New Aestheism movements

[Thorne]

I have no problem with atheism or atheists, but it seems that in the last few years they have done the unthinkable: They have become religious about their non-belief.
Dawkins, Hitchens, Maher, to name but three, have inexplicably chosen to adopt the very behavior that they despise. They are preaching the gospel of atheism with all the fervor of the fundamentalists they hold themselves above. This makes them seem petty and childish, which is disapointing. They have tossed out the one thing they hade going for them - rationality.

And just what is this "gospel of atheism"? I'm an atheist, and I've never heard of it! Can you point me in the right direction?

Alll this nonsense about "proof" and lthe use of logic on spirituual matters just shows a lack of understanding on the part of the atheist advocate that is as problematic as the ridiculous arguments put forth by the religious.

You misunderstand! The only time we are expecting any proof from the religious is when they try to force their religious beliefs into the science classes, or into the political arena. If you want to spend your time praying to an unprovable deity, by all means do so! If you want to force MY children or grandchildren to learn your ridiculous dogma, I want proof! If you want to force YOUR beliefs into the laws of the land, I want proof!

What each side seems to be ignoring is that they belong to the same species. Both sides want to be right, anhd what we end up with is a collective of debaters that are all wrong,

I agree. Debating proves nothing except who is the better debater.

Believers often argue with the Bible, which they seldom read. Very few have a clue of its origins, much of which is questionable. They search for the parts that prove their point and ignore context altogether. They argue with people who don't accept the Bible anyway, never seeing the futility in this.

You left out the part where, when confronted with arguments from the Bible which refute their point, they complain about context.

Non believers often argue with the scientific method, and they use it the same way believers use the bible. The last time many of them actually tested a hypothesis was in High School or College.

You don't necessarily have to be a scientist to understand how science, and the scientific method, works. If you DON'T understand it, and don't use it, you aren't doing science.

They talk of science as if it is infallible, when history shows clearly it is not. They argue with people who won't accept science anyway, never seeing the futility in this.

Scientists do NOT consider science to be infallible! Just the opposite! We know that nothing is carved in stone. Things change all the time. The point is to draw closer to the truth, making adjustments to our understanding of reality. And we aren't trying to force people to understand, or even accept, science! Our argument is with those who try to refute science with dogma, replacing reality with fantasy. I don't care if some people don't want to accept evolution, that they don't understand it, that they're afraid of it. I DO care when they try to prevent science from being taught in a science curriculum!

Science was started by religion, btw.

You can only say this if you consider early religious beliefs to be the first tentative steps towards an understanding of the universe. They diverged when science moved on to explain reality and religion clung tenaciously to the mystical.

The oldest universities all began with church money.

There were scientists teaching, and learning, long before the Christian churches started funding universities. But yes, the churches did fund many universities. To teach church approved lessons. When scientists like Galileo and Giordano Bruno discovered truths which violated the teachings of the churches they were persecuted, their discoveries suppressed.

Atheism has spawned atrocities as bad as all the religious ones, btw. See the French Revolution (Jacobins!), Stalin's purge of Communist Russia, and what Mao did to China.

Specious argument. No one has ever been killed in the name of Atheism! Atheism is not a religious belief system, has no dogma, therefore no reason to attack anyone. It is simply a lack of belief in gods. The Jacobins were enemies of atheism as well as the church. Stalin and Mao basically set themselves up as demi-gods, replacing worship of the supernatural with worship of themselves. The things they did were done for their own glorification and political gain, not because they were atheists.

Somebody should tell Richard Dawkins. I wish we could tell Hitch.

They both know/knew these things. They have debunked them many times. But people keep bringing up the same old arguments, and if you don't keep knocking them down those people claim victory. So we keep knocking them down.

Science requires faith, has it's own kind of dogma, and is merciless towards those who it considers heretical.

Science requires a certain amount of trust. And yes, there can be some dogmatic portions of science. If you want to overturn the scientific understanding of gravity, or time, or space, you damned well better have a lot of evidence to back up your claims. Einstein managed to do it, because his Theory of Relativity explained things about gravity, time and space that Newtons theories did not.

See Fleischmann and Pons,

Fleischmann and Pons believed they had observed cold fusion. Most scientists were, naturally, skeptical, since such a thing violates known science. Repeated testing of the procedure showed that, indeed, there was no cold fusion occurring. Fleischmann and Pons jumped the gun with their announcements and were smacked down for it. The misguided enthusiasm of the media didn't help their situation at all.

or read Arthur C. Clark.

Not sure of the reference here. I've read Clarke. I don't know what you're saying by including him here.

And science makes mistakes but glosses over them. See Lord Kelvin on flight, and physics.

Science makes a LOT of mistakes! Some of them can be glossed over, as they occur very early in the process and are relatively unimportant. Others, not so much. Kelvin's mistakes, to which you are referring, were not in science, but in the predictions of where science could go. Many scientists have made similar mistakes. Yet the science goes on, learning new techniques, new revelations, new data. And despite his mistakes, Kelvin is still respected for his scientific discoveries.

Religion is revised all the time. The reformation, the restoration. Count all the flavors of Christianity. Don't understand the difference between Shia and Sunni? Muslims probably have the same issues with Catholics and Methodists.

The difference is that all of these faiths, and in most instances, all of the sects and sub-sects and sub-sub-sects, all claim to be the One True Faith™. They all claim to be the true arbiters of morality. And their "revisions" are on the order of disagreements as to just how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. A true revision, such as the Catholic Church claiming that it accepts evolution, is extremely rare, and only occurs because it becomes rather obvious that denying such things will hurt the church, not because it is truth. And even there, the church makes the assumption that God guides evolution in some way.

There is proof of the afterlife, but it is anecdotal,

There's proof of werewolves and vampires, too. But it's all anecdotal.

so science dismisses it as nonsense, or explains it away as a biochemical artifact. A hypothesis it accepts without using the scientific method.

Wrong! Science has studied such claims. They CONTINUE to study such claims. And their studies always (so far) lead them to the conclusion that it's a combination of biochemical reactions, wishful thinking and (sometimes) outright lies. Religions claim the existence of an afterlife with no evidence whatsoever, claiming it as "revealed truth".

Here's an example of why I keep arguing against religious thought being forced into science and politics:
Imagine yourself standing on the edge of a high cliff. Nothing below you for hundreds of feet, and nothing but rocks at the bottom. With you are a scientist and a priest. The scientist says, "According to the THEORY of Gravity, if you jump off of this cliff you will reach terminal velocity and die when you hit the ground." The priest says, "The Good Lord says that, if you believe hard enough, you can jump off this cliff and he will carry you gently down to the ground without harm." Which do you believe?

[Of course, if you should decide to jump, the scientist will monitor your fall, checking his stop-watch and, when you splatter yourself over the rocks he will observe, "Hmm! Precisely according to THEORY! One more confirming datum." The priest will shrug and say, "Guess he didn't believe hard enough!"

Surely we have better things to do with our time.

Not really. If I can convince ONE person to actually think about what they've been taught to believe, it will have been worth the effort. Because that is the biggest difference between atheists and religious thought. The atheists don't say, "You MUST believe this, or you CANNOT believe that." They say only, "THINK about what you have been told." Because real, critical thought is the anathema of religious dogma. The church doesn't want you to THINK about its teachings! You must accept those teachings without reservations, or that all-loving god of theirs will fuck you over big time!