Old and New Atheists

[Good4Nothin]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.)

 

[Quaestio]

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!

 

[Rich2018]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

A Confederacy of Dunces.
Contemporary Atheism.
"There is a God" ... "I don't believe you."
Busting guts since 2002.
Contemporary Atheism.

 

[PoS]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Pea brain Penrose is in his dotage!

 

[Airyaman]

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]

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.

 

[Angel]

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

The latter, natch.

 

[Airyaman]

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?