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.

  • Feb 1 2013: ....bad news for you Nicholas, haven't you heard ..??

    High priest and captain Richard Dawkins has abandoned the atheist ship.
    He now prefers not to .. "limit" ... his understanding either towards the one conclusion or the other....

    He prefers now to be considered an agnostic ... which means one simply does not know... for sure.

    Check out the links below



    ... I guess a word like humility isn't on the agenda here, ...but a lot of young neo-atheists should go do their homework and read some philosophy before they go out demonstrating with their flags and T-shirts and calling themselves "brights" ... as though they know better than all the rest of us. Gods existence has been debated for a few thousand years, and so finally comes the neo-atheists with the right answer.... Smells of arrogance to me.

    It's perfectly OK to admit that you don't know ... It might be the first step towards self-knowledge.

    Richard Dawkins finally did it. ... I think his self-doubt began to arise in him around the time of Christopher Hitchen's death in Dec. 2011. Death seems to be a rude awakening for human logic.

    Self-doubt can also be a virtue.

    Logic tells me that...
    • thumb
      Feb 7 2013: Lol, high priest Dawkins...

      I am sure by now Dawkins had his ear chewed off with philosophers and theologians alike about being so extreme with his ideologies... Surely by now with all the new age movements of religious thinking he would of changed his perspectives. Just like Harris did!

      "... I guess a word like humility isn't on the agenda here, ...but a lot of young neo-atheists should go do their homework and read some philosophy before they go out demonstrating with their flags and T-shirts and calling themselves "brights" ... as though they know better than all the rest of us. Gods existence has been debated for a few thousand years, and so finally comes the neo-atheists with the right answer.... Smells of arrogance to me.'

      Exactly - and precisely where this conversation's satire exist. With their irreligious attitudes, they are proving more religious than not...

      Thanks for your comment!
    • Feb 8 2013: Daniel Hehir,

      I don’t see a change in Dawkins stand,

      Dawkins wrote in « The God Delusion » that « There is almost certainly no God ». In the newspaper article you mentioned he stated “On a scale of seven, where one means I know he exists, and seven I know he doesn't, I call myself a six, a '6.9' . This means his stand is the same.

      “6.9” on seven points scale is the position that would be taken by a scientist towards any imaginary notion that can’t be proved or disproved.
      • thumb
        Feb 8 2013: Way to maintain that neoatheist status!
      • Feb 8 2013: I guess Dawkins should have called himself an agnostic from the very beginning then... rather than an atheist, as his well established reputation would have it. hmmm .... 6.9 ... sounds like a pretty specific relation to his disbelief. But he does have a shadow of a doubt. .... As most agnostics do in fact admit a small degree of uncertainty, Dawkins too, is then saying, with a liiiiiiiiitle reservation, .... that even though I have aways showed myself in public as THE most self certain, self confident, scientific based, clearest thinking, etc. etc. ..but, I am still not sure... I too must admit that even "I" THE Richard Dawkins cannot say with 100% certainty that God does not exist .... Perhaps Dawkins sees that he too ... just may be a liiiiiittle bit delusional ... or what ? Why suddenly now ( in Feb. 2012) .... Maybe the death of his friend Christopher Hitchens (Desember 2011) has something to do with it. I don't know.
        Hitch claimed that he would never turn away from his atheism, not even on his death bed. .. That's a pretty strong statement to make. Was Hitch also a ... 6.9 er .?

        I work with dying people. I might know as many as 200 people who have died over the past 9 years... and I'll tell you something... death is something that shakes up your logical thought process. It takes it up by the roots and shakes it around like a rag in the mouth of a dog. Your logical mind tries to fathom the infinite dimension of either being "outside" this physical dimension in another form of existence ... or being extinguished to absolute nothingness. Logic reaches its limits ...

        I've got nothing at all against atheists, don't get me wrong. I was also one at a certain point in my life. But "vocalizing it" at every chance, in the media, seems to me to take on a character of "The know it all" as Nicholas satirically presented as his discussion topic on "neo-atheism"

        It gives me the exact same feeling as hearing the "christian extremists"
        Because it is extremism.
        • Feb 9 2013: I appreciate your work with dying people. I also understand now why you stress “death” in your comments even when there is no direct reference to it in the discussion. This affords me the opportunity to reflect further and forward my thesis.

          What you mention about how death shakes logic is true and it is medically/clinically well known dying syndrome. Often it is described as the delirium of a dying brain, impaired mentality and the mental confusion of a dying person.

          This deterioration of brain functions during the dying process, which sometimes creates delusions and hallucinations, shouldn’t leave drastic psychological impact that affects views of healthy people towards basic existential issues. We build our knowledge on the robust activity of healthy brain and not on images from decaying, dying brain.

          Further, if a person is not prepared, cognitively, to view this mental decline as quite natural process of dying brain cells, then he would find himself negatively obsessed with death, that could lead to submission to existential angst or more commonly being trapped in thanatophobia and the primordial, rudimentary fear from death, which in turn interferes as a catalyst for enhancing supernatural fantasies.

          Modern scientific knowledge and naturalistic worldview are apt to provide us with the means to liberate ourselves from superstition-based fears that plagued (and plagues) human societies.

          Also, it is unwarranted to exploit our incapacity to know many things to adopt metaphysical notions. One needs to comprehend that the mysteries and wonders of this wonderful and complex existence wouldn't be deciphered even in the lifetime of thousand generations. We face an open and unbounded space of enquiry, and we need to accept this as a reality whether we like it or not; it is something beyond our feelings and preferences.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.