Reply #77: His first point concerns the lack of serious argument in this society. [View All]

My point is that this lack of serious argument is reflected in this thread.

Point 2 has been addressed repeatedly in this very thread.

Really? Where? Certainly not by posts that claim that the New Atheists were writing to a general rather than a scholarly audience. That is not an excuse for ignoring or dismissing a question. The question of existence is in no way resolved by ignoring it. Questions of contingent being and necessary being are certainly valid questions to ask when discussing the problems of existence. This is what Hart was speaking of in the piece I addressed as my second point. Where has that been addressed in this thread.

Point three is sheer arrogance and ignorance.

Ignorance of what? Of what Nietzsche said? Of what he meant?

The New Atheists optimism of some blossoming future of humanity after we rid ourselves of religion is very like the religious promise of a glorious after-life. Nothing suggests that we are moving toward some glorious future. This is not a standard belief throughout human history. Much of human history believed in a stability as to the way things were. Where does this optimism come from? Why do they believe in a glorious future? Again, it is necessary to understand what beliefs are a product of our times. Look to past thinkers and see how many of them could transcend their times. Knowing the matrix that our thoughts are part of, we can better analyze the changes that we can bring about. The New Atheists don't even make an attempt at serious analysis of religion's influence on our current society, on their current unanalyzed claims.