One Agnostic's View of the New Atheists

[Exian]

I don't know if I agree with this foxhole/cancer thing. An atheist who has arrived at his/her conclusion after examining their life and surroundings, and finding nothing in the way of evidence for a god, suddenly believes with the threat of death? Do they suddenly consider the threat of death evidence of god, or are they simply overcome with fear, and thus unable to make sound analysis? Clearly, fear has swayed their thought, right? Is that a win? If a lady won't sleep with you, is it a win if she suddenly becomes compliant under the influence of alcohol?

I don't think so.

[Bob Kelso]

The whole foxhole, deathbed scenario is just that ol' Christian mentality of thinking they know more about the world than they really do -and be damned if they'll be proven otherwise-, and nothing more.

[MTL]

Not sure what point the OP is trying to make, or rather the person OP borrowed that from, but OK.  So?  There are atheists who are dicks.  Granted.  Now what?

I think most atheists will readily acknowledge that there are both good and bad people who are atheists,

as well as good and bad people who are Theists.

Or, more truly, there is good and bad in everyone.

I personally can't imagine that guys like the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury are NOT secretly Atheists,
along with many Cardinals and Bishops, etc,
but if they are, they are the type of Atheist I despise most....nurturing the proliferation of religion
at the expense of the world.

[Faith No More]

Nope. Not going to get caught up in Randy's lack of self-reflection and dishonest bullshit again.

[abaris]

The whole foxhole, deathbed scenario is just that ol' Christian mentality of thinking they know more about the world than they really do -and be damned if they'll be proven otherwise-, and nothing more.

Yes, same old shit. I've got the diaries and letters from my grandfather surviving the trenches of WWI on the Eastern front. God features in them with a big fat zero. And the first time he saw the inside of a synagogue was when he got burried. Courtesy of his orthodox siblings.

[Iroscato]

You know what I'd love? If Randy started one thread - one single, glorious thread - where he actually puts forward a point or an argument in his own words, and continued the debate by thinking for himself. I'd like that. That would be nice.

[Bob Kelso]

You know what I'd love? If Randy started one thread - one single, glorious thread - where he actually puts forward a point or an argument in his own words, and continued the debate by thinking for himself. I'd like that. That would be nice.

Don't hold your breath. 

[houseofcantor]

You know what I'd love? If Randy started one thread - one single, glorious thread - where he actually puts forward a point or an argument in his own words, and continued the debate by thinking for himself. I'd like that. That would be nice.

That would possibly be construed as evidence for parallel universes.

[Easy Guns]

Since many of you are British (and most of you are atheists), I thought you might enjoy reading agnostic BBC personality, John Humphrys' assessment of the New Atheists (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens). Speaking of this same anti-theist movement within the atheist community, Atheist Paul Kurtz, founder of the The Center For Inquiry (a secular humanist organization), observed:

“I consider them atheist fundamentalists,” he says. “They’re anti-religious, and they’re mean-spirited, unfortunately. Now, they’re very good atheists and very dedicated people who do not believe in God. But you have this aggressive and militant phase of atheism, and that does more damage than good.” (Barbara Bradley Hagerty, “A Bitter Rift Divides Atheists”).

In an article posted at StrangeNotions.com, Matt Freyer summarizes Humphrys' assessments of the New Atheists taken from Humphrys' book, In God We Doubt:

1. Believers are mostly naive or stupid. Or, at least, they’re not as clever as atheists.

To which Humphreys responds:

“This is so clearly untrue it’s barely worth bothering with. Richard Dawkins, in his best selling The God Delusion, was reduced to producing a “study” by Mensa that purported to show an inverse relationship between intelligence and belief. He also claimed that only a very few members of the Royal Society believe in a personal god. So what? Somebelievers are undoubtedly stupid (witness the creationists) but I’ve met one or two atheists I wouldn’t trust tochange a light-bulb.”

2. The few clever ones are pathetic because they need a crutch to get them through life.

To which Humphrys responds:

“Don’t we all? Some use booze rather than the Bible. It doesn’t prove anything about either.”

3. They are also pathetic because they can’t accept the finality of death.

To which Humphrys responds:

“Maybe, but it doesn’t mean they’re wrong. Count the number of atheists in the foxholes or the cancer wards.”

4. They have been brainwashed into believing. There is no such thing as a “Christian child”, for instance—just a child whose parents have had her baptised.

To which Humphrys responds:

“True, and many children reject it when they get older. But many others stay with it.”

5. They have been bullied into believing.

To which Humphrys responds:

“This is also true in many cases but you can’t actually bully someone into believing—just into pretending to believe.”

6. If we don’t wipe out religious belief by next Thursday week, civilisation as we know it is doomed.

To which Humphrys responds:

“Of course the mad mullahs are dangerous and extreme Islamism is a threat to be taken seriously. But we’ve survived monotheist religion for 4, 000 years or so, and  I can think of one or two other things that are a greater threat to civilisation.”

7. Trust me: I’m an atheist.

To which Humphrys responds:

“Why?”

He adds:

“I make no apology if I have oversimplified their views with a little list: it’s what they do to believers all the time.”

Taken from:

An Agnostic’s Assessment Of New Atheist Attitudes
By Matt Nelson
http://www.strangenotions.com/an-agnosti...attitudes/

Generalize and create a problem > Purport to have solution to said problem.

lelkek

[Iroscato]

You know what I'd love? If Randy started one thread - one single, glorious thread - where he actually puts forward a point or an argument in his own words, and continued the debate by thinking for himself. I'd like that. That would be nice.

Don't hold your breath. 

I am physically unable to since The Ascension, so no worries there.