Are "New Atheists" Too Obsessed With Religion?

[Bunyip]

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

Eventually, like all living things. But for most of us atheism speaks only to a single small element of our worldview.

 

[psychoslice]

Eventually, like all living things. But for most of us atheism speaks only to a single small element of our worldview.

Such as what ?.

 

[Bunyip]

Such as what ?.

Such as motorcycles. I'm quite interested in them as well, but my life doesn't depend upon it. Same goes for my atheism, I'm quite interested in religion, but it would not make a big dent in my life if it were gone.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I made a clear distinction

What happened to "Set whatever definitions you wish, I can follow them. It will make no real difference."??

the fact that you need to 'paraphrase' to the point where it is unrecognisable proves

I have to paraphrase because you've said opposite things in multiple ways. On the one hand we have:

Sure, you can prove square circles do not exist, but you can not prove the absence of god.

And no, you can not prove the non-existence of god, no matter how much you may delight in re-wording that fact into an argument you think you can refute.

Sure mate, you can prove some negatives. But you can not prove the absence of god, that was the context.

Also recall that this was all because you thought I was using this as an example of an argument the "NAs" use:

You are arguing that you can prove negatives, and attacking the 'New Atheists' for (you imagine) saying that you can't, and then finish by arguing that proof does not exist outside of math - so you contradicting your own claims post by post.

You say that the claim that you can not prove god does not exist is intellectually sterile because you have some examples of things that are not gods that you can prove do not exist. That is just a red herring, a little semantic slight of hand. Sure, you can prove square circles do not exist, but you can not prove the absence of god.

LOL No mate, none of the 'New Atheists' rely on such an argument anyway - you are tilting at windmills. They only mention that you can not prove gods absence in response to apologists endlessly trying to shift the burden of proof.

Then we have:

What? That's not my view. Of course you can disprove god.

you can disprove God, it is only impossible to do so when your opponant refuses to specify which god and what his characteristics are.

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

Here's what would clear up my confusion:

I can disprove god as Stenger did and as I described specifically.

The only one who has quoted Stenger here was me. And he listed the proofs of god's non-existence as he found them in The Non-Existence of God (which no doubt you've read, or else the quote immediately above is not true). So please: disprove god as Stenger did, and we'll call the whole proof business settled.

 

[Bunyip]

What happened to "Set whatever definitions you wish, I can follow them. It will make no real difference."??


I have to paraphrase because you've said opposite things in multiple ways. On the one hand we have:




Also recall that this was all because you thought I was using this as an example of an argument the "NAs" use:





Then we have:




Here's what would clear up my confusion:



The only one who has quoted Stenger here was me. And he listed the proofs of god's non-existence as he found them in The Non-Existence of God (which no doubt you've read, or else the quote immediately above is not true). So please: disprove god as Stenger did, and we'll call the whole proof business settled.

More obfuscation. I can prove the absence of specific gods, not the universal absence of all gods.

I can disprove God as I said, I can prove his absence.

Craig defines God as immaterial, timeless and external to the universe - so his own definition establishes God's non-existence. Things that exist occupy time and space in this universe. The 'Universe' is the set of all things - to be external to the set of all things is to not-exist.

 

[psychoslice]

Such as motorcycles. I'm quite interested in them as well, but my life doesn't depend upon it. Same goes for my atheism, I'm quite interested in religion, but it would not make a big dent in my life if it were gone.

Yes I don't believe in the personal god that most believe in, I see god as being everything, and all that is one. I don't call myself an atheist because I don't like to be imprisoned in such and ideology which is really just another belief.

I am on an atheist forum, the filthy language they use on each other and anyone who believes in anything that cannot be proven by science, is rubbished and ridiculed. I rather the religious folk than them.

 

[Bunyip]

Yes I don't believe in the personal god that most believe in, I see god as being everything, and all that is one. I don't call myself an atheist because I don't like to be imprisoned in such and ideology which is really just another belief.

You are atheist whether you call yourself one or not.

I am on an atheist forum, the filthy language they use on each other and anyone who believes in anything that cannot be proven by science, is rubbished and ridiculed. I rather the religious folk than them.

I don't see that sort of behaviour being any more prominent from atheists, in fact rather less so.

 

[psychoslice]

You are atheist whether you call yourself one or not.
I don't see that sort of behaviour being any more prominent from atheists, in fact rather less so.

That's your opinion not mine.

 

[Bunyip]

That's your opinion not mine.

Sure. As I see it, you are not a theist - you do not believe in a theistic god.
But sure, you may define atheism differently.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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

Really?
Pretty dubious claim. I'm here for the beer and hot ladies, and rarely think about atheism in my 'real life'.

But, in any case, its entirely possible to be religious AND an atheist.

 

[psychoslice]

Really?
Pretty dubious claim. I'm here for the beer and hot ladies, and rarely think about atheism in my 'real life'.

But, in any case, its entirely possible to be religious AND an atheist.

Yes it is, such as Buddhism, I myself don't have a belief in a personal god, but I see Oneness in all there is, but I will never claim that as a belief, because I might change my mind tomorrow.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Spectra from distant stars show no such anomalies, as far as I am aware. Do you know of any evidence that would justify your wild speculations?

This is getting ridiculous. First, some historical background:

Kragh, H. (2013). Superheavy elements and the upper limit of the periodic table: early speculations. The European Physical Journal H, 38(3), 411-431.

From the abstract:
"Artificially produced chemical elements heavier than uranium have been known for more than seventy years and the number of superheavy elements continues to grow. Presently 26 transuranic elements are known. This paper examines the earliest scientific interest in the very heavy elements and the related question of an upper limit of the periodic system. In the period from the 1880s to the early 1930s, three kinds of questions appealed to a minority of physicists, chemists and astronomers: (1) Why is uranium the heaviest known element? (2) Do there exist transuranic or super-heavy elements elsewhere in the universe, such as in stellar interiors? (3) Is there a maximum number of elements, corresponding to a theoretical limit for the periodic system?The early attempts to answer or clarify these questions lacked a foundation in nuclear physics, not to mention the total lack of experimental evidence, which explains why most of them were of a speculative nature. Although the speculations led no nothing, they are interesting in their own right and deserve a place in the history of the physical sciences." (emphases added; I've attached/uploaded the paper)

Second, the periodic table and indeed the entirety of classifications of chemical elements in a world concerned with beta-decays, muans, gluans, cosmic strings, etc., and an enormous number of isotropes is useful but also a historical byproduct (see attached/uploaded "Are the elements really elementary?")

Third, for less boring albeit less technical (and not historical) papers for those interested in the mysteries of the cosmos, I've tried to find some decent journals that aren't too technical, out-dated, or boring. Mostly that meant Nature. The one possible exception is the the UMIST database report from 2012 I had on hand, but I didn't check for updates nor is it the only astrochemical database. I also threw in a paper from the 2014 special issue of Physics of the Dark Universe on steller nuclear reactions in relation to the chemical elements.
Fourth, I scanned the appendix from Kutner, M. L. (2003). Astronomy: A physical perspective (2nd Ed.). Cambridge University Press. "Appendix G: Abundances of the Elements"

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I can disprove god as Stenger did

I can prove the absence of specific gods, not the universal absence of all gods.

I can disprove God as I said, I can prove his absence.

I don't care what you think you can prove, I am interested in your impassioned defense of the "NAs" that turned out to reveal a rather fundamental unfamiliarity with the foundational works, as revealed by the proof discussion. You stated you could disprove god as Stenger did. Can you, or not?

 

[Bunyip]

I don't care what you think you can prove, I am interested in your impassioned defense of the "NAs" that turned out to reveal a rather fundamental unfamiliarity with the foundational works, as revealed by the proof discussion. You stated you could disprove god as Stenger did. Can you, or not?

If you don't care what I think I can prove, why have your last half dozen posts to me focussed upon just that?
The intelligent atheists are not distancing themselves from the NA, they ARE the NA.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

If you don't care what I think I can prove, why have your last half dozen posts to me focussed upon just that?

They haven't. Why on earth would I be care what you think you can prove when I am criticizing the new atheists? True, I did anticipate the possibility that you'd bring it up, which was a huge mistake on my part (although it worked out well for me in the end). However, you've been the stalwart defender of the disgraces to atheism, yet have asserted a position that is characteristic of the new atheists is obviously wrong (namely, one can't prove god's non-existence). Then you claimed stuff about what you meant by this and what you can prove, but the only thing that matters here is whether your defense of the new atheists here is justified. As your distinctions or methods of "proof" here are not those of the new atheists, you are not only failing to defend them but implicitly asserting criticizing them because you continue to argue that the "proofs" of god's non-existence they offer are impossible.

The only reason it isn't blatantly clear that you are arguing the those like Stenger don't have a clue is because you have failed to explain how he and those like him actually do what you state is impossible.

So I asked you, quite clearly, to demonstrate you could disprove god just like Stenger did:

The only one who has quoted Stenger here was me. And he listed the proofs of god's non-existence as he found them in The Non-Existence of God (which no doubt you've read, or else the quote immediately above is not true). So please: disprove god as Stenger did, and we'll call the whole proof business settled.

The intelligent atheists are not distancing themselves from the NA, they ARE the NA.

That explains why Ruse is embarrassed to be associated them, why Chomsky calls them religious fanatics, and why some of their most ardent critics in general are atheists, while theologians and apologists have been practically drooling over the feast of ridiculously embarrassing gaffs, utter lack of subtlety or nuance, demonstrable inaccuracies, and the assumption of a worldview and epistemology that they seek to "prove" rather than the careful analysis of rationality, justified true belief, evidence, etc., we find in older (and less-popular but modern) atheist literature.

 

[Bunyip]

They haven't. Why on earth would I be care what you think you can prove when I am criticizing the new atheists? True, I did anticipate the possibility that you'd bring it up, which was a huge mistake on my part (although it worked out well for me in the end). However, you've been the stalwart defender of the disgraces to atheism, yet have asserted a position that is characteristic of the new atheists is obviously wrong (namely, one can't prove god's non-existence). Then you claimed stuff about what you meant by this and what you can prove, but the only thing that matters here is whether your defense of the new atheists here is justified. As your distinctions or methods of "proof" here are not those of the new atheists, you are not only failing to defend them but implicitly asserting criticizing them because you continue to argue that the "proofs" of god's non-existence they offer are impossible.

The only reason it isn't blatantly clear that you are arguing the those like Stenger don't have a clue is because you have failed to explain how he and those like him actually do what you state is impossible.

So I asked you, quite clearly, to demonstrate you could disprove god just like Stenger did:



That explains why Ruse is embarrassed to be associated them, why Chomsky calls them religious fanatics, and why some of their most ardent critics in general are atheists, while theologians and apologists have been practically drooling over the feast of ridiculously embarrassing gaffs, utter lack of subtlety or nuance, demonstrable inaccuracies, and the assumption of a worldview and epistemology that they seek to "prove" rather than the careful analysis of rationality, justified true belief, evidence, etc., we find in older (and less-popular but modern) atheist literature.

LOL Sour grapes and hot air. Your criticisms are irrelevant - let's see the evidence.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

LOL Sour grapes and hot air. Your criticisms are irrelevant - let's see the evidence.

1) Your own stance is that at least some of the founders of the new atheism believe something preposterous and obviously false (namely, that one can prove god's non-existence; not a particular go, not given certain properties, just in general the god of monotheism and often enough of any theism).
2) You claimed then to be able to produce a proof like one of these founders of the new atheists, but then balked and refused to. In fact, you have consistently described the "NAs" as believing things or as caring about things which conflicts with what they themselves say (such as how they approach the ontological argument or textual criticism or historical topics). My criticisms are irrelevant because you haven't read what I'm critiquing. Nor have you read more broadly here.
3) I have repeatedly referred to the failures within the discourse of the new atheism to even acknowledge their epistemological assumptions, let alone address the nuanced approach to JTB/epistemic justification, reason, etc., within religious (especially Christian) apology (that it is especially a Christian product has little or nothing to do with the nature of Christianity itself). You have continually glossed over these and other criticisms either completely or inaccurately describing the content of the books you claim familiarity with.
4) Far from sour grapes, had you not boxed yourself into this corner, I would had given up on discussing this with you as I tire of your tactics (playing the victim, the language game, the sole judge of what constitutes evidence, the tendency to both address technical subject matter you aren't familiar with while refusing to acknowledge as relevant specialist literature, etc). However, here your definition games don't work, as you aren't arguing against what I think proof or disproof entails but the "NAs", and with every post after you offer to "disprove god" just like Stenger did and I repeatedly ask you to deliver, you make this clearer and clearer. You aren't just unfamiliar with the founding "NA" authors of "NA" literature, but have argued against not knowing what they had argued.
5) Any concern I could possibly have would be irrelevant for you (even when, as in this case, it was originally your concern). However, here I can refer you to plenty of atheists who find the "NAs" as as devastating to the atheist intellectual tradition as the theologians & apologists do a gold-mine of easily dismantled arguments.

Can you do what you said and disprove god like Stenger or not? If not, then I have no reason to continue a discussion with you when you are defending those you haven't read after you unknowingly mocked them (not having read them) and then done your little about face in order to try to regain something out of your original repeated denial that the kind of proofs the "NAs" offer could possibly exist. You've insulted and mischaracterized those you seek to defend, while demonstrating simultaneously an unfamiliarity with the broader issues and subject matter. As you are so seemingly incapable of admitting error you will literally claim that a proof that god doesn't exist doesn't prove god doesn't exist, I've no interest in dialogue that resembles trying to communicate with ELIZA.

 

[Bunyip]

1) Your own stance is that at least some of the founders of the new atheism believe something preposterous and obviously false (namely, that one can prove god's non-existence; not a particular go, not given certain properties, just in general the god of monotheism and often enough of any theism).
2) You claimed then to be able to produce a proof like one of these founders of the new atheists, but then balked and refused to. In fact, you have consistently described the "NAs" as believing things or as caring about things which conflicts with what they themselves say (such as how they approach the ontological argument or textual criticism or historical topics). My criticisms are irrelevant because you haven't read what I'm critiquing. Nor have you read more broadly here.
3) I have repeatedly referred to the failures within the discourse of the new atheism to even acknowledge their epistemological assumptions, let alone address the nuanced approach to JTB/epistemic justification, reason, etc., within religious (especially Christian) apology (that it is especially a Christian product has little or nothing to do with the nature of Christianity itself). You have continually glossed over these and other criticisms either completely or inaccurately describing the content of the books you claim familiarity with.
4) Far from sour grapes, had you not boxed yourself into this corner, I would had given up on discussing this with you as I tire of your tactics (playing the victim, the language game, the sole judge of what constitutes evidence, the tendency to both address technical subject matter you aren't familiar with while refusing to acknowledge as relevant specialist literature, etc). However, here your definition games don't work, as you aren't arguing against what I think proof or disproof entails but the "NAs", and with every post after you offer to "disprove god" just like Stenger did and I repeatedly ask you to deliver, you make this clearer and clearer. You aren't just unfamiliar with the founding "NA" authors of "NA" literature, but have argued against not knowing what they had argued.
5) Any concern I could possibly have would be irrelevant for you (even when, as in this case, it was originally your concern). However, here I can refer you to plenty of atheists who find the "NAs" as as devastating to the atheist intellectual tradition as the theologians & apologists do a gold-mine of easily dismantled arguments.

Can you do what you said and disprove god like Stenger or not? If not, then I have no reason to continue a discussion with you when you are defending those you haven't read after you unknowingly mocked them (not having read them) and then done your little about face in order to try to regain something out of your original repeated denial that the kind of proofs the "NAs" offer could possibly exist. You've insulted and mischaracterized those you seek to defend, while demonstrating simultaneously an unfamiliarity with the broader issues and subject matter. As you are so seemingly incapable of admitting error you will literally claim that a proof that god doesn't exist doesn't prove god doesn't exist, I've no interest in dialogue that resembles trying to communicate with ELIZA.

I did disprove god, you just said that you were not interested in what I could prove and ignored it - now there is a big kerfuffle about how I refuse to do what you aren't interested in me doing.

Meanwhile, where is that evidence?Or did you want me to re- state Stenger's disproof? If so whatever for? Why not just tell me what you are challenging about it?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I did disprove god

You didn't, but it is irrelevant. You have argued that it is impossible to disprove god the way Stenger does and that his "proof" approach is akin to yours. You are clearly wrong on both points, but I will ask once again for your to deliver on an offer you made at no behest of mine: disprove god the way Stenger claims to.

The reason this is important is because in your defense of those like Hithens and Stenger you have mocked them and ridiculed them without knowing it. You have tried to cover for this by claiming ludicrous things like one can prove the existence of something that doesn't exist, but most importantly you have yet to stop attacking their position. That's because you don't know their position, and you repeatedly fail to do what you offered because you can't. You can't disprove god like Stenger claims to because you don't know how he did. Better still, you'd have to read another book altogether just to begin to address the proofs he offers as he doesn't describe them but lists them.

The point is two-fold: first, you don't know the new atheist literature (I could mention other relevant deficiencies here, but I"ll try to be nicer), or at least not very well, and thus you can't adequately represent it but must continually off your own definitions and play the language game in order to address me when I am merely giving you there arguments. Second, in the course both of denouncing me and then defending them and your own position on proof, you haven't stopped criticizing them because you have still maintained that what e.g., Stenger says can be disproved you say cannot be.

Hence I ask you to disprove as Stenger did, for if you could then I would be wrong and you could demonstrate it easily.

 

[Caligula]

My main complaints about the points made in the article:

1) He seems to regard de-conversion or lack of belief as a given or as inevitable; I don't believe this is the case now and on top of that: the sooner, the better.
Evolution would eventually prove him right but brainwashing should be seen as a totally unnatural interference in this process that must be addressed.

2) "Moderate religion liberalism" is a non-sense. He identifies liberalism as being the main goal, as if that could be achieved independent of people's system of beliefs. I think that's a wrong way to prioritize.

3) He describes himself as being an apatheist. So do I. But apatheism manifests only at a personal level and does not need to extend when one interacts with others. I say that the (non)existance of gods has no effect on my life but one's system of beliefs surely does! God seldom comes without the full package. And to fight with the contents of the package, in a liberal un-atheistical manner, would mean to unwisely challenge the content and not the form.

However, I do agree that "too much" would eventually backfire. Such a discussion should not take place now but much, much later.