Mistakes Atheists Make

Quote: In fact, it is fairly astonishing how Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens are oblivious to the whole rise of postmodern skepticism. They do not bother to address the objection that, from Hume and Kant to Foucault and Derrida, a progressively secularizing West has grown increasingly less capable of maintaining the rational foundations of scientific realism. In short, they are oblivious to the whole problem of the loss of absolutes in the modern and postmodern eras.

Link: http://takimag.com/article/the_hollow_men_hitchens_dawkins_and_harris/print#ixzz3XnY7uSXK
 
Quote: In fact, it is fairly astonishing how Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens are oblivious to the whole rise of postmodern skepticism. They do not bother to address the objection that, from Hume and Kant to Foucault and Derrida, a progressively secularizing West has grown increasingly less capable of maintaining the rational foundations of scientific realism. In short, they are oblivious to the whole problem of the loss of absolutes in the modern and postmodern eras.

Link: http://takimag.com/article/the_hollow_men_hitchens_dawkins_and_harris/print#ixzz3XnY7uSXK

That would be the Relativism... . The intellectual antithesis to enlightenment.
 
Quote: In fact, it is fairly astonishing how Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens are oblivious to the whole rise of postmodern skepticism. They do not bother to address the objection that, from Hume and Kant to Foucault and Derrida, a progressively secularizing West has grown increasingly less capable of maintaining the rational foundations of scientific realism. In short, they are oblivious to the whole problem of the loss of absolutes in the modern and postmodern eras.

Link: http://takimag.com/article/the_hollow_men_hitchens_dawkins_and_harris/print#ixzz3XnY7uSXK

An honest look at what we know to find some unanswered questions is no proof of absolute chaos therefore extrapolated to the existence of a god.

What is remarkable is that those among the 200 million myth believers in the U S that these people believe that the existence of god or not should be reduced to a popularity contest.

If wisdom and genius was a product of over whelming numbers how do y'all account for Newton, Einstein and Galileo. They were not the product of sheep thinking.

 
There are multiple definitions for atheism because it is not an organized religion. We are typically just lumped together by religious folks. In the past, even Deists like Thomas Paine were considered atheist by bible believers, because they didn't believe in the Christians particular god.
 
What is remarkable is that those among the 200 million myth believers in the U S
Do you mean the myth of materialism?

Five Things Science Cannot Prove (but are necessary for science to work)

Materialism isn't a myth, it's a philosophy and an assumption that science has to make because that which isn't material can not be observed or manipulated and therefore falls outside the purview of science. Those who make materialism a personal philosophy are making a leap of faith.
 
What is remarkable is that those among the 200 million myth believers in the U S
Do you mean the myth of materialism?

Five Things Science Cannot Prove (but are necessary for science to work)

And yet, when people apply science correctly, it works as they wish.

thermonuclear-weapon-1.jpg


Are we to believe that it works because of great faith?
 
And yet, when people apply science correctly, it works as they wish.
Science works, but the philosophy of materialism/positivism isn't science.

And don't forget what those atomic bombs "accomplished".

1fef011f2851e9c9861d77676371cf6e.jpg
 
Fun takedown of intellectual frauds like Richard Dawkins: The New Philistinism

Quote: [The New Atheists'] grasp of the chief arguments for the existence of God and related matters is, in short, comparable to the scientific acumen of the college sophomore who thinks the lesson of Einstein’s revolution in physics is that “it’s all relative, man”

Quote: The intellectual frivolousness of the New Atheist literature is by now an open secret. Philosopher and prominent Darwinian Michael Ruse has said that Dawkins’s book made him “ashamed to be an atheist” and that Dennett’s book is “really bad and not worthy of [him].” Another atheist philosopher, Thomas Nagel, has described Dawkins’s “amateur philosophy” as “particularly weak,” and his attempts to counter the philosophical difficulties inherent in his own position “pure hand-waving.” Literary critic Terry Eagleton—yet another atheist, and a Marxist to boot—characterizes Dawkins’ writings on religion as “ill-informed,” “shoddy,” and directed at “vulgar caricatures.” The list of the New Atheists’ fellow intellectuals and even fellow atheists who are critical of their work could easily be extended.
 
Last edited:
Blinded by Scientism

Quote: For scientific inquiry itself rests on a number of philosophical assumptions: that there is an objective world external to the minds of scientists; that this world is governed by causal regularities; that the human intellect can uncover and accurately describe these regularities; and so forth. Since science presupposes these things, it cannot attempt to justify them without arguing in a circle.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top