My Problems with New Atheism

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and claims made without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.

How is this ego? Ego is demanding that we all believe in your nonsense without evidence.

 

I’m a unicornist

 

I am sitting next to a pink elephant and if you don’t believe me the burden of proof is on you

 

If men got pregnant abortion would be a sacrament

 

Well that is just the old nonsense that since we can't know with 100% certainty it is better to hedge ones's bet. Get some testicles and take a stand.

 

You want me to be intellectually dishonest like the others here. No thanks. There is nonsense involved in claiming a certainty that one can never have, in FACT. And so I am driven into agnosticism which is the only honest position to take. For I really do not know, as there is no evidence to support either side. Equating embracing dishonesty with testicles is self evident in its nonsense.

I agree with the old chinese proverb, "he who says he knows, does not know". This is wisdom and points out ego arrogance.

 

Where do you stand on belief in unicorns? How about the Easter Bunny. This is the same old pathetic equivalency nonsense. You can't prove god doesn't exist so you pretend belief and non belief are equivalent. Be a wuss but don't try to defend it as being honest.

And I believe the old Chinese proverb " he that says he doesn't know has no knowledge"

 

First like you chinese proverb, you are just making it up as you go along. And your insults show you cannot refute this claim of certainty which is impossible for you to have. So, all you have left in your bag of tricks are insults. Please, go and piss on someone else's leg and tell them it is raining.

 

I did that for awhile in the 80's, then I found out Unicorn farts do not actually cure cancer. That almost cost me big time.....I still have a couple hundred useless bottles of product in the basement.

 

There is a difference between being an atheist, and being an anti-theist. Passing off hatred and religious bigotry as some intellectual or moral gift to the twenty-first century, is as disingenuous as it is tedious.

I think that kind of hostility reflects insecurity, nothing more.

 

Thank you for admitting that there are theists trying to impose their beliefs on other Americans.

 

It most definitely is, right up to the point that your statement has any effect on me.

Heres a better example:

'I have a heart condition and I need an operation.' No proof necessary because it doesnt effect anyone but me.

'I have a heart condition and I can't afford an operation, please give me money.' Now its reasonable that I should be expected to produce proof.

I have never accused someone of being 'wrong' (or insulted their intelligence, accused them of mal-intent, or chastised/denegrated them in any way) for believing differently than I do in spiritual matters, because I dont have any proof that Im right (that God exists).

Just as when theists are being rediculous when they chastize or denegrate other faiths without any proof that their 'right', so too are atheists when they do it, and for the same reason.

 

How do you feel about the tooth fairy?

 

Materialism is default you know, I'm sure your not denying the scientific theories are sound in most areas and further you walk around a material world your reading this on something either held or in front of you its de facto real until proven otherwise with extraordinary new evidence. According to theists its impossible for us to interact with any other reality with such certainty in most cases. So the material world matters far more I can demonstrate a shared reality that's material.

 

Actually testicles are the weakest and most vulnerable part! He should get ovaries (tongue in cheek)

 

You’re the one? I bought 47 of them

 

I did offer a refund at the time....sorry, no longer valid. Do they still look purple, if not they are expired.

 

What kind of unicorn farts are you using?

The ones I have are from my local Unicorns-R-Us outlet and they are rainbow colored. Ifyou leave them out in sunlight they behave like a lava lamp.

 

Actually the only honest position to take is that of "I don't care" as it allows anyone to believe anything that they desire. It is only when one side insists that they KNOW the truth of the matter that problems arise.

 

In other words, you can't defend the stance you are taking except to say you know it to be the absolute truth while denying anyone else's absolute truth. Got it.

 

Stating as as agnostic does, that he simply does not know, is the only honest and non ego driven position. I don't know why anyone would argue against this. And in being able to state one simply does not know, is also a position of humility. For it recognizes the limits of science and knowledge in general. It would be different if one could remove himself from this universe and get that perspective but we of course cannot do that. Or if one had infinite knowledge, instead of a set of knowledge that is so limited, and can change with a new discovery.

Some agnostics maintain that not only do they not know, but it is impossible to know. I do not move that far, for I simply do not know if it is possible or impossible to know. I only think that as of 2017, no one really knows the answer to this age old question, and if one says he does, he is just lying.

 

I think you are adding your own thoughts to mine. And then attributing what you think, to me. The position of agnosticism is defended by the fact, that neither you nor I, or anyone else knows with certainty. You are just in denial of that fact. I know nothing of absolute truth, those are your words, and accusation. I only know that I do not know the answer to an age old question. For, the fact is, there is no way to know with certainty, and I simply acknowledge that fact. That you refuse to accept a fact is a breakdown in your own cognition, and IMO, is caused by your own ego. And we have great scientific minds, who will acknowledge what you refuse to acknowledge. And have said as much, relegating the answer to this age old question to its proper field..philosophy. Science can give me no certainty as to whether god exist or not, and neither can philosophy. So, I am driven to the position of agnosticism, and simply cite a fact. I cannot know, and neither can anyone else. I cannot have certainty, unless I delude myself, and we have plenty of people who will delude themselves and then believe in their own delusions. By exclaiming that they, above all minds, KNOW with certainty the answer to this age old question. And they form a religion, based upon their own delusion and not being able to admit what is self evident. That they do not know, except if under a delusion. I just am not apt to embrace delusion as you are.

 

Those were cheap Chinese knock offs genetically produced in the late 90's and usually broke within a decade. I always used Norwegian unicorns captured fresh at the source.

 

Absolutely not denying the science that used philosophical materialism as the starting point in order to try to understand mater and material processes, and the manipulation of matter for technology. But I just see this a a tool, and not a certainty that claims matter is the foundation for what the ultimate reality is. For I realize that philosophical materialism is an assumption and nothing more than that. And as you know there are physicists who are entertaining the idea that the actual foundation of the ultimate reality may very well be information, instead of the matter of materialism. And then there are even some entertaining the idea that consciousness itself is involved in the ultimate reality. Some of the founders of QM were pulled in that direction. And it has been said by physicists, at least some of them, that classical materialism could not provide the necessary underpinning in getting some sort of limited understanding of what goes on at the quantum level. So it seems classical materialism, that philosophy, that assumption, has its limitations.

Yet who would deny what philosophical materialism has done for science? Not me. It has been a very rewarding tool and along with reductionism, and the paradigm of seeing matter and material processes, as if they are machines which man created long before modern science existed. So look at reality its components as if they were machines instead of a more organic highly interrelated and interdependent reality has served us well, as a tool for understanding an manipulation, yielding all sorts of technology. But this tool in no way evidences that the materialistic view of reality is not an assumption. That has been my own point and I didn't think this up in a vacuum, but merely repeating what some academics have said.

For myself, I do think that consciousness itself will eventually be evidenced to contribute more to what reality is, than has been thought by the materialists. I even think it is a part of the evolution of biological life, in the form of information. Of course there is no place in materialism for information, for it would deny anything outside of matter, by the assumption it made in regards to the foundation of reality. And I also understand that advancements, especially a shift in paradigm occurs at the pace of tombstones in science. For even scientists are not above human nature. If academia accepts something, and those people, their position is vested with a particular paradigm, you would have a difficult time in ever causing them to change their views. Especially if they have put themselves out there and written learned books about it. Their materialism is who they are, and has provided a living for these people. And so, the truth looks to be, by just looking at the history of science, that changes, a shift in paradigm marches forward at the pace of tombstones and these men of science actually have to die in order for the field to be opened up, with other considerations. That is the reality found in academia. Another reality that any scientist will admit to, is that getting grants, funding for something that might look to question the status quo is impossible unless you find some rich cat who will do it. This intimates just how closed minded academia can be, and is, when scientists should be above all things, open minded and not closed minded, with the close mindedness a creation of the world that they live in, in academia. This has been talked about for years by particular scientists. So it isn't tin foil hat thinking.

Anyways, I do entertain the idea that Consciousness may be fundamental instead of matter. But this would in no way do away with the tool materialism has provided. Yet if we find a way, and some evidence which would cause us to include it in particular areas, this would be a major paradigm shift which would or should affect our big picture view of reality. And I do entertain the idea that information is essential to the manifestation of our universe. That reality as it exists at the quantum level requires a non materialistic source of information which makes "what is", what is. But this should be entertained in a scientific manner, and not in the manner of some old man with a beard, a God, as created by the mind of primitive man, for such an infantile image would never do any justice to the existence of essential information that is generating the reality we call the universe. But understand this is conjecture on my part, as I remain an agnostic, for I understand very well that while I do not know the answer to an age old question, that does not stop me from flights of fancy and conjecture, which at least has some basis in the thought of particular physicists. But generally these men have retired, and no longer can risk their careers by being open minded to possibilities.

 

many Christians have not read the bible, the conversation gets them started and reading the bible brings doubt that it was written by a God, so I encourage all Christians to read the bible cover to cover