reverendjeremiah, you really annoy me. Such strong language is needed and does not add to the merits of any discussion. You come across as a rather young person who has not practiced debating a lot (yet) in the way you type your posts.
Now on to Statler: I think that the problem with how you try to define new atheism is that it is really hard to point out who 'belongs' to it and who does not. Other believes indeed have their 'folk tales' which they believe in, with each religion having their own folklore. The trick, so to speak, is that each folklore is specific to a certain religion. The Qu'ran is something for Muslims, for example. You could identify believers why the central tennets that they follow. There might be exceptions, but I don't know of exceptions yet.
The difference is that 'the origins of life' is not something 'just for' new atheists. Plenty of people believe that things happened as described in these scientific theories. You try to make a destinction in the role that these sciences have in the lives of a person, instead in whether they study/believe it, or not. But where is the line? There are plenty of people who would call themselves 'new atheists' but not take a 'rabid' stance on such sciences, and leave plenty room for doubt (as it should be with science). There are plenty people who are willing to admit that scientists can make mistakes, and have indeed done so in the past (btw, I do avoid the line 'science makes a mistake'. Science is a method, methods do not make mistakes, its practioners do).
So if new atheism would be considered a religion, how do you define who is a follower?
Also on the note that the scientic theories about the origins are 'events that nobody observed' and thus 'have a folk tale fare to them', I think that is more a personal thing. What makes something a folk tale fare for you?
So far it seems kind of 'it kind of looks like religion, and this kind of looks like a central dogma, and that kind of looks like a central tennet'...but kinda looking like the deal does not make it the actual deal. I think that making atheism a religion, even with science as a central aspect of it, stretches 'religion' too far.
Now on to Statler: I think that the problem with how you try to define new atheism is that it is really hard to point out who 'belongs' to it and who does not. Other believes indeed have their 'folk tales' which they believe in, with each religion having their own folklore. The trick, so to speak, is that each folklore is specific to a certain religion. The Qu'ran is something for Muslims, for example. You could identify believers why the central tennets that they follow. There might be exceptions, but I don't know of exceptions yet.
The difference is that 'the origins of life' is not something 'just for' new atheists. Plenty of people believe that things happened as described in these scientific theories. You try to make a destinction in the role that these sciences have in the lives of a person, instead in whether they study/believe it, or not. But where is the line? There are plenty of people who would call themselves 'new atheists' but not take a 'rabid' stance on such sciences, and leave plenty room for doubt (as it should be with science). There are plenty people who are willing to admit that scientists can make mistakes, and have indeed done so in the past (btw, I do avoid the line 'science makes a mistake'. Science is a method, methods do not make mistakes, its practioners do).
So if new atheism would be considered a religion, how do you define who is a follower?
Also on the note that the scientic theories about the origins are 'events that nobody observed' and thus 'have a folk tale fare to them', I think that is more a personal thing. What makes something a folk tale fare for you?
So far it seems kind of 'it kind of looks like religion, and this kind of looks like a central dogma, and that kind of looks like a central tennet'...but kinda looking like the deal does not make it the actual deal. I think that making atheism a religion, even with science as a central aspect of it, stretches 'religion' too far.
When I was a Christian, I was annoyed with dogmatic condescending Christians. Now that I'm an atheist, I'm annoyed with dogmatic condescending atheists. Just goes to prove that people are the same, regardless of what they do or don't believe.
