What is this 'secular atheism' of which you speak?! Why and how do you think it (whatever it is) has a 'position'?Quote
You make an entirely valid comment regarding there being no objective proof, but such thinking undermines the secular atheist position,
Link or citation please.Quote
and then some, because this school proposes a superior purely materialtic primal cause.
When you have shown what 'secular atheism ' is, I hope you will be able to say where you have seen that it is involved with a 'belief' in the 'big accident Theory;. There may be individual atheists who have all sorts of beliefs and involvement with many things, but atheism is, as has been mentioned quite often, a lack of belief in any god.Quote
Secular atheism can't extricate itself from the BELIEF in the Big Accident Theory.
Where do you get this idea of many 'branches' of atheism from?Quote
The problem, which is why this branch of atheism
Citation definitely required here.Quote
is destined to be highly limited in influence, in my opinion, (beyond the fact that most don't believe in the Big Accident) , is that proponents of secular atheism try to sell that belief as scientific!
If those with entirely faith beliefs do not like to be challenged - which is what I think that section of your post seems to be indicating - then, well, a fact would be useful!!Quote
The means through which they often try to achieve this is self defeating our modern age: ignoring all testimonals that don't fit, making skewed presentations about related ideas, basically trying to control mainstream institutions like academia where they hope to mold minds according to their ideology, most often through indirect means, as expressing their core BELIEFS in such environments instantly levels the playing field between teacher and student.
You seem to think that people who look for objective evidence to say something is as true as it can be must be closed to all philosophical thought, and, perhaps, all the aspects of aesthetics which is an essential and important part of every human being, whereas in my opinion, I think those who know that all such aesthetic aspects of human nature have evolved and are therefore part of nature, and are emergent properties of the brain, can appreciate and value them in a clearer way than those who include some kind of supernatural input.Quote
I presume this is done because those running the show sense the disconnect that goes with saying, "I'm all about objective evidence, and as a scientist I declare that the universe is the result of a Big Accident." A lot of luster is lost with that admission.
You are now talking about 'schools' of atheism; why? See previous comment re lack of belief.Quote
By contrast, other atheists and most of those who believe in creation feel no burden to SELL themselves as scholars or "rationalists" as those in this school often try to.
If people who happen to be atheists group together to lobby for something, for an idea, or to challenge areas of fiction put forward as fact, well, that is a personal choice. there is no group leader telling them to do so, or what to think or believe, the way that religious organisations do.
I'm not going to attempt to comment on that section!Quote
In the long run I suspect that other schools of atheism have a much better chance of enduring, namely ones that don't believe in various definitions of God, skepticism towards psy-related matters, rather than a (secular) denunciation of ALL such in the name of materialism, etc.
thank you - after a double dose of antibiotics, I think I've recovered from chest infections.Quote
Stay well, PB