

New Atheism’s fatal arrogance - XzetaU8
http://www.salon.com/2015/05/09/new_atheisms_fatal_arrogance_the_glaring_intellectual_laziness_of_bill_maher_richard_dawkins/?utm_content=buffer7fff4&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

======
blueflow
It seems related to Pandora's Box. After Evilness and other Bad things escaped
it, Pandora opened it a second time to release the Hope/Expectation to make
life more bearable.

Religion was never intended to find "truth", its just something that helps
people making their day even when life sucks.

------
tokenadult
The person who kindly shared this link may like to read this response:

[https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/05/10/salon-
pu...](https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/05/10/salon-pulls-out-
all-the-stops-in-dissing-new-atheists/)

------
dmfdmf
Any article that discusses atheism and does not even mention Ayn Rand is
incomplete. Its probably a good thing she wasn't mentioned as one of the "new"
atheists because she is an old atheist from way back when it wasn't
fashionable but was shocking to be one.

I agree with this critique of the new kid's approach to attacking religion,
though their services probably do have some value in slowing its advance.
Rand, of course, addressed this critique in her work, stating that atheism is
not a central tenet or even a very important conclusion in her philosophy. It
is a consequence of going by reason but she did not stop there and defined a
whole systematic philosophy including metaphysics (existential), epistemology,
ethic and politics. So the main question to the New Atheists in this article
is "Okay, so you don't believe in God. What do you believe?" None of them have
a a consistent, integrated, rational alternative to the proto-philosophy that
is religion. The closest is Sam Harris who at least claims it is possible to
define an ethic system based on reason but he is not honest enough to do it.

