| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jason Spaceman" |
| Date: |
06 Apr 2007 04:26:56 AM |
| Object: |
David Klinghoffer: Prophets of the new atheism |
From the article:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can see how influential atheism has become by noting how the media
and academia deal with traditional faith. A recent New York Times
Magazine cover story detailed the big debate among academic
psychologists: Did God-centered religion evolve in prehistoric man as
a useful adaptation or as a surprising byproduct of other evolutionary
processes? The possibility that it developed in response to a living
God was not considered.
The new religion has a scientific appeal, with orthodox evolutionary
theory recruited to provide a rationalistic "proof" for atheist
teaching. For this reason, Oxford University biologist Dawkins devotes
the "central argument of [his] book" to an attempted refutation of
intelligent design (ID), the alternative to neo-Darwinian evolution
that has been spearheaded by Seattle's Discovery Institute (where I
work).
Unfortunately, Dawkins does not grapple with the latest arguments for
intelligent design as formulated by their chief proponents. Harris is
similarly preoccupied by ID, which evidently provoked the new
atheism's present evangelistic push.
Darwinism, of course, is hardly new. The novelty here lies in the new
faith's missionary fervor. Dawkins writes explicitly about making
"converts."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2003653502_klinghoffer06.html
J. Spaceman
.
|
|
| User: "ike milligan" |
|
| Title: Re: David Klinghoffer: Prophets of the new atheism |
06 Apr 2007 06:46:34 AM |
|
|
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:mi4c13l4qhhsqfn8cho7ki9i31jnq3apei@4ax.com...
From the article:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can see how influential atheism has become by noting how the media
and academia deal with traditional faith. A recent New York Times
Magazine cover story detailed the big debate among academic
psychologists: Did God-centered religion evolve in prehistoric man as
a useful adaptation or as a surprising byproduct of other evolutionary
processes? The possibility that it developed in response to a living
God was not considered.
If you belive the stupid article:
Are you implying that people evolved and then became able to respond to a
Living God? Were they responding to a Living God before they became a Homo
Sapiens species? Did humans at some point wake up and say, "I just realized
there's a Living God?"
The new religion has a scientific appeal, with orthodox evolutionary
theory recruited to provide a rationalistic "proof" for atheist
teaching. For this reason, Oxford University biologist Dawkins devotes
the "central argument of [his] book" to an attempted refutation of
intelligent design (ID), the alternative to neo-Darwinian evolution
that has been spearheaded by Seattle's Discovery Institute (where I
work).
So which came first, Evolutionary Theory or ID? You are speaking of ID as
though it were the established dogma that had to be refuted to justify
non-belief in God(s).
Unfortunately, Dawkins does not grapple with the latest arguments for
intelligent design as formulated by their chief proponents. Harris is
similarly preoccupied by ID, which evidently provoked the new
atheism's present evangelistic push.
Well there are always later arguments for ID. At some point one must cease
grappling with what appears to be begging of the question, although I can't
speak for this Mr. Dawkins, nor have I read the latest ID arguments.
Darwinism, of course, is hardly new. The novelty here lies in the new
faith's missionary fervor. Dawkins writes explicitly about making
"converts."
Which new faith are you referring to? ID is hardly a new faith nor is
atheism even a faith, though I suppose your point is, that it is.
Here, I am arguing with a stupid article. The OP gave no indication whether
he agrees woith it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: David Klinghoffer: Prophets of the new atheism |
07 Apr 2007 07:30:18 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 12:46:34 +0000, ike milligan wrote:
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:mi4c13l4qhhsqfn8cho7ki9i31jnq3apei@4ax.com...
From the article:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can see how influential atheism has become by noting how the media
and academia deal with traditional faith. A recent New York Times
Magazine cover story detailed the big debate among academic
psychologists: Did God-centered religion evolve in prehistoric man as a
useful adaptation or as a surprising byproduct of other evolutionary
processes? The possibility that it developed in response to a living God
was not considered.
If you belive the stupid article:
Are you implying that people evolved and then became able to respond to a
Living God? Were they responding to a Living God before they became a Homo
Sapiens species? Did humans at some point wake up and say, "I just
realized there's a Living God?"
<smacks forehead>
I coulda had a V-8!
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace
alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing
it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
- H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: David Klinghoffer: Prophets of the new atheism |
06 Apr 2007 08:08:18 AM |
|
|
On 6 apr, 11:26, Jason Spaceman <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org>
wrote:
From the article:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can see how influential atheism has become by noting how the media
and academia deal with traditional faith. A recent New York Times
Magazine cover story detailed the big debate among academic
psychologists: Did God-centered religion evolve in prehistoric man as
a useful adaptation or as a surprising byproduct of other evolutionary
processes? The possibility that it developed in response to a living
God was not considered.
<snip the rest>
The posibility that Hera, Zeus, Osiris, Mardoek and Shiva realy
existed
was not considered?
Maybe author did not consider the fact, that prehistorica man
worshipped multiple gods, among wich JHVH was not present:)
Rather embarresing quote!
Peter van Velzen
April 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
.
|
|
|
| User: "ike milligan" |
|
| Title: Re: David Klinghoffer: Prophets of the new atheism |
07 Apr 2007 08:06:45 AM |
|
|
<pbamvv@worldonline.nl> wrote in message
news:1175864898.311226.139550@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On 6 apr, 11:26, Jason Spaceman <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org>
wrote:
From the article:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can see how influential atheism has become by noting how the media
and academia deal with traditional faith. A recent New York Times
Magazine cover story detailed the big debate among academic
psychologists: Did God-centered religion evolve in prehistoric man as
a useful adaptation or as a surprising byproduct of other evolutionary
processes? The possibility that it developed in response to a living
God was not considered.
<snip the rest>
The posibility that Hera, Zeus, Osiris, Mardoek and Shiva realy
existed
was not considered?
Maybe author did not consider the fact, that prehistorica man
worshipped multiple gods, among wich JHVH was not present:)
If prehistoric man worshipped those cited or any other gods, how would we
know? What is a god?
Rather embarresing quote!
It could only be embarrassing to the author, so how can we know the author
is embarrassed?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: David Klinghoffer: Prophets of the new atheism |
06 Apr 2007 05:29:59 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 05:26:56 -0400, Jason Spaceman
<notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
From the article:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can see how influential atheism has become by noting how the media
and academia deal with traditional faith. A recent New York Times
Magazine cover story detailed the big debate among academic
psychologists: Did God-centered religion evolve in prehistoric man as
a useful adaptation or as a surprising byproduct of other evolutionary
processes? The possibility that it developed in response to a living
God was not considered.
Nor is the possibility that the universe was sneezed into existence by
the Great Green Arkleseizure last Thursday. Why do you think that
might be?
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: David Klinghoffer: Prophets of the new atheism |
06 Apr 2007 07:03:36 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 18:29:59 -0400, raven1
<quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote:
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 05:26:56 -0400, Jason Spaceman
<notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
From the article:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can see how influential atheism has become by noting how the media
and academia deal with traditional faith. A recent New York Times
Magazine cover story detailed the big debate among academic
psychologists: Did God-centered religion evolve in prehistoric man as
a useful adaptation or as a surprising byproduct of other evolutionary
processes? The possibility that it developed in response to a living
God was not considered.
Nor is the possibility that the universe was sneezed into existence by
the Great Green Arkleseizure last Thursday. Why do you think that
might be?
He took his allergy meds?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: David Klinghoffer: Prophets of the new atheism |
07 Apr 2007 07:29:37 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 19:29:59 -0400, raven1 wrote:
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 05:26:56 -0400, Jason Spaceman
<notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
From the article:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can see how influential atheism has become by noting how the media
and academia deal with traditional faith. A recent New York Times
Magazine cover story detailed the big debate among academic
psychologists: Did God-centered religion evolve in prehistoric man as a
useful adaptation or as a surprising byproduct of other evolutionary
processes? The possibility that it developed in response to a living God
was not considered.
Nor is the possibility that the universe was sneezed into existence by the
Great Green Arkleseizure last Thursday. Why do you think that might be?
Last Thursdayism? Heresy! Everybody knows The Great Emu belched the
universe into existence the Wednesday before last after eating the cosmic
kiwi!
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace
alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing
it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
- H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
