New Atheism – Further Evidence of Its Deleterious Effects, part 1 of 2

FYI: this post has been moved here.


  1. Debating creationists is pointless. As Mariano pointed out with his fish bowl argument, they can always say that we're living in The Matrix, and no matter how much it seems like no gods are necessary, that doesn't mean that they're not out there tweaking The Matrix to hide themselves. The only response to an intelligent design advocate that makes sense is to ask them to make a falsifiable claim. They won't be able to do it, and the conversation will be over.

  2. Hitchens is a washed-up coke addict that's killed one too many a brain cell. How anyone could take such a crackpot seriously is beyond me.

  3. @Dr. J
    "Hitchens is a washed-up coke addict that's killed one too many a brain cell. How anyone could take such a crackpot seriously is beyond me."

    I would say that how anyone could take the bible seriously is beyond me, but I'm sure you wouldn't agree with me on that.

  4. "At any rate, this is another deleterious effect of the New Atheist movement: the self-assurance of proclaiming oneself to be more erudite than thou."

    I very surprised that you consider this to be a "deleterious effect", when, since the beginning of the human race, theists have had a monopoly on "the self-assurance of proclaiming oneself to be more erudite than thou". Christians all have the "absolute truth" about Jesus and a god, and non-believers are somehow lesser because of this?

    I would agree than anyone self-assuredly claiming to be superior in whatever criteria, is, without demonstrable proof that this is the case, a useless and harmful pursuit, I am curious as to your opinion about the centuries where Christians were the "erudite" ones with some "special knowledge" of Jesus or a god?

  5. Your article is utterly nonsensical. Show us your God or Atheism wins.

  6. Christopher Hitchens the wine bottle fishAugust 21, 2009 at 9:13 PM

    I am waiting to see if Hitchens is still an Atheist after he sobers up!

  7. You make the claim that 'modern science has uncovered more evidence for a creator than has ever been known before', and yet (mysteriously) fail to go beyond this claim by actually presenting such evidence, or even a link to an article that discusses such evidence. Why? If such evidence were real then it would be the greatest single discovery ever made by man, so please don't hold back if you are hiding it somewhere.

    Even if we assume that such evidence exists and that it is, or would be, strong enough to be almost self-evident, it would still be insufficient to validate the Gods of the Old and New Testaments. I say 'Gods', plural not singular, because the supposedly unchangeable God of the Christians undergoes what can only be described as constant and continuous evolution (yes, evolution) over the course of the time that is covered from Genesis to Revelation. If you are not aware of this fact, then you are not a very well informed Christian, so I will assume that you are aware of it.

    One last thing. Evidence of intelligent design would not necessarily be evidence of the existence of God as we would traditionally understand that concept. If the universe indeed has been designed by a 'creator' and the physical constants express such intelligence, then our predicament could very well be similar to the films 'The Matrix' and 'The Thirteenth Floor'; a virtual reality world that is indistinguishable from a 'real' one. Why not? This hypothesis is at least as plausible as God, don't you think?