A challenge to Statler Waldorf

[Statler Waldorf]

---

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.

---

Hey G-Sprite,

Yeah I kind of figured the personal attacks would dwindle after a few months but they seem to never go away. My favorite today was the guy calling religious people dumb but then he doesn't know how to spell "spaghetti" correctly. You get a few gems now and again that keep you going haha.

Ok, so onto your post. Yes it can be difficult to classify who is in the new atheism and who is out, but I feel sometimes it can be hard to classify who is "in" Christianity and who is out as well. So I kind of classify it as this new wave of atheism led by primarily authors (i.e. Dawkins and Hitchens). Unlike atheists in the past though they are very preoccupied with attacking people of faith and the tenants of other religions and are also very concerned with making atheists out of others. They play off of emotionalism rather than logical thinking, which sadly can be very effective even though it should never be. It is far more organized than atheistic movements in the past, and I think their close ties with the scientific community helps them stay structured and organized. If someone really didn't follow the teachings of these leaders and didn’t attend the "Freedom from Religion" conference every year but was still atheistic I would say they probably were not part of "the New Atheism".

As for the origin of life story, I don't think the fact that a few other people also believe the story makes it somehow not a central tenant of atheism. Special Creation is a tenant of Christianity but is also believed by Jews and Muslims. I just think it would be very very difficult to find an atheist who didn't believe life arose from non-living matter by natural processes some 3 billion years ago. Maybe you know a few, but I have not met any.

As to the folk tale thing. If you talk to many atheists about certain stories about the origin of life that they believe whether it be chemical evolution or the RNA World Hypothesis and you try and point out some of the huge scientific problems with these theories you will find out exactly what I mean. You may be different but most will react very similar to a child who has been told Santa is not real. They get very emotional and often aggressive. So you begin to feel like you are talking to a Mormon about Joseph Smith or a Muslim about Muhammad. When we are really just talking about origins sciences which is hardly inerrant. So that's what I meant by that, they are events that were never observed, but they are held onto by most atheists with a religious ferocity. I want to hear your thoughts.