TED Conversations

Nicholas Lukowiak

TEDCRED 50+

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

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!

**Satire**

+1
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Feb 1 2013: IMO, "Scientific Ideology" is an oxymoron.
    • thumb
      Feb 7 2013: IMO, knowing definitions before making wild claims is essential for debate.

      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ideology
      • Feb 7 2013: I was well aware of the definition, and thus my opinion. If we disagree, perhaps our difference is regarding the term scientific.

        I was not engaging in your debate, just expressing my opinion of your phrase.

        Have a good day.
        • thumb
          Feb 7 2013: Opinions can be valid and invalid to me, so, indeed yours is invalid.

          Check out: Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Kuhn and you can see why "scientific ideology" is a perfectly acceptable phrase

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.