Comments on: Why the New Atheists aren’t that new…. http://homebrewedchristianity.com/2009/04/20/why-the-new-atheists-arent-that-new/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=why-the-new-atheists-arent-that-new Equipping grassroots theologians for creative thinking, engaging, and living. Tue, 22 May 2012 22:06:22 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Danny http://homebrewedchristianity.com/2009/04/20/why-the-new-atheists-arent-that-new/comment-page-1/#comment-2649 Danny Wed, 22 Apr 2009 22:46:17 +0000 http://homebrewedchristianity.com/?p=1360#comment-2649 The problem of evil certainly devastating to theism, but for my money the best argument against theism is the fact that there's no evidence for it. Absent any evidence for its claims, Christian theism seems to be a man-made religion just like all the rest. The problem of evil certainly devastating to theism, but for my money the best argument against theism is the fact that there’s no evidence for it. Absent any evidence for its claims, Christian theism seems to be a man-made religion just like all the rest.

]]> By: Anon http://homebrewedchristianity.com/2009/04/20/why-the-new-atheists-arent-that-new/comment-page-1/#comment-2646 Anon Wed, 22 Apr 2009 21:57:06 +0000 http://homebrewedchristianity.com/?p=1360#comment-2646 I agree with Danny. It's not especially shocking that an appellation like "the New Atheism" that comes from popular media would not be literally correct. Given that the authors collected under this umbrella term are popularizers, it should be no surprise that their arguments are not especially new. Yes, there's lots of Voltaire here. Yes, it's mostly the problem of evil, but that's the best argument against theism, so that's expected. Also, I'm not so sure why Dawkins' genetics being out of date discredits his arguments against theism. In any case, naturalism has NOT been discredited and has proven to be a powerful interpretive lens upon which 200 years of scientific progress has been based. What's "new" about the New Atheism is not any particular philosophical argument but the rising popularity and acceptance of non-belief in the United States and the West more broadly (e.g., the new Pew Forum survey showing religiously unaffiliated people being the fastest growing group in the U.S.). The New Atheism is basically a sociological phenomenon, and I'm not sure Clayton quite grasps this. I agree with Danny. It’s not especially shocking that an appellation like “the New Atheism” that comes from popular media would not be literally correct. Given that the authors collected under this umbrella term are popularizers, it should be no surprise that their arguments are not especially new. Yes, there’s lots of Voltaire here. Yes, it’s mostly the problem of evil, but that’s the best argument against theism, so that’s expected.

Also, I’m not so sure why Dawkins’ genetics being out of date discredits his arguments against theism. In any case, naturalism has NOT been discredited and has proven to be a powerful interpretive lens upon which 200 years of scientific progress has been based.

What’s “new” about the New Atheism is not any particular philosophical argument but the rising popularity and acceptance of non-belief in the United States and the West more broadly (e.g., the new Pew Forum survey showing religiously unaffiliated people being the fastest growing group in the U.S.). The New Atheism is basically a sociological phenomenon, and I’m not sure Clayton quite grasps this.

]]> By: Danny http://homebrewedchristianity.com/2009/04/20/why-the-new-atheists-arent-that-new/comment-page-1/#comment-2596 Danny Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:25:13 +0000 http://homebrewedchristianity.com/?p=1360#comment-2596 meh. Is New Atheism a term that these people are claiming for themselves? I've never heard any of them claiming to be saying something new. And you thinks it's unfair to do science with a materialistic prejudice? How the hell can you do science if you have to spend time considering the possibility that fairies might be pushing the moon around the sun and holding atomic nuclei together? We have to look for natural explanations for things. If there's any evidence that "god did it" is a better explanation than a natural one, then you should produce it. The "New" atheism is just continuing to point out that there's no evidence for anything supernatural happening at any place or at any time in the history of humanity. meh. Is New Atheism a term that these people are claiming for themselves? I’ve never heard any of them claiming to be saying something new. And you thinks it’s unfair to do science with a materialistic prejudice? How the hell can you do science if you have to spend time considering the possibility that fairies might be pushing the moon around the sun and holding atomic nuclei together? We have to look for natural explanations for things. If there’s any evidence that “god did it” is a better explanation than a natural one, then you should produce it. The “New” atheism is just continuing to point out that there’s no evidence for anything supernatural happening at any place or at any time in the history of humanity.

]]> By: Serious Deacon http://homebrewedchristianity.com/2009/04/20/why-the-new-atheists-arent-that-new/comment-page-1/#comment-2579 Serious Deacon Tue, 21 Apr 2009 03:12:06 +0000 http://homebrewedchristianity.com/?p=1360#comment-2579 p.s. This clip rocks. p.s. This clip rocks.

]]> By: Serious Deacon http://homebrewedchristianity.com/2009/04/20/why-the-new-atheists-arent-that-new/comment-page-1/#comment-2572 Serious Deacon Tue, 21 Apr 2009 01:43:11 +0000 http://homebrewedchristianity.com/?p=1360#comment-2572 Were you drunk when you posted the links in this diary? Quite random in your linkage. :-) Were you drunk when you posted the links in this diary? Quite random in your linkage. :-)

]]>