The New Atheists Are Not Intellectually Bright

youtube.com/watch?v=T8__UWuj8Do
youtube.com/watch?v=GsMLqCIMKhY

"Religion is for those who cannot think for themselves." - Richard Dawkins

A more apt quote regarding religious belief does not exist.

/thread

A quick visit to reddit affirms this.

WLC's is incredibly intellectually dishonest. His belief in God doesn't come from arguments, it comes from faith, because it's a "properly basic belief," so for some reason he needs no arguments.

WLC's cosmological argument defies demonstrable laws of physics. He himself admits that it implies an objective reference frame, which is totally rejected under the theory of relativity. To justify this, he invents a term, the "neo-Lorentzian view," named after a person who later admitted they were totally wrong. This is basically a term for "all the evidence contradicts my idea but I'm going to believe it anyway."

In short, he comes up with intelligent sounding terms so he can ignore evidence or avoid having to prove arguments.

Fuck William Lane Craig.

>Someone finally posts based WLC
Thank God user.

not an argument

We are a nationalist board.


Do you think that christcuck gives a fuck about the white race?

Based WLC...

yeah nah hes a conman

FPBP

Atheism is for the sheep who want to rebel against their parents.

Most new athiests are manchild neckbeards who don't want to assume any responsibilities. Being atheist is a way to say I don't believe in God because I want to be degenerate.

Dawkins is an intellectual wannabe. As stated in the video, if you read his books, they are full of fallacious garbage. There is nothing in his books that are worthy of any respect.

Atheism is for people who cannot think critically. Rather than say "let's investigate further" it's "It does not exist." This is a lazy way of thinking. There is nothing logical about it at all.

>Being atheist is a way to say I don't believe in God because I want to be degenerate.
user why are you projecting so hard? is the only thing keeping you from being a degenerate a spooky man watching you?

It's just for people to conform and be in their safe place, along with peer pressure and wanting to be part of the group.

Religious is inherently ingrained in the neurophysiology of the brain and new atheism replaces old religious doctrine for conformity to group think.

>Rather than say let's investigate further, it's "It does not exist"
Aree you talking about the idea that questioning anything in the bible is blasphemy? Or are you beating the dead strawman that is gnostic atheism

"To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible."

...

If meme magic is real, does it mean that Christianity is real?

I am talking about the atheists inability to think.

>New Atheists
>Alt Right

What's all this meme speak?

Great rebuttal man. Is that WLC himself typing at me?

It's not the fact that he believes that's the problem. You just don't get to be a condescending twat to people who disagree if your own beliefs aren't based on arguments.

You also don't get to call others pseudo-intellectuals when you make up terms to justify anti-scientific beliefs.

It's not the faith, it's the hypocrisy that gets me.

...

Categorization... divide and conquer. The illuminati have created these terms in order to furthermore divide the people from eachother, so that they won't collectively rebel against the satanic agenda being forced onto them.

Although I disagree with that particular statement I will admit that Dawkins is pretty based. I think his run in with feminism red pilled him about the left, since now he generally saves most of his vitriol for Islam and is often pilloried for it.

Well, this is common sense. If you cannot prove a universal negative, then why would you dismiss something as "nonexistent" when it is a self-defeating proposition. The lack of evidence does not mean something does not exist. After all, can you even prove the universal nonexistence of evidence? A belief does not really require evidence unless you want someone to prove that they believe in whatever it is that they claim to believe in. In other words, asking someone to prove that something exists when they stated that they only "believe" in it's existence is a straw man. This is because they are not claiming existence, but that they "believe" that it exists. Did I dumb it down for you enough?

So you're an agnostic theist. I'm an agnostic atheist. Great paragraph attacking gnostics I guess?

>You just don't get to be a condescending twat to people who disagree if your own beliefs aren't based on arguments.
Prove it.

>using a quote from an authority figure to express how others can't think for themselves

I dunno if this post was supposed to be ironic or you're just retarded

That is a fucking retarded summation. Atheism is not a belief system. Its a lack of one. Atheists would gladly "investigate further", if there was anything to even investigate.

You are the one that does not investigate further, as you believe simply what is written, and THAT is an extremely lazy way of thinking.

You want to talk about logic? You are the one that has none. It should be common knowledge that Theists bear the burden of proof, not Atheists. They literally have to do nothing. It is your job, and only yours, to prove whatever delusions you might have, and so far, all of you have failed.

I'm a Deist, so why should I believe in the Bible? I've read it cover to cover and certainly find pieces of it to be interesting and insightful, but many things in there are also objectionable. I'm a deist in that I've felt the presence of and believe the presence of something which is higher than we can conceive, but I see no way to fit a formal moral framework to that divine power. It seems indifferent to me, or am I wrong? I'm open to that, but just provide me with your views.

>Mispronounces "intelligentsia" 11 seconds in.
>close window

Burden of proof? Okay, I will gladly prove to you that I believe in God.

>Doesnt even know what the Burden of proof is

wew lad I guess I better start thinking the way Dawkins tells me too

The problem resides in the fact that you do not know the definition of "believe" or "claim." Religion is about believing in something, and not about proving whether or not it exists. Otherwise, faith wouldn't even be necessary would it?

No, you are just an intellectually challenged asshat.

>(((michael coren)))
>ancient 4:3 video
>canadian christian cts television
>nothing but argumentum ad verecundiam
sage

You are too dumb to even know what the claim is. If someone says "I believe in little green men" they do not have to prove that little green men exist because that is not what their claim states. They only have to prove that they "believe" in little green men. You should slap all of your teachers or professors for not teaching you logic and common sense.

Proof of no existence of God or shut the fuck up. You retards are just as bad as the Christians in this country.

>>Doesnt even know what the Burden of proof is

Implying the belief that god doesn't exist doesn't require a burden of proof. Any belief requires a burden of proof you nutless teenager.

That's why you have philosophers like Descarte who claim the only think for certain is that they think. Everything else can be a deception.

You can be agnostic on the belief of god, but a atheist firmly believes that some principle known as god does not, for certain, exist.

Mmm, nothing but ad homs to my reasoned argument. And you call atheists illogical? Kek

If you want to boil it all down to belief without evidence, then you are already wrong. If there is 0 evidence to point towards something's existence, there is 0 reason to believe it.

William Lane Craig is a subject of ridicule among academic philosophers all over the planet

t. Oxford philosophy graduate

He is an embarrassment why do idiot Americans always parrot him? There are plenty of decent religious philosophers around who are actually worth listening to, not this fucking charlatan

>If you want to boil it all down to belief without evidence, then you are already wrong. If there is 0 evidence to point towards something's existence, there is 0 reason to believe it.

There's 0 evidence that life exists outside of planet earth. Does that mean there exists 0 reason to believe it?

No.

A lack of evidence cannot disprove something. Only evidence to the contrary would be a logical reason disproof.

Proof of existence of God or shut the fuck up. No one has to prove your imaginary fantasies besides you.

The Selfish Gene hasn't been significantly improved upon since he wrote it forty years ago and is still read all over the world today

The simple statement is that for you to not believe in god or for me to believe in god requires us to suspend reason and cause and effect. If you live in a rational world, and you believe if i mix this chemical with that chemical, as the laws of physics dictate, there will be a consistent product of the reaction, then you have to explain the fact that in a cause and effect world, there must be a first cause.

If there is a first cause, who caused the first cause? And if the first cause is causeless, how can you live in a rational world?

>Atheism is not a belief system.

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought some people believed the philosophies therein.

That is not a valid comparison. Nor is it correct. There is plenty of evidence to support life outside of earth. Simply because we do not have the technology to explore earth-like planets we have found to verify extraterrestrial life, does not mean you can use the same argument. Modern science indicates that literally any earth-like planet, with water, is nearly guaranteed to eventually spawn life.

So what? That does not mean that it does not exist, or that I am wrong for believing that it does. Is a detective wrong for suspecting someone of a crime? Not necessarily. It depends. He/she can say "I think this person committed this crime but I cannot prove it." That statement is perfectly fine as he/she is not making a direct claim. Someone can say "I believe in upright walking humanoid creatures exists on another planet in the universe." Is that person wrong for saying that? NO! They are not claiming that they exist, they are claiming that they believe that they exist. It does not make them wrong or right. In the case of a religious belief, it is all about faith. A person has "faith" in God or that a God exists.

>want to study philosophy
>no post-secondary near me has anything but fedora edgelard instructors
Fuck Kant in any case

There's 0 evidence that life exists outside of out planet.

>thread title
>posts craig

the ironing is delicious

No shit, it's why I hide the fact that I'm an atheist now a days, I don't want to be lumped in with the retards that treat it like a religion.

lane craig is usually an idiot but he isn't stupid he outclasses most of those new atheists in discussions when it comes to philosophy and he always drags the discussion to philosophy/theology and he wont let them stay in their respected fields of science etc. But he chooses his opponents wisely, while he likes to show off his superior philosophy knowledge against scientists (darwkins, kraus, harris) he never once debated with Daniel Denett, the philosopher of the four horsemen altough there was ample opportunity.
he's right in that some of the new atheists fail horribly when they step outside of their own field
He's right in his critique of the philosophical parts of "the god delusion" which is pretty shit. I too would like that experts stick to their field and argue from that perspective, but if your opponent comes from another perspective you have to try to defend that (same goes of course for a doctor of theology who has to defend against scientific arguments)

Dumb people are going to flock to whatever is popular. That's just how it works.

Religion used to be for dumb people because dumb people grow up surrounded by religious people, so they think ''well, duh, of course god exists, what are you, a MORAN??''

Now dumb people are surrounded by people who make fun of Christians, so dumb people think ''well, duh, of course god doesn't exist, haven't you heard about evaludion??? What are you, STOOPID?''

We see the same thing with politics. Being conservative is no longer popular or cool, so conservatives are getting smarter as dumb people flee to the liberal side.
If you ever meet a conservative in 2016 they're pretty much guaranteed to be fairly smart logical people.
20 years ago if you met a conservative they were guaranteed to be a bumbling retarded braindead fuckfaces like modern liberals.

Right. Also, "no reason to believe" does not somehow make it nonexistent That's what is so stupid about that statement. It's like dividing by zero. Unknowns are unknowns regardless of how people try to twist the logic or the meaning. They can say "I do not believe" or "I do not believe." Obviously, the "no reason to believe" idea was created to fill a void so that they do not have to say the forbidden phrase "we don't know."

Agnosticism is a true cancer on vocabulary. It has obseleted atheism and replaced it with pure autism. Agnosticism says nothing about your belief in God, only about the nature of that belief. Do you believe 100% that god must not exist (in the same way that some christians believe 100% god must exist) or do you believe that God does not exist, but there is some chance that "god" does exist. Another problem with Atheist vs. theist arguments is the word "God". It is thrown around as if all "Gods" are the same being. I believe that a universal creator is likely to have created the universe, but do I believe the christian god is this creator? No. Do I believe "God" does not exist? Well, maybe, but it depends on who "God" is. Are we talking about the Christian God? In that case, I am justified in calling myself an atheist, but Christians don't want to define what they mean by god, because then they can't weasel their way from an unlikely probability (The existence of a certain Christian god) to a much more likely one, The existence of Any being who's existence breaks certain universal laws.

>Religion used to be for dumb people

says the opinion of another dumb person

you know youre not really smart

The problem stems from retards who have defined ''atheist'' as being someone who claims to have absolutely undeniable proof that God doesn't exist.
It's a strawman gone wild.

Proof of no existence of unicorns, dragons, magic, fairies, etc or shut the fuck up. I obviously don't have to give any evidence that they DO exist, but you have to disprove them.

You do not have to be able to see something to have evidence of its existence, otherwise things like black holes could be deemed "fake".

Extraterrestrial life at this point comes down to mathematics and chemical kinetics. We know the origins of life now, and that the fundamental building blocks of life can arise from non-organic compounds. Given earthlike conditions, and a time. Life WILL arise.

Can we get back the the topic at hand now?

You are literally just pulling out the Argument from Ignorance. Congrats. Ya really got me there! Im not denying God COULD exist, you would be stupid to say so, But because there is just as much evidence to prove that he does exist as there is that he doesn't (0), Then it makes no sense to believe something without reason.

atheist = ultimate blue pill who hasnt researched anything ever and just does drugs and shit

i was just watching a christian broadcast where they could go on for hours debating the intricacies of 1 WORD in the bible

and atheist are still talking about how agnostic hijacked their term or something and philosophy

Hey look, I can post shitty memes too. Am I edgy now?

He wants to stay in the EU so fuck that lefty tosser.

It's also a straw man to say that someone must prove that a God exists when they only stated that they believe in a God.

How can anyone hate Dawkins on Sup Forums? He grills ragheads like bacon.

this

That philosophical equivalent of "lalalalala I can't hear you God is totally real!!!"

It's also a straw man to say that all atheists are illogical and unable to think critically when you are literally admitting they have no reason to believe what you believe.

In my mind the purpose of religious debates is to determine which belief is more rational. If you "believe" 2 + 2 = 5, then I suppose I cannot say that you must prove it because it is only a belief. But if you want your belief to be taken seriously and spread throughout the population (as christians do, according to the bible), then rational discussion based on evidence is perhaps the best way to determine which belief system is more rational, atheism or christianity.

If you have evidence that life exists outside earth, like you suggest, you should win a nobel prize.

There is NO evidence that life exists outside earth.

For all we know earth is the first planet in the universe that has created habitable forms of life. Because there are trillions of stars and planet and a mechanism that explains how life began on earth, it is not proof of life outside of earth.

Sorry. There's still 0 evidence that life exists outside of earth.

Pseudointellectual neckbeard redditors aren't intelligent? I'm truly shocked OP.

He wants to stay in the EU so he's a traitor, and anyone can tear apart Islam it's not fucking hard.

Just gonna leave this here

...

The title of the video is correct, but the video itself is pure bullshit. It must be quite old, because he's referring to some of the genuinely intelligent atheists as a new breed of unintellectual atheists.

Fact is, these people represented the peak of atheism. It's the people who came after who are intellectually challenged. The new athists even went so far as to reject people like Hitchens and Dawkins, because they're "racist" for the using the same logic they used against Christian zealots against feminists and muslims.

Also, the guy in the video is a lunatic.

This.

I really dont care to satisfy your red herring any longer. That is not what this thread is about.

good videos, thx for sharing.

I think that most "atheists" are really agnostic but latched onto the "atheist" label because it was more recognizable.

I don't believe in God, but I wish I did. I am jealous of the communities around religion and the principles therein, and my inability to replace it with anything substantive makes my life worse.

But I'm equally as unable to subdue my annoyance with spending time looking for philosophical meaning in old outdated books that talk about events that I wholly doubt as ever taking place, whose values I appreciate but the investigation of them and the discussion of them is superficial in nature. I've never heard a homily that I enjoyed.

Maybe I just need to find a better church than the one I grew up at.

That's because the intellectual atheists are now Gnostic or Christian because of either
a) the massive Red Polling of the past 3 years or
b) Sup Forums /x/ and antiNWO Facebook pages
>implying Dawkins hasn't already expressed wishes that he killed Islam instead of Christianity
>Based Sagan
A Demon Haunted world is a based book.

"0 evidence" How about the immense size of the universe? Following the logic of ocham's razor, it is logical to assume that in some planets that are like earth, we are likely to find life. Just because the evidence may not be what you want it to be does not make it disappear. You said "0 evidence" so here is some evidence for you.

>I think that most "atheists" are really agnostic
That's not how it works, idiot.
>I don't believe in God
Then you're an atheist. Period.

You're also an agnostic.
How dumb are you people? Is it the water? Is it the food? The air?

>That's because the intellectual atheists are now Gnostic or Christian because of either
>a) the massive Red Polling of the past 3 years or
>b) Sup Forums /x/ and antiNWO Facebook pages

Do you just randomly pull shit out of your own asshole?

Agreed. Todays "New Atheists" are a bunch of pathetic tools. They have an extreme bias against Christianity for some reason, yet pardon literally every other religion.

Kek, except usually the Christians here are as "zealous" as that Athiest

Maybe you need a course in logic.

Earth has life
There are planets similar to earth in the universe
There is life in the universe

Does not pass any logical test.

But in the end, the Bible and Jesus are still right.

There is life outside of earth in the universe.

right

But you can notice what beliefs, ideas, and peers atheists tend to gravitate toward, like those who embrace the "Atheism-Plus" package

Oh, hey Latvia. You're probably too poor to afford a dictionary, so I'll forgive the lapse in understanding the nuance within these two labels and the connotations therein.

Atheistic generally means you deny the existence of all gods, and deny the possibility of their existence out of principle.

This stands in contrast to Agnosticism, which is the denial of any gods but you are open to the possibility of a supreme being in principle.

Hope your life gets better someday so you don't have to have things explained to you on Sup Forums.

Cheers.

Maybe you need a course in English, because you don't seem to know how to read.

>actually resorting to posting videos by William Lane Craig
>mfw

No one knows what the fuck happened to get to this point. Stop wasting your time and just live your life.

Ever get so BTFO you go full shitposting mode and pretend to have been trolling the entire time?

No, but clearly you have.

Look up Sam Harris you stupid fuck.

>hurrrrr muh world government


10000 years in the future after the Muslim menace is wiped out you stupid fucking piece of shit

Have you ever seen the Catholics and Protestants go at it with each other?

Maybe it's because you don't come from an English speaking country, but I assure you that these labels are well-defined in the Western world.