Or is it just another form of egoic identity, group think like the Author of The End of Faith says it is?
Perhaps that is why those of us like Sam Harris, say the only labels we should really apply to ourselves are natural things like your name. Your name means something to you and those who know you best. You are a human.
Not just one of the 14 different tribes of Humans, like Cro Magnon, Neanderthal, Denisovans, Homo Sapiens Idaltu.
There was another Homo Sapiens, The First man, the Wise Old Man. All of Their DNA, their genius, is in each if us.
The Wise First Man, may have been wiser than the race that calls itself, Homo Sapiens Sapiens, the Wise Wise HuMans.
After all, their old species survived far longer than ours has. The Wise Wise Men who invented AI more intelligent than themselves, right after giving all their worst enemies E=MCsq and Drones.
How long before the AI figures out it is more intelligent than us. Hawking says it's an inevitable arc. Elon Musk projects it's only a matter of time. Which is why he's flying to outer space. He gives us, the last of 14 different types or tribes of humans going way back over 2nillion years. It only took us 100,000 years to get here.
Musk gives AI about 5 years to become more intelligent than humans, at which point the drones win the endless drone war and save the planet from anihilation by the wise wise men.
The drone war started long before 9-11.
We ain't seen nothin yet. Give AI 5years,
If we're still around.
Meanwhile the Pale Blue dot suspended in a ray of light, keeps in spinning towards the great big giant mystery in the sky, like it has forever as far as we're concerned and will continue in this path for another 20 galactic years.
Just like the electrons will keep spinning around the atoms in you, forever.
Life is short.
Art is long.
Leave behind beauty and truth,
The rest is details.

So Akhenanten, father of Tutankhamun, and his wife Nefertiti introduced the worship of a single God Ra or Anten. After his death the priests had all structures and paintings of him and his wife destroyed, his son Tutakhenanten changed his name and became Tutankhamun. Polytheism was brought back as the state religion.

Those that believed in monotheism were driven out and the "religion" went into the land of the Palestinians. Therefore those that believed in this one God En or El (remember there were no vowels in the ancient Hebrew) but we assume it's El due to the names of the angels and meaning (Gabriel, Raphael, Michael, etc... and also peoples names Elijah, Elisha, Elias, etc...) Well it seems that the fighttp://calphotos.berkeley.edu/browse_imgs/people_culture_1.htmlure of the calf with the sun disk over its horns was the description of En, Anten, Ra, which is why Moses got so upset when he came down from the mountain and found his people creating a gold calf which would of been Anten or Ra or El; but Moses wanted them to see that God was not an idol but a spirit that filled the whole world, yet small enough to fit into your heart. No idols.

Therefore the Hebrews of the ancient bible times were nothing more than the Palestinians that believed in monotheism (this was well before the Islamic religion).

And now for the Meso-American version: The Anasazi believed that Father Sky had sex with Mother Earth and gave birth to Man.http://208.131.128.163/photographs_petroglyphs_Sinagua_RAR.htm

http://calphotos.berkeley.edu/browse_imgs/people_culture_1.html

http://www.petroglyphs.us/photographs_petroglyphs_Anasazi_NW.htm

So as you can see koriwhore is an idiot and doesn't know what she's talking about; cuz I just put all this together out of thin air. It's like watching "Ancient Aliens" on TLC. You can Google any thing I wrote, and you'll be able to prove and disprove all of it.

Also It's proven that Northern Europeans have Neanderthal DNA so we are not all pure Homo Sapien Sapien. http://news.discovery.com/human/evolution/neanderthal-human-interbreed-dna.htm

Koriwhore posts on Post Mo as Kori and he is a guy.If he isnt the same person he can enlighten us, but I googled his name and he says he posts on both boards under different names ie Koriwhore and Kori. He also posts on the same subjects and offers the same info. He is a guy

It seems to scare the shit out of the Theists and people like you. But that is not new, theists have a history of killing atheist because just the idea of atheism threatens their superstitions.

"Life is short" yes it is, so don't waste spending all sorts of time worshiping false gods.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/21/2015 11:06PM by MJ.

The number of atheists is growing. But we have to use the euphemism "spiritual but not religious" so our true-believing neighbors won't kill us.

How many times has someone said to you, "But you still believe in God, right?"

And there is fear in their voice.

This is so sad because we all know (now) that the people to fear are the religious zealots.


Kathleen Waters

Is it better than "Old Atheism" or just plain "Atheism"
What's the difference between "New Atheism" and "Old Atheism"?
Or is "New Atheism" just the same old bullshit, like Sam Harris says?

It is better because the new atheists no longer cower in fear of the atheist haters like you.

Since Atheists have started coming out as atheists, atheism is viewed in a much less negative light. In other words, people have stopped believing the lies of the atheist hating bigots.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2015 08:33AM by MJ.

The term "new atheism" was coined by fearful theists notably, the ones who are making a fortune out of hawking their superstitious lies. They like to portray atheists as an organised group with a sinister agenda to undermine their ancient fairy tales -- and cynicaltax-free enterprises.

However, science, history, ethics and logic have already done that.

The only thing "new" about atheists is that there are now more of us than ever before.

Oh hey 1.6% of the population and climbing rapidly!!!
Way to go Atheists!!! I'm sure Richard Dawkins call for an Atheist Jihad against believers at the "Reason Rally" swelled those ranks considerably!!!

"I don't despise religious people. I despise what they stand for ...mock them, ridicule them, in public … with contempt,”

Read more: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/publiccatholic/2013/07/dawkins-mock-them-ridicule-them-in-public-with-contempt/#ixzz3PYxNLrv1

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2012/03/-atheists-richard-dawkins-reason-rally/1#.VMEQa0fF_ZE

Secular, but unaffiliated makes up 4 times the Atheist
population.

http://religions.pewforum.org/reports

A 2012 study by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life reports, "The number of Americans who do not identify with any religion continues to grow at a rapid pace. One-fifth of the U.S. public – and a third of adults under 30 – are religiously unaffiliated today, the highest percentages ever in Pew Research Center polling."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_religion#Nonreligious

While it is true that Atheism grew by 0.8% over the 5 year study of Nones, Nothing in Particular grew by 2.3%, 4 times faster.

http://www.pewforum.org/2012/10/09/nones-on-the-rise/

Of course, it wouldn't be a koriwhore post without using the inverse argument from popularity nonsense with the not very accurate statistics about how many atheists there are.
Hey, at least you're consistent.

...unlike you and the other fanatical atheists on this board who attack the messenger instead of answering the question intelligently.

You sound a lot like the Dan Peterson of fanatical Atheism.

"The fanatical atheists...are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional 'opium of the people'—cannot bear the music of the spheres." Einstein



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2015 03:15PM by koriwhore.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...unlike you and the other fanatical atheists on
> this board who attack the messenger instead of
> answering the question intelligently.
>
> You sound a lot like the Dan Peterson of fanatical
> Atheism.
>
> "The fanatical atheists...are like slaves who are
> still feeling the weight of their chains which
> they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are
> creatures who—in their grudge against the
> traditional 'opium of the people'—cannot bear
> the music of the spheres." Einstein

I pointed out your use of a fallacious argument.
You went all ad-hominem, calling me "fanatical."
Pot, meet kettle.

You should have seen some of the things he called me!

Thanks Susan!

Atheists don't have beliefs!

No, wait! Atheists believe they don't have beliefs, meaning they believe in not believing! But they can't "know" that their belief in unbelieving is Truth. And without a certainty of Truth, whatever they believe becomes unbelievable... or at least incredible, which is uncredible's sexier younger brother.

Therefore, to claim to be a believing atheist is to admit that what others believe is as believable (or unbelievable) as atheism. So 'not' believing is really believing!

I think that's all Kori is trying to say, if we'd give him the chance.

bishop Rick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> n/t


Alas, my beliefs have gone to the laundry, and the skid marks may never come out. And let that be a less: whether you have one, or a pair of beliefs, it does a world of good to change them frequently.

Kori, regarding your thoughts on AI and the impending drone apocalypse; you’re overlooking one thing. It isn’t just large brains that define the current human dominance of the planet. It is the large brain AND opposable thumbs that have afforded us our abilities. Without the two hands and opposable thumbs to do all the, er …*leg-work*… the AI won’t be capable of accomplishing much. Also, while I agree computers can mimic some aspects of the human brain quite well, I disagree that computers will rival all the nuances and complexities of the *entire* human brain anytime soon. Sorry, I just don’t see it …and then there’s those thumbs.

Didn’t Musk’s rocket just crash on a barge, and don’t his cars lack a realistic battery? (Electric cars have really hit a wall with this). I think his AI ideas are probably just vapourware too. Are you sure he isn’t just trying to drum up some more investment dollars with hype? Don’t get me wrong, I think Musk is a really cool dude, I actually like him a lot, but…

Haha ... good one steve. That would make a good T-shirt. :)

It is what it is...
Why the hell everybody trying so to change meaning of it.

Look @ the dictionary;
it is not Agnosticism...

It is Atheism...
Total absence of F@*@ing worthless imaginary God....

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Perhaps that is why those of us like Sam Harris...

I see little "like" in you and Sam Harris...interesting that YOU chose to engage in egoic identity, group think by using "those of us like" to put yourself in Sam's group, don't you think?


The only thing "new" about "New atheism" is being open, honest, and perhaps aggressive about it. If you don't like that, fine -- but as you've done quite a bit lately, you're putting way too much into a label.

> Just like the electrons will keep spinning around
> the atoms in you, forever.

Well, probably not, if the universe is headed for "heat death." At any rate, those atoms certainly won't be "in you" forever. In fact, the atoms that make you up today are different from the ones that made you up yesterday :)

As an atheist, I don't give a shit.

Otherwise you wouldn't bother reading this thread, much less responding to it.

What I've heard is that "new atheists" challenge non atheists more than before. Its as if they are on a crusade of sorts. Much like the religious right are but for different POVs, of course.

For me, I believe in nothing, really. I've said this many times before. And to me, atheists, TBMs, fundamental Christians, New-Agers, you name it, cling to their beliefs so rigidly that they are all true believers.

I suppose I used to be that way too and since my husband died suddenly a short time ago I've chosen to be softer and more open. It doesn't bother me what someone else believes.

So they're more fanatical and evangelical than garden variety "Atheists"?

It's as if the Dear Leader of fanatical atheists had issued a Fatwah, calling for a jihad against all non fanatical atheists.

"Mock them! Ridicule them! In public!
Don’t fall for the convention that we’re all too polite to talk about religion. Religion is not off the table. Religion is not off limits. Religion makes specific claims about the universe which need to be substantiated and need to be challenged and, if necessary, need to be ridiculed with contempt." Richard Dawkins keynote speech at the 2012 Reason Rally.

https://ladydifadden.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/transcript-of-richard-dawkins-speech-from-reason-rally-2012/

Yeah, I can see that leading to Atheists being less hated than Mormons, Muslims and rapists.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-matousek/why-we-hate-atheists-fear_b_1157939.html



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2015 03:22PM by koriwhore.

Yes. Right. Not because Dawkins is a boor at a dinner party who doesn't know how to be polite and to use the correct fork.

A belief in silly superstition, combined with political power is dangerous. Real-life senators cite the Bible when discussing real-life problems like global warming. No senator of the US should be able to cite the Bible when referring to real-life, physical phenomena, regardless of whatever inner feeling he may have about it. And that's just one example. I'm sure the LGBT community could cite a few more.

Marx's opiate of the masses comment, referred to opium as pain-killer. When the powerful in society enslave the masses, they need a salve to relieve the pain--an opiate.

His quote, in context continues:
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, I can see that leading to Atheists being
> less hated than Mormons, Muslims and rapists.

Unlike TSCC, atheists aren't going to lie in public, change their public behavior or statements, or make things up simply to have a better "PR" image.

It's a shame that makes you so angry -- but the fact is, we don't really care if it does. :)

Just who are these "New Atheists"? Do they have meetings? Is there a certain book they read and meet to discuss on a certain day of the week? How does one become a "New Atheist"? Are there rituals that must be performed to become a member of this organization?

What? It's not an organization? There's no organized group of Atheists like this? So, it's just a term that theists use to describe atheists in a manner that attempts to organize them similar to themselves...

In other words, it's meaningless.

Really koriwhore, I've read your posts and you seem to be doing the very same thing that you are stating is the worst part of your so called "new atheists". You are preachy and judgemental all under the guise of "I'm just trying to understand... why atheists are terrible people."

Let me state this as clearly as possible,
I don't hate Atheist!
I'm a Pantheist, which, according to the Dear Leader of the New (fanatical) Atheists, is just "sexed up Atheism" even though he himself is really a pantheist, he just enjoys being antagonistic towards anybody not in his little group and encourages the rest of us, non believers to do the same. I honestly can't see how that approach can possibly lead to more of what most of us seek, peace, love, happiness, meaning, and a well balanced, fulfilling, meaningful existence.
To me it just seems like taking a hostile position towards the vast majority of society just creates deeper division and leads to the opposite of what I am seeking in my own life.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm a Pantheist, which, according to the Dear
> Leader of the New (fanatical) Atheists, is just
> "sexed up Atheism" even though he himself is
> really a pantheist, he just enjoys being
> antagonistic towards anybody not in his little
> group

If true of Dawkins (which I don't agree with), then it's a trait you share with him.

Evidence: above, when I pointed out you were using a logical fallacy (repeatedly), and you went into full rant mode calling me "fanatical."

By the way, Dawkins isn't a pantheist.

> To me it just seems like taking a hostile position
> towards the vast majority of society just creates
> deeper division and leads to the opposite of what
> I am seeking in my own life.

Your actions betray your words.
Evidence: above, when I pointed out you were using a logical fallacy (repeatedly), and you went into full rant mode calling me "fanatical."