• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Old and New Atheists

Good4Nothin

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 24, 2018
Messages
8,603
Reaction score
1,918
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
A lot of words have been thrown around in the threads I started. It got to the point where no one knew what anyone was saying.

So now I want to briefly explain how words can be used very differently depending on your perspective.

First, the New Atheists:

Richard Dawkins is the most famous one, since he wrote books like The Selfish Gene. Dawkins knows everything about everything. He knows the ultimate reason for our existence -- there is no reason. He knows what created life and consciousness -- blind chance. He knows why species evolved -- chance plus natural selection.

When you read Dawkins you never get a sense of doubt or uncertainty. None. Because he knows it all.

Next, the Old Atheists:

Well the Old Atheists could be a lot of different things. For example, Buddhists are atheists in the sense of not believing in any person-like gods. However, Buddhists are not materialists, not at all.

Sometimes people claim to be atheists because they don't belong to a traditional religion. Very often, this type of atheist does have spiritual beliefs, does have a sense of divine purpose and meaning.

Some of the New Atheists in my quantum woo thread claimed Roger Penrose, the great physicist, as one of their own. It is possible to find quotes where he calls himself an atheist.

But Penrose is most definitely NOT a New Atheist. It is very easy to find quotes from him that sound Buddhist or spiritual.

For example: “Somehow, our consciousness is the reason the universe is here.”

So obviously Penrose is not an atheist in the sense that some of you here are. He obviously does not think at all like Dawkins.

Unlike Dawkins, Penrose does NOT claim to know all about everything. He knows a heck of a lot, but he also knows that it's ultimately a mystery. He, like all scientists, tries to understand nature and the universe, but he still acknowledges it is beyond our understanding and might always be.

So there are various types of Old Atheists, but really only one type of New Atheist. New Atheists are devout materialists who think the idea of gods or universal consciousness is laughable. New Atheists are angry, because they know everything with absolute certainty, but somehow can't get the whole world to agree with them.
 

zyzygy

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2014
Messages
43,901
Reaction score
8,676
Location
Flanders.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
A lot of words have been thrown around in the threads I started. It got to the point where no one knew what anyone was saying.

So now I want to briefly explain how words can be used very differently depending on your perspective.

First, the New Atheists:

Richard Dawkins is the most famous one, since he wrote books like The Selfish Gene. Dawkins knows everything about everything. He knows the ultimate reason for our existence -- there is no reason. He knows what created life and consciousness -- blind chance. He knows why species evolved -- chance plus natural selection.

When you read Dawkins you never get a sense of doubt or uncertainty. None. Because he knows it all.

Next, the Old Atheists:

Well the Old Atheists could be a lot of different things. For example, Buddhists are atheists in the sense of not believing in any person-like gods. However, Buddhists are not materialists, not at all.

Sometimes people claim to be atheists because they don't belong to a traditional religion. Very often, this type of atheist does have spiritual beliefs, does have a sense of divine purpose and meaning.

Some of the New Atheists in my quantum woo thread claimed Roger Penrose, the great physicist, as one of their own. It is possible to find quotes where he calls himself an atheist.

But Penrose is most definitely NOT a New Atheist. It is very easy to find quotes from him that sound Buddhist or spiritual.

For example: “Somehow, our consciousness is the reason the universe is here.”

So obviously Penrose is not an atheist in the sense that some of you here are. He obviously does not think at all like Dawkins.

Unlike Dawkins, Penrose does NOT claim to know all about everything. He knows a heck of a lot, but he also knows that it's ultimately a mystery. He, like all scientists, tries to understand nature and the universe, but he still acknowledges it is beyond our understanding and might always be.

So there are various types of Old Atheists, but really only one type of New Atheist. New Atheists are devout materialists who think the idea of gods or universal consciousness is laughable. New Atheists are angry, because they know everything with absolute certainty, but somehow can't get the whole world to agree with them.

That's a lot of misinformation in one post.
 

Angel

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2017
Messages
18,001
Reaction score
2,908
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The Dawkins atheists are confused six ways from Sunday.
They have no arguments, they have no counter-arguments, they don't even have a belief they are willing to own.
Like Guru Dawkins they insist on talking about things they know nothing about, and they do so in strident tones.
They don't listen; they just wait their chance to sound off.
They're a nasty lot.
 

Good4Nothin

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 24, 2018
Messages
8,603
Reaction score
1,918
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
That's a lot of misinformation in one post.

Well that's easy to say. But as usual, you don't explain any reasons for your statement.
 

Quaestio

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 23, 2015
Messages
3,931
Reaction score
1,260
Location
Oz
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
A lot of words have been thrown around in the threads I started. It got to the point where no one knew what anyone was saying.

So now I want to briefly explain how words can be used very differently depending on your perspective.

First, the New Atheists:

Richard Dawkins is the most famous one, since he wrote books like The Selfish Gene. Dawkins knows everything about everything. He knows the ultimate reason for our existence -- there is no reason. He knows what created life and consciousness -- blind chance. He knows why species evolved -- chance plus natural selection.

When you read Dawkins you never get a sense of doubt or uncertainty. None. Because he knows it all.

Next, the Old Atheists:

Well the Old Atheists could be a lot of different things. For example, Buddhists are atheists in the sense of not believing in any person-like gods. However, Buddhists are not materialists, not at all.

Sometimes people claim to be atheists because they don't belong to a traditional religion. Very often, this type of atheist does have spiritual beliefs, does have a sense of divine purpose and meaning.

Some of the New Atheists in my quantum woo thread claimed Roger Penrose, the great physicist, as one of their own. It is possible to find quotes where he calls himself an atheist.

But Penrose is most definitely NOT a New Atheist. It is very easy to find quotes from him that sound Buddhist or spiritual.

For example: “Somehow, our consciousness is the reason the universe is here.”

So obviously Penrose is not an atheist in the sense that some of you here are. He obviously does not think at all like Dawkins.

Unlike Dawkins, Penrose does NOT claim to know all about everything. He knows a heck of a lot, but he also knows that it's ultimately a mystery. He, like all scientists, tries to understand nature and the universe, but he still acknowledges it is beyond our understanding and might always be.

So there are various types of Old Atheists, but really only one type of New Atheist. New Atheists are devout materialists who think the idea of gods or universal consciousness is laughable. New Atheists are angry, because they know everything with absolute certainty, but somehow can't get the whole world to agree with them.

I don't agree with your labels and explanations as they are full of misrepresentations. Your 'militant' angry anti-atheist attitude is glaringly apparent. As is Angel's.

Bee bedda (as Melania Trump would say in a Slovenian accent.)
 
Last edited:

Quaestio

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 23, 2015
Messages
3,931
Reaction score
1,260
Location
Oz
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That's a lot of misinformation in one post.

If she's got no valid arguments then she can just create a bunch of easy strawmen to knock down. Et voila! In her 'mind' she 'wins' the internet!
 
Last edited:

Rich2018

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2018
Messages
37,812
Reaction score
3,311
Location
Norcross, Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
An Atheist is someone who doesn't believe in god.


There is no old and new.


All Atheists have in common is that shared disbelief.


Nothing else.


One Atheist might believe in the Big Bang...another might not.
 

davidhume

Banned
Joined
Aug 21, 2013
Messages
255
Reaction score
72
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
A lot of words have been thrown around in the threads I started. It got to the point where no one knew what anyone was saying.

So now I want to briefly explain how words can be used very differently depending on your perspective.

First, the New Atheists:

Richard Dawkins is the most famous one, since he wrote books like The Selfish Gene. Dawkins knows everything about everything. He knows the ultimate reason for our existence -- there is no reason. He knows what created life and consciousness -- blind chance. He knows why species evolved -- chance plus natural selection.

When you read Dawkins you never get a sense of doubt or uncertainty. None. Because he knows it all.

Next, the Old Atheists:

Well the Old Atheists could be a lot of different things. For example, Buddhists are atheists in the sense of not believing in any person-like gods. However, Buddhists are not materialists, not at all.

Sometimes people claim to be atheists because they don't belong to a traditional religion. Very often, this type of atheist does have spiritual beliefs, does have a sense of divine purpose and meaning.

Some of the New Atheists in my quantum woo thread claimed Roger Penrose, the great physicist, as one of their own. It is possible to find quotes where he calls himself an atheist.

But Penrose is most definitely NOT a New Atheist. It is very easy to find quotes from him that sound Buddhist or spiritual.

For example: “Somehow, our consciousness is the reason the universe is here.”

So obviously Penrose is not an atheist in the sense that some of you here are. He obviously does not think at all like Dawkins.

Unlike Dawkins, Penrose does NOT claim to know all about everything. He knows a heck of a lot, but he also knows that it's ultimately a mystery. He, like all scientists, tries to understand nature and the universe, but he still acknowledges it is beyond our understanding and might always be.

So there are various types of Old Atheists, but really only one type of New Atheist. New Atheists are devout materialists who think the idea of gods or universal consciousness is laughable. New Atheists are angry, because they know everything with absolute certainty, but somehow can't get the whole world to agree with them.


Okay. Is there a point here or are you trying to convert people to your religion?
 

Rich2018

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2018
Messages
37,812
Reaction score
3,311
Location
Norcross, Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The Dawkins atheists are confused six ways from Sunday.
They have no arguments, they have no counter-arguments, they don't even have a belief they are willing to own.
Like Guru Dawkins they insist on talking about things they know nothing about, and they do so in strident tones.
They don't listen; they just wait their chance to sound off.
They're a nasty lot.


An Atheist has but one argument


You say your god exists...an Atheist say I do not believe you.
 

Idiometer

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2014
Messages
4,147
Reaction score
1,680
Location
Colorado
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
The Dawkins atheists are confused six ways from Sunday.
They have no arguments, they have no counter-arguments, they don't even have a belief they are willing to own.
Like Guru Dawkins they insist on talking about things they know nothing about, and they do so in strident tones.
They don't listen; they just wait their chance to sound off.
They're a nasty lot.

Dawkins isn't a guru and does not speak for all atheists. No one does. We aren't a religion and we don't have a pope or a high priest. I agree with Dawkins on many things, but not all things. But at least he doesn't pretend to have all of the answers. He leaves that trick to religions.
 

zyzygy

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2014
Messages
43,901
Reaction score
8,676
Location
Flanders.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If she's got no valid arguments then she can just create a bunch of easy strawmen to knock down. Et voila! In her 'mind' she 'wins' the internet!

I notice that she didn't post a quote in which Dawkins said that he knew about everything.
 

Tim the plumber

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
16,501
Reaction score
3,820
Location
Sheffield
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
A lot of words have been thrown around in the threads I started. It got to the point where no one knew what anyone was saying.

So now I want to briefly explain how words can be used very differently depending on your perspective.

First, the New Atheists:

Richard Dawkins is the most famous one, since he wrote books like The Selfish Gene. Dawkins knows everything about everything. He knows the ultimate reason for our existence -- there is no reason. He knows what created life and consciousness -- blind chance. He knows why species evolved -- chance plus natural selection.

When you read Dawkins you never get a sense of doubt or uncertainty. None. Because he knows it all.

Next, the Old Atheists:

Well the Old Atheists could be a lot of different things. For example, Buddhists are atheists in the sense of not believing in any person-like gods. However, Buddhists are not materialists, not at all.

Sometimes people claim to be atheists because they don't belong to a traditional religion. Very often, this type of atheist does have spiritual beliefs, does have a sense of divine purpose and meaning.

Some of the New Atheists in my quantum woo thread claimed Roger Penrose, the great physicist, as one of their own. It is possible to find quotes where he calls himself an atheist.

But Penrose is most definitely NOT a New Atheist. It is very easy to find quotes from him that sound Buddhist or spiritual.

For example: “Somehow, our consciousness is the reason the universe is here.”

So obviously Penrose is not an atheist in the sense that some of you here are. He obviously does not think at all like Dawkins.

Unlike Dawkins, Penrose does NOT claim to know all about everything. He knows a heck of a lot, but he also knows that it's ultimately a mystery. He, like all scientists, tries to understand nature and the universe, but he still acknowledges it is beyond our understanding and might always be.

So there are various types of Old Atheists, but really only one type of New Atheist. New Atheists are devout materialists who think the idea of gods or universal consciousness is laughable. New Atheists are angry, because they know everything with absolute certainty, but somehow can't get the whole world to agree with them.

The only certainty is that you spout vast amounts of wrong stuff.
 

Angel

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2017
Messages
18,001
Reaction score
2,908
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The Witness of Unwittingness

brought to you by

Contemporary Atheism

An Atheist has but one argument


You say your god exists...an Atheist say I do not believe you.

The inveterate blockheadism of contemporary vociferous atheism is paradigmatically captured in this hilarious exchange.

Dig it.



Theist: "There is a God."

Atheist: "I don't believe you."




Theist: "There is a God."

Atheist: "I don't believe you."


Theist: "There is a God."

Atheist: "I don't believe you."


Kidding yourself doesn't get any better than this, folks!

God Bless Today's Atheist!
 

Quaestio

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 23, 2015
Messages
3,931
Reaction score
1,260
Location
Oz
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I notice that she didn't post a quote in which Dawkins said that he knew about everything.

It's just the "It is what I say it is" approach. No evidence required. Perhaps it's a learned requirement to be able to believe in a God with no evidence just because a book said so.
 

Angel

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2017
Messages
18,001
Reaction score
2,908
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
A Confederacy of Dunces.
Contemporary Atheism.
"There is a God" ... "I don't believe you."
Busting guts since 2002.
Contemporary Atheism.
 

PoS

Minister of Love
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
24,108
Reaction score
17,706
Location
Oceania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
An Atheist is someone who doesn't believe in god.
Its not so much as disbelieving for me, more like a lack of evidence to a god's existence. But I agree, there are no new or old atheists- just false labels created by bitter, desperate christians in a futile attempt to cling to their dying faith.
 

zyzygy

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2014
Messages
43,901
Reaction score
8,676
Location
Flanders.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It's just the "It is what I say it is" approach. No evidence required. Perhaps it's a learned requirement to be able to believe in a God with no evidence just because a book said so.

She still has to learn that Bellman tactics don't work.
 

zyzygy

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2014
Messages
43,901
Reaction score
8,676
Location
Flanders.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Its not so much as disbelieving for me, more like a lack of evidence to a god's existence. But I agree, there are no new or old atheists- just false labels created by bitter, desperate christians in a futile attempt to cling to their dying faith.

Same here. The bible and subjective experiences are not evidence. The same goes for other holy books and religions.
 

Airyaman

New Druid
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 4, 2018
Messages
12,883
Reaction score
10,168
Location
AL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Not sure what the purpose of this thread is...there are "new" atheists like there are "new" Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc. People shift their approach to "woo" with the times.
 

Angel

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2017
Messages
18,001
Reaction score
2,908
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Not sure what the purpose of this thread is...there are "new" atheists like there are "new" Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc. People shift their approach to "woo" with the times.
No, the profession of "woo" has not changed; but the profession of "poo" has. Thanks to Dopey Dick and his Dickheads, whose hit single "The God Delusion" shot to the top of the charts in the tragic wake of 9/11.

When Dopey Dick peed himself fifteen years ago, he marked out territory in the dim reaches of the global demographic. You know, like they do it in the Animal Kingdom.
 

zyzygy

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2014
Messages
43,901
Reaction score
8,676
Location
Flanders.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Pea brain Penrose is in his dotage!
 

Airyaman

New Druid
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 4, 2018
Messages
12,883
Reaction score
10,168
Location
AL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
No, the profession of "woo" has not changed; but the profession of "poo" has. Thanks to Dopey Dick and his Dickheads, whose hit single "The God Delusion" shot to the top of the charts in the tragic wake of 9/11.

When Dopey Dick peed himself fifteen years ago, he marked out territory in the dim reaches of the global demographic. You know, like they do it in the Animal Kingdom.

Profession, as in job, or profession as in open but often false declaration or claim?
 

Angel

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2017
Messages
18,001
Reaction score
2,908
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
No, the profession of "woo" has not changed; but the profession of "poo" has. Thanks to Dopey Dick and his Dickheads, whose hit single "The God Delusion" shot to the top of the charts in the tragic wake of 9/11.

When Dopey Dick peed himself fifteen years ago, he marked out territory in the dim reaches of the global demographic. You know, like they do it in the Animal Kingdom.
Pea brain Penrose is in his dotage!
While imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, actual insight is rare. Riff on your stratocaster, rocker, and leave the satire to your betters.
 

Airyaman

New Druid
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 4, 2018
Messages
12,883
Reaction score
10,168
Location
AL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The latter, natch.

Interesting. So do you think that a religious adherent from today would be able to travel back in time to a different century and profess the same beliefs amongst what they believe would be like-minded folks?
 
Top Bottom