Old and New Atheists

[gfm7175]

You are a non-theist idealist? That's pretty rare. Personally I'm agnostic.

Yeah, I can't say that I've really ran into that combination all too much either, but I think this shows precisely how religion is much more than just the common usage "belief in god(s)" definition that gets floated around.

 

[Angel]

Yes. A human is an unmoved mover.

Free will?

 

[gfm7175]

Aristotle is good. Do you then or can one assume that you do then embrace the concept of an "unmoved mover"?

Yes. A human is an unmoved mover.

I think "unmoved mover" is gonna have to be defined, since davidhume is obviously thinking of the concept much differently than I am...

 

[davidhume]

Free will?

I don't find the concept of free will to be very important. And there is an argument that Aristotle never addresses the concept.

 

[Angel]

I don't find the concept of free will to be very important. And there is an argument that Aristotle never addresses the concept.

Then how is a human being an "unmoved mover"?

 

[davidhume]

I think "unmoved mover" is gonna have to be defined, since davidhume is obviously thinking of the concept much differently than I am...

I'm thinking of it exactly as Aristotle defined it. That was the context.

 

[davidhume]

Then how is a human being an "unmoved mover"?

We cause motion without having to be moved first.

 

[RAMOSS]

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.

I don't know anyone who is an atheist because of that. I know people who accept neo-darwinism as the best explanation for the diversity of life, and for the mechanism that drives evolution, but of the ones that do, it isn't because of their knowledge of biology that makes them an atheist.

So, it appears you are building one big straw man, introducing pseudoscience into things and say people who reject it are 'new atheists'. (

 

[davidhume]

I don't know anyone who is an atheist because of that. I know people who accept neo-darwinism as the best explanation for the diversity of life, and for the mechanism that drives evolution, but of the ones that do, it isn't because of their knowledge of biology that makes them an atheist.

So, it appears you are building one big straw man, introducing pseudoscience into things and say people who reject it are 'new atheists'. (

Atheists are all "angry." Go figure.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

I am an agnostic who agrees with the scientists who believe the universe is made of information.

Interesting. What definition of "information" are you using?

The orthodox definitions wouldn't seem to cover it unless you've found an intelligence that assembled the universe into 'information'. Theists make that leap, by definition.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

Yeah, I can't say that I've really ran into that combination all too much either, but I think this shows precisely how religion is much more than just the common usage "belief in god(s)" definition that gets floated around.

True, that. There's actually a lot more to each of these "isms" and such than the detractors seem to want to deal with. That cuts most if not all ways, as far as I can tell.

 

[gfm7175]

I am an agnostic who agrees with the scientists who believe the universe is made of information.

Interesting. What definition of "information" are you using?

The orthodox definitions wouldn't seem to cover it unless you've found an intelligence that assembled the universe into 'information'. Theists make that leap, by definition.

I'm interested in an expansion upon this idea of "information" as well, especially from an agnostic point of view (seeing as I already see it from a theistic point of view, given my Christian faith)...

 

[<alt>doxygen]

I'm interested in an expansion upon this idea of "information" as well, especially from an agnostic point of view (seeing as I already see it from a theistic point of view, given my Christian faith)...

I use the orthodox definition. I doubt I'd have any real problem with anything in a mainstream dictionary. Not sure if you're asking me, but there you go.

 

[gfm7175]

I use the orthodox definition. I doubt I'd have any real problem with anything in a mainstream dictionary. Not sure if you're asking me, but there you go.

Yup, I think I see where you're coming from, given your background... I guess I was asking both of you, but I'll admit that I was more interested in her expansion upon that idea because she's coming from an idealist background but not a theistic background...

 

[<alt>doxygen]

Yup, I think I see where you're coming from, given your background... I guess I was asking both of you, but I'll admit that I was more interested in her expansion upon that idea because she's coming from an idealist background but not a theistic background...

Agreed.

What's your definition of "information" given your theistic perspective?

 

[gfm7175]

Agreed.

What's your definition of "information" given your theistic perspective?

I think you covered it pretty well with your earlier response where you said "The orthodox definitions wouldn't seem to cover it unless you've found an intelligence that assembled the universe into 'information'. Theists make that leap, by definition."

That's essentially what I think I am doing, from my theistic viewpoint... I'm fine with orthodox definitions of the word information (which can encompass many different things, DNA being one form of such). I'd probably be fine with something along the lines of "transfer of data/intelligence" as a definition for information.

 

[RAMOSS]

We cause motion without having to be moved first.

However, we have constantly been in motion, from the time of conception. In fact, our entire biological system of living is being in motion. So, your 'cause motion without having to be moved first' is false.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

I think you covered it pretty well with your earlier response where you said "The orthodox definitions wouldn't seem to cover it unless you've found an intelligence that assembled the universe into 'information'. Theists make that leap, by definition."

That's essentially what I think I am doing, from my theistic viewpoint... I'm fine with orthodox definitions of the word information (which can encompass many different things, DNA being one form of such). I'd probably be fine with something along the lines of "transfer of data/intelligence" as a definition for information.

Okay, thanks. I was curious if there was anything more to it than what I'd already imagined.

This does lead to some other questions, such as whether or not "god" or "spirit" is information in the theistic sense. OT here, I guess, but much of this thread is now offshoot discussion.

I hope G4N comes back with something.

 

[Quaestio]

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...

Your incessant infantile squawkings of fallacy! fallacy! fallacy! fallacy! (often using them incorrectly) makes all your 'conversations' illogical and in-substantive. All it does is show you are incapable of engaging in an adult conversation.

 

[Quaestio]

Have fun!

His complete lack of self awareness is noted. He is continually demonstrating logical fallacies himself in his own posts, it's just that no-one could be bothered to point them out to him all the time.

I think most people who studied philosophy and took a class in logic don't go around pointing out logical fallacies everywhere in day to day conversations.

People who do it all the time like he does, usually do it because they found some website on the internet with a list of logical fallacies and use it to bash everyone on the head with continual accusations of fallacy! fallacy! instead of actually trying to have a discussion or make an argument.

 

[Quaestio]

But most of the time when the "logical fallacy" argument is used, it is illogical.

That's certainly true for gfm.

 

[Quaestio]

Strictly freshman rhetoric stuff.

Not even that. Freshman usually grow up.

 

[gfm7175]

Okay, thanks. I was curious if there was anything more to it than what I'd already imagined.

This does lead to some other questions, such as whether or not "god" or "spirit" is information in the theistic sense. OT here, I guess, but much of this thread is now offshoot discussion.

I hope G4N comes back with something.

Yeah, I do too... I'm just interested in hearing (likely) a similar argument that I would make, but coming from an agnostic background instead of a theistic one... because I'd tie information and intelligence into God's existence (making God the origin [initial transferer] of information)... I'm just curious to see how G4N ties it all in...

 

[Rich2018]

The Witness of Unwittingness

brought to you by

Contemporary Atheism



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!​

Are you saying there ***IS*** a god ?

 

[Rich2018]

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.

At the risk of sounding stupid....what's the difference


Not enough evidence to convince me


Don't believe in it


Are they not the same ?