TED Conversations

Nicholas Lukowiak


This conversation is closed.

New Age Atheism: The New Frontier of Scientific Ideology

There is criteria which one should follow in order to be a neoatheist:

*Understanding science, religion, supernatural and atheism
~Science is trying to figure out what is true through methods of logic and rationality, while religion does the same thing but through dogmas and old scriptures.
~Supernatural is the silly notion things cannot be explained by science but religion, and sometimes pseudoscience (which is fake science).
~Atheism is the lack of belief in deities
~Religions are the enemy. Buddhism gets a pass because they are hardly a religion - more of a philosophy.

*Make sure to know proper arguments to distinguish atheism from religion:
~"So by the lack of belief in God, I have a belief? So my lack of belief in Santa Claus is "Aclausian?"
~"Is being bold, a hairstyle?"
~"The television being off, a channel?"

*Check out Dawkins, Rosenberg, Dennet and Harris:
~These guys pave the way for what it is be a rational, logical and non-dogmatic person.
~They demonstrate how belief in a God is just nonsensical through science!
~They prove logic is EVERYTHING to how to think properly.

*Being militant does not mean physical actions
~Only extremist harm others for their beliefs, and since we have none there is no need for violence.
~Never allow 'faith' to be an acceptable reason for the other person to avoid an argument.
~Don't be afraid to debate, you are right! Religion is a destructive practice!
~The burden of proof is on those who claim truth!

Always keep in mind something a leader of our movement had to say, which proves powerful:

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
-Christopher Hitchens

Let's how a strong discussion here on what it REALLY means to be the neoatheist everyone should be!

As an active blogger and forum user to discuss new age atheism, there are a couple of websites I can share. Once a week we have a podcast for lectures with live commenting! Join in the movement!



Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Feb 1 2013: I fail to see how Atheism is any more or less scientific than any other belief system. I became a Christian in middle age by looking at the science; my choice, others chose otherwise. Let's get to brass tacks ..

    I live my life in the expectation of eternal life. This motivates me to emulate my God in Jesus Christ. He spent his time on earth loving & caring for people. I do likewise. If I am wrong, & I pass to oblivion, what does it matter ? I am none the wiser; but my life is lived in the expectation.

    You believe this life is all there is; an altogether miserable prospect in my eyes. You have to cram everything into this life. Whether this includes helping others is down to the individual & arbitrary. If you are wrong, you are in trouble.

    Who would you like to live next door to ?

    • Feb 2 2013: Yes, it is a miserable prospect, but whether or not a person is afraid to die shouldn't affect their beliefs. Nor should a fear of being damned to eternal hell. In no way do i direct this at you, because I'm sure you have your own very valid reasons for belief, but if somebody consciously decides to become religious for either of those reasons, then they are compromising their principles in a way that i actually find quite cowardly. In fact, I believe that if there was an omniscient god, and he could truly see into the hearts of men, then he would rather accept into heaven those who may not worship him, but regardless, live their lives in a more respectable manner.

      Also, if you need help differentiating between theism and atheism:

      From what I can tell, it sounds like you see Atheism as a choice - a belief that there is no god. However Atheism is as much a belief as the belief that there is no flying spaghetti monster. it does not make a leap of faith, but rather refuses to make any leap at all, and refutes all statements that require such a leap. In a way, refuting those statements absolutely is a leap in itself, but can you see the subtle difference?

      Finally, I rebuke your final question, and although I am not atheist myself, I find it offensive. I'm sure I don't need to tell you that Atheists live by the same moral code as everybody else - a code remarkably similar to that taught by Jesus Christ.
      • thumb
        Feb 3 2013: Hi Jonnie,
        Last point first. Human beings are all equipped with a conscience by their creator. As that creator IS Jesus Christ, it should come as no surprise that the teachings are similar.

        I admit that I see Atheism as a choice to reject the notion of a creator god. Looking around at the high tech nano technology that underpins the whole of nature, it seems obvious that a creative intelligence is a possibility. The rejection of this perfectly valid notion is what I see as Atheism. Even Dawkins admits to the possibility, but admits that the Spaggetti Monster is a figment of his imagination.

        He'll has never bothered me as it doesn't apply to me.

        • Feb 3 2013: You make it sound like we are all equipped with the same conscience, and that our actions for good or evil are merely choices on whether to follow that conscience or not. Do you believe then that the human race has grown less evil over the last 200 years since the abolishment of slavery, then racism and sexism? Because I don't believe that the people that lived back then felt the same pang of guilt as we would do now.

          The teleological argument is indeed attractive. I won't debate the existence of God with you, but I will say that for an atheist, especially one who is well versed in the natural sciences, the development of nature through evolution is equally obvious and they see no reason to make a faithful leap when there is a perfectly valid explanation already.
      • thumb
        Feb 4 2013: Hi Jonnie,
        I believe man has always had the same conscience. We can harden parts or all of it by going against it. No doubt the slave traders managed it, the Nazis managed it, the communists managed it, & the suicide bombers manage it. We are not any more or less evil than our forebears, we are just different.
        Nero had his choices to make, as did the 911 bombers.

        Evolution & ID are two different solutions to the origins problem. To the Christian the ID leap of faith is smaller, to the Atheist the Evolution route requires the smaller leap. However both are faith based, as neither can be empirically tested. It's probably healthy that life has a bit of mystery left.

        • thumb
          Feb 10 2013: Peter,

          Your beliefs are shockingly Judaic and Buddhistic. Have you ever read or learned anything from these practices?

          Do you feel as if it is possible an alien race made us, do you believe an alien race exist which is a thousand years more advanced and able to do such? Would they have created the mechanism in our brains to be aware of God's existence? Or, would they be limited to the knowledge of their own intelligence, and have to duplicate that, which 'that intelligence' having to have the God component?

          My guess will be no. The above is not possible to you. That's my assumption.

          Yet, through time we have had documentation destroyed and replaced and replaced with replacements. 2000 years is a long time. However, for over 200 years we have had thinkers and scientist alike - understand how microevolution predicts a macroevolution. The evidence of change, theorized with, creates larger theories about already found evidence.

          I am not doubting God, in fact I enjoy expanding the idea. However, evolution is a fact. If God, in your image or any other image, exist, that does not defeat evolution, that defeats fundamental biblical readings.

          God would then be an Architect. Designing our DNA to adapt and evolve through time and space. Yet, we were evolutionarily lucky enough to get consciousness. Perhaps all animals believe in God, in some primitive fashion. The strive to survive, is something we cannot say no animal has. Maybe God is survival. Or, Xe was super-intelligent enough to design life with the mechanisms necessary to survive.

          Perhaps at different levels of consciousness we are doomed to behaving more proper, or divine - in an objective sense. I can see that.

          Still, by understanding God, we understand nature, but that is vice versa. Naturalizing thoughts (or scientific lens) craft additional realities (as you noted).

          How can you say you understand nature but not a fundamental principle?

          "All is change" - Water. Chi (Qi). Evolution is God.
      • thumb
        Feb 10 2013: Hi Nicholas,
        You assume correctly regarding aliens. Their existence would only beg the question of where they came from. I am intrigued that you (& Dawkins) should consider the possibility. On the one hand you state that evolution is a 'fact' & that no god figure is required, but entertain a superior intelligence just so long as it isn't 'God'. If Aliens are a possibility, then why not god?
        However if evolution, in the Darwinian sense is a 'fact' of nature then there is no need of god. I do not see evolution as a fact in any but the micro sense; variation within kinds. This can be observed, but there is no reason to believe it can grow to macro proportions.
        Neither is there any evidence to encourage the abiogenesis theory; without which, evolution is dead in the water.
        Human beings are fairly smart; not as smart as they think they are; but fairly smart. We can get fairly close up & personal with the awesome nano-engineering in nature. We know our limits with regular engineering in the real world, we are light years behind what we observe in nature. Our limits are forgivable, we are not that smart. However we really let ourselves down when we proudly declare that this awesome technology assembled itself over millions of years by blind chance. The fact that our seats of learning & the media have been beating this drum for decades is unfortunate. Many follow the piper, but in reality the emperor has no clothes.


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.