(http://theweek.com/articles/552685/new-a...-than-ever)

In this engaging article, the author sets out to point out the mistakes Daniel Dennett makes in an editorial. Daniel predictably spins the facts to make it sound like the data supports atheism, and it called out, point by point, on his errors. But along the way was this interesting description of why atheistic criticisms of theism fail:

Quote:The faith that the New Atheists set out to mock, refute, and dispel was invariably the least impressive, least informed, least sophisticated, most easily dismissed form of the world's great religious traditions. If faith for you is believing in the most scripturally literalistic, doctrinally fundamentalist, ahistorical, credulous, theologically illiterate variant of devotion, well, then Harris-Dawkins-Hitchens probably rocked your world. But as any reader with even a cursory religious education discovered by about page 3 of any of their books, the not-great God of the New Atheists was nothing more than a big old Straw Man in the Sky.

Is atheism built on one big strawman? If so, that would make atheism irrational.

I have predicted the author of this thread from the title alone. Am I psychic?

What you don't seem to get is, many of us don't give a shit what anybody says on atheism. Many of us don't give a shit about atheist posterheads also.

What you also don't seem to get is, that some of us were atheists, long before the internet was even invented. It's just the absence of belief making me an atheist. Based on earth's and the universe's history. So, go on, post your webshit. As long as science doesn't come up with a created earth and human's not being descended from primates, I'm rather happy with what I am.

Strawman? I think, I said it before. I don't give a shit, since scientific evidence is piled up against you, baby.

(December 24, 2015 at 5:15 pm)Delicate Wrote: (http://theweek.com/articles/552685/new-a...-than-ever)

In this engaging article, the author sets out to point out the mistakes Daniel Dennett makes in an editorial. Daniel predictably spins the facts to make it sound like the data supports atheism, and it called out, point by point, on his errors. But along the way was this interesting description of why atheistic criticisms of theism fail:

Quote:The faith that the New Atheists set out to mock, refute, and dispel was invariably the least impressive, least informed, least sophisticated, most easily dismissed form of the world's great religious traditions. If faith for you is believing in the most scripturally literalistic, doctrinally fundamentalist, ahistorical, credulous, theologically illiterate variant of devotion, well, then Harris-Dawkins-Hitchens probably rocked your world. But as any reader with even a cursory religious education discovered by about page 3 of any of their books, the not-great God of the New Atheists was nothing more than a big old Straw Man in the Sky.

Is atheism built on one big strawman? If so, that would make atheism irrational.

So what you're saying is that believers don't follow their own holy scriptures.

Yeah, I knew that already, thanks.

I thought strawmanning was used in place of evidence, not because of it?

Atheism is non-belief in gods. It isn't a strawman of anything.

This Damon Linker dude fails at Math.

(December 24, 2015 at 5:43 pm)Sal Wrote: This Damon Linker dude fails at Math.

Explain! I don't feel like reading the piece right now

(December 24, 2015 at 5:48 pm)Quantum Wrote:

(December 24, 2015 at 5:43 pm)Sal Wrote: This Damon Linker dude fails at Math.

Explain! I don't feel like reading the piece right now

From the article:

Quote:Muslims have an average of 3.1 children per woman, while Christians have 2.7. That contrasts with 1.7 for the unaffiliated, a rate significantly below replacement level. If only the religious would restrain their breeding, Dennett might say, education and the technological proliferation of information would work their wonders and produce a global decline in faith. But as it is, every person who  ends up being replaced by two (or more) who are raised to believe in the old superstitions. The atheistic truth just can't keep up.

What this wanker fails to account for is apostates. Sure the non-religious have a 1.7 birthrate, but what about the apostates? That's why non-theism (unaffiliated/non-religious/atheists/et. al) is growing. But as Dennet and Harris have noted, this isn't due to some atheistic cause or whatever, but merely the free flow of information and education.

If you want the real numbers, just google "religious affiliation worldwide".

Atheism isn't built on anything. Atheism isn't even really anything. It's a lack of believe. We don't have names for not believing in Unicorns, or Dragons, or anything except for Gods. Which is rather ridiculous when you think about it.

I didn't read the article, but if we have to defend everything every atheist says, then every Christian must defend everything every Christian says.