random notes

Ignorant New Atheism

...
a new form of atheism in fashion which uses the results of experimental sciences to support its preconceived ideas
...
a form of atheism that is aggressive and polemical towards believers and purports to overpower them with empirical and populist arguments
...
reinforcing the atheist prejudice through science, anthropology and psychoanalysis has become a habit, distorting them through their investigative fields and using them as a form of expression in an area in which they are incompetent
...

...
ignorant ?, a statement in defense of ignorance, it takes quite some knowledge to understand the limits of knowledge, it looks to me as circular reasoning, anybody who knows a minimum of anything would rationally admit a certain degree of ignorance, however anybody who could claim to hold the whole truth, could be held to the claim empirically, and given the historical lineage of records over organized religion, such verification does not seem to prove in the facts such unwarranted claims
...
atheism ?, interesting position, religions should be happy there are such animals as atheists, actually necessary to justify a system of good and evil, prize and fine, as on a black and white chessboard, religions should be grateful that there are such species as atheists, otherwise their stated purpose would make them obsolete, or worse "irrelevant", in absence of sinners to redeem, in absence of enemies, there would be no more purpose for holy wars, or for the collection and multiplication of the profits of god and his holy bankers
...
the new form of atheism must have learned from religions, which used the results of experimental sciences, or suppression thereof, to support their preconceived ideas for centuries
...
aggressive, is a bad concept, on the other hands also the Inquisition was a bit aggressive, and so it seems having been the Eustachian clergy again, it seems religions gave enough "good examples" in history of "their" aggressiveness
...
populist arguments in science ?, such as studying the effects of unlimited reproduction and unlimited depletion of environment in fallen civilizations ? or studying the effects of religious fanaticism in historical cases of genocides ?
...
incompetent ?, thats another big word, a statement in defense of incompetence, again, it takes quite some competence to understand the limits of competence, some levels of incompetence are arbitrarily reached by the judgement of men, but it is hard to dispute the competence of the pathologist when states that the skeleton is dead, so here there is a limit of where subjective competence ends, and factual evidence starts, and while there may be doubts about how scientific psychoanalytic or economic conclusions may be, under an empirical point of view it seems more competent he who believes in the immortality of stones and in the behavior of gravity, than the ones that believe in subjective "theories" that as such remain, because chosen, more or less purposely, not to be measurable with empirical evidence
...
given the above, a question nobody seem to ask themselves, under the pressure of the media brainwash and the persuasiveness of door to door holy salesmen, could be "how relevant the issue is ?", and here the answer for the most may be more or less subjective, but for a few would be objective and the empirical answer would possibly be "irrelevant"
...
now a political consideration, it seems interesting that the holy interests of the roman kingdom of god, reached the former largest Italian multinational, we are waiting to see when Mediaset may be opening channel "V" for the glory of the pope king and his holy bankers.

amun
:)