What do you think of New Atheism, /his/? Is there anything ''new''

Well first of all Hitchens is a blasphemer and that's why he got throat cancer...

>>1985974

you shouldn't be this childish and spiteful

>>1985976
I could be much more spiteful if I wished, but I'll hold my tongue so as not to speak ill of the dead.

Imagine if almost all surviving monotheists were fucking retards who don't even understand their own religion. Almost all the great apologetics are dead, and nobody reads books anymore so very few people know who they are.

Now imagine that every time one of the few remaining descendants to those intellectual monotheists attempts to provide an argument, some drunk snakehandler comes in sprouting bullshit and denouncing philosophy as Satan's talk.

Now imagine you were an atheist who grew up in that climate, viewed philosophy as a failed past-time, science as a body of knowledge instead of a method for learning about the natural world, and were a true believer in Enlightenment Era philosophy.

Welcome to New Atheism. Enjoy your fucking stay.

>>1985969

>is there anything "new" to it

Yeah previous anti-religious polemics have never gone as out of their way to deliberately misconstrue history as these guys

i don't have a religious bone in my body but the entire movement is cringeworthy on so many levels

does anyone have the image comparing nobel prize winning scientists to pop scientists on their opinions of philosophy?

>>1985980
Jesus frowns upon you.

They are good public thinkers. They make well reasoned arguments. I accept their arguments on face value.

I can't say any of those things on the part of arguments put forward by religious demagogues.

I've never been sure why Dennett is considered part of that bunch. He's a legitimate philosopher.

File: 1466067107541.png (3MB, 1716x1710px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1716x1710px

>>1986023

>>1986028
Jesus really didn't like it when people blasphemed. This image of him as a milquetoast nice guy is a myth of the 20th Century.

>>1986059
Did I fucking say or imply that he was the docile flower fabricated by white Europeans? No, I said he would frown upon you. Because he would. Jesus believes in justice, not being a petty, hateful asshole just because someone has opinions that hurt your sensitive feelings.

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

>>1986056
Krauss is the only truly awful one. Tyson is naive. Nye and Dawkins are not bad, just not very insightful.

>>1986105
They don't have to be insightful. It's better that their message stay as easy to understand as possible. Because sadly people are seriously that retarded and can't comprehend even the most basic rational concepts. I want there to be more children's books and books written like they're for children but marketed as for adults so people will finally allow themselves to absorb basic information. There is nothing more genuinely sad to me than seeing grown men still clinging to fairytales and imaginary friends unironically.

>>1986134
time to get saved anon

>>1986137
Don't talk to be about being saved when you post on a chinese pornographic cartoon image board.

>>1986149
>what is sola fide

>>1986183
>what is sola fide
heresy

>>1985980
>being this judgemental and spiteful

christcucks are a strange bunch

I like Sam Harris :3

>>1986342
I liked him in Night at the Museum too

File: Sam.png (895KB, 920x2492px) Image search: [Google]

895KB, 920x2492px

>>1985976
Hello, Reddit!
>>1985969
Failures, all of them, they rely upon egdelords and weirdos at cocktail parties, they are nothing in the face of Men like Epicurus, Aurelius, or Epictetus.
Complete, flat out, utter failures.

File: 1433273754420.png (308KB, 330x390px) Image search: [Google]

308KB, 330x390px

>>1985969
>literally making a religion out of not believing in gods.

>>1985984
Why are you being so semantic? Who gives a fuck if people mix the word science with the body of knowledge it spawned. I think we all know what they're talking about when they say science and that still says nothing about the validity of the system. Is there a reason we shouldn't trust science or revere the knowledge it has revealed? We weren't getting any closer with alchemy or witchcraft, even though I still practice them in my garage.

>>1985969
Liberal moral absolutists can fuck off. They merely erect a new god, Humanity, to lie prostrate before.

>>1985969
>What do you think of New Atheism, /his/?
It is and will continue to be a growing cultural force. The question is only whether the future of western theology belongs to atheism and greater secularism or Islam, Christianity is on the decline either way.

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

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

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

>>1985969
It has all the hallmarks of religion, albeit a non-organized one. Including ridiculous levels of intolerance that their own beliefs can't justify.

File: Allan_Ramsay_-_David_Hume,_1711_-_1776._Historian_and_philosopher_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg (3MB, 3365x4001px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3365x4001px

A poor derivative of pic related

>>1985969
"Old" atheism is not believing in God. "New" atheism is being a smug prick about it.

>>1987172

desu i think its more similar to a football firm

>>1987172
>It has all the hallmarks of religion

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

>>1986056
>not being a petty, hateful asshole just because someone has opinions that hurt your sensitive feelings.
philosophy is fine as a hobby, however, i dont understand people who study it, expecting to make their living with it

>>1985969

A passing fad.

It's long since peaked and now on decline.

>>1985969
>What do you think of New Atheism, /his/?
It's shit
>Is there anything ''new'' to it?
Yes, is even more degenerate than classical atheism
>Could it be considered a religion?
At this point, yes

>>1986030
>They are good public thinkers.

Not even!

>>1985980
>speaks ill of the dead
>oh but I'm just politely condoning his painful demise

>>1987032
And yet... Memes are still more videly known than anything invented by Epicurus, Aurelius or fucking Epictetus. This is power or real insight that trumps ancient name throwing everytime.

>>1986056
le picky choosey :^)

>>1985976
Hitchens himself taught that it was horrifying to never do the wrong thing. So sometimes, we should be childish and spiteful, and so I see no reason not to direct that at Hitchens.

File: 14547326035560.jpg (69KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 800x800px

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

>>1985969
ITT: Narcissistic Christians confuse Ideology with Religion

File: Worship.gif (301KB, 616x480px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 616x480px

>>1987744
In the long run of human history, Christianity hasn't been around that long. We also don't practice the same Christianity Eusebius, Augustine, and Aquinas did.

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

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

>>1987879
Underrated post

>>1985984
>Imagine if almost all surviving monotheists were fucking retards who don't even understand their own religion

You mean the present day?

>>1987055

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

>>1987055
>Is there a reason we shouldn't trust science

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

File: index.jpg (7KB, 295x171px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 295x171px

>>1987055
> Is there a reason we shouldn't trust science
The reason is that you should test the science and its knowledge.

>>1987932
Why are our mental faculties any less susceptible to error and deception?

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

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

>>1985984
/thread

>>1987992

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

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

>Only experience can remove these errors.

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

>>1988029
The problem with logic is that it is as right as its base and to prove a base assumption you need direct expierence or something else, but a logic.

>>1987932
>the same reason we shouldn't trust our senses
Which is?

>>1988029
>taking experience at face value for truth is equally mad.
but this isn't what science does. this is really only an argument against positivism, not empiricism

>>1988055
(((They))) can misguide you.

>>1988064
>this isn't what science does

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

>>1988055

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

>>1988045

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

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

>>1988066
But science is good at avoiding that by using precise instruments, repeating experiments, controlling as many variables as possible etc.

>>1988087
>avoiding that by using precise instruments, repeating experiments, controlling as many variables as possible etc

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

>>1988029
>Because errors in logic can be easily found out by their contradictions
The individual may not recognize the existence of such contradictions without an external resistance that highlights it.
>given a certain level of expertise
This can only be achieved through external experience. One does not determine sound logic on their own.
>That same child may be fully capable of experiencing something, but without reason the child may well attribute causal connection between unrelated sensory phenomenon inappropriately.
Sure, but can't children make inappropriate connections between two unrelated streams of thought? Attributing a causality between the two that doesn't actually exist, and would prove absurd upon external experience?
>Experience without reason is madness, and taking experience at face value for truth is equally mad.
You're right, rationalism and empiricism are both vital. But sound logic is founded on our senses, allowing for connection between our minds and external reality. No one has ever pondered the existence of god without first achieving the language and ideas necessary to begin expounding on such a subject. These come to us from the external world via our senses.
>Error arises because of experience, not in spite of it.
I know you don't believe that.

>>1988098
You're being deliberately obtuse.

>>1985985
History is bunk.
History is bunk.
History is bunk.

>>1988083
>have you even looked at a mirror before? An optical illusion? Ever thought a dream was real?
The senses may be fooled for a time, but the ability to recognize when one is dreaming or not comes from prior experiences of being in the state where one is dreaming.

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

>>1986149
what are you talking about? jesus hung out with all kinds of perverts, the sick need a doctor and all that

>>1988110
>may not recognize the existence of such contradictions

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

>can only be achieved through external experience

external experience?

>One does not determine sound logic on their own.

No, that's literally how you do it.

>sound logic is founded on our senses

No.

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

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

>>1988115

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

>>1988144
There is nothing wrong with being pedophile and there is no need for doctor.

>>1988133
>senses may be fooled for a time

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

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

ever have a dream within a dream?

>prior experience of what reality is

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

a question for religious folks

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

>>1988153
pedos hurt children!

>>1988149
>retards probably exist, so says Science. Sometimes even the greatest resistance cannot change someones mind.
Sure, but one who can't break through the distorted sensing of reality the mentally handicap may have, doesn't expect their internal reasoning to be well established or profound.
>external experience?
Empiricism.
>No, that's literally how you do it.
No that's not, you don't literally do it on your own. You may ruminate on a subject from time to time, but you check your reasoning against external factors to ensure your logic is still sound. One doesn't determine truth without reference to external things, the knowledge of which is brought to us by the senses.
>The Aztecs attributed a causal connection between human sacrifice and the sun rising every day. This idea was actually reinforced by their experience.
Could that false causality been based on an inappropriate rational connection between two sensed external events?

>>1988157
>Notice the assumption here. You are assuming your senses have given you an accurate picture of reality already, despite the fact that you have no other picture of reality with which to compare it.
How would you have a reality to compare your concept of reality with without sensory channels to discover it? One must not assume that the mind has more accurate picture of the external world, it collects it's information of what's true and false through the senses. But if the senses are always fooled and we live in a solipsistic universe, how would the mind be able to know of such an idea except through gathered external ideas? The mind may not be able to comprehend such an idea as a solipsistic universe without finding the idea from an external source through the senses.

>>1985969
it's a way for people to feel edgy by taking something that at some level is societal consensus in most western societies today (non-belief and taking science to be the best way to explain the universe) and stating it over and over in the most crass terms imaginable until you finally get people to argue against you, so you can "debate" them and feel superior about disregarding emotions and humanity in favor of numbers and facts

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

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

>>1988232
>religion in the west (US excluded) is now mostly reduced to being a crutch and a comfort for old people
Speak for yourself. Not everyone has such a distorted picture of what religion is.

File: 1421532123951.jpg (194KB, 637x960px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 637x960px

>>1988195

>external
>experience
>Empiricism

Hume btfo Empiricism

>inappropriate rational connection

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

>check your reasoning against external factors

Like what? Animal entrails? Long walks with Aristotle?

>>1988232
thing is
how exactly would you refute an "don't have any evidence god affects the world in any way, so not going to pay attention to what others say god would want" attitude?

>>1986059
why was jesus such a judgemental dick? tell him to mind his own business

File: 1080184657869.jpg (27KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 600x600px

>>1987879
>mfw orthodox
>mfw not a disgusting heretic
>mfw the only true christianity

>>1988241
that's not my opinion, i was talking about the standing of religion in society. for the vast majority of young people today it is just completely irrelevant.
that says nothing about the value of religion itself

>>1988250
>Informed every single day by blood sacrifice and the rising of the sun
The only thing that led to such a connection between the two external events was an internal, unproved, rationalistic connection. They had no sensory proof that one directly caused another, they made that connection themselves. Now of course we know that blood sacrifice has no effect on the orbit of the planet earth, thanks to our senses of the wider universe allowing us to better figure and experience what this planet is. We can use our senses to witness the histories of other societies on the other side of the globe who did not practice routine blood sacrifice, information unavailable to our minds on their own.

>>1988250
you do you even know that Hume exists? you have to trust your senses to read Hume, to learn what deductive logic even is

>>1988281
He was trying to reduce the destructive nature of immorality. Not only does lying, adultery, and murder bring self-ruin to the one committing the act, it harms the greater community as well.

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

>>1988329
Basically, the same reason why people shouldn't be closet atheists and actively try to fight clearly amoral position that is religion. Starting with The Islam, most immoral oou of all of them.

>>1988260
Just present scientific evidence if you have one. It is pretty rational position to disregard anyone who can't back up his claims.

>>1988351
Yeah but philosophical positions that have remained so widespread for thousands of years should at least be granted some leniency. The skeptic can take some of the burden on himself.

>>1985969
>most people in Europe will not even know who those 4 guys are
>most people in Europe are not "atheists", they just don't with religion anymore
>every fucking day a thread from some hysteric amerifat that thinks evolution and science threatens his 'religion'
Why is it always you fatties?

File: Flying_Spaghetti_Monster.jpg (42KB, 514x514px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 514x514px

>>1988232
> i can't see god so he isn't there
If you want non denial argument, you will just end with one more cult about what kind of entity exist and what it wants you to do.

>>1985969
>Could it be considered a religion?
Religion is a very specific term, including things like requiring scriptures, a defined leader that's dead, etc. Even if people have the same "belief" in it as religious people do, Atheism will never be a religion.

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

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

>>1988361
Burden of proof exist for both sides. You shouldn't hide behind your idea being slightly more popular. Like atheists shouldn't hide behind their excuses like inability to prove negative claims.

>>1985969
I don't hold atheism in general in any regard. Despite claiming that it's based on rationality it is rather irrational.

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

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

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

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

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

Fuck irrational atheism.

>>1988397
>entity is framed in a way that is literally impossible to prove or disprove unless it just straight up appears wearing a nametag
>b-b-but you can't disprove it!

>>1988401
> logic of the ontological proof
1. Everything must have a cause.
2. God clearly doesn't have a cause.
There is clear contradiction here. What else is to disprove in so called proof after that? If you deny first than Universe can just be uncaused, but by denying second your discredit entire your proof.

>>1988401
It's hard to disprove an argument that's completely reliant on an assumed premise not justified by experience, then "proved" through logical means its desired conclusion from the beginning.

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

>>1988455
Christians themselves caused the downfall of even longer tradition of paganism. They have no right to complain.

>>1988461
aWell, not todays Christians, besides, everybody complains when their "world" and values and way of life go down the drain.
And of course they try to react by bolstering their Religion every way possible, which then brings up Atheists to fight this forcing of religion on other people.

>>1985969
>What do you think of New Atheism, /his/?
gay

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

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

>>1988434
>>1988451
The issue people seem to have with atheists is they say that there absolutely is no god, which is impossible to prove or disprove because of how god is described.
It's also an easy way to sidestep actually discussing beliefs because they can shift the argument to say "you can't DISprove it!" then spam the thread with pictures of fedoras

File: 1428813276778.jpg (23KB, 350x346px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 350x346px

>>1988305

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

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

>sensory proof

lol.

>>1988505
>they say that there absolutely is no god
"hard atheists" are an extremely small share of atheists.

>>1987707
you sound more like one of the people on the right of that image than one of the people on the left when you say that.

>>1988512
>Are you saying religious experience is less valid than other perceptual fields?
Not necessarily. But connecting two external events through internal reasoning doesn't lead to a more accurate understanding of reality. In the case of the Aztecs, rationalism lead to far less understanding of how the world worked.

Better luck next time with the bait.

>>1987925
Yes, that's what he is trying to say you fucking retard.

>>1988549
Correlation is not causation. That's a logical statement. Aztecs not following logic led to them sacrificing humans.

>>1988505
> impossible to prove or disprove because of how god is described
If god is described than it is pretty easy to do that by pointing out absurd qualities like omnipotence, but if there is just vague idea without descriptions than there is no way to deny its existence. There is no universal definition of God that is shared by all possible theists, so atheistic reach ends here. Personally I am not aware of there exist accurate descriptions of God that are free from paradoxes, but if this is a thing than atheism can't deny such (probably pretty clever and legit) speculations too.

>>1988549
>connecting two external events through internal reasoning

that's because you can never be sure whether an external event actually is what is simply appears to be, to you.

The most you can say about relations between sensory phenomenon is that some perceptions are correlated with each other, desu. Can't make causal statements, unless you're an empiricist KEK.

>>1988575
>If god is described
measured would be better. It is a stupid undertaking to try to prove or disprove something that cannot be proved. Now science knows that and therefore ignores that God thing, while religious people will non stop try to "prove" their God, witch usually is comedy gold.

>>1988566
>Correlation is not causation. That's a logical statement.
If correlation isn't causation, such wisdom was not arrived at internally, but through external trial and error. Internally, the Aztecs saw the two events as related to one another, through experimentation and observation of the world around us, we understand they're not.

The Aztecs reasoned that the world stayed in existence because of the human sacrifices they did, such a belief in causation could've been easily weakened by not committing such sacrifices and still seeing the world existing.

>>1988581
We've already discussed this.
>that's because you can never be sure whether an external event actually is what is simply appears to be, to you.
Such an idea came to you through sensory methods from an external source. The exception being a Solipsistic universe where the mind is so powerful (or trapped inside an illusion so powerful) that it generates false sensual experiences, while retaining all information within itself, without reference to any external thing.
>The most you can say about relations between sensory phenomenon is that some perceptions are correlated with each other, desu. Can't make causal statements, unless you're an empiricist KEK.
This is getting lazy.

>>1988593
>such wisdom was not arrived at internally, but through external trial and error

yup, no thinking involved there. The internal process is a lie, biology doesn't matter. Monkeys smashing rocks together in a process of trial and error will eventually produce wisdom.

>experimentation and observation of the world around us, we understand they're not

We understand very little of the world around us, it's very hard to draw valid conclusions about the nature of reality from the cross section of a cross section we even can perceive, much less the cross section of that we actually do.

Science has become an idol to intellectual hubris.

>>1988591
At least in theory, God can be proved. He can just personally do this by some miracle. Who wouldn't believe a guy if he could move stars in the sky by wave of his hand if he claimed to be Jesus? While this seems pretty unprobable, who can know for a sure that it is impossible. Still, you can't blame an atheist, if he waits for such guy before listening to what random people already speak from his name.

>>1988616
Unfortunately god has stopped working miracles since the devil invented the video cam.

>>1988615
>Monkeys smashing rocks together in a process of trial and error will eventually produce wisdom.
Essentially it will. Just because they've discovered knowledge through external experimentation, doesn't mean no internal rumination has taken place. You're taking my argument that any rationalist line of reasoning must be backed by an external resistance or source for it to avoid fallacy, and turning it into a strawman that empirical actions can have nothing to do with internal reflection of what occurred.
>We understand very little of the world around us, it's very hard to draw valid conclusions about the nature of reality from the cross section of a cross section we even can perceive, much less the cross section of that we actually do.
Sure, but we'd know even less if we trapped ourselves in our own minds and shunned any external information. At that point one would no longer be pursuing truth, but rather the ideology that nothing can ever fully be known, pursuing it deliberately for its own sake.
>Science has become an idol to intellectual hubris.
Enough, Fr. Barron.

>>1988615
>Monkeys smashing rocks together in a process of trial and error will eventually produce wisdom.
Will they not?

>>1988646

Maybe if you throw sand against the wall long enough you will learn how correlation is not causation.

>>1988636

>discovered knowledge through external experimentation

smashing rocks together is not an experiment.

>the ideology that nothing can ever fully be known

You build an extremely simple straw-man here. Cause you can know for sure that external events appear to be the way they appear to be to you.

>>1985969
meh
no
no

>>1985969
>What do you think of New Atheism, /his/?
It's an opportunistic movement (exploiting the moral vacuum in the public space) aiming to persuade simple minded people.

>Is there anything ''new'' to it?
No, pretty much all ideas it promotes are thousands of years old.

>Could it be considered a religion?
Religion is a very loose term anyway, so sure.

>>1988566
>I dont know what logic means

Listen here you fucking retard, if you are a shitskin underdeveloped fucking shit and you believe that sacrificing is logical then its logical.
If i kill x of humans god might or might not found it worth it and give me or give me not rain.
Ilogical its having the religious knowledge that your god effectively doesnt give a fuck about sacrifices and you do it Anyway because somehow this will be a especial case, but you know for a fact (from the word of your high priest) that it doesnt work that way

>>1988677
>smashing rocks together is not an experiment.

Isn't it?

>find rock
>smash rock
>rock breaks
>cut hand on edge of broken rock
>go use sharp broken rock to cut/stab shit

Almost anything one could practically do could be an "experiment" in some way, obviously you're not following a hard scientific method but the majority of people weren't doing that for most of history. You could shit in your hands and smear it all over yourself and it would still glean you the first hand knowledge that getting shit in your eye is a bad idea. Every single behavioral trait of every organism has come about over time through the analogical equivalent of "smashing rocks together". Trial and error, that's how evolution typically happens, both biological and informational.

>>1988697
>informational evolution

careful son, you're getting pretty close to social darwinism there.

also there is a explanatory and causal gap between

>cut hand on edge of broken rock

and

>go use sharp broken rock to cut/stab shit

>>1988937

for

>>1988759

>>1988937
>also there is a explanatory and causal gap between

There is, but that gap can be crossed by the problem solving nature of intelligent brains.

Crows have famously demonstrated that upon being presented with some food trapped in a tube and a piece of wire, they will typically bend and play with the wire for a minute, stare at the tube, then bend the wire into a hook and retrieve the food.

That's the beauty of brains and animal intelligence, they've evolved to solve the problems of everyday survival just as much as any physical adaptation has.

>>1988974
>intelligent brains
>problem solving nature

oh man

>>1986092
To be honest out of the Three Hitchens is the most likely to end up chimping out when talking to a guy he disagrees with

Dawkins is snarky and Sam obsesses with his """"Polite"""" Image while Hitchens seems to take pride in his aggressive attitude to the point that he might think that all of a sudden calling his Foe's Mother a whore in a debate would make him "Cool"/"badass"/"Tells it like how it is" or whatever

>>1988983
Elaborate pls?

I don't get what you're actually arguing against? That many animals will, through whatever abstract or otherwise method, cross that gap between the sensory information they can gather about the world (sharp rock = ow) and extrapolate that knowledge through to the idea that they could use said sharp rock as a tool is a given, it's self evident by the fact that that is what seemingly happened with humans. Obviously this again would involve much trial and error, and "problem solving nature" was a poor choice of words, every animal is different but for humans I suppose you could call it imagination that lets us envision new methods of exploiting the world around us rather than strictly following instinctual behaviors.

File: 1423443386875.jpg (15KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 640x480px

>>1989000

>through whatever abstract or otherwise method

chekd

>>1989004
My point is that I'm not claiming to have any sort of insight into the methods or inner workings by which organisms attain and manipulate information and use it to better their chances of success as an organism, I'm just pointing out that they evidently do in many (most) cases.

>>1986056

Notice Hitchens and Harris are not on there.

File: ken-ham-creation-museum.jpg (50KB, 600x364px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 600x364px

>>1987879
>We don't take Genesis literally anymore.

Blasphemy.

>>1989014
>ever taking the bible literally

Half the stories and canon of the abrahamic faiths are /l i t e r a l l y/ lifted from older Assyrian, Zoroastrian works plus some from even further afield. Hell, a lot of the archetypes that exist in these texts are repeated in ancient cultures the world over.

>>1989014

Protestants are a joke.

>>1986056
the older scientists were talking about ancient philosophers. The guys on the right are absolutely correct to call out post-modern philosophy and post-structuralism and all that other shit for the naked emperor it is.

>>1989044
Blasphemy.

The KJV is the infallible Word of God.

>>1987879

>evolution is 100% real in my mind

kys

>>1989048
for following the bible?

File: 530b35ef4113c795f455b0492a226bf4.jpg (225KB, 960x1340px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 960x1340px

>>1989130
This man followed the Bible, but the evidence led him to a conclusion that many couldn't accept.

>>1986220
tell 'em

>>1987704
G8 crack a book that wasn't written by one of the so-called four horsemen and try to pay attention to the actual topic of the thread. Also, take the time to cry over how ye olde respectable atheism has been co-opted by unread illiterates like yourself.

>>1990437
>ye olde respectable atheism has been co-opted by unread illiterates
Just because atheists have an illiterate "laity" now too doesn't mean there aren't tangible differences between ye olde religions and 'whatever new atheists are doing'.

File: activists.png (23KB, 1016x343px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 1016x343px

>>1985969

>>1991101
>Real Science
I'm tired of it being hip to hate on the social sciences.

Categorizing Sam Harris as a philosopher is also downright offensive, considering he has a PhD in the neurosciences and just a B.A. in philosophy.

File: updated activists.png (7KB, 623x252px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 623x252px

>>1991140
How's this?