Atheism

This is a bit unfair and stupid of course.

What is it exactly that you want to try to say?

We've already said all we needed to say; denialism on your part is the problem.

Has your god answered your prayers lately? LOL

.

why exactly? I am not into denialism at all. Please explain



Not again! I stated again and again and again that I am not into god, prayers etc?

Please explain why you can't read.

You quack and walk like a duck, so we must presume you are a duck.

So again, only Ad Hominems, NO arguments....figures.

Good article which only argues for the 'new atheists' to adopt a more precise name: anti-theists. The conclusion sums it all:

Bingo!

(I'm going to keep attempting to respond to this article, but for some damned reason, my remarks keep getting wiped out. We have "problem mouse.")

The author here is playing fast and loose with his claims. Referring to social media responses is meaningless. People who comment online are a self-selected group--their responses have zero statistical significance. (It is also personally hilarious to me to see him write about 85% of atheists--i've been pointing out for years that 85% of statistics are made up on the spot.)

I don't think that anyone knows how many atheists there are. Purely on an anecdotal basis, i'd say that most atheists are implicit atheists--that's my experience. I don't think most people have yet absorbed the evidence of polling by Ipsos in Canada and Pew Research in the United States. Both have begun asking people who profess a religious affiliation if they believe in god. About 10% of those responding say that they do not believe in god. That means that there are far more atheists in North America than were previously thought, and that they are overwhelmingly implicit atheists. Once again, in my personal experience (anecdotal evidence warning), implicit atheists just don't give a ****.

Dawkins' bus signs campaign in the UK said: "There is probably no god, Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." For whatever the author may allege about Dawkins, that is an implicit atheist statement. Dawkins may not be the monster he claims.

In the end, as EB points out, you can't lump all atheists together. I'm not an atheist because of anything Dawkins or Harris have said. Incredibly, i am accustomed to thinking for myself.

There was claim that the author makes which i thought was BS, and that is that "anti-theism" is a new phenomenon.

"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."

-- Denis Diderot, 1713-1784

"The truths of religion are never so well understood as by those who have lost the power of reason."

"All men are born with a nose and five fingers, but no one is born with a knowledge of God."

-- François-Marie Arouet , known as Voltaire, 1694-1778

"Man is certainly stark mad; he cannot make a worm, and yet he will be making gods by dozens."

-- Michel de Montaigne, 1533-1592

Well, the man had a lot of space to fill.

http://www.salon.com/2014/11/21/reza_aslan_sam_harris_and_new_atheists_arent_new_arent_even_atheists/

So what?

Contrary to what Set said, Reza Alsan does not say that anti-theism is a new phenomenon.

You are the one who cares.
I just do not believe.
No interest re the history of people agreeing or disagreeing with me.

In the article, Reza writes:



It is immaterial to me that he later contradicts himself. It cannot even be said to be recent because it dates to the 18th century.

"The world holds two classes of men - intelligent men without religion, and religious men without intelligence."

-- Abu Ala al-Maarri, 973-1058

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
-- Epicurus, 341-270 BCE

"Since no one really knows anything about God, those who think they do are just troublemakers."

-- Rabia al-Basri, 717-801

I've already mentioned Michel de Montaigne, who lived in the 16th century. So Reza's claim that anti-religion dates to the 18th century is BS. Reza is employing statements from authority. It was the simplest matter to overthrown his putatively authoritative claims.

I've read Montaigne, but the thing is, what he seriously cared about was his gout.

You misunderstood Reza Aslan. Relatively new, in the context of his piece, means more recent than agnosticism, which he traces back to some ancient vedic text. So the author never said the phenomenon was new, and whether it dates back to the 18 or the 17th century is irrelevant.

Beside, Montaigne never expressed anti-theist beliefs... Too many approximations and misunderstanding lead to confusion.

Does it really matter? It's common sense that all phases of belief have existed, in some form, since humans first did belief. Just because it's not all in a book doesn't mean squat, in my opinion. There are just too many people for them to adhere to one or two beliefs about it.

Boy...with all this "belief" going around...it is a wonder some people still insist that the only "believers" are the people who "believe" in a GOD.

It's important to try and avoid misunderstandings, which lead to confusion and indeed to useless arguments. Reza Aslan contested the term 'New Atheism' and one of his arguments was precisely that it is NOT A NEW PHENOMENON. Everybody here agrees it is not new, so let's move on.

Some of us can distinguish between faith belief and other forms of conviction.