Modern Atheists: the "Fox News" of the Christian world?

Modern Atheists: the "Fox News" of the Christian world?

by SouthernFriedInfidel | Published on Sat Jul 16, 2011 11:48 am | Religion

The other day, I was watching The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, and saw a segment about an interview he had recently done at Fox News. A major point that Stewart noted from that talk was when Chris Wallace stated that Fox News "acts as a counterweight," to the liberal media. They present "the OTHER side of reality.

In a way, freethinkers do tend to work on pointing out flaws in Christian assertions. Only we don't follow a liberal or conservative agenda... we follow a REALITY agenda to counter the fantasy that on-line Christian nuts spew at every opportunity. Doesn't affect THEM at all, because they believe they are bearers of eternal Truth. But any who read and have some semblance of a grasp of reason should be able to contrast the points and see the value of reality as opposed to the fantasies that the nuts try to push.

You decide. Or not... it's a free country. :twisted:

The problem is Atheism is as convoluted as any political platform, or religious stance. Most outspoken atheists, are in fact, (don't slap) ... rather out of touch with the general populations. I've found enough atheists, who are even militant against agnostics.

Then there's the touchy, feely, spiritual atheists.... which likely I fall into. More of a Possibilian. I reject the supernatural, but would never deny the right of someone to believe, nor do I think we can't consider alternative explanations... sometimes.

Atheism if its ever going to succeed, needs to realize it must coexist with religion- which seems unlikely among many who are militant. It's the same lesson conservative Christians, Tea Partiers, and Fox News is going to have to figure out too.

I don't think there's any question that religion will always be part of the human mental universe. But there will and should always be people around who will point out the BS that religious people make up and put forth as "unquestionable Truth."

The underlying question is what gives one person authority over another to say such things?

What makes anyone an expert in "reality"? So to speak?

The entire scientific endeavor is what makes people able to determine what is real. Without it, we souls still be praying, burning incense and reading goat entrails.

Seriously, no one NEEDS "authority" to refer to facts that have been established by scientific investigation. That merely requires a respect and comprehension of what lies behind those facts, and an understanding of the limitations of the process. It's not magic, and it's not immutably perfect, but it IS far superior to any other human attempts to discover what they can about the universe.

But what does science say? It says "I don't know."

Sure it also doesn't say "Supernatural being created the universe.", but it also doesn't say that some intelligence early man may have construed as supernatural had a hand in our existence.

Science shouldn't ignore religion. Religion is a symptom of something, and while it may never explain the birth of the universe, I think atheists in generally should realize for most people that putting things in the context of possible, but not plausible is often much more difficult than God.

Liv, science does not merely say "we don't know." It also says "we CAN find out and we will work to find out."

Religion is a symptom? What do you it indicates? All I have ever asked for is a good reason to accept a religious assertion of supernatural activity. Has not happened in my presence yet.

Going back to the original premise, I think creationism is more like Fox News and atheists more like NPR

Fox News - "Of course we're fair and balanced - see it says so here on our logo"
Creationists - "Of course the Bible is true - see is says so here in the Bible"

Fox has a lot more viewers since telling people what they want to hear and ignoring the truth is always popular

I have read your posts Liv but I don't understand what you're trying to say. You can believe whatever you want as long as you don't care whether your beliefs are true. Science may say 'we don't know' about a lot of things but it's followed by 'however if this is true then we should expect to see this this and this." If we don't then we can with confidence reject that explanation as being inconsistent with reality.

Liv wrote:I think atheists in generally should realize for most people that putting things in the context of possible, but not plausible is often much more difficult than God.

Possible but not plausible? It's possible that I could step off this 3rd floor balcony and float away, however it's both implausible and unlikely. All the of the evidence and theory explaining that evidence indicates that if I do I would fall to my death. Since this is a case where it matters whether what I believe is actually true or not then I will follow the evidence and not expect to be carried away by angels

Liv wrote:Then there's the touchy, feely, spiritual atheists.... which likely I fall into.

Spiritual usually seems to come down to wanting to believe things without evidence. In which case by all means go for it - as long as it's not important. I'm pretty touchy feely too - in a strictly tactile sense. I like by spirits aged to at least 10 years

Liv wrote:I reject the supernatural, but would never deny the right of someone to believe

That would be impossible, however the right to believe does not include the right to have your beliefs respected, accepted and taught - unless they have some evidence to back them up

Liv wrote:nor do I think we can't consider alternative explanations... sometimes.

Science is all about evaluating alternative explanations - to see if they provide a better explanation of the evidence than the current theory. The first thing that happens when a scientist proposes a theory - i.e. explanation of data, is that all his/her colleagues look for alternative explanations and ways to falsify the theory.

If however by 'alternative explanations' you mean explanations for which there is no supporting data then enjoy your speculation

Spiritual usually seems to come down to wanting to believe things without evidence.

How can I possible know that which is not known? Spirituality to me is like intuition. It's not perfect, but without it I wouldn't be human.

Liv wrote:How can I possible know that which is not known?

It doesn't stop theologians claiming they do

Liv wrote: Spirituality to me is like intuition.

i.e. knowledge or belief obtained without conscious reason or perception.

You're right it's not perfect. We use intuition when we are forced to make decisions with inadequate information or time. In doing so we rely on instinct or prior knowledge and experience accessed in a subconscious way.

However it's not what makes us human. Animals operate far more on instinct than reason. What differentiates humans is the ability to gather (and remember) evidence and then use reason to determine the best action.

Is there a place for God in science?

Only if God interacts with reality in such a way as to leave evidence.

Could we say God exist, as a psychological placebo to mankind's need for order? That's sciencey.

God exists as a concept or meme.