(April 13, 2013 at 4:10 pm)StatCrux Wrote: The "new atheist" thing was very much like watching the hippie movement of the sixties, lot's of nonsense talked by a few individual characters followed and admired by credulous college kids and fringe groups, no substantive arguments or real engagement with credible opposition to the movement.

Who do you count as credible opposition? During his last years with cancer Hitchens literally debated anyone in any venue. Whether or not you agree with the New Atheists or not, it's pretty hard to say they haven't engaged their opposition.

(April 14, 2013 at 8:54 am)CapnAwesome Wrote:

(April 13, 2013 at 4:10 pm)StatCrux Wrote: The "new atheist" thing was very much like watching the hippie movement of the sixties, lot's of nonsense talked by a few individual characters followed and admired by credulous college kids and fringe groups, no substantive arguments or real engagement with credible opposition to the movement.

Who do you count as credible opposition? During his last years with cancer Hitchens literally debated anyone in any venue. Whether or not you agree with the New Atheists or not, it's pretty hard to say they haven't engaged their opposition.

He's going to come up with issues on the "credible" part of that equation, given creationism's propensity to attract frauds with phoney degrees or no credentials whatsoever. That, and theology is possibly the biggest waste of time qualification there is. He may produce credible, for a given value of credible that every big name atheist has surpassed, but, well...

(April 14, 2013 at 9:21 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(April 14, 2013 at 8:54 am)CapnAwesome Wrote: Who do you count as credible opposition? During his last years with cancer Hitchens literally debated anyone in any venue. Whether or not you agree with the New Atheists or not, it's pretty hard to say they haven't engaged their opposition.

He's going to come up with issues on the "credible" part of that equation, given creationism's propensity to attract frauds with phoney degrees or no credentials whatsoever. That, and theology is possibly the biggest waste of time qualification there is. He may produce credible, for a given value of credible that every big name atheist has surpassed, but, well...

Back in the 1980s creationists started offering to debate evolutionists. For the first few years they took the bait. They never won.

The winner was decided by applause and no matter how lame the creationist was people applauded the confirmation of their beliefs. That these "debates" were held at places like Falwell U clearly biased the audience. Twenty years later the trap of debate was not realized by Hitchens.

Way back at least in the early 80s or older I happened to come across a debate between the top ranked US and British debate teams. It was held in the US. The British style of debate was so unamerican that they lost by audience applause. If it has been held in Britain I assume the British team would have won for not only the audience but for the stylistic differences. While I was watching it I kept asking why the Brits considered what they were doing was a debate.

2006:

Believer: You atheists are just a fundamentalist cult, with Dawkins as your pope and The God Delusion as your Bible!

Atheist: Actually, no. He's just a guy. Some of us like him, some of us don't. We don't need a Supreme Authority the way you do.

2013:

Believer: Hahaha! Now that Dawkins isn't on the news shows all the time, that means atheism is dead! Guess you lot will have to start going to church again, eh?

Atheist: Actually, no. He's just a guy...

(April 13, 2013 at 1:54 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: You didn't miss much. They tended to hyperbole against a cardboard cut-out version of God. They also tried to paint all religious faiths with the same brush.

And all religious faiths should be painted with the same brush because they all have a single common denominator! Belief in unevidenced, invisible, uninteractive gods!

(April 13, 2013 at 9:01 pm)Ryantology Wrote: Yeah, and I'm not saying it's a character flaw, either. His anger at religions makes total sense to me. It's just that he is probably not the best candidate to represent the confrontational vanguard of atheism because loosing your cool never looks good, even when it's entirely understandable.

It looks fine to me when opposed by some smiling cow of a jesus freak with a dumb look on her fucking face all the time.

(April 14, 2013 at 9:21 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(April 14, 2013 at 8:54 am)CapnAwesome Wrote: Who do you count as credible opposition? During his last years with cancer Hitchens literally debated anyone in any venue. Whether or not you agree with the New Atheists or not, it's pretty hard to say they haven't engaged their opposition.

He's going to come up with issues on the "credible" part of that equation, given creationism's propensity to attract frauds with phoney degrees or no credentials whatsoever. That, and theology is possibly the biggest waste of time qualification there is. He may produce credible, for a given value of credible that every big name atheist has surpassed, but, well...

Maybe, I'd just like to know who he does consider credible opposition.