Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
What we have now is the rehashing of 200 year old ideas, mainly liberal utilitarianism, by far less intelligent and eloquent people. It's embarrassing and shrill.
|
Just for one example, the atheistical argument that because we have firmly established that physical minds account for all known mental activity, there is no basis in belief for the soul or other disembodied minds (like God) has been developed in the last 50 or so years, not 200. Nor is the argument from nonbelief more than 20 years old.
Further, many theistical arguments FOR God, like the argument from design, have become less and less compelling as the seemingly miraculous has been made explicable. This alone makes "200 year old arguments" MORE compelling as their counter-arguments become less and less tenable.
Lastly, atheism has been made palatable to the masses by simplifying the arguments; it's like you're some old Marxist bemoaning that damn Mao and his Little Red Book of peasantish sayings debases the legacy of Communism. With about the same relevance to modern times.