Are "New Atheists" Too Obsessed With Religion?

[gsa]

No, only Athiesm.

It is in fact one of the oldest religions known to man. It is disbelief of a creator (major Belief). Athiesm is not just a concept, it is a way of life for a person.

Even if I assumed it required disbelief, as opposed to lack of belief, I don't see how it is a way of life for anyone.

 

[pro4life]

Even if I assumed it required disbelief, as opposed to lack of belief, I don't see how it is a way of life for anyone.

It is illogical for a person to have a lack of belief. It is either you believe, you don't believe, or you are confused.

 

[gsa]

It is illogical for a person to have a lack of belief. It is either you believe, you don't believe, or you are confused.

Not believing is lack of belief. Why is this so difficult?

 

[pro4life]

Not believing is lack of belief. Why is this so difficult?

Not believing is a pillar of Athiesm.
Extreme Athiesm leads to Secularism.

 

[gsa]

Not believing is a pillar of Athiesm.
Extreme Athiesm leads to Secularism.

There are plenty of secularists who are not atheists. So sayeth the author of the article quoted in the OP.

Also, I don't know that atheism has pillars as much as it has a definition. There is no dogma in atheism.

 

[pro4life]

There are plenty of secularists who are not atheists. So sayeth the author of the article quoted in the OP.

Also, I don't know that atheism has pillars as much as it has a definition. There is no dogma in atheism.

Don't try to make it seem innocent. Yes, Athiesm is an organized religion with followers, leaders and prophets.

 

[Bunyip]

And, my personal favorite:

I'm not sure what you are smoking, but a logical disproof of god (which can be done) is not the same as proving his absence. Proving that he can not exist, is different from trying to prove that an immaterial being is not there. There is no contradiction.
Yes Legion, god can be logically disproven, but the universal absence of an immaterial being can not.

What do the "new atheists" actually say? "Before proceeding with the scientific evidence bearing on the God hypothesis, let us make a quick review of those disproofs of God's existence that are based on philosophy. For a recent survery, see The Non-Existence of God by Nicholas Everitt." (emphasis added).
From Stenger's God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does not Exist.

I really don't need the quote from that one as the title says it all, but it includes a reference to Everitt's The Non-Existence of God, a book devoted to proofs of god's non-existence which you state can't exist.

As for this:

Not only is that not reflected in the new atheist literature and discourse, but even greater claims of proof are found:
"It would be harder to find an easier proof that religion is manmade." (emphasis added)
From Hitchens' God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.

Now, there are certainly exceptions. After all, Dawkins is a scientist and used to thinking in terms of evidence not proof, but here he just shows that both your much earlier statements about the possibility of proofs and disproofs (in particular, the statement that you can prove some negatives but not in terms of the context of god) as well as this latest back-tracking are still wrong:
"That you cannot prove God's nonexistence is accepted and trivial, if only in the sense that we can never absolutely prove the non-existence of anything." (emphasis added)
from The God Delusion.

Now, I maintained that proof is for mathematics, something that it seems Dawkins may agree with (it's hard to say whether or not he realizes that relationship between proof and disproof, in that either one necessarily entails the other), but in any event this accords with your earlier statement about the "new atheists" asserting the fact that you cannot prove god's absence, but says nothing about context and is explicit that no negative proofs are possible (against your earlier claims about the ability to disprove or prove outside of mathematics; additionally, the discussion of proof arose because I thought you might bring up proving a negative and therefore the first atheist quote about disproving god was how the possibility of disproving god arose).

More could be added, including (and without a need to quote) The Non-Existence of God, but so could more views like Dawkins, so I'll restrict myself to one more example. In the nearly 200 page tour de force of intellectual brilliance and unparalleled argumentation, Raphael Lataster solves questions that have concerned the greatest minds- as represented in their many, voluminous works- over the past few thousand years with his There was no Jesus, There is no God: A Scholarly Examination of the Scientific, Historical, and Philosophical Evidence & Arguments for Monotheism. I feel unclean quoting this idiot, so I will simply give the title of his concluding chapter: "There was no Jesus, There is no God" (what a creative title).


You are in something of a bind here. Knowing your affinity for relying on definitions that you hold are both absolute and determined by you, you might try and separate disproof, proof, prove, and/or disprove or something, but even if you ignore logic and demand that your definitions be used in such a way, you're now contradicting Harris & Dawkins, who explicitly state that one can't disprove anything (rather, Dawkin's uses falsifiability, which is odd given that this Popperian approach to the so-called "God hypothesis" would admit the proof of god's non-existence but not of his existence, and therefore we would be able to prove a negative).

You might try reading some of these books before attempting to represent the positions held and arguments made therein. In particular, the fact that virtually all do in fact deal with the ontological argument, Biblical Studies, the history of Religion, and other things you've state the "NAs" aren't concerned with is hard to square with the assertion that you've actually read any of the founders of the "new atheism".

That is all just posturing and evasion.

1. Yes you can disprove god, as apologists like WL Craig define him. (immaterial, timeless and external to the universe). There are also many other definitions that can be disproven logically.
2. No you can not prove the universal absence of an immaterial being.

1. and 2. Are different. 1. Is a logical disproof, 2. Is a statement of the obvious.
You are just being evasive - pick the best argument you think apologists have and defend it if you can.

 

[Bunyip]

Don't try to make it seem innocent. Yes, Athiesm is an organized religion with followers, leaders and prophets.

LOL. So true! Apart from the fact that atheism has none of those things.

 

[Bunyip]

Not believing is a pillar of Athiesm.
Extreme Athiesm leads to Secularism.

Dude, most believers are secularists.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I'm not sure what you are smoking, but a logical disproof of god (which can be done) is not the same as proving his absence.

All proofs are logical, or they aren't proofs. When I have said "proof is for mathematics", and I mean this to include logic, it is because such proofs exist in closed discourse realms. I can prove things in formal logic because it is a system in which all the rules are defined and do not depend upon any assumptions (which is why when one first learns logic, one quickly moves to derivations/proofs that are just symbols and have no meaning).

Bell's inequality is about as close as we can get in the sciences to proof. Violations of this inequality prove certain things about quantum systems, but only given certain assumptions (e.g., realism). Any proof that involves reality (such as the "real" existence of god), is now just like any other argument or use of logic to demonstrate a conclusion. The distinction between a "logical proof" (to those who believe things can be proven outside of mathematics) is that such proofs do not involve anything existing or not existing or other references to anything in reality. They rest entirely upon the "rules" of the formal system in question.

Proving that he can not exist, is different from trying to prove that an immaterial being is not there.

How? If I logically prove that something exists, the I've proven it really exists. If it doesn't really exist, I can't have proven that it does.

Yes Legion, god can be logically disproven

Then you can prove god's non-existence. That's what these authors are referring to. They don't make this ridiculous distinction between proving something logically exists (or doesn't) and proving that it really exists (or doesn't). Out of curiosity, what would a logical proof of the existence of something look like, and if that proof establishes the existence of that thing, what logic enables you to claim that it doesn't exist?

but the universal absence of an immaterial being can not.

Take it up with them. I'm not the one claiming to have proved god's non-existence (or existence).

1. Yes you can disprove god, as apologists like WL Craig define him.

No, you can't. But it hardly matters, as it is exactly this kind of god that some of the founders of the new atheists have claimed to disproved.

Also, Dawkins says outright that what Strenger and Hitchens claim to have done can't possibly done. He categorically denies that it is possible to prove god doesn't exist or disprove god's existence (but you can falsify the "God hypothesis" using science, as he and Harris claim to have, though they don't specify how such falsification isn't proof and if it isn't then what this means for the sciences when falsified claims can be true).

2. No you can not prove the universal absence of an immaterial being.

Sure you can. Just follow Kant and note that, if rephrased ("any immaterial being is universally absent") that the a synthesis: the predicate encodes the subject (a material being would have to be present somewhere, and an immaterial being would could not be present anywhere or must be universally absent).

However, the problem with proofs like this is that they are not logical proofs. They have semantic content, whereas proofs are syntactic manipulations. The moment a proof starts to depend upon the meaning of words or constructions, then it isn't a proof, as these are both polysemous and necessarily imprecise.

You are just being evasive - pick the best argument you think apologists have and defend it if you can.

You repeated ad nauseum that you couldn't prove god's non-existence. I've a book entitled The Non-Existence of God consisting of such proofs, and I purchased it because I read Stenger's book who refers the reader to such proofs because he holds them to be proofs that god does not in fact exist and could not. Ditto for others.

 

[Bunyip]

All proofs are logical, or they aren't proofs. When I have said "proof is for mathematics", and I mean this to include logic, it is because such proofs exist in closed discourse realms. I can prove things in formal logic because it is a system in which all the rules are defined and do not depend upon any assumptions (which is why when one first learns logic, one quickly moves to derivations/proofs that are just symbols and have no meaning).

Bell's inequality is about as close as we can get in the sciences to proof. Violations of this inequality prove certain things about quantum systems, but only given certain assumptions (e.g., realism). Any proof that involves reality (such as the "real" existence of god), is now just like any other argument or use of logic to demonstrate a conclusion. The distinction between a "logical proof" (to those who believe things can be proven outside of mathematics) is that such proofs do not involve anything existing or not existing or other references to anything in reality. They rest entirely upon the "rules" of the formal system in question.


How? If I logically prove that something exists, the I've proven it really exists. If it doesn't really exist, I can't have proven that it does.



Then you can prove god's non-existence. That's what these authors are referring to. They don't make this ridiculous distinction between proving something logically exists (or doesn't) and proving that it really exists (or doesn't). Out of curiosity, what would a logical proof of the existence of something look like, and if that proof establishes the existence of that thing, what logic enables you to claim that it doesn't exist?

You misread. There is a difference between logically proving that something can not exist, and evidencing that something is not there. Pretty simple - but you are indeed the grand master of obfuscation and misdirection.

Take it up with them. I'm not the one claiming to have proved god's non-existence (or existence).


No, you can't.

Sure I can. I can disprove the existence of god as WL Craig defines him. So could my son when he was 6 or 7.

But it hardly matters, as it is exactly this kind of god that some of the founders of the new atheists have claimed to disproved.

Also, Dawkins says outright that what Strenger and Hitchens claim to have done can't possibly done. He categorically denies that it is possible to prove god doesn't exist or disprove god's existence (but you can falsify the "God hypothesis" using science, as he and Harris claim to have, though they don't specify how such falsification isn't proof and if it isn't then what this means for the sciences when falsified claims can be true).


Sure you can. Just follow Kant and note that, if rephrased ("any immaterial being is universally absent") that the a synthesis: the predicate encodes the subject (a material being would have to be present somewhere, and an immaterial being would could not be present anywhere or must be universally absent).

However, the problem with proofs like this is that they are not logical proofs. They have semantic content, whereas proofs are syntactic manipulations. The moment a proof starts to depend upon the meaning of words or constructions, then it isn't a proof, as these are both polysemous and necessarily imprecise.



You repeated ad nauseum that you couldn't prove god's non-existence. I've a book entitled The Non-Existence of God consisting of such proofs, and I purchased it because I read Stenger's book who refers the reader to such proofs because he holds them to be proofs that god does not in fact exist and could not. Ditto for others.

That is all just waffle. I can disprove the god WL Craig describes, but that does not actually conflict with the fact that one can not prove the universal non-existence of an immaterial entity.
A logical disproof and evidence for absence are different things.

Lastly Legion, is everyone just supposed to pretend not to notice that you refuse to even identify an argument you can defend?
I take it you have chickened out of attempting to defend that crusty old chestnut - fine tuning? The incredible art of pretending that one can calculate the probability of the way things are from a set of universes we have to examine totalling one.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You misread. There is a difference between logically proving that something can not exist, and evidencing that something is not there.

I didn't misread. You're playing semantic games, but luckily here this doesn't have to go on and on because you determine what words mean, as I'm not the one making these arguments. The founders of the new atheism are (at least some of them, while other both contradict them and somehow also agree). It is quite clear that e.g., Stenger, the one I started with, means by "proof" that god doesn't exist prove of his universal absence and proof of the type of god WL Craig claims to have proven exists. Ditto for the others. Here, alas, your unique ability to determine language usage and meaning absolutely doesn't avail you, as you are not fighting a position I hold, but one I am reporting to you of those you have supported but apparently not read.

You can make these ridiculous distinctions all you wish, but the fact remains that the new atheists whom I have quoted and quoted others in reference to don't make them.

Pretty simple - but you are indeed the grand master of obfuscation and misdirection.

I am not the one claiming that if I logically prove something exists, that doesn't mean it exists.

 

[Bunyip]

I didn't misread. You're playing semantic games, but luckily here this doesn't have to go on and on because you determine what words mean, as I'm not the one making these arguments. The founders of the new atheism are (at least some of them, while other both contradict them and somehow also agree). It is quite clear that e.g., Stenger, the one I started with, means by "proof" that god doesn't exist prove of his universal absence and proof of the type of god WL Craig claims to have proven exists. Ditto for the others. Here, alas, your unique ability to determine language usage and meaning absolutely doesn't avail you, as you are not fighting a position I hold, but one I am reporting to you of those you have supported but apparently not read.

Sorry, none of that made sense to me.
I can disprove WL Craig's definition of god, but that is different for evidencing an absence. A logical disproof and evidence of absence are different things - how you can fail to grasp that I can only imagine.

You can make these ridiculous distinctions all you wish, but the fact remains that the new atheists whom I have quoted and quoted others in reference to don't make them.

So what? Sure, other people have different positions - how is that relevant?

I am not the one claiming that if I logically prove something exists, that doesn't mean it exists.

Neither am I, so how is that relevant?

You keep avoiding identifying any apologetic argument you think you could defend. Mainly because there are none that are defensible.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I take it you have chickened out of attempting to defend that crusty old chestnut - fine tuning? The incredible art of pretending that one can calculate the probability of the way things are from a set of universes we have to examine totalling one.

I would argue the point with someone else. The only reason I am continuing on the point of proof is because
1) You can't rely on your usual tactic of defining language authoritatively and acting as if it is an argument. It isn't me who is arguing against your usage, but the new atheists. And I'm perfectly happy to have you continue to do that.
2) It is illuminating to hear you talk about how you can logically prove something but have it not be true.
3) It really doesn't matter how you try to finagle your way out of what you said, as the new atheists blatantly contradict one another here.

However, with respect to fine-tuning we enter into areas where you can do what you have so many other times: ignore posts or claims at will; make categorical statements about physics, mathematics, or other technical topics that are wrong whilst refusing to acknowledge any evidence provided to the contrary; play the "I get to define language" game, etc. Your statement to the effect of if the universe were fine-tuned at all it would be for [some nonsense state I can't recall], not humans/life" would be almost enough by itself without the hundreds of other posts of yours I've read on physics.

Even granting the above, I'd still probably end up debating the point if I found the argument convincing myself. If I did, I wouldn't be agnostic. Debating with you about how an argument you don't understand is inadequately dealt with in works you haven't read and therefore defending an argument I don't find convincing just doesn't seem worth it.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Sorry, none of that made sense to me.

You are making distinctions regarding proof. The new atheists are strongly characterized by claiming they can prove god doesn't exist, but they do not make the distinctions you do. Ergo, it doesn't matter how much you play your "I define language" game, you are claiming things about the nature of proof that contradicts them, not me.

Simple enough?

 

[Bunyip]

You are making distinctions regarding proof. The new atheists are strongly characterized by claiming they can prove god doesn't exist, but they do not make the distinctions you do. Ergo, it doesn't matter how much you play your "I define language" game, you are claiming things about the nature of proof that contradicts them, not me.

Simple enough?

That is just more obfuscation, we make no different distinctions in that regard. You are just being evasive. I made no such claims about the nature of proof - you are just desperately trying to deflect and evade so you never have to actually come up with anything tangible.

You are the one who can not go further than quibbling over semantics. Set whatever definitions you wish, I can follow them. It will make no real difference.

Do you have a single example of any argument apologists use that you care to defend?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

That is just more obfuscation, we make no different distinctions in that regard.

Ok. Naturally, you can demonstrate this (as you've actually read the books I've mentioned) and can point out where such distinctions are made (and also why, given that it is so utterly pointless and bizarre to think that one has logically proven something doesn't exist, granting that such a proof doesn't actually mean that it doesn't exist).

You are just being evasive.

I've been asking you questions about your views, making it somewhat hard for me to be the one evading. I'm also not the one who repeatedly stated that it's obvious one can't disprove god only to then say of course we can once I realized that the authors I had claimed were stating that you can't prove non-existence actually stated that you can and claimed to have done so.

Simply put, I'm not the one stuck making the distinction between "evidencing that something is not there" (whatever that may mean) and disproving that thing's existence such that I can prove god doesn't exist without having proven he doesn't exist (and then accusing someone else of obfuscation).

I made no such claims about the nature of proof

If that were true, then why do we find you first repeating over and over again that you can't prove god doesn't exist, followed by the sudden about face when confronted with the fact that the founders of the "NAs" assert they can and have? You repeatedly said it is impossible to prove god doesn't exist, then that of course it's possible to logically disprove god's existence (and something about Craig's type of god, which is the very type that the "NAs" are disproving), and further about the difference between proving something doesn't exist and something about "evidencing [it's] not there".

you are just desperately trying to deflect and evade so you never have to actually come up with anything tangible.

What, exactly, am I evading? The "obvious" distinction between the claims you made before you found out that the "NAs" do claim to have proven the non-existence of god and those you made after? Or your continued inability, despite such admirable blame-shifting and linguistic manipulation, to demonstrate that the distinctions you make are those the authors in question make, which is all that matters?

Set whatever definitions you wish, I can follow them. It will make no real difference.

To disprove something exists is to prove that it doesn't exist. This is the same as proving it's non-existence, as logically disproving its existence, and as proving that an immaterial being is universally absent.

Do you have a single example of any argument apologists use that you care to defend?

The above. Granted, their critique is wider as it get's into the idiocy of the notion of "the God hypothesis" and using Popperian falsifiability by assuming an epistemic position on the nature of evidence, rationality, argument, and epistemology itself (and then failing to address how these are developed carefully and thoroughly by theists and atheists alike (and others), from those like Kant, Hume, Sartre, Hegel, Marx, Freud, Huxley, Flew, Russell, Gould, Rowe, etc.). It's quite amusing to see the results of such failures when the "NAs" address the ontological argument(s) and similar "proofs". You'd think at least one could pick up a book on possible world semantics.

Rather than go on about these issues or go back to just insultingly dismissing Dawkins et al., I'll let someone else (a noted atheist & philosopher of science) say what I dare not:
""unlike the new atheists, I take scholarship seriously. I have written that The God Delusion made me ashamed to be an atheist and I meant it...like a first-year undergraduate, he can happily go around asking loudly, "What caused God?" as though he had made some momentous philosophical discovery."
You're welcome to read the whole article: Dawkins et al bring us into disrepute

That's the great thing about the new atheists. I can find superior counter-arguments to Christian arguments in apologetic texts and can rely on atheists to who take atheism seriously to either distance themselves from the movement or provide all the criticism you could wish for.

 

[Bunyip]

Ok. Naturally, you can demonstrate this (as you've actually read the books I've mentioned) and can point out where such distinctions are made (and also why, given that it is so utterly pointless and bizarre to think that one has logically proven something doesn't exist, granting that such a proof doesn't actually mean that it doesn't exist).

Again you are just obfuscating, I made a clear distinction - the fact that you need to 'paraphrase' to the point where it is unrecognisable proves that you can see it too.
Legion a logical disproof of a specific god is different from evidencing the absence of all conceptions of god. I can disprove God and prove is absence - if you deny there is a distinction. Now if you disagree - it doesn't really change anything apart from enabling you to further obfuscate.
So whether or not there is a distinction does not change the fact that God can be disproven it just (apparently) gives you a quibble to exploit to avoid identifying an argument for god with any merit.

I've been asking you questions about your views, making it somewhat hard for me to be the one evading. I'm also not the one who repeatedly stated that it's obvious one can't disprove god

I have said explicitely that I can a number of times, you are just playing the fool.

only to then say of course we can once I realized that the authors I had claimed were stating that you can't prove non-existence actually stated that you can and claimed to have done so.

There is no conflict there, only your equivocation.

Simply put, I'm not the one stuck making the distinction between "evidencing that something is not there" (whatever that may mean) and disproving that thing's existence such that I can prove god doesn't exist without having proven he doesn't exist (and then accusing someone else of obfuscation).



If that were true, then why do we find you first repeating over and over again that you can't prove god doesn't exist,

For heaven's sake mate - I keep telling you that I can.

followed by the sudden about face when confronted with the fact that the founders of the "NAs" assert they can and have? You repeatedly said it is impossible to prove god doesn't exist

Gee how , any times can you repeat the same error in one post? I can disprove god as Stenger did and as I described specifically.

then that of course it's possible to logically disprove god's existence (and something about Craig's type of god, which is the very type that the "NAs" are disproving), and further about the difference between proving something doesn't exist and something about "evidencing [it's] not there".



What, exactly, am I evading?

Having to present any evidence.That is what you are evading.

The "obvious" distinction between the claims you made before you found out that the "NAs" do claim to have proven the non-existence of god and those you made after? Or your continued inability, despite such admirable blame-shifting and linguistic manipulation, to demonstrate that the distinctions you make are those the authors in question make, which is all that matters?




To disprove something exists is to prove that it doesn't exist. This is the same as proving it's non-existence, as logically disproving its existence, and as proving that an immaterial being is universally absent.

Pointless semantics, I can prove God doesn't exist as Craig defines him. I can thus prove the non-existence of god. Proving the universal absence of unspecified conceptions of god is a different matter. Proving the absence of Yahweh I can do.

The above. Granted, their critique is wider as it get's into the idiocy of the notion of "the God hypothesis" and using Popperian falsifiability by assuming an epistemic position on the nature of evidence, rationality, argument, and epistemology itself (and then failing to address how these are developed carefully and thoroughly by theists and atheists alike (and others), from those like Kant, Hume, Sartre, Hegel, Marx, Freud, Huxley, Flew, Russell, Gould, Rowe, etc.). It's quite amusing to see the results of such failures when the "NAs" address the ontological argument(s) and similar "proofs". You'd think at least one could pick up a book on possible world semantics.

Rather than go on about these issues or go back to just insultingly dismissing Dawkins et al., I'll let someone else (a noted atheist & philosopher of science) say what I dare not:
""unlike the new atheists, I take scholarship seriously. I have written that The God Delusion made me ashamed to be an atheist and I meant it...like a first-year undergraduate, he can happily go around asking loudly, "What caused God?" as though he had made some momentous philosophical discovery."
You're welcome to read the whole article: Dawkins et al bring us into disrepute

That's the great thing about the new atheists. I can find superior counter-arguments to Christian arguments in apologetic texts and can rely on atheists to who take atheism seriously to either distance themselves from the movement or provide all the criticism you could wish for.

If you can, you haven't done so.

 

[psychoslice]

I think if you take religion away, most who label themselves as atheist would curl up and die lol.

 

[Bunyip]

Legion

I can disprove God as Craig defines him, which of course proves his absence. Hope that clears up your confusion.

You keep talking about how atheists distance themselves from the nasty NA, which I find utterly hilarious by the way - given the stratospheric popularity of their publications. Far from distancing themselves from the NA they buy their books like icecreams on a hot day.

Sure mate - they have become world famous, sold millions of books and brought atheism to the attention of the world - but atheists are 'distancing themselves' from their 'intellectual sterility'. Sure.