Old and New Atheists

[PoS]

and leave the satire to your betters.

You ought to be telling yourself that.

 

[zyzygy]

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?

The new religious meeting the old religious. It would end in a fight. The old religious killed each other a lot.

 

[Angel]

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?

I don't think anyone is able to travel back in time, no matter his belief or disbelief.
Truth be told, I don't think there is such a thing as time.
But in a more serious vein, yes, I think -- nay, I know -- that belief in God is a moveable feast, to borrow from your least favorite writer I'm guessing.

 

[Angel]

You ought to be telling yourself that.

Shall we explore together what you ought to be telling yourself, pilgrim?

 

[Airyaman]

I don't think anyone is able to travel back in time, no matter his belief or disbelief.
Truth be told, I don't think there is such a thing as time.
But in a more serious vein, yes, I think -- nay, I know -- that belief in God is a moveable feast, to borrow from your least favorite writer I'm guessing.

I said beliefs, not just a singular declaration of belief in a god. Unless you think that is all it takes.

 

[Angel]

I said beliefs, not just a singular declaration of belief in a god. Unless you think that is all it takes.

If you're talking organized religion, you're talking to the wrong guy.
I'm not talking about doctrines, I never talk about doctrines, I'm talking about the recognition, in the mind and heart, that God or Something Godlike exists.
And yes, that's all it takes.

 

[zyzygy]

I said beliefs, not just a singular declaration of belief in a god. Unless you think that is all it takes.

No wonder that he is always late for appointments.

 

[Airyaman]

If you're talking organized religion, you're talking to the wrong guy.
I'm not talking about doctrines, I never talk about doctrines, I'm talking about the recognition, in the mind and heart, that God or Something Godlike exists.
And yes, that's all it takes.

I've not studied the particular topic, but I somewhat doubt there was as many unorganized religions in the past. That is more of a product of modern times.

 

[gfm7175]

An Atheist is someone who doesn't believe in god.

Yup... They instead believe that there are no god(s)...

There is no old and new.

There are different styles/approaches of Atheism. That's what is being brought up here...

All Atheists have in common is that shared disbelief.

Yup, they believe that god(s) do not exist.

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

True. That religion does not conflict with their religion of Atheism.
Plenty of Christians believe in the Big Bang also, while plenty others do not.

 

[gfm7175]

An Atheist has but one argument


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

That's not an argument... That's stomping around like a moody three year old... Denial (by itself) is not an argument...

 

[davidhume]

That's not an argument... That's stomping around like a moody three year old... Denial (by itself) is not an argument...

Logic analogy: If there is no car in the garage do I have to prove there is no car there?

 

[gfm7175]

Dawkins isn't a guru and does not speak for all atheists. No one does.

Very true.

We

Welcome to Paradox City... which one is it?

1) No one speaks for all Atheists.
2) Idiometer speaks for all Atheists.

[We] aren't a religion

Wrong. Atheism is a religion. It is based on the initial circular argument that no god(s) exist, and makes numerous other arguments, all stemming from that initial circular argument. It is the very definition of a religion.

and we don't have a pope or a high priest.

Not necessary for religions...

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.

Religion doesn't pretend to have all the answers either. It simply theorizes about the unfalsifiable. It is the perfect compliment to Science, which theorizes about the falsifiable...

 

[gfm7175]

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.

It's completely going over your head that the book IS evidence... life itself IS evidence... the universe IS evidence... there are many evidences for God...

You just don't know what evidence actually is...

 

[gfm7175]

Logic analogy: If there is no car in the garage do I have to prove there is no car there?

Nope. You need only make an observation...

 

[davidhume]

Nope. You need only make an observation...

Correct. That's the issue. If I don't 'see' God in the universe I don't have to prove I don't see God.

 

[gfm7175]

Correct. That's the issue. If I don't 'see' God in the universe I don't have to prove I don't see God.

Faulty Comparison Fallacy... You can't compare observing God to observing a car. For starters, one object is physical while the other is metaphysical...

I would never ask you to prove such a thing... God can't be proven or disproven... Religion can't be proven or disproven.

But, here you also commit the Argument From Ignorance Fallacy... (arguing that God doesn't exist because one can't prove that he exists).

Observations are not proofs...

 

[Good4Nothin]

Correct. That's the issue. If I don't 'see' God in the universe I don't have to prove I don't see God.

Some people didn't see that the earth was round.

 

[davidhume]

Faulty Comparison Fallacy... You can't compare observing God to observing a car. For starters, one object is physical while the other is metaphysical...

I would never ask you to prove such a thing... God can't be proven or disproven... Religion can't be proven or disproven.

But, here you also commit the Argument From Ignorance Fallacy... (arguing that God doesn't exist because one can't prove that he exists).

Observations are not proofs...

Stop with the "fallacy" nonsense. Strictly freshmen survey stuff.

 

[davidhume]

Some people didn't see that the earth was round.

Some people don't care about science.

 

[Good4Nothin]

This post was about old vs new atheists. There are many kinds of atheists, which I carefully explained.

If you are an atheist because you think life can be entirely explained in terms of accidental genetic variations and natural selection, then you are a New Atheist.

If you are a New Atheist, then you "know" the causes of everything. You have NO DOUBT.

If you an atheist, but you are not a New Atheist, then you do NOT know everything, and you have doubt.

How can I explain that any better? Still, the angry atheists here can't understand it.

 

[davidhume]

This post was about old vs new atheists. There are many kinds of atheists, which I carefully explained.

If you are an atheist because you think life can be entirely explained in terms of accidental genetic variations and natural selection, then you are a New Atheist.

If you are a New Atheist, then you "know" the causes of everything. You have NO DOUBT.

If you an atheist, but you are not a New Atheist, then you do NOT know everything, and you have doubt.

How can I explain that any better? Still, the angry atheists here can't understand it.

No one converted to your religion, eh?

 

[<alt>doxygen]

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.

Demonstrably false. The 4 horsemen you theists love to vilify are quite different. The fact that Harris accepts the idea of spirituality is enough of an example. He just doesn't attach it to god as theists insist on doing. That puts him more in the Buddhist camp. I won't get into the others.

There is also a good bit of projection in that last paragraph. No atheist ever tried to convert me. Christians on the other hand are commanded to convert people by their holy book.

 

[gfm7175]

Stop with the "fallacy" nonsense. Strictly freshmen survey stuff.

Fallacies are not nonsense... A fallacy is an error of logic, much like how what we call a "math error" is an error of mathematics. I expect conversations I have with people to be logical and substantive... So far, you're showing me that you are completely incapable of both...

 

[davidhume]

Fallacies are not nonsense... A fallacy is an error of logic, much like how what we call a "math error" is an error of mathematics. I expect conversations I have with people to be logical and substantive... So far, you're showing me that you are completely incapable of both...

And that was what fallacy you just used?

 

[gfm7175]

And that was what fallacy you just used?

No idea what you're trying to ask here...