Atheism - The New (Emergent) Atheists, part 1 of 4

FYI: this post has been moved here.


  1. It looks like atheism is still doing well. Better, even.

    So, why do you keep saying atheism is dead?

  2. All you have to do is watch the video and you'll see why. Vain imagination setting itself up against the knowledge of God. This is why "Atheism" is always shown for what it is: Dead.

  3. "Vain imagination setting itself up against the knowledge of God." Clown Marcus, always good for a goof.

    Knowledge of God, awesome.

  4. TED drunk at the keyboard with nothing better to do. Awesome.

  5. It matters not whether one claims to know whether a god or gods exist, when the evidence weighs in favor of such a being not ever existing. All I claim is all I can prove. In that light, religion has a lot of work to catch up with Atheism.
    Marcus, what is belief, if not just imagination. god didn't exist in your life until you imagined he did. That is unless you were raised in religion. In that case you would've simply had to accept the idea of your god, before he/she/it became a part of your reality.
    Why do you feel the need to stay attached to that reality and condemn others' realities. We atheists simply don't concern ourselves with a need for a superior being. We realize that the human race has come along nicely without religion, and not so nicely with religion.

  6. Isn't it peculiar how an attempted rebuttal from militant atheists nearly always seems to be against a strawman.

    It appears Atheists like arguing with themselves and then congratulating themselves even when they've lost their own debate!

    Wait... isn't this evidence of thinking given over to futility?

    It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

  7. Philosophy is not 'Biassed towards atheism' have a look at Aquinas. However, in the modern tradition, many Philosophers consider their remit to be a search for logical truth. It is intrinsically difficult to argue logically based on faith alone and at present the temporal distance from Jesus' time on earth (over 2000 years) makes verification almost impossible.
    The books of the Bible were written by men 2000 years ago (give or take) and even a man blessed by God cannot have Godlike infallibility. If he did then he would be in need of God's other powers to support it, foremost amongst these would be God's omniscience. These men did not have these powers (they were not God/s) and wrote simply what they saw and heard. The Bible can be a terrific moral compass but on it's own it is simply perspectived opinion of men of a series of events. Faith lies beyond this.
    This said, many modern thinkers (Philosophers among them) find it hard to accept the 2000 year old heavily translated and re-translated testaments of these men as 'proof' from which a logical argument can be based. I'm not saying this 'disproves' the existence of God but it certainly makes the notion of attempting to explain operations of the universe without referencing God (as we have insufficient proof) the more fruitful option.
    I do not consider myself to be an Atheist but I also believe that Science and Philosophy needs to take proofs as they find them if they wish to explain the universe logically. This is why religious views rarely appear in scientific and philosophical writings today. The Philosophers and Scientists themselves could of course be deeply religious but in order to provide a consistent and backed argument they cannot include references with such potential for misinterpretation. Religion does not have to be at odds with empirical enquiry it just makes for more difficult and tenuous position than simply choosing one or the other.

  8. I'm an atheist and I hate the new atheism even more than the old atheism. I believe that if you can't offer something of equal or greater value you should just shut up. This is my advice to the leaders of the new atheism.