Tag: New Atheism
Over the course of the last year or so I have become increasingly convinced that the so-called New Atheism is merely a popular form of the now thoroughly rebutted, outdated and extinct radical empiricist philosophy of logical positivism.
In the last several weeks I have happened upon a few atheist sites that make the connection explicit.
Some time ago I left a comment on Triablogue in which I claimed, “As classical foundationalists and naive evidentialists, fundamentalist atheists are the flat-earthers of philosophy.” (Dustin Segers later used the “flat-earthers of philosophy” phrase in one of his exchanges.)
The same is …
If you were to buy into atheist propaganda on the Internet you would have no choice but to conclude that Christians are some of the most ignorant, irrational, dishonest, deluded idiots on the planet. In short if you are a Christian, then you are stupid. You can substitute whatever other derogatory term you would like in the place of stupid. The point is that something is seriously wrong with the idiots who believe these nonsensical fairy tales, etc. etc. You have heard it all before. You get the point.
Of course I do not really need the atheists to tell …
It is extremely refreshing to find probably the greatest philosopher of our time writing something like the following in his newest book:
For according to the Christian story, God, the almighty first being of the universe and the creator of everything else, was willing to undergo enormous suffering in order to redeem creatures who had turned their backs on him. He created human beings; they rebelled against him and constantly go contrary to his will. Instead of treating them as some Oriental monarch would, he sent his Son, the Word, the second person of the Trinity into the world. The
Once upon a time I wrote to Paul S. Jenkins in a comment on his blog and said, “Any time you are willing to debate, ‘Theology is Piffle’ let me know!” In response he asks, “Is it worth debating?” Answering his own question, he writes, “Probably not, because in order to ‘debate’ sensibly about something, both sides must be clear that they are discussing the same thing.”
Is it true that both sides in a debate must be clear that they are discussing the same thing? Probably not, and I can think of any number of debates where the participants …
“If God wanted to destroy New Atheism, getting this book written was a good start.”
You may find the first ever Choosing Hats Podcast Praxis Presup Praxis Presup 1 here.
Episode 1 – April 6, 2010
Chris Bolt and Mike Berhow
Chris Bolt and Mike Berhow discuss Bertrand Russell’s Celestial Teapot. Some of the points that are covered include arguments used by the so-called “New Atheists”, the nature of evidence and the burden of proof.