(June 19, 2012 at 7:40 am)FallentoReason Wrote:

(June 19, 2012 at 6:44 am)gringoperry Wrote: I get it, but at the same time I don't see the point. We already know why people called the sun Sol etc. I have no argument with using metaphors to describe the realities of the universe either. However, it seems to me they are calling these things gods, as though the label is required in order to appreciate them. Maybe I need to read over it again, once I've had more than two hours sleep, though. At the minute it looks pretty much like deism, or at least a way that makes it easier for those doubting their beliefs to let go.

It can't be a form of Deism because they explicitly said they don't believe in God.

Which brings me back to my original thought; what's the point? I'm going to read it again later when I wake up.

(June 19, 2012 at 7:43 am)gringoperry Wrote:

(June 19, 2012 at 7:40 am)FallentoReason Wrote: It can't be a form of Deism because they explicitly said they don't believe in God.

Which brings me back to my original thought; what's the point? I'm going to read it again later when I wake up.

I think in a nutshell they want to unify all knowledge and to celebrate it. But yeah, have another go at reading when you have the energy to make sense of it!

(June 19, 2012 at 7:49 am)FallentoReason Wrote:

(June 19, 2012 at 7:43 am)gringoperry Wrote: Which brings me back to my original thought; what's the point? I'm going to read it again later when I wake up.

I think in a nutshell they want to unify all knowledge and to celebrate it. But yeah, have another go at reading when you have the energy to make sense of it!

OK, I couldn't wait so I read it again. I get it. It's kind of exactly what I believed when I labelled myself as a deist, only I couldn't actually articulate it quite as well. I think, if anything, people who can't simply look at the scientific method and know that it is, will embrace this way of thinking. The way I'm reading it is that God is the driving forces of reality. However, reality is simply expressed as that which controls all that is. We cannot change reality, rather we are bound by its rules.

The only difference I see between this and the beliefs that I previous held, is the intention. I always believed that the universe, evolution, gravity etc. where an expression of a greater force's intention, if that makes sense. I do think they kind of allude to that too, towards the end of the first article. If they do, however, that would lead back to an intelligent creator, would it not?

(June 19, 2012 at 7:40 am)FallentoReason Wrote:

(June 19, 2012 at 6:44 am)gringoperry Wrote: I get it, but at the same time I don't see the point. We already know why people called the sun Sol etc. I have no argument with using metaphors to describe the realities of the universe either. However, it seems to me they are calling these things gods, as though the label is required in order to appreciate them. Maybe I need to read over it again, once I've had more than two hours sleep, though. At the minute it looks pretty much like deism, or at least a way that makes it easier for those doubting their beliefs to let go.

It can't be a form of Deism because they explicitly said they don't believe in God.

Really?

"We also value how an evidential worldview enriches and deepens our communion with God."

I find many who argue against "free will" express a kind of monism which borders on animism. Clearly there is "intent" and "choice" and whatever else it is we mean by "will" in the world. So if you decide we as thinking/feeling individual creatures don't have it, I guess some people just have to imagine someone or something else pulling the strings. I'm content to stop at appearances and posit will where it seems to be, in the totally context bound individual.

(June 19, 2012 at 8:22 am)gringoperry Wrote:

(June 19, 2012 at 7:49 am)FallentoReason Wrote: I think in a nutshell they want to unify all knowledge and to celebrate it. But yeah, have another go at reading when you have the energy to make sense of it!

OK, I couldn't wait so I read it again. I get it. It's kind of exactly what I believed when I labelled myself as a deist, only I couldn't actually articulate it quite as well. I think, if anything, people who can't simply look at the scientific method and know that it is, will embrace this way of thinking. The way I'm reading it is that God is the driving forces of reality. However, reality is simply expressed as that which controls all that is. We cannot change reality, rather we are bound by its rules.

The only difference I see between this and the beliefs that I previous held, is the intention. I always believed that the universe, evolution, gravity etc. where an expression of a greater force's intention, if that makes sense. I do think they kind of allude to that too, towards the end of the first article. If they do, however, that would lead back to an intelligent creator, would it not?

Man I'm really confused now. I agree with your description and I was thinking that when they said 'god' they just meant reality and not a deity. But Epimethean just brought up that quote that makes me wonder again!

---

(June 19, 2012 at 9:56 am)Epimethean Wrote:

(June 19, 2012 at 7:40 am)FallentoReason Wrote: It can't be a form of Deism because they explicitly said they don't believe in God.

Really?

"We also value how an evidential worldview enriches and deepens our communion with God."

Wow, you're right. Where was that? I don't even know anymore. I know I read that they don't have belief in God.

I'll have a look at it tomorrow morning.

(June 18, 2012 at 6:31 am)FallentoReason Wrote: A couple have been doing 'missionary' work to, what seems like, promote this new movement called New Theism.

New Theists are not believers; we’re evidentialists. We value scientific, historic, and cross-cultural evidence over ancient texts, religious dogma, or ecclesiastical authority. We also value how an evidential worldview enriches and deepens our communion with God (Reality/Ultimate Wholeness/The Great Mystery).

New Theists are not supernaturalists; we’re naturalists. We are inspired and motivated more by this world and this life than by promises of a future otherworld or afterlife. This does not, however, mean that we diss uplifting or transcendent experiences, or disvalue mystery. We don’t. But neither do we see the mystical as divorced from the natural.

http://metanexus.net/blog/new-theism-she...dium=email

Oh, goodie. They took the same bullshit, stuffed it into little condoms and put instructions in the package to eat them whole.

Quote:Would any of you consider yourselves to fit these descriptions? Anything you disagree with about this whole thing?

One would have to be fucking stupid to buy into this. the same kind of stupid it takes to buy into any of the swarm of "new, improved", repackaged "Yo dawg" snake oils







...and other bullshit like Lame-Ass Craig's "reasonable faith" con game.

If it was reasonable, if it was based in evidence, it wouldn't be "faith".


More regurgitated superstition for the fucking stupid.

I have no problem with the ideas proposed in the articles. I consider it 'atheism on training wheels'.

Spinoza would be proud. If all I had to consider about a fellow human's religious beliefs is that he/she believed in a non-personal entity that he/she chooses to call god that is synonymous with nature; I would be very happy and would likely let the argument drop in favor of more meaningful conversations of nature and humanity.

The second article suggests something similar, but from a different perspective. Dowd strikes me as an atheist in all but name. His emphasis seems to be on everyone getting along for the sake of progressing naturalist and humanist ideas, but wants to hit the reset button on vitriol which he seems to blame on the emotive 'pre-evolutionary' baggage associated with all 'isms'.

If the label 'New Theism' helps people feel comfortable in dropping the last vestiges of their traditional religious indoctrination, I don't see the harm. The training wheels will eventually fall off and, in the meantime, we could enjoy a ride together.

(June 19, 2012 at 1:08 pm)cato123 Wrote: I have no problem with the ideas proposed in the articles. I consider it 'atheism on training wheels'.

Spinoza would be proud. If all I had to consider about a fellow human's religious beliefs is that he/she believed in a non-personal entity that he/she chooses to call god that is synonymous with nature; I would be very happy and would likely let the argument drop in favor of more meaningful conversations of nature and humanity.

The second article suggests something similar, but from a different perspective. Dowd strikes me as an atheist in all but name. His emphasis seems to be on everyone getting along for the sake of progressing naturalist and humanist ideas, but wants to hit the reset button on vitriol which he seems to blame on the emotive 'pre-evolutionary' baggage associated with all 'isms'.

If the label 'New Theism' helps people feel comfortable in dropping the last vestiges of their traditional religious indoctrination, I don't see the harm. The training wheels will eventually fall off and, in the meantime, we could enjoy a ride together.

My only concern is how it seems to lead back to a creator. The principle would have to last long enough for it to become the norm. However, the moment a creator comes into the mix, people are likely to assign a personality to it. This philosophy would have to be taught in a text book style, in order for it to ever benefit the human race as a whole. For example, if someone enters the classroom and suggests that God spoke to them, they'd receive a big fat F on their report card.

Another thought has occurred to me; which I think they explain in the first linked article: It's basically saying that we are going full circle, only now we have evolved far enough to form a better understanding of the mysteries labelled as God; and in doing so, we should be in a more comfortable place to label them as such, without assigning supernatural powers to them. Does anyone else agree/disagree?

(June 19, 2012 at 6:25 am)Tempus Wrote:

(June 18, 2012 at 12:44 pm)Welsh cake Wrote: 3. WTF is New Atheism?

A flashy new name that's easier to attack. The term "new atheism" seems to have more to do with promotion of secularism, reason, science, etc rather than atheism, in my opinion. I object to it because it conflates atheism with the pursuit of the above. I don't know whether any atheists actually call themselves this or whether the media just made it up.

Ah so, they assign extra baggage to atheism that doesn't belong in atheism, since it makes no claims about reality and they go the extra mile by identifying themselves as "new theists" when its the same tired antiquated pantheistic arguments repackaged.

I do hate it when these delusional god believers try to sell their old bullshit claims under a new label.

The whole thing reeks of dishonesty.