only fragmentary, sloganeering, and emotive debates, but it is also because centuries of the incremental secularization of society have left us with a shared grammar that is perhaps no longer adequate to the kinds of claims that either reflective faith or reflective faithlessness makes.

>The principal source of my melancholy, however, is my firm conviction that today’s most obstreperous infidels lack the courage, moral intelligence, and thoughtfulness of their forefathers in faithlessness. What I find chiefly offensive about them is not that they are skeptics or atheists; rather, it is that they are not skeptics at all and have purchased their atheism cheaply, with the sort of boorish arrogance that might make a man believe himself a great strategist because his tanks overwhelmed a town of unarmed peasants, or a great lover because he can afford the price of admission to a brothel. So long as one can choose one’s conquests in advance, taking always the paths of least resistance, one can always imagine oneself a Napoleon or a Casanova (and even better: the one without a Waterloo, the other without the clap).

this >>1680436

They try too hard and don't bring anything new to the table, only appeals to fedoras with spooked soccer moms who made them go to sunday school when they were kids.

I think they have relatively little to offer. Their analysis are shallow, and reductive. There is far more rigorous works / schools of thought that have more to offer.

>>1680475
>ideology and religion are the same thing

>>1680481
The idea was to be as public and open about it as the religious were about their religion. The problem is that the movement has overstayed its original purpose. It is much easier to be a public atheist now than it was even a decade ago (in western Christian countries), but the tone of discourse hasn't caught up with the changing reality.

>>1680489
They sure do treat it like a religion.

>>1680499
Really? Do they kneel towards Sweden and pray five time a day?

Not every in-group out-group mentality is a religion you fucking lunatic.

>>1680425
Nietzsche BTFO them before they were born.

>>1680425

new atheism differs from previous forms of atheism in that it bases itself on a claim to truth, not just a philosophic outlook or a set of logical conclusions but a actual claim to truth

it then takes a specific stance against the 'opposition' as being those who are explicitly wrong, false, responsible for all sorts of evil because they do not accept this basic truth

with dawkins this goes on into a sort of evangelism, where his whole thing is to bring the light of science and reason where there is religious darkness causing wars and whatnot

with harris its even expanded into a notion of universal objective morality, suposedly derived scientificaly

cant see how any of this differs much from a religious standpoint, or religious attitude, how would harrises 'objective morality' differ from religious law, dawkins and hitchens especialy seem fervently christian characters, almost stereotipical protestant christians, moralizing, evangelizing, taking ethical highgrounds and aserting claims to universal truths and so on

their 'followers' are especialy annoying, having this weird anti-religious attitude that isnt anything other than another iteration of the basic human pattern of grouping and organizing against another group, with everithing from blaming that group for this and that, and tracing the historical instances when this group caused great evil, and proclaiming members of same group to be idiots, retards, literaly inferior, demonizing their leaders and organisation, ridiculing etc...

thats without going into how intelectualy naive the whole thing is

They're pseudo-logical positivists that suck at anything philisophical.
Hitchens is cool though because he was a sweaty, drunk bon-vivant.

>>1680425
K==e ideological subversion, continued to be pumped into the soft minds of the establishment since the communist Era.

I don't believe in God but I can tell you this is extreme cancer.

>>1680467
bro

government IS a religion

A poor version of what David Hume already did much better several centuries ago

>>1680525
I'll take the myth (if you want to call it that) of a peaceable, brainy chap like Harris over the myths of a bunch of ignorant, gullible, fearful, bloodthirsty, incestuous desert tribesmen.

Dress it up in fancy theological, half-arsed philosophical ramblings if you like, but that's really what the choice comes down to, if you insist on making it into a choice.

>>1680467

And the US government is limited in scope, meaning that there is plenty of room for religious institutions and government institutions to get along, and religious institutions have the added benefit of voluntary association and not being allowed to use violence to enforce their decisions.

>>1680611
>religious institutions have the added benefit of voluntary association and not being allowed to use violence to enforce their decisions
this isn't specific to religious organizations. this just describes any organization that isn't an armed militia or a government

>>1680425
One of my many cultural enemies. There's no doubt though, whatever it is, that they have been very influential and will from years to come.
But I'll admit that some work by Dawkins and the Bearded One is positive. In some countries being atheist is a hell, and it is good if they help out these people.

We'll see religion in the shape of ideology anyway, that means no rituals and the like, but does mean a kind of faith. For the West that is scientism and economism.

>>1680425
popsci anti religion movement for edgy teens

File: respect my rights to my imaginary friends you fedora edgelord.jpg (22KB, 397x260px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 397x260px

The best thing about the new atheists is how anally devastated godcucks get just thinking about them. The butthurt is particularly acute when the new atheists attack religious moderates for providing the screen behind with religious extremists hide.

godcucks will nitpick their arguments about specific things and call them edgy and pseudointellectual and so on (just see this thread for proof)...

But you will notice that godcucks NEVER touch the new atheist's main argument, which is that in an age of weapons of mass destruction, belief in god will destroy us all unless we destroy it first. Deep down godshits know they are right.

>>1680702
thank you for providing us an example of pseudointellectualism so typical for new atheism

>>1680605

see, this is what im talking about

le cuck

>>1680702
this post is why people hate new atheists

>>1680702
Frankly, I can't handle all these non sequiturs

>>1680702
I know this is bait, but this
>godcucks will nitpick their arguments about specific things and call them edgy and pseudointellectual and so on
is undeniably true. For some at least.

>>1680711
>implying intellectualism is required

>>1680711
>>1680782
>>1680802
>>1680878
>in an age of weapons of mass destruction, belief in god will destroy us all unless we destroy it first

Notice how none of the replies addressed this.

>>1680444
checked

File: 3.jpg (232KB, 1536x1024px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 1536x1024px

In The God Delusion Dawkins attempted to refute the cosmological argument by asking "who created god?" I don't know how anyone can take him seriously when he is completely unwilling to understand the other side of the debate.

They are dropping the ball so hard, everyone is having a knee-jerk reaction and is rejecting it because they find it annoying, it isn't anything cohesive and doesn't really do anything, it has simply become a circlejerk that isn't self-aware that it is a circle-jerk, which is funny because they criticize religion for doing this, which makes them look like fools

I'm atheist btw

>>1680903
This. No wonder his fanbase is r/atheism types

>>1680903

I've seen him say stuff like that in debates too so this isn't just some one time lapse in judgement while writing his book. He honestly believes he's making a point with that.l

File: B8r.jpg (1MB, 2202x1300px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2202x1300px

>>1680605
Why do you need to make baseless, half-baked personal attacks? Why can't you attack the teachings themselves?

I don't really oppose the 'Four Horsemen' but I fucking hate their followers. You can't legitimately attack something if you don't have a decent understanding of what you are attacking. This is the intrinsic problem of followers of 'new atheism'; they see themselves as being above religion when far more intelligent people than them have taken it seriously, to the point of dying or dedicating their life to studying it.

The true roots of religion and it's spiritual base are nothing to be taken lightly, it takes a lot of abstract philosophical thought to understand the metaphysics of the concept of god. What 'New Atheists' are arguing against is Americanized religion or the half truths about Islam popularised by the cancerous American MSM.

>>1680893
I guess the problem is new atheists are preaching to the wrong people. Refuting religious beliefs in the West does not give them any visibility, or credibility, in the areas of the World where religious extremists, mostly Muslims, live.

Yeah, it's true that in the event that Al Qaeda or Isis or anyone get hold of a WMD they'll be more than happy to launch it on the evil Western countries, but screaming about it in front moderate Christians or other non-believers achieves nothing.

>>1680915
>He honestly believes he's making a point with that
He's not?

>>1680929
Meant for >>1680903

File: 211.jpg (465KB, 630x6143px) Image search: [Google]

465KB, 630x6143px

>>1680929

No he's not, and it demonstrates complete ignorance of the cosmological argument. Asking what created god is like asking "what caused the uncaused thing?" The argument itself states that everything that begins to exist must have a cause, Dawkins seems to misinterpret this as saying everything that exists must have a cause. Something that begins to exist must have an explanation for its existence while an eternal being doesn't begin to exist so it would explain itself.

>>1680929
>>1680942
Obviously. He misses the fundamental argument.

Most people on this board are atheists. Even the contrarian edgelords who claim to be religious, are really atheists, they are just shitposting and don't want to be associated with reddit-tier fedoras, even though they know the reddit-tier fedoras are intellectually correct.

It goes to show that even atheists themselves are a product of their environment, and will follow trends even if it goes against their rational faculties.

>>1680425
More like the "New Memeism"

Atheist are more preaching and getting in the face of other people then religiuos people, that alone doesn't let me take their pseudo intelectual bullshit seriuosly.

>>1680965
>Atheist are more preaching and getting in the face of other people then religiuos people

Cute b8, atheists are literally 10% of the world population, so there's no way that is remotely true.

>>1680945
If uncaused things exist, then there doesn't seem to be any reason to assume that the universe is not one of them. If God is the only member of the class of uncaused things that exists, then implicit in the premises is the assumption that God exists and is circular reasoning.
The cosmological argument, even the modified version, can be handily dismissed using its own logic without even getting into a post-quantum mechanics understanding of the universe.

>>1680960
38% of the board is atheist, there was a strawpoll with over 1000 responses

Everything you proceed to say is now irrelevant, and I will not be reading it.

>>1680425
>people constantly trying to turn not believing in gods in to some cult/movement/religion
How do we stop this, lads?
t. atheist

>>1680960
There's no doubt that the reddit-tier fedora assocation with New Atheism puts me off and pushes me to another direction.
But I think your claim that there are people who claim to be religious a bit doubtful.

You can go from theist to atheist but the other way around is much harder.

File: 76.jpg (24KB, 350x227px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 350x227px

>>1680967
>then there doesn't seem to be any reason to assume that the universe is not one of them.

Yeah except this.

>>1680969
>He believes a strawpoll on a Mongolian tapestry-making forum

lmao, meanwhile only 6 years ago, 4chan was all like: "The internet is where religions come to die."

You're expecting me to believe that in 6 years, everyone on this board suddenly turned into a believer?

Bullshit.

>>1680977
If we assume uncaused things exist, then it is very easy to put the singularity into there without the need for a God. The image you just posted even directly mentions quantum fluctuations.

New Atheists are to Atheism what independent fundamentalist Baptists are to Christianity.

>>1680985

That doesn't explain the change or why the universe began to exist.

>>1680482
Hart is good. I prefer Feser.

>>1680945
Your picture is bullshit reasoning.
It also has nothing to do with the cosmological argument since rather than the subject matter being a first cause, the subject matter is a continuous "actual" force as is posited in the second picture.

>>1680969
Atheists are still the majority faction on the board based on /his/ polls.
Saying they're not and comprise only 38% means lumping every other option in those polls into one faction, probably also including agnosticism.

>>1680991
Maybe the singularity wasn't stable to begin with. There's no reason to assume it was, given that the Universe exists.

>>1680926

thing is, this, while being technicaly true, is just completely missing the point

that is, any extremist, radical, terrorist and so on, group of humans fighting and killing other humans would love to get their hands on the most destructive means possible and use it against whichsoever other humans they are fighting against

in a important way this ilustrates how new atheism approaches things

there are two basic components to this

firstly people like dawkins percieve that humans often group and organise for violence around a focal point provided by religion, and this is true, however, they then go on to conclude that its religious belief as such that gets people to organize and do mass armed violence, which is absurd

secondly there is a veird humanist aproach to the concept of human, humanity, somehow this concept excludes all malignant negatives, it basicaly just leaves a neutral optimistic version of what humans as organisms, populations of organisms, systems and cultures, are, all things being equal and excluding sporadig excesses like mental health issues or crisis events, and it only takes religion, or other irrational beliefs in something, to get these creatures to go full retard and start doing things which are oh so very moraly reproachable from a enlightened ethical standpoint based more or less on protestantism

they seem to miss the simple point that these behaviors and tendencies are characteristicaly human, that thats what humans do, thats what humans are, that no belief in any specific is necesary, any set of concepts can be put together to facilitate humans grouping together to fight and kill, this is characteristic, typical, a kind of anthropic universality, in a sense its like noticing humans use flags when going to war and so deducing flags are the problem

and all trough this they constantly call upon things like biology and neurology other scientific standpoints. yet it seems they just dont get it, they dont get anyting about humans

>>1680991
Sure it does. We know from radioactive decay that at that scale change can occur unpredictably, with no external cause. The pre-big bang universe, if it is coherent to speak of such a thing, would operate at these scales and could very easily also change independent of an external trigger.

But even ignoring that, if you first posit that uncaused things exist, you also have to prove that only God can be an uncaused thing, and not the universe itself.

>>1680994
>Your picture is bullshit reasoning.
>It also has nothing to do with the cosmological argument since rather than the subject matter being a first cause, the subject matter is a continuous "actual" force as is posited in the second picture.

Pure actual is the same thing as the first cause.

>>1681002
>they seem to miss the simple point that these behaviors and tendencies are characteristicaly human
>they dont get anyting about humans
I agree with you, but this line of thought is hardly exclusive to new atheists.

>>1681004
>But even ignoring that, if you first posit that uncaused things exist, you also have to prove that only God can be an uncaused thing, and not the universe itself.

Something pure actual wouldn't lack anything. It would by definition have to be perfect so there could only be one. Have you honestly read that picture in my original post?

>>1681093
>It would by definition have to be perfect so there could only be one.
Why?

>>1681093
Arbitrarily defining "perfection" as only one is a cute trick that doesn't actually work, since you can just as easily go the opposite route and say that "only" one causes a lack, or imperfection. And the end point of "pure actual" is only valid in the first place if we have the unbroken potential-actual chain is actually unbroken, which we know for a fact is not the moment any radioactive decay occured at all.

>>1681099

If it's not perfect then it's not pure actual because it still has potential.

>>1680994
That is a board based /his/ poll you fucking numpty. The thread was like 3 days ago

>>1680981
4chan is the hub of contrarianism.
Also:
>The majority of people being here for anywhere near 6 years

>>1681012
It is not and the picture repeatedly makes that clear.

First cause only requires the first cause to have existed at the beginning of the causal chain. Pure actual according to the image requires the first cause to continue to exist unchangingly actual at the beginning of the causal chain.

>>1681105
If it lacks potential, it lacks something, and is therefore not perfect.

>>1681102
>which we know for a fact is not the moment any radioactive decay occured at all
Not him, but isn't it possible that there actually is something that causes radiactive decay, but we haven't discovered it yet?

>>1681110
I've been here since 2008. Kill me.

>>1681130
We would be able to see it in statistical fluctuations of the decay patterns. We might not be able to know exactly what it was, but we would be able to see a spike or a dip somewhere and say "here is where some trigger changed." There was some hubbub in pro-cosmological argument circles when a lab appeared to show a seasonal variance in detections, "proving" the sun was somehow a trigger and therefore saving the argument, until it was shown that it was the lab failing to correct properly for variations in temperature/humidity etc.

>>1681141
What if the trigger is inside the particles but we can't detect with our technology? (and maybe we never will be able to)
Sorry if these questions sound trivial, but I only have a high school level of understanding of nuclear physics

>>1681089

>I agree with you, but this line of thought is hardly exclusive to new atheists.

sure, but its typical for new atheists, its their whole entire meta-point in a way, namely that religion is evil because it gets people to be ignorant and violent whereas othervise theid just be happy peacefull benign creatures developing all the most positive aspects along the lines of ''better angels of our nature'' and whatever, the rest is all just playing with logic and pseudo-intellectual piss contests against people like ken fucking ham

this also makes new atheism a specific brand of atheism as opposed to say existential atheism that has a much bleaker outlook onthings or state atheism where the antitheism was part of the broader ideology

one way or another its one of the basic fails that most new atheists pretend not to notice

another thing that differs new atheism from other forms of atheism in the past is this emphasis on objective, positivist proofs as a basis for a claim to truth
that is, a model new atheist does not simply -not believe in god/s-, he positively 'knows why' he does not believe in god/s, it isnt merely that the notion is absurd, that life experience teaches us reality isnt realy like that, that somehow we get to the realisation religious stories do not correlate literaly with what is, no, its that evolution is scientific fact and therefore we know there is no need for a creator god

its sort of like being certain that the little red riding hood story is false because you took a course in canine physiology and know for certain a whole human cannot fit into the digestive tract of a wolf and that wolves have no vocal cords either

one almost gets a sense that othervise these people would be the most fervent theists, if only they lived in a time or place when evolution wasnt a scientific fact

>>1680702
>religion is required for being asshole
>nonreligious assholes wouldn't use WMS for nothing
It's just matter of time u fag.

>>1680425
biological evolution
psychological evolution
deterministic evolution
political evolution

>>1681234
Autist of the ages

>>1681432
body
mind
spirit
collective

>>1680425
It's a bunch of fagget hypocrites are contrarian. I'm fucking glad that Richard Dawkins and others like him are being ostracized and tossed aside by the Social Justice movement and 3rd feminism. They brought it all upon themselves.

>>1680425
Dawkins really got the ball rolling and I would consider him the central figure in this "new atheism" movement. He may indeed hold deep intellectual reservations about religion but there is no denying that he has discovered a cash cow and is milking it incessantly what with the endless speaking tours and the infamous "dinner with Dawkins" where you can pay $1000 to dine with the man himself: https://richarddawkins.net/dinnerwithrichard/

I don't really have much to say about Harris or Dennet aside from how Dennet has a comfy Granfatherly persona to him.

I have mixed feelings about Hitchens, he was incredibly witty and had an encyclopedic knowledge of history but I believe he was completely off the mark about Iraq.

>>1681455

> I'm fucking glad that Richard Dawkins and others like him are being ostracized and tossed aside by the Social Justice movement and 3rd feminism. They brought it all upon themselves.

thats sounds like retards oatracizing autists

>>1680425
What's new about this?

>>1681132
2006 for me fug.

>>1680454
>Completely ignoring the place of government, social order and law.
OH, SNAP! It's almost like we don't live in caves anymore.

>>1681498
From what I know, early atheism wasn't that concerned with religion. New Atheism is, and makes books complaining about religion.
They make some good points, I think, but at the same time I think their efforts are counterproductive. Persuasion works better when you refrain from being all too hostile.

File: 1966-persecution-cultural-revolution.jpg (53KB, 450x296px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 450x296px

>communism fails
>left-wing intellectuals embarassed by their support of an obvious failure, while those hated conservative hillbillies were right all along
>"gee, better return to our Enlightenment origins in order to distract common people from how wrong we were about communism"
>"that way we can still keep prestige of being the smart people, but this time we are right!"

>>1680893
>>1680702


Because the closest we've gotten to nuclear Armageddon was in a religious conflict, right? Oh wait, it isn't. And the biggest religious conflicts we've had recently, have somehow managed to keep their fingers away from the buttons on WMD's. I must have missed the nuclear bombings in the Yom Kippur war.

If you want to claim that the theological underpinnings of religion in general is wrong, go ahead. But it's not those theological underpinnings that make people kill and die for a belief. Breaking the world into us and them goes far, far outside religion, and won't stop even if you purge it forever.

>>1680903
Except he does. He's more well read in religion than the vast majority of people that are actually religious. He has been in debate with the religious more than most, asking them to prove their side and they do so in a fair arena. You can't attack a subject matter with his level of success without understanding it and before you go "blah, blah >success", nobody can argue that he is relevant in today's culture and that people care what he thinks on both sides of the debate.
.

Then I remember I'm on 4chan, where lines of ideological bias rests with what other websites you browse, what political ideology you have and what video game platform you prefer. Whether you're white or not. That the most popular method of trivializing things by telling others to fuck off back to X/Y website like it's a valid argument. That you can dismiss something just because it doesn't coincide with your own opinion. We block all attempts by atheists to speak by posting a picture of someone tipping a fedora. That we can call something bait because it doesn't serve the popular opinion.

We can't have an exchange of ideas here without bias, it's no surprise that you would say something like that. This is why I'm not surprised this entire thread is full of jargon and misinformation about what atheism is and it's figureheads.

>>1681166
Not him, but at the moment radioactive decay is thought to be a resulting property of matter. It's not so much that there is a trigger within the matter (I mean there COULD be, but we haven't any evidence or theories to support that conclusion) but rather is a consequence of matter, well, existing.

>>1681537
You're misunderstanding the point.

Religious extremists didn't have access to the bomb in the Yom Kippur war. It was a secular conflict that used religion as a backing.

Reread >>1680702 again. He's not talking about religious people fighting, he's talking about the """"""Moderate""""" Muslims who say they stand with ISIS and that they won't apologize for ISIS doing what the Quran commands and how the girls in the grooming gangs deserved it. He's talking about how """""moderates""""" act as a source of manpower and resources for extremist groups to commit violence in the name of their religion. Because these """""moderates""""" identify with their religion and deep down WANT it to be put into practice by force (So long as they don't have to do the actual forcing of course) they will defend to the death violent groups such as ISIS that WILL use nuclear weapons if given the chance.

>>1680893
>make baseless assertion which can't technically be proven wrong although there's not evidence behind it

you're starting to sound like a christfag

>>1680893
>>1680702
belief in nothing will destroy us all unless we adopt a belief
Prove me wrong

>>1681613

>Religious extremists didn't have access to the bomb in the Yom Kippur war.

Oh right, because Israel doesn't have nuclear weapons.

>It was a secular conflict that used religion as a backing.


I'm pretty sure the motivations in the Arab-Israeli war are religious, not secular.

>violent groups such as ISIS that WILL use nuclear weapons if given the chance.

Yeah, and I don't really buy that either. Look at the difference between Iran's rhetoric and it's actions. Sure, they talk about holy fire and purging the unclean and how they will take any risk because they have Allah with them, yada yada yada. Except they've never started a conventional war, they prefer to fund proxies to do their fighting for them. They've not been building up their military to any great extent out of the norm for a country with their population and their wealth. They haven't declared war on Israel, or forged a set of alliances or at least agreements to march their troops over there. Would they shed any tears if Israel got wiped off the map? Fuck no, but they retain enough of a calculative sense to realize the risk that they undertake if they're too overtly aggressive, and act accordingly.

A group like ISIS or Al-Queda's fundamental difference between theological Iran isn't their religious motivation; it's that they're not nation states and they think they're not subject to nuclear retaliation in kind.

ISIS with a nuke is no more or less likely to go apeshit with it than the LTTE was, or the Chechan resistance groups. Do you really think they'd have shrunk from a nuclear attack if they could get their hands on a bomb?

Matter of fact, this is a strictly anti-fedora site. If you identify with any sort of atheist group expect to be called out, and rightfully so. Your kind is not welcome here.

Threads like these are just poisoning the well and enabling religious culture war on this History board.

Remember this next time you see a blatant "Why aren't you a Christian yet /v/?? You don't want to be like one of those Nu Atheists do you??" thread filled with fedora images and Chick tracts.

>>1681679
assblasted chirstcuck

File: latest[2].jpg (23KB, 302x326px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 302x326px

>>1681679
Newfags don't know about the 2000s 4chan.

File: d9af4588ba1d493ba0fb27757e6babac_18.jpg (46KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 800x450px

>>1681679

>Matter of fact, this is a strictly anti-fedora site.

Why are you here then? Do us all a favor and take your nu-christian faggotry elsewhere, I'm sure there are some refugee feet waiting for you

>>1681701
Congrats faggot, you've discovered this site is inherently contrarian

>Religion, the nuclear family, the nation state, and traditional values are supported on 4chan, the quintessential contrarian
Fuck Western society

>>1680711
implying your any better hahaha intellectually dishonest cuck of a lad

le cuck

>>1681713
But I hate all those things

>>1681713
I didn't discover it, I lived it during my 20s.

>>1681729
Yeah, but you're a commie faggot who doesn't understand that he should have moved to leftypol a long time ago

pseudoreligious pseudointellectual garbage

Dawkins, for the loud opinionated brat he is, actually knows what he's talking about.

Harris is a hack, will always be a hack, can't argue for shit, his philosophy is shit, and I wish he'd jump into a pit of shit. I want that fucking knockoff Ben Stiller gone from the public view for the poison he spreads.

>>1681752
What could he possibly have said to make you so anally apocalypsed?

File: holykekklebats.jpg (51KB, 399x400px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 399x400px

>>1681752
>knockoff Ben Stiller

>>1681763

The fact that he tries to push a moral system based on a subjective framework, then dares to call that system objective.

All because he's afraid to live without a rulebook, and thinks his socially-ingrained aversion to certain actions means that those things are for bad people. He's a child.

>>1681783
So he's basically too scared to go down the rabbit hole of nihilism?

>>1681577
Go back 2 reddit

>Sam Harris
>Scholar

kys

>>1681789
What exactly does man living without rules nihillist?

>>1680431
Fkn lol

Sam Harris; the greatest religious zealot of our time

>>1680425
>the alt-right of atheism

>>1680702

>uses cuck

I thought you people couldn't get any worse but you always have to 1-up me.

File: 1426682672677.png (50KB, 1323x184px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 1323x184px

>>1681713

>>1681713
Except 4chan doesn't take a form of any of those that fits within their actual values. Otherwise they wouldn't be talking about these in the dark hovels of the internet, but instead living them. But they don't, because they're not actually interested in those as values themselves, they're interested in them as a weapon with which to lash out at the society they don't fit into, and they're too stupid to see that all of those are still major driving forces of our society.

>>1682640
This isn't a cringe thread.

>>1681752
>actually knows what he's talking about.

if he's a biologist why does he talk about religion

>>1680965
you think most atheists support new atheist fedoralords?

File: Tonysoprano.jpg (26KB, 374x373px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 374x373px

>>1683409
>You're only allowed to have an opinion on religion if you believe in it

kys

>>1683518
RIP James Gandolfini
He was too overweight and prone to heat strokes for this world

Richard Dawkins: Gave us the meme.

Sam Harris: Scientifically proved that free will is an illusion and utilitarianism is objectively true.

Daniel Dennett: Proved that consciousness isn't real.

Christopher Hitchens: Polemical like Edward Feser, but more philosophically literate.

Good overall. People don't like them out of prejudice. New Atheism is too radical for our time.

>>1680425
I used to be into it but then I realised that for most of the modern world, culture is a bigger issue than religion.

>>1683550
and bigger than culture is politics if you think about it

i like that they make sand niggers mad

File: 1470246738597.jpg (126KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 1920x1080px

>>1683544
>Sam Harris: Scientifically proved that free will is an illusion and utilitarianism is objectively true.

wew lad.....

>Daniel Dennett: Proved that consciousness isn't real.

wwwwwwwweeeeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwwwwww LAD!!!!

>>1680482
I have no idea who this man is but he's 100% right and is a genius.

>>1680482
That was badass

>>1680702
>the new atheist's main argument, which is that in an age of weapons of mass destruction, belief in god will destroy us all unless we destroy it firs
t.
That's a shitty muh feels based """argument""" if ive ever heard one.

>>1680494
You mean in America. It hasn't been hard not being a christian in Europe for a century.

>>1684004
Americans are ready to start persecuting Christians. I told my barber i wanted it short because the Bible says and she looked at me like i murdered her child.

>>1681703
Don't confuse Catholics with Christians, please.

>>1680444
Neo athiest detected.

File: 1392273078072.gif (3MB, 387x505px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 387x505px

>>1684012

>butthurt proddies

Comrade Jason Unruhe nails it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I16CvFuQEDQ

>>1681531
More like; getting people to like you doesn't work if you make them want to hate you.

>>1684007
There are idiots on both sides of the river, laddo.

>>1684065
Kill yourself

>>1684087
That's pretty sad that they had to make a fake atheist one to strawman.

File: image.jpg (37KB, 540x361px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 540x361px

>>1680925
This is what being retarded feels like.

>>1681679
*tips fedora*
Well Enlightened.

What is New Atheism? Define it.

>>1680454
It's called government or philosophy.

>>1680903
This is a good argument though.
You can't say you believe in something like god without being able to define what it is, where it came from, ect.

>>1683518
>a high school drop out is qualified to give university lectures on physics

>>1685002
See >>1680945 and >>1680967
Maybe he missed the point of the cosmological argument, but yeah, there's still no reason to jump to conclusions and assume the origin of everything is God.
Also, as far as we know the 'god' that created us might not even be eternal and omnipotent, but just the creation of another god, and so on.
As far as I'm concerned, the only intellectualy honest answer to the age-old problem of the origin of the Universe is a simple "We don't know (yet)".

>>1685065
That is a horrible argument.
>It has no cause
Goes against logic and science. Even if god always existed there is a cause for it.

Unless you're a fanatic or radical, I dont see why people should bother to what kind of god you worship. It doesnt matter.

I find vocal atheists extremely annoying, always did.
Its funny because they do treat it like a religion. It's god is science and the gospel is whatever bullshit the intelectual of the week is blabering about.

>>1681603
>we should kill everyone who violently enforces their own ideology
I mean. We really should. Anyone who has to resort to violence to sell their dogma is peddling bullshit if you ask me.

I don't think this should be done by an organized group of course, but rather a reactionary force. Like ISIS. Unless you're a Canadian politician I think you probably agree if ISIS got completely annihilated the world would absolutely be a better place.

File: 1424676655705.jpg (31KB, 319x241px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 319x241px

>>1680482

File: dude-science-lmao.png (153KB, 500x440px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 500x440px

>>1684993

>>1685076
Unless we find out that it's possible from matter and energy to come into existence from nothing, there must be something from which the Universe came to be, an "uncaused cause".
Maybe it was the singularity, maybe something else, we just don't know.
It should be noted, however, that even if it was proven that a god was indeed necessary for the creation of the Universe, we wouldn't know anything about its nature. It could be good, evil, neutral. Maybe he wouldn't even know we exist.

>>1685164
*possible for matter and energy

>>1680525
>with harris its even expanded into a notion of universal objective morality, suposedly derived scientificaly
"Supposedly" is the key word there. Most of it just seems like his own feelings about morality with a veneer of scientific claims to justify them.

>>1680425
>sam harris
>scholar
laughing_philosophers.jpg

File: serje.jpg (25KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 400x400px

>>1681752
>Harris is a hack, will always be a hack, can't argue for shit, his philosophy is shit, and I wish he'd jump into a pit of shit. I want that fucking knockoff Ben Stiller gone from the public view for the poison he spreads.
Everything this man said.

>>1680425
In a world of atheists Jews cease to exist

File: all o'em.png (511KB, 640x550px) Image search: [Google]

511KB, 640x550px

Here's my simple reaction to the addition of the word "new" to an ideology that keeps claiming that it is a non-ideology and is completely irreligious.

File: 1408498436359.jpg (25KB, 560x570px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 560x570px

Dawkins is a pretty cool guy and master memester
Harris is a completely retard with his head up his own ass
Hitchens is okay
I don't know beardguy but he has a nice beard

All in all new atheism is a naive and spooky ideology

>>1680508

No, they have sacred days, like MLK day.
They have "transformative experiences" at exclusive places where the sages teach them their beliefs.
They have dogmas as in beliefs that couldn't possibly have been validated by evidence.
They have groups of people that fight for adherence to the principles they've devoted themselves to even if the heretics are just privately so.


Totally not a religion.

>>1680482
>David B. Hart
>not even a romecuck

And this is gold:
>the sort of boorish arrogance that might make a man believe himself a great strategist because his tanks overwhelmed a town of unarmed peasants
If your only competition is unarmed peasants, doesn't that say something? And if you can pick your battles to be against unarmed peasants and despite that don't lose the war, doesn't that make you a great strategist?

The Vatican's recent canonization of that albanian con-artist, gives lot of unarmed peasants to mow down. And am I really the one to blame?

>>1684007
>I told my barber i wanted it short because the Bible says
Where does it say?

>>1685706
The thing is people love spooks and cant let go of spooks, so they just fight over which spooks are least bad.

>>1685421
Most Jews are atheists.

>>1687154
Doth not nature itself shew that long hair on a man is a shame?

>>1687157
>muh spooks
Stirner is fucking cancer.

>>1687147
Hart, while not Catholic, wrote a very positive article about Pope Francis in First Things a few months ago

>>1685330
What, exactly, is wrong with basing your morality on what seems a pretty common-sense foundation? Is reducing pain not a worthy goal of a code of morality (or for moral creatures)?

If not, what would be a better or more appropriate goal and why?

I get that you are not happy with Sammy, but I honestly am not sure why (except of course that he's an American atheist).

>>1687319

Lepers feel no pain. Are they the ideal human beings?

Should we all be turned into lepers?

>>1687323

We are, as rational beings, moral agents.
Beings who are rational like ourselves are moral agents too.
Start from that position and you can get somewhere.

Honestly,this is like a conversation with a stoner at the end of a party.

>>1685012
Le appeal to authority fallacy.

File: 1443460771539.jpg (138KB, 625x467px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 625x467px

>>1680482
>obstreperous

>>1680425
So compelling that they wont exist in 30 years as a significant number of the population.

File: 1in_god_we_trust.jpg (59KB, 550x356px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 550x356px

>>1680467
>US government is secular
maybe by medieval standards

>>1680702
>tfw not even religious,but get extremely triggered by atheists

>>1680960
you seem to forget that theists and agnostics exist,the fact that someone isn't religious doesn't mean he is atheists or he can't say extremist atheists are retarded

>>1688150
>In God We Trust
>not just a meaningless meme created to trigger the atheist Soviets

This thread is so cringe

>>1688243
This website is so cringe

>>1680425
They aren't that smart, but they made the Christian roleplayers in this thread and other real christians around the world angry so they're alright in my book

File: -2512a64708c750e9.jpg (222KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 960x640px

>>1687225
Yeah, that makes the holy-holy-holy-holy orthordox even worse.

>>1687194
>nature
Bulit S:t Peter's Basilica and so on.

No, I asked where in the Bible it says so.

>>1680425
Hitchens' atheism was definitely through the lens of Marxism/Trotskyism

>>1680489
>>1685864
I prefer using the term "Weltanschauung"
More than merely worldview, but "world-intuition" that includes meaningful purpose and direction.
No one can escape from having a Weltanschauung, not even "Progressives"

Silly

>>1687374
>>1688243
well memed reddit friends

>>1680702
10/10
Keep it up anon

>>1680903
>the other side of the debate.
Wich is the file name if this pic related >>1680702

Pls google ''Not even wrong''. It applies to you

I remember reading somewhere that, according to a poll, the children of non-religious parents are very likely to embrace a religion when they grow up. I have no idea how reliable that statement was, so I'm asking you guys if you've ever heard about it and, if so, what the source is.

>>1680702
tipping intensifies

>>16804825
what he is saying really is out of context. If we were to go back a thousand years or so, the arguments and cases for religion were fragmentary, sloganeering and emotive. As long as you said you believed it was a good thing, it didnt much matter betond that point because you were being extorted for money and support for the church.

To give an example of my point; the christian churches began at some point to create pretty pictures and icons of biblical stories, so that those who were illiterate could still easily buy into these magical tales and be captivated by the ideas of hell and heaven.

Religion is not a pure thing, it is convoluted and borrows from everything that promotes confusion and terror. I'd also like to point out that the four horsemen, hitchens in particular, focus on the rights of people in countries that are oppressed by religion, like islamic women. So to say that people buy their "atheism" cheaply is really just another way of saying that he thinks religion still is the best bet and that their thoughts and ideas on the matter are chiefly self-determining, whereas that is the concept of religiousness, in essence.

that is my uneducated conjecture.

>>1680425
All fucking hacks

>>1680436
This guy has a tumblr
He's a filthy mexican who used to waste time on 4chan risk
He's also a NEET
http://ryzhknd.tumblr.com

>>1688584
1 Corinthians 11:14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?

>>1687347
Your premise is completely false.

We are not rational beings; we are rationalizing beings.

We are not moral beings; we are immoral beings.

Start with reality and hurry to catch up to the rest of us.

>>1690574
He's also a philosopher.

http://mundusmillennialis.com

He's great isn't he?

>>1690610
you mean pseudo intellectual right
he also likes to pretend he's a girl by the way

>>1690616
Why are you so bitter and insidious?

Fuck off, little man.

>>1690621
He beat me in a risk game once

File: vFLIbH6.png (17KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 600x600px

>>1680702
You sure have an inflated opinion of yourselves

File: image.jpg (518KB, 2048x1394px) Image search: [Google]

518KB, 2048x1394px

>>1690610
What did he meme by this?

>>1680454
>Agnostic confirmed.
>worst breed of all
Either you believe in Faith. Or you are Atheist.
Deities have no patience for those that don't care. And bunch them in with those that will suffer for eternity. At least Atheists have the chance before they die to change their mind completely in fear in their last moment.
Agnostics will go to the grave doubting, therefore suffering for eternity in whatever hell you were doubting

>>1680475
aka socialism. aka communism. aka fail

>>1692130
Have you ever thought of the fact that those "deities" might not give a fuck about us?

>>1680425
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "new atheism" just a christfag meme? Do these four guys actually embrace the term?

>>1687222
You're a spook

Among a litany of other qualms I have with him, Harris has a face so punchable that I could probably use my fist as a compass to locate the man.

Atheist though, I just really don't like him.

File: image.jpg (26KB, 320x272px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 320x272px

>>1692222

>>1680439
I God existed, I would be dead by now.

File: osteen_final_rect.jpg (132KB, 660x440px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 660x440px

>>1692222

File: penn-jillette-celebrity-apprentice-all-stars-01.jpg (97KB, 1000x726px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 1000x726px

>>1690598
>argument from nature
>school yard-grade rethoric
What's the next thing you're gonna cherry pick for your political potshots? Ban on wearing more than one type of cloth?

>>1690598

How does nature teach that, exactly?

Male lions have manes. Male birds often have longer or more vibrant plumage than females.

>>1692498
>How does nature teach that, exactly?
Not him, but I get grease and dandruff when I try growing long hair.

>>1692222
QUADS OF TRUTH

>>1680903
> "who created god?"
It is a legitimate question. Cosmological argument is based on the promise that everything must be created, but it makes arbitrary exception for God and that destroys entire promise of the argument.

>>1681577
>You can't attack a subject matter with his level of success without understanding it and before you go "blah, blah >success", nobody can argue that he is relevant in today's culture and that people care what he thinks on both sides of the debate.
OK, by that standard, Arnita Sarkeesian understands video games, Bill O'Reilly understands democrats, Michael Moore understands republicans, and from 2005-2010, John Stewart literally understands everything.

Oh, and if you're in North Korea, Kim Jong Un understands everything too.

>>1692552
>GOB DIDN'T CREATE HIMSELF
>GOB IS
>GOB DINDU NOFFING
Well, roll me in butter and call me Daisy! The buddhist disregards the whole cosmological aspect. Thinking of how the universe was created, or not, just clouds the mind.

>>1680425

New atheism has been killed by SJW's.

>>1680425
Just another American meme

>>1692571
And the Hindus and many Buddhists just say "the universe always is, albeit changing".

Aquinas was a hack.

>>1694286
It seems that they and the jews doesn't have a huge fixation on cosmology nor the afterlife compared to christianity and islam.

>>1694200
how so?

>>1690610
>he's pretentious
ftfy

>>1684087
>Abraham Lincoln
>Atheist

What dumb memery, did they concoct to put that shit in their. Lincoln was probably one of the most religious presidents we had.

>>1681577
>He's more well read in religion than the vast majority of people that are actually religious.

All I hear is that 90% of the time Dawkins just goes out attacks somebody less prepared than him in a public forum, and declares victory over the whole of religious thought. It's like saying you're a master strategist when you use tanks to take over some run down village. When Dawkins creates arguments which attack and actually move against the actual underpinnings of religious thought, he more often than not misses the mark on what the religious argument is, and ends up arguing against his hallucination of what he "thinks" the argument his.

>>1680967
>then there doesn't seem to be any reason to assume that the universe is not one of them.

Which is why Aquinus then created about 4 more ways.

>>1680482
ROASTED

>>1692523
Looked good on Robert Plant tho.

>>1696347
Which was nice of him, but also wrong. For example, he assumes that for any change to exist that "first cause" had to have the ability to make a decision, or else there would have just been an eternally unchanging state. But that's wrong, because we now know things without decision-making capabilities can change without external help (again, radioactivity).

>>1681577
http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/2014/01/02/richard-dawkins-on-the-emptiness-of-theology/

>I'm told theology is outside my field of expertise. But is theology a "field" at all? Is there anything in "theology" to be expert ABOUT?

>>1681532

Found the retard