Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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?
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.
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 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.
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 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.
1. Jesus pointed out unbelief of the scriptures was the unforgivable sin.
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 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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?