Pre Socratic | The Armchair Antichrist

A Defence of New Atheism

On February 28, 2010, In Misconceptions About Atheism, Religious Arguments, By The Armchair Antichrist

New atheism isn’t actually anything new at all. Intellectual atheist thought in the Western world can be traced back to pre-Socratic Greek philosophy. What’s new is the attitude. It is the stance that all matters of discussion are at the same level. Nothing is given preferential treatment or respect including religion. This philosophical viewpoint is called freethought.

Unsurprisingly, some religious people don’t like this new attitude that atheists are adopting. They want the beliefs that they consider sacred and holy to be respected by everyone. And one of the methods they use to try to counter new atheism is by creating labels to demonize atheists. The ‘new’ atheists are called militant even though they maybe considered militant only in their words. Some of the religious even feign persecution when in reality they represent the vast majority of the population and suffer no threat from atheists.

But, the religious are not the only ones to be blamed. There are atheists, some trying to feel more unique and others too resistant to social change who try to distance themselves from new atheism. Particularly, they denounce Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and other atheists leading the charge as too aggressive and as hindrances to fruitful discussion. These atheists have fallen blindly into the trap set by the religious. They have embraced the labels that were created by the religious to demonize new atheism.

The four horsemen of atheism and other prominent atheists have actually opened the door for discussion by destroying the stigma that made discussion of religion taboo. And in doing so they have given atheists a new found voice. Instead of being denounced they should be applauded for all they have done to advance social change.

Think about the labels: dogmatic, militant, fundamentalist and so on that have been given to atheists by the religious. These are only projections of all the faults they find in their religion. It is best to ignore these labels and not be distracted by them. We need to focus on the arguments (as in premises and conclusions) that make debate and discussion meaningful. Playing into the emotional games of the religious will go nowhere.

Share this:

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Save to Browser Favorites / Bookmarks

Email This to a Friend

Link HTML:

Permalink:

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed (http://feeds NULL.feedburner NULL.com/TheArmchairAntichrist) or Email Feed (http://www NULL.feedburner NULL.com/fb/a/emailverifySubmit?feedId=67ph9hkenfoe0cqvkb5f56sj1o&loc=en_US).

Powered by Bookmarkify™ (http://www NULL.bookmarkify NULL.com/)

More »

Why is There Something Rather Than Nothing (Part 2)

On February 6, 2010, In Cosmology, Philosophy, By The Armchair Antichrist

This is of course a continuation of Why is There Something Rather Than Nothing.

For this I will turn to one of my favourite pre-Socratics, Parmenides. I will present his arguments which will hopefully help answer this ultimate question.

P1: If you can think about nothingness, then it has at least two attributes: it is knowable and thinkable.
P2: If ‘nothingness’ has attributes, then it isn’t nothingness; it is ‘something’ knowable and thinkable.
P3: It is absurd to claim that nothingness is something.
Conclusion: You cannot think about ‘nothingness’.

P1: If the cosmos comes to be it must come to be from what is not (nothingness) or from what is (something).
P2: The cosmos cannot come to be from not being/nothingness.
P3: The cosmos cannot come to be from something/what is because it already is.
Conclusion: The cosmos cannot come to be.

P1: If the cosmos is perishable it perishes into something or nothing.
P2: It cannot perish into something because that is still the cosmos.
P3: It cannot perish into nothing.
Conclusion: The cosmos cannot perish.