Nonsensical Logic From The New Atheist Camp

Posted: November 26, 2014 in Uncategorized

Its not a secret that the group of intellectuals who refer to themselves as “The New Atheists” have made it a mission to promote a conversational intolerance of any religion. Their belief, and I want to emphasis the word “belief”, is that the societal removal of religion from human practice and thought would somehow be a “victory” for human kind, ending the supposed and implied oppression, intolerance, and irrationality that they believe is a natural bi-product of faith.

I’ve posted in the past numerous logical fallacies, errors, and just flat out falsehoods perpetuated by these clowns, but this one is especially telling. Neil Degrasse Tyson, one of the most well respected scientists in the world, is a virtual superstar. He made science “cool”, he’s a hero to young aspiring science enthusiasts from virtually all ages and all walks of life. More importantly, he’s honest. Claiming to be basically agnostic, though tolerant and even almost indifferent to faith or religion, he asked a very crucial question of Sam Harris here in the above video years ago in an open forum. Sam Harris is basically the young rockstar of the New Atheists, though he’s found no new ways of regurgitating the same misinformation that Dawkins, Hitches, or Krauss have been preaching for years.

Tyson wants to know, that if religious people are otherwise not effecting other people with their beliefs, why is it so important to remove it from humanity? I ask the same question, and I’ll use myself as an example. I believe the Bible cover to cover. Jesus is my Lord and Savior, I believe I’m a sinner in need of salvation and because of Him, I have it. I also have no problems learning, and in fact enjoy learning, much of what mainstream science has to offer. I teach my kids the same science, evolution, cosmology, physics, etc, that mainstream science wants me to. I oppress no one, I violate no one’s civil or human rights. Why then, is it important I shed these “bonds” I’m supposedly bound in? How am I negatively effecting my fellow man? How am I holding humanity back? Sam Harris’ answer to Tyson was very telling. You’ll notice he immediately passes over the main point of Tyson’s question, that being that people are not harming others, and goes to the most extreme examples he can think of. But the fact remains, say in the U.S. for example, most claim to believe in God. They read their Bibles, they go to church. They also have their kids in the same schools, learning real science, and go about their daily lives effecting no one.

The burden of proof here is on atheists like Sam Harris to DEMONSTRATE how the general concept of faith and putting it into practice is bad for mankind. See, the name of the game gets exposed when asked questions like this, because their accusation all along is that all religion, all faith, is EQUALLY dangerous and EQUALLY immoral and EQUALLY irrational. If that’s the case, why when confronted with the fact that most people of faith are not only not harming mankind, but are in fact productive within it, are they forced immediately to jump to the most extreme examples, such as Islamic fascism? Its time the New Atheists, instead of attacking the position of faith, to start defending the weaknesses and flaws in their own position. Because its a matter of verifiable fact, as history proves, that man can believe in God, serve Christ, and not only not “oppress” his fellow man but he can also work to set him free. More to come on that later.

  1. Abazigal says:

    As an atheist, I wholeheartedly agree with you. If people find comfort, joy, or consolation in religion without harming anyone, I see no reason why religion should be forcibly removed from humanity.

    However, I would want to ask you if you agree with me the other way around. Do you think that atheists who do not harm anyone should be allowed to just be atheists, be left alone without being subject to attempts to conversion or being told that they have no or less morality – sometimes even being compared to Stalin or Pol Pot – or being discriminated or ostracised for not wanting to take part in prayer in public places?

    Also: do you think that religions should interfere in the lives of those that don’t share their faith when it comes to civil matters (like the fight of gay people for the right of civil marriage)?

    Thanks in advance.

    • Tim High says:

      Abazigal: thanks for your reply and to answer your question, I think it should absolutely work both ways. Being an atheist doesn’t mean you can’t behave morally, nor should it link you in any way to Stalin or Pol Pot. As for “conversions”, naturally its my wish to see those conversions but if an atheist wants to be left alone, they should be left alone.

      In regards to gay marriage, my views are somewhat different than what you might get from most Christians. Its my view that government shouldn’t be involved in marriage at all. That’s just my opinion. I don’t like my tax dollars going to someone else’s marriage and their’s should go to mine. We shouldn’t get tax breaks/penalties based on what gender we sleep with in the bedroom I guess is my point. But if the state is going to recognize marriage, it shouldn’t discriminate. (barring bizarre examples like man marrying dogs or something) While I may not personally recognize gay marriage as a marriage what they do doesn’t effect my own marriage in any way and its really none of my business.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s