Dealing with Atheists

[Walter Kovacs]

IMO the 'new atheist movement' had its heydey in the early-mid 2000s and has been dying off. Something as empty as atheism cannot last long, as proven by the Orthodox revival in Russia after Stalin's attempt to athieze the land (I made that word up). If I had to pick a specific moment when the NA was knocked down, it was when William Lane Craig debated Christopher Hitchens, and exposed pretty much all the intellectual weak poinst of the moviement; ie, "YOU CAN'T PROVE A NEGATIVE!" and "ATHEISM IS A NON-BELIEF" and all that nonsense.

 

[Macarius]

IMO the 'new atheist movement' had its heydey in the early-mid 2000s and has been dying off. Something as empty as atheism cannot last long, as proven by the Orthodox revival in Russia after Stalin's attempt to athieze the land (I made that word up). If I had to pick a specific moment when the NA was knocked down, it was when William Lane Craig debated Christopher Hitchens, and exposed pretty much all the intellectual weak poinst of the moviement; ie, "YOU CAN'T PROVE A NEGATIVE!" and "ATHEISM IS A NON-BELIEF" and all that nonsense.

Link?

 

[Phenbert]

xxx

 

[Walter Kovacs]

Link?

YouTube - ‪Christopher Hitchens Struggles To Define His Atheism‬‏

It's a little long, but this vid does a superb job detailing this part of the debate.

 

[thefirstjustin]

Strong atheism has a total dogmatic conviction about its own correctness. It refuses to allow ideas to be challenged by any other means than those it considers valid i.e. the scientific method. It dismisses anything that conflicts with this method as hallucination or fraud. It proudly proclaims its own worldview based on scientism as the only true way to know reality and considers this worldview as superior to all other interpretations of life. It sets itself up as the sole authority in all areas. It fosters intolerance toward faith, potentially as damaging as the religious fanaticism it opposes. Strong atheists pretend to question everything and yet there is rarely a shred of evidence they ever had a single doubt about the rightness of their convictions. They have a high opinion of their own virtue, claiming moral superiority based on the belief that scientific control can create some kind of a heaven on earth utopia, while conveniently ignoring the fact that many scientific advancements have led to greater unhappiness, loss of control and alienation. I find it interesting how scientism has now become so much part of our modern mindset that it is no longer questioned. Even people of faith seem to feel the need to justify their belief with reference to science, suggesting that religious writings are literally true or scientifically verifiable. Coming up with outlandish, pseudo-scientific theories, like ‘Intelligent Design’ in a vain attempt to provide proof. This has the effect of undermining belief in God by forcing people to choose between a poorly supported proof and an infinitely more sensible science based atheism.
Incidentally, I do not think a believer is under any obligation to prove the existence of God, anymore than they are under an obligation to prove the existence of ice cream. Nor do I think that your average atheist is particularly bothered about demonstrating the non-animate nature of the universe. The only persons who are really under such an obligation are those looking for converts; those who want to provoke a change of heart, to get others to see the world their way. Personally I have no interest in converting others as I feel each person is drawn along their own path. If I was to poke them with a stick, tell them to go this way or that, it would only lead to disaster.

I've noticed with the ones I have been dealing with historical proofs aren't even valid. It's like you're saying that only "scientific" proofs are the only valid ones, and when faced with the objection, "scientifically prove to me that George Washington was the first president of our country," they will say things like, "we have 'unbiased' historical records that prove his existence." Hmmm..... sounds like they have just left the realm of science and gone into history, but yet Christians can't do that to prove the existence of Christ as a historical person. Point out to them that's not science and watch the fun begin.

 

[thefirstjustin]

Hitchens looked like a first grader in an 8th grade spelling bee.

 

[Walter Kovacs]

Yeah, that debate wasn't the high point of his career. But that's what you get for tangling with a world-class analytic philosopher on a subject he's done 20+ years of multiple doctorate work on.

 

[rusmeister]

Frankly, I definitely prefer militant atheism to modern pluralism. The militant atheist says, "There is truth, and I am going to prove it!" and so, can both persuade and himself be persuaded. Modern pluralism says, "There is no truth" and so, no truths can persuade.

GK Chesterton wrote "The Ball and the Cross", where the noble atheist crosses the noble Christian and they determine to duel to the death - only the modern world, with its modern nonsense of plurality, does everything possible to stop the duel between two people who actually believe in truth enough to fight and die for it.

The Ball and the Cross, By G.K. Chesterton

 

[Christ's_Warrior]

Strong atheism has a total dogmatic conviction about its own correctness. It refuses to allow ideas to be challenged by any other means than those it considers valid i.e. the scientific method. It dismisses anything that conflicts with this method as hallucination or fraud. It proudly proclaims its own worldview based on scientism as the only true way to know reality and considers this worldview as superior to all other interpretations of life. It sets itself up as the sole authority in all areas. It fosters intolerance toward faith, potentially as damaging as the religious fanaticism it opposes. Strong atheists pretend to question everything and yet there is rarely a shred of evidence they ever had a single doubt about the rightness of their convictions. They have a high opinion of their own virtue, claiming moral superiority based on the belief that scientific control can create some kind of a heaven on earth utopia, while conveniently ignoring the fact that many scientific advancements have led to greater unhappiness, loss of control and alienation. I find it interesting how scientism has now become so much part of our modern mindset that it is no longer questioned. Even people of faith seem to feel the need to justify their belief with reference to science, suggesting that religious writings are literally true or scientifically verifiable. Coming up with outlandish, pseudo-scientific theories, like ‘Intelligent Design’ in a vain attempt to provide proof. This has the effect of undermining belief in God by forcing people to choose between a poorly supported proof and an infinitely more sensible science based atheism.
Incidentally, I do not think a believer is under any obligation to prove the existence of God, anymore than they are under an obligation to prove the existence of ice cream. Nor do I think that your average atheist is particularly bothered about demonstrating the non-animate nature of the universe. The only persons who are really under such an obligation are those looking for converts; those who want to provoke a change of heart, to get others to see the world their way. Personally I have no interest in converting others as I feel each person is drawn along their own path. If I was to poke them with a stick, tell them to go this way or that, it would only lead to disaster.

What an excellent post! I have been contemplating the questions that your post succinctly deals with, namely, why do we resort to scientific methods to solidify our faith, should we even attempt discourse with an atheist who is most probably only interested in debating for the sake of debating and why are we straying from the foundations of our faith to appease this loud and ignorant minority?

 

[ExOrienteLux]

Ouch. Hitchens got taken to school. As a fellow rhetor, I feel bad for him. I couldn't even classify that as Sophism. That was simply rambling.

 

[Walter Kovacs]

I just read an article by him in readers digest, and they had a picture of him...he looks dead, the cancer he got is taking it's toll on him. I'm certainly going to be praying for him, what a miserable way to go.

 

[GadFly]

I think "hate" is a pretty hard word. I don't hate people for their beliefes, not until they harm someone because of it. But yes, I would describe myself as a Dawkins kind of Atheist (actually I don't really like Dawkins, there are some German humanists/atheists, that I prefer).

So why am I "militant"? Because I don't think, that religion is something good for the society, as more fundamentalist a religious person is as worse it is. That's the reason I support atheistic/humanistic activities.

Of course you are a supporter of humanism for humanism is the mandatory religion and moral ethis of one who does not believe in God, There are many moral codes based on man as their primary premise of ethical codes. It is not necessary to point out these philosophies as we all know them well by their labels. Most of these mostly political point of views are considered as evil forces by the sponsors of democratic societies.

Liberal politiians and liberal Christians fall into a category that quietly loin efforts to keep God out of society in the name of democratic. Their man premise is liberty from tradition and traditional authority of government. They do not advocate traditional moral codes because they simply say that we can not for sure know God as a moral code giver and we can not be sure there is a God in the traditional senses in which man has described God. Therefor we are free to challenge the Bible and the concept of God found there. We have the authority, they say, to interpret the view of God in modern language because of man's improving understanding of this that are included in what is really real.

These philosophies have changed the study of metaphysics by making ontology a branch of cosmology. Whereas universities at one time had schools of philosophies that considered ontology an equal branch of philosophy with cosmology, have changed their names and approach to signify that ontology is a creation of cosmological studies. That is the key to recognizing how the old Snake has taken God out of society, out of politics, out of public education, and out of morality and ethics. A very neat trick and tactic of the Snake, is it not? This understanding of what is taking place should warn Christians to withdraw from the ranks of modern liberalism, especially in the ranks of Christianity.

 

[Walter Kovacs]

Frankly, I definitely prefer militant atheism to modern pluralism. The militant atheist says, "There is truth, and I am going to prove it!" and so, can both persuade and himself be persuaded. Modern pluralism says, "There is no truth" and so, no truths can persuade.

GK Chesterton wrote "The Ball and the Cross", where the noble atheist crosses the noble Christian and they determine to duel to the death - only the modern world, with its modern nonsense of plurality, does everything possible to stop the duel between two people who actually believe in truth enough to fight and die for it.

The Ball and the Cross, By G.K. Chesterton

I prefer what I call 'classical atheism,' guys like Nietzche, who made their choices and were fully aware of the consequences; ie, for Nietzche, it was no morality, and he knew it, and told everyone how bad removing God from society was. Or Aldous Huxely, who just flat out said ,'I dont want there to be a god so I can do whatever I want.' I respect honesty like that, as oppose to the NA bufoonery we see today.

 

[GadFly]

I think "hate" is a pretty hard word. I don't hate people for their beliefes, not until they harm someone because of it. But yes, I would describe myself as a Dawkins kind of Atheist (actually I don't really like Dawkins, there are some German humanists/atheists, that I prefer).

So why am I "militant"? Because I don't think, that religion is something good for the society, as more fundamentalist a religious person is as worse it is. That's the reason I support atheistic/humanistic activities.

In the Bible a strong argument is made that God does hate atheist because of their unbelief of Him and/or their not believing His words.
1. Jesus pointed out unbelief of the scriptures was the unforgivable sin.
2. OT stories of God hardning the hearts of unbelievers and then destrying them.
3. Paul said unbelievers in God could not be saved.
4. God sent unbelievers strong delusions so they would believe lies and be damned (Paul again).
5. God is angry towards unbelief in God and calls those peoples fools; and so hedious is a fool, Christ said to call no man a fool. We simply do not know who has and who has not accepted God as a basic reality. But God knows and if liberal Christians do not actually consider God the major reality and He can be really known without any doubt, they have failed to examine themselves as to whether they are actually in the faith. It is a scary thing to doubt in God even in a little things like politics, education, and science.

 

[Walter Kovacs]

1. Jesus pointed out unbelief of the scriptures was the unforgivable sin.

Pretty sure that was blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

 

[GadFly]

Pretty sure that was blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

Yes, I am pretty sure.

 

[William_0]

I'm totally cool with atheists. If they're intelligent about what they believe, more power to them.

 

[al_man]

In the Bible a strong argument is made that God does hate atheist because of their unbelief of Him and/or their not believing His words.

I don't think God "hates" anyone, we are told we have a compasionate god who loves everyone and is willing to forgive everyone. And I am pretty sure that the only unforgivable sin is to blasphemise the holy spirit. Doesn't meant he hates people that commit this sin, it just means he can't forgive them for what they have done.

 

[Christ's_Warrior]

There is no hate in God, it is not a part of his nature.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

I have had a few conversations with an Atheist I know, and there's something I have noticed in the "New Atheism" that is very disturbing. I've noticed that it is very militant, and the fundamentalism they despise in Fundamentalist Christianity is the same fundamentalism they possess for Atheism. It's the Richard Dawkins/Christopher Hitchens kind of Atheism and has this fuming hatred for Christianity. I'm just curious if anyone else has noticed this same thing. I'm not needing any advice on dealing with this guy as I've received some from my spiritual father. If you haven't had to deal with this kind of Atheism yet, get ready it's headed your way and is very, very militant.

Thoughts? Experiences?

This movement you describe is a remanent of the comunist movement which lost all its merits when it was put in practice in Eastern Europe, its total failiure in economy reveled that it was not proper for the human nature that was treated as anonimous being able to be directed by superior humans, the bureaucracy.

Atheist pretend to censure any public expresion of religious tradition or feeling, just lets remember that the Merry Christmas passed to Happy Holydays in a simple example.