A skeptic wrote a blog that I admire?

For you Dawkins/Harris/Hitchens/Loftus/Barker fans, here is one of the greatest responses to the ‘New Atheism’ I have yet to encounter:
MY ANSWER TO THE ATHEISTS 

enjoy!

Advertisements

~ by heatlight on September 4, 2007.

7 Responses to “A skeptic wrote a blog that I admire?”

  1. What exactly is “New Atheism”? How does it differ from “old atheism”?

  2. “Old Atheism” tended to say “I don’t believe in God”, yet at the same time not necessarily think there was anything wrong with those who do. What is referred to as the “New Atheism” tends to believe that all ‘believers’ are psychotic and dangerous by the very nature of ‘belief’ and the ‘New Atheists’ are ‘evangelistic’ about trying to undermine (i.e. – de-convert as many as possible), and totally do away with any and all religious belief.

  3. Thank you so much for visiting my blog and reading that post. As you may have gathered this is a subject that is quite important to me. That you, a self described Apologist, should find something to admire in the writing of a self-described sceptic tell me that the post was not in vain.

    Now if I could only convince those darned atheists! 😉

    Warmest regards,

    Smith

  4. As I argued on that blog, his arguments are mostly all ill-aimed: they rely on not really understanding the nature of the arguments being made.

    I also challenge you to support the claim that Dawkins and Harris, in particular, have claimed anywhere that ALL believers are dangerous and psychotic.

    I’m also endlessly amazed that the idea of presenting arguments is considered so horrifying. If anything, it only proves their point that religious belief paints itself as sacred cow which reacts to any and all criticism by freaking out.

  5. Dawkins in particular is very adamant about religious belief being a mental disease – just a cursory reading of “The God Delusion”, or simply reading the title, will make the evidently clear.

    I don’t whatsoever think that presenting arguments is in any way horrifying. I question my beliefs regularly, and challenge myself often – I’ve even changed things I purport to believe on occasion, in the face of undeniable evidence. However, there is a difference between sincere criticism and critique and the nature of Dawkins’ attacks, which have all the potential to one day be the foundation to another holocaust, only this one of all religious believers.

  6. Bad,

    Heatlight pretty much stole my thunder here, so I’m just going to say that I think I have demonstrated that I have a very solid grasp of what Dswkins is trying to say. It seems that it is you who is not grasping what I’m trying to say.

    In any event, since we’re already duking it out on two other blogs, I see no reason to carry this debate to a third one.

    -smith

  7. As a note: any blogger that chooses to send me links to a YouTube file about “MOUSETRAP: REDUCED!”, the response will not be ‘approved’. Why – you’ve obviously not read Behe, and the video would be best renamed ‘Adventures in Missing the Point’. Behe has already responded to those sorts of methods of ‘reducing’ the complexity of a system within his own work, and they are faulty beyond reason. So, here’s a suggestion: READ, THINK, then RESPOND – do not, I REPEAT – DO NOT simply ‘vomit’ your own beliefs without engaging the real issues. Thanks.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: