The New Atheism: What Every Christian Should Know

[OnjiKyoukou]

Calling myself a Atheist doesn't say enough about me. It only tells you that I have no belief (Seeing is believing, just in case you were unsure of which definition of the word I am using) in god(s). It does not tell you my position on whether I know there is one. I am an Agnostic Atheist. Just because I don't believe in a designer of the cosmos doesn't imply that I know what or how everything was set in motion. Thanks for your time.

[mythmanjay]

'Belief' is an imaginary flag leading fellow seekers into fellowship.

"Who proves the Bible wrong?" TruthSurge--for one--citing James' statement that "God tempts no one" at the same time as God and his spirit have tempted people (including Jesus) since the beginning of time!

Oh, we Apologists can go all 'well, James meant NOW God doesn't, not that he hasn't BEFORE,' but 'James V Biblical history' still stands against 'the Bible as the inerrant word of god.'

[mythmanjay]

'No sense': Cognitive dissonance, when a dam is about to go out, people 10 miles away prepare for it while people 1 block away won't even believe it. God is here; cognitive dissonance on both sides (atheists dismissing it as impossible, theists dismissing it as 'not yet.')

SDAs are as much a 'false cult' as Baptists, Methodists, Catholics and all other "churches!"

DON'T WORSHIP THE BIBLE! DON'T WORSHIP MOSES! DON'T WORSHIP HIS BROTHER AARON! DON'T WORSHIP ANY-ONE/-THING BUT 'YHVH'

[mythmanjay]

I'm Deist. I believe in something like what you call 'God,' but I don't simplify it to 'some old beardy Father in a white robe.'

"Hell is for children." (Pat Benetar; not saying that 'children go to Hell,' saying merely that 'Hell is what scares children into discipline')

The children turn atheist because of the mixed message they are getting about what Hell is.

A mistake 'both sides' make: speculation of all the other's philosophy by looking at only-one statement.

[Leehamism]

Does a good job of stating why religion is on the decline and why over the last couple of centuries the intellectuals and educated have left the church. States the religious are explaining their beliefs in terms of faith and emotions rather than reason. Might help some to "see the light".

I do like the way you use words like attack and militant to describe people who encourage critical discussion on the topic of religion. It will only help to catch the USA up with the rest of the modern world.

[kdosvol284]

Good video, but please don't compare Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormonism to SDA (7th day Adventist). SDA is not a cult and they teach the same as you do, as far as I can see

[pumpstations]

I find this video interesting. I really do.

However, he seems to use every logical fallacy I can even think of. Argument from Authority, Argument from ignorance, Ad - homs everywhere, Appeal to emotion Big time, Argument from majority, And on and on.

Why is all of this necessary if he is right? I never understand this about the religions. If they are correct special pleading should not be necessary. Why do I only hear a fuss about evolution? Never Gravity, or Cell Theory.

[DigitalDecadence]

@nanerak Hmm well I can see what you are saying in regards to asexual, that is a good example. I will think on this further.

[djtripnosys]

@DigitalDecadence Dude. Awesome. I have never seen someone actually say "Oh, I see your point. I'll have to consider them". You sir, have shown yourself to be a man of class and culture.

respect.

[DigitalDecadence]

@djtripnosys I always thought I was a man of culture and class because I wore glasses...

Little did I know! :)

^5

[DigitalDecadence]

@nanerak In fact Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology says: "Atheism: a + theos, denying god" I'm not sure how you think you can deny god, whilst not be against god? That's perplexing to me.

If you deny someone freedom, then you are anti-freedom. Why is that troubling to accept?

[DigitalDecadence]

@nanerak As I have stated, this is where you are confused:

You think that atheists simply don't believe in God, this is partly true, but it's part of a harder line which is that atheists believe that God doesn't exist. This is a positive statement. They are against belief in God, against theism. This is verified by the etymology of the word and the new atheist claims.

Atheists assert a positive that 'There is no God'. You yourself say:

"I can't be 'against' something WHICH DOESN'T EXIST."

[Leehamism]

@DigitalDecadence Being for want of a better word, an "atheist" and also knowing many who share similar beliefs, I would suggest most believe the evidence is so lacking that it appears the change of there being a god/s to be small. The chance there is a god as described in the bible is even less likely(again based on evidence). Anti god is a strange way to describe atheism.

[DigitalDecadence]

@nanerak Your words: " I get what the video is about. But he doesn't define *new* atheism as against god - he specifically goes through the motions of dredging up the greek origins, and says that 'atheism' (no qualifier) means against god."

So I use the term new atheist as that's the topic that we were talking about, he doesn't need to redefine new atheism, as it's not really *new*, it's the same old atheism which is why the 'dredged up' definition, is applicable. I hope that's clearer.

[DigitalDecadence]

@nanerak The new atheism, *IS*, the same atheism as from around 1000 years ago. They are the same thing.

In ancient Greece, the word for "god" was "theos". Obviously, if "theos" meant god, then there would need to be a word that meant the opposite. By putting "a" in front of "theos" the word "atheos" was formed, which means "no god"

If you google that text above, you will find an article detailing the etymology, and it is not as you believe it to be.

[DigitalDecadence]

@nanerak He doesn't need to define 'new' atheism, it's essentially the old atheism of the last 1000 years, which is why the etymology of the word is important.

[DigitalDecadence]

@nanerak I didn't say a 'positive belief' I said a 'positive statement' and this isn't mathematics, it's philosophy.

Saying "I do not believe that God exists." is a positive statement - you are affirming the truth of the statement "God does not exist."

A theist says, "I believe that God does exist." which is also a positive statement - they are affirming the truth of the statement, "God does exist."

"I lack belief in God." is a neutral statement, there is no affirmation of any truth value.

[DigitalDecadence]

@nanerak A-theism as a general term is without God, however the New Atheists (which the video is about) are specifically against God, and have introduced a new qualifier in the definition of atheism.

[achmedboy]

Hitchens. Dawkins. Harris. Dennett. Brilliant. Awesome.

[MatKiddle]

i think its clear that religion will be basically gone in a matter of generations. Already today i know of only a few people that actually go to Church. Here in Australia we are already an athietic society. Our youth are educated and have a sense of reason and bacially better things to do than follow the writings of an bygone archaic society. Move on, we have!!!

[DigitalDecadence]

@MatKiddle The west is traditionally less religious than the east, or perhaps not less, but more lazily religious. The young generally have better things to do than anything which helps them, which is why they are called 'immature' because they are unwise and only later in life, do they find the wisdom in God's word. Eastern countries are experience huge growths in Christianity, especially in China and India.

[azamjaved]

All the false religions are the cause of conversion of young and intelligent people especially Europeans and Americans, Because with the passage of time human have been adding and distorting the true message of the creator and added illogical and unpractical things the human intelligence does not accept those and they refute the concept of Creator.But Islam is the only religion which is the true form of all original messages at one place this is why many atheists find it logical and true.

[DigitalDecadence]

@azamjaved Doesn't Islam say that Jesus was never crucified? The one historical fact that almost every scholar agrees upon?

[azamjaved]

@DigitalDecadence yes Islam make it clear that Jesus was a great prophet and his birth was miraculous and his departure was miraculous too.and we believe he will come again before the day of judgement and testify Islam (the religion of Ibrahim).

[DigitalDecadence]

@azamjaved Well that seems problematic to me, as we have good historical evidence that Jesus was put to death in a humiliating and shameful way. How do you address that evidence?

[sensimania1]

its amazing how atheist know so much more about religion than theist oh wait thats why were atheist we dont tolerate non sense.

[DigitalDecadence]

@sensimania1 I really wish you guys knew a lot about theology, it's why you need to turn to theists for help to promote evolutionary theory, because you cannot debate us on our home-turf.

The exact reason you are atheists, is because you know precious little, and stubbornly contrary and resistant to learning anything additional to what you already believe.

[mythmanjay]

@sensimania1 Wrong. The 'reason-addicted' people take a tiny chunk of the whole statement the Bible is and decide that--as the incomplete statement does not do the work of the whole--the whole statement (which they then don't even look at) must not make sense.

I don't know if I'm gonna sit through this whole hour-and-a-half @JRMIdotorg You really ought to cut this up into under-fifteen-minute chunks. You'll have just as many judgemental commenters. But like Bill Gates says "increase your fails"

[Pezzab5]

If young people aren't going to church - that's promising. As for them being "confused" - it would suggest the opposite.

Your time is over, the clock is ticking and you are in the descendant. Get used to it.

[DigitalDecadence]

@Pezzab5 I don't go to church and I'm a Christian, is that promising too?

[Pezzab5]

@DigitalDecadence How much of a christian are you then?

[DigitalDecadence]

@Pezzab5 Well it depends what you are using to measure Christian value.

[Pezzab5]

@DigitalDecadence Hi - Thanks for replying. What are your attitudes toward:

Slavery

Homosexuality

Disobedient children

Genocide

The subjugation of women

[DigitalDecadence]

@Pezzab5 Well you would need to define slavery. In regards to homosexuality, it depends if you mean homosexual behaviour, or homosexual tendencies. The former I believe is immoral and a sin, the latter is neither immoral or sinful. Disobedient children are under the purview of their parents and the subjugation of women is a pretty broad topic, so unless there are specifics I would say I think it's morally wrong.

[Pezzab5]

@DigitalDecadence You sound wonderfully vague about the points I raised. The Bible is not. It condones Slavery (from Exodus onwards). It condemns Homosexuality (from Genesis onwards) - you can't say that being gay is immoral and sinful whilst thinking about it is OK, disobedient children should be killed (Deuteronomy) and introducing semantics such as the subjugation of women is "a pretty broad topic" is a cop out.

You're not that much of a Christian are you?

[DigitalDecadence]

@Pezzab5 The points you raised were wonderfully vague.

I asked for you to define slavery so I could address it, will you please do so?

Psychological studies have indicated an innate homosexuality present in everyone, with differing degrees. So homosexual tendencies are not immoral (we all have them) however acting on them is.

I answered the subjugation of women, saying it is amoral. Not sure why you feel that is a cop out, please explain?

In regards to stoning, it doesn't say that, clarify?

[Pezzab5]

@DigitalDecadence Slavery is exactly what it means - taking a person or a race into ownership. Don't say that it meant something different when the bible was written. Your dichotomised appraisal of homosexuality is directly at odds with the bible - at no time does it state that it's "innate in all of us". The subjugation of women is quite explicit in the bible - a man is worth more than a woman - a thought repeated in the Koran. I didn't mention stoning. Please expalin.

[DigitalDecadence]

@Pezzab5 Actually slavery isn't anything, until it's DEFINED. Hence why I asked as no worthwhile discussion can occur without defining terms and examining context.

When we talk about slavery in the 21st century, we think of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, which I assume is what you are thinking of. Slavery in ancient times is not analogous to this, and differs in quite a few key areas. I've read a lot about this and can provide historical context if you wish to know more.

[Pezzab5]

@DigitalDecadence Slavery is slavery - however it's defined. At the very least it means taking people into your ownership against their wishes. By trying to differentiate what you think of in the bible as "acceptable", as opposed to the worst definition of the word, weakens your case. Your religion allows you to accept things which are palpably wrong.

[DigitalDecadence]

@Pezzab5 That's sort of like saying a road is a road. There are common traits amongst the roads of history, and differences too. They can be made from cobblestones, asphalt, tar, dirt or concrete. Some are bi-directional, uni-directional, elevated, underground. The country and time-period determines the context for understanding what constitutes a road. 16th century London roads are totally different to 21st century New York roads.

Are you saying context and definitions are unimportant?

[Pezzab5]

@DigitalDecadence What on earth are you babbling on about roads for?

[DigitalDecadence]

@Pezzab5 Its an analogy. To show how things whilst containing the same label are in fact, not the same when examined closely. Slavery in both ancient Israel and the 21st century has the same label, yet the devil is in the details. :)

[DigitalDecadence]

@Pezzab5 In respects to stoning, I assumed (again since you were not specific) that you were referring to some verses in Deuteronomy, if that isn't the case then let me know. Nothing much to say about that other than what I have already said, a disobedient child falls under the purview of the parents of that child, and of common law, just as in the 21st world we live in.

[Pezzab5]

@DigitalDecadence I never mentioned stoning - you did. As you've had Deuteronomy 21:18-21 thrown in your face before, you obviously felt obliged to mention it. As for children falling under the purview of their parents, I quite agree. However the Bible is explicit in how to react to a rebellious child and fortunately society does behave in the 21st century how we're obligated to behave as if we were still in the bronze age.

[DigitalDecadence]

@Pezzab5 As I mentioned, I didn't claim you mentioned stoning, but you mentioned 'disobedient children' and if you google that in the context of Christianity and atheist, it will lead you to the laws of stoning.

Can you elaborate on what you think the Bible says in this respect (disobedient children) and what you feel qualifies disobedient? Then we can discuss further, thanks.

[Pezzab5]

@DigitalDecadence my elaboration on the stoning of children is pretty much as it is in Deuteronomy 21:18-21

Please read it - it says that if your child is rebellious, a drunk or a glutton it's ok to have him stoned to death. Which part of this do you disagree with or are you saying that under certain circumstances it's ok to kill your child?

[DigitalDecadence]

@Pezzab5 So you were talking about Deuteronomy.

In this passage we have some laws, for a child who is essentially, a lost cause. Look at the language used - the child is continually rebellious, a drunk and glutton, he refuses to listen to even his parents when they admonish him. He is a repeat offender, and the terms 'drunk/glutton' are not as we think of them, in ancient Israel it was the most serious accusation. Lastly the parents seek out the civil authorities for help, who condemn the child

[Pezzab5]

@DigitalDecadence With this one post, you've defended one of the worst examples of what being a theist is. That you would be prepared to kill your child - not for having murdered or raped anyone, but for being a drunk and a glutton. Likewise the story of Abraham who was prepared to gut his own son to please the Lord. Look at the strength of your argument - it fails on this one point alone and shows that you too could be persuaded to perform an atrocity based on your religious view.

[DigitalDecadence]

@Pezzab5 I don't recall ever saying that so you will need to quote me saying it, or retract that statement.

What I said was that in ancient Israel these were the laws which were laid down and enforced. They were not arbitrary or capricious, they were for good reason. Much like we jail murderers and those who destroy our society, they did precisely the same in ancient Israel. You seem to have a very low ability to separate ancient history, from present day events.

[Pezzab5]

@DigitalDecadence I won't retract anything. And if you're unsure about what I think about you and your morals - try this: You are a morally bankrupt individual who, under the right circumstances, would countenance and condone the killing of your own child.

[DigitalDecadence]

@Pezzab5 I know what you think, what I'm asking is why you think it, and asking for evidence to support your claims. Which is only what you ask of the theist for his claims.

So, time to put your money where your mouth is, and show me that evidence. It's not hard. Just scroll up, and copy/paste the text that supports your claim, unless... you can't? Which is what I think.

Because I never said that, isn't that right?

[Pezzab5]

@DigitalDecadence By stating that you thought that the passage in Deuteronomy was OK and was an acceptable way for parents to punish their children, sorry - I meant to say kill their children, you are guilty by association.

Let me ask you again; Do you think it right for a parent to kill their child for being a drunk and a glutton? A simple yes or no would suffice.

[DigitalDecadence]

@Pezzab5 No sorry you don't get to just barrel on after accusing me of something without supporting it. In addition this: "you are guilty by association." is a logical fallacy.

You told me:

"That you would be prepared to kill your child - not for having murdered or raped anyone, but for being a drunk and a glutton."

Where did I say this, it's very easy, just quote my text showing where I did, otherwise please say you retract it. I will then happily answer your question. :) Thanks!

[Pezzab5]

@DigitalDecadence

It's quite simple really:

you supported the passage in Deuteronomy where it says it's ok for you to kill your child for being a drunk and a glutton

I stated that by agreeing with this you would do the same to your own child.

You then said that those laws were written for people of that time and, like a road, the world view changes over time.

I'm so lost in your warped and corrupted sense of logic that I'm now going to have a large drink and end this conversation.

[DigitalDecadence]

@Pezzab5 You are right. It's very simple:

"I stated that by agreeing with this you would do the same to your own child." That's a logical fallacy. Guilty by association. Don't believe me? Look it up by all means.

Anyone reading this can go and lookup the fallacy for themselves. You also haven't done the simplest task in the world, and cut/paste my quote to support your claim.

Why? Because I never said that, so I will ask one final time, would you like to retract that statement?

[DigitalDecadence]

@Pezzab5 In respects to my roads analogy, that was in relation to slavery, and the specific details of slavery. Like roads, not all definitions are equal.

Slavery in ancient Israel was nothing like the trans-Atlantic slave trade. It was a system designed to reduce poverty and bankruptcy, as well as homelessness. Slaves had rights, property ownership, could purchase their freedom, could marry, have children and so forth. The Bible also doesn't condone it, it merely details what the laws were.

[DigitalDecadence]

@Pezzab5 In respects to the Deuteronomy passage, and even though you made a baseless accusation against me, I will answer your question for the benefit of those reading:

Do I think the Deut. passage was moral? Yes, I do.

It was a last resort effort which civil counsels legislated against people who were threatening the lives of entire families, and their futures.

Would I punish a child like that? No. We have other methods for punishing those who threaten society and the OT laws were abolished.

[DigitalDecadence]

@Pezzab5 Just some further background on this. When it says 'child' it means an adult, obviously someone who is of age to drink, gamble and who has some authority within the family. In addition, 'drunkard'/'glutton' were serious accusations in ancient Israel. Jesus Himself was in fact named such, by non-believers, the highest of insults. We think of those terms and think, 'He drinks and eats? Big deal.' but it was a big deal, and even more so if the child was the eldest - cont.

[DigitalDecadence]

@Pezzab5 The eldest inherited the family responsibilities. The lands, finances and took complete authority over the family affairs. So often having a child, who was acting in this way, refusing authority from the parents, meant when the parents passed on, this family would fall to ruin. Ancient Israel had a lot of policies which helped poverty and homelessness when it happened - but also laws like this prevented some causes of those issues. Remember too it was not the parents who did this.

[DigitalDecadence]

@Pezzab5 Finally anyone reading this, please note the logical fallacies committed by Pezzab5:

A) He insists context isn't important.

B) He insists the Bible documenting events, is the Bible condoning them.

C) He believes if you are associated with a group or person who holds a view he doesn't like, that you are guilty of the same beliefs or actions.

Most astonishing of all, as an atheist you would think he ascribes to logic, reason, truth and evidence. Strange how often it's the total opposite.

[DigitalDecadence]

@Pezzab5 You also ignored almost everything I said:

1) The terms 'drunk' & 'glutton' are not what we think of. They were extremely serious accusations.

2) The child has responsibility, and the very well-being of the family and it's future rested on the child in later years.

3) The actions were repeat offenses, with no signs of remorse and desire to amend and repair the damage.

4) The parents were at a loss as to what to do, and so approached the civil counsel.

Finally 5) This was a last resort.

[Pezzab5]

@DigitalDecadence What do you mean that "'drunk' & 'glutton' are not what we think of"? It's quite precise and there's no ambiguity here.

Once again, I repeat, your beliefs would allow you to commit unspeakable acts against those that you are supposed to love and cherish the most.

I'm glad that you're not a member of my family.

[DigitalDecadence]

@Pezzab5 I am unsure why you feel the Bible is required to explain the nuances of homosexual psychology. Perhaps you can elaborate on that point? However the Bible specifically outlaws homosexual behaviour, which is what I affirmed my beliefs and convictions are too. Homosexual behaviour is a choice of a lifestyle which threatens several aspects of the family unit, and in respects to my worldview, is a sin, as it is not how God created us to be in relation with each other.

[Pezzab5]

@DigitalDecadence By attempting to ascribe the word "nuance" to homosexuality, you're attempting to re-write the bible. I reitereate my point that your view of homosexuality is at odds with the bible. Your assertion that "homosexual behaviour" is a choice of lifestyle is contemptible. People don't choose to be gay.

[DigitalDecadence]

@Pezzab5 Nuance merely means there are many facets to it. You seem stubbornly contrary to the idea of digging deeper than the surface to see what the Bible *actually* says. So you are merely fighting a paper dragon here.

In regards to the lifestyle choice, modern day science disagrees with you. If you look into homosexual studies you will find a large number of them, from reputable secular scientists find homosexuality to be a complex conditioned pattern of behaviour. See APA for info.

[Pezzab5]

@DigitalDecadence There's nothing multi-faceted about the bible's view of homosexuality - it's explicitly forbidden and is punishabale by death. No ifs and no buts (pun intended). As for homosexuality being a complex conditioned pattern of behaviour; what's wrong with that?

[DigitalDecadence]

@Pezzab5 Nothing is wrong with homosexuality being a complex conditioned pattern of behaviour - it does however mean it's not a genetic absolute - it means it's a choice, as people can change their behaviour.

In regards to the Bible's view, it explicitly condemns homosexual behaviour. Which is what I said. So I am in perfect harmony with God's word on this subject.

P.S. Butts has a double 't'. ;)

[DigitalDecadence]

@Pezzab5 Finally, your point in respects to the subjugation of women, there again is historical context to be raised, however since you haven't raised any specifics, I don't actually know what you are talking about. Until I do I can only offer some general comments, such as when Jesus came he affirmed the order of the family in terms of authority, which was God, the husband, the woman and then the children. However he said in terms of value and preciousness, it is in fact, the opposite.

[Pezzab5]

@DigitalDecadence Historical context? Here's a few specifics:

Genesis 3:16

Leviticus 15:19-32

1 Peter 3:1

1 Timothy 2:11-15

There's so many to choose from.

It seems to me as though you're either ignorant when it comes to your bible knowledge or that you pick and choose what is acceptable to you. If you were alive at the time of Jesus, you would have been put to death for the views that you now have.

[DigitalDecadence]

@Pezzab5 But why would I hold the same beliefs I have now, centuries ago? This is what I am struggling to understand from your points. You seem to feel things are immutable, that nothing changes, like roads are roads, slavery is slavery. My beliefs are my beliefs - why would you think they would not change, in accordance with reality?

You are also quite incorrect, if I were alive at Jesus' time, he would have abolished the OT laws, in which case my beliefs are fully verified and justified.

[NotEnoughLions]

Being an atheist is fantastic.

[lestermagoo]

that list of the top 50 atheist countries didnt really help your case...it actually really does the opposite, as just looking at those lists of countries and what company the U.S was in speaks very loudly---we're with North Korea, Cuba, China, along with several others that have very clear social/class system issues, while the mostly atheist side has some of the highest ranking countries for overall social satisfaction in very easily searchable surveys done by very objective resources