Are "New Atheists" Too Obsessed With Religion?

[Looncall]

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"

Thanks for these. I shall enjoy looking through them. I don't suppose that the stabilities of heavy elements is likely to vary with location in the universe, though.

What I was exercised about was the notion that elements can have varying numbers of protons in their nuclei.

 

[Cephus]

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.

What do you think a lack of belief is? It's someone who doesn't believe!

 

[Cephus]

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

Atheism is a response to claims made by theists. If theists didn't exist, there would be no more reason to identify as an atheist than there is a reason to identify as an a-unicornist. You don't have people identifying as a-unicornists because nobody is trying to push belief in unicorns, it is therefore not necessary to point out just how absurd that is.

When belief in imaginary friends in the sky goes away, so will any need to oppose those beliefs.

 

[Bunyip]

Thanks for these. I shall enjoy looking through them. I don't suppose that the stabilities of heavy elements is likely to vary with location in the universe, though.

What I was exercised about was the notion that elements can have varying numbers of protons in their nuclei.

They can. Look at the periodic table, the elements have different numbers of protons. In fact the elements in the periodic table are organised according to how many they have.

An element with one proton is called hydrogen. The next has two and is called helium, the next has three and is called lithium.
So if you had an element with 18 protons, just look at number 18 on the periodic table - it is argon.
If you had an element with 88 protons, look at number 88 - it is radium.
Hope that helps.

 

[Bunyip]

Atheism is a response to claims made by theists. If theists didn't exist, there would be no more reason to identify as an atheist than there is a reason to identify as an a-unicornist. You don't have people identifying as a-unicornists because nobody is trying to push belief in unicorns, it is therefore not necessary to point out just how absurd that is.

When belief in imaginary friends in the sky goes away, so will any need to oppose those beliefs.

Sheesh, I get really sick of people putting down my a-unicornism. May the holy imaginary horned one spear you in your sleep!

 

[Bunyip]

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.

I haven't argued any such thing mate. You just keep going round and round in pointless pedantic circles. It is not impossible to disprove god, I just did it. You demand I prove something, but state that you are not interested in what I can prove, you are just being ridiculous.

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.

No, I haven't mate.

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.

LOL, none of that happened buddy.

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.

Of course I know how Stenger does it - I don't know why you focus on so many silly lies. Stenger simply looks at a number of things one would expect to find if god did exist, and infers from their absence that he does not. I can walk you through it if you wish - but you keep demanding I prove things and say you are not interested in what I can prove.

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),

I read the books mate, you need to stop with repeating these silly, dishonest digs. At this point it seems to he all you have to offer.

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.

LOL LOL LOL You are contradicting yourself, one sentence you are asking me to demonstrate Stengers disproof (although you have no interest in what I can prove apparently) and in the next say that I deny his proof. I never suggested anything of the sort. Stenger's disproof is quite interesting.

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

I am familiar with his proof, but see no point in re-stating it. As I said, if there is an element of it you think you can challenge, then out with it?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Thanks for these. I shall enjoy looking through them. I don't suppose that the stabilities of heavy elements is likely to vary with location in the universe, though

They won't really meant for you (too simplistic). You might be surprised about the distribution of elements, though. I don't have much on hand that isn't physics (monographs, textbooks, journals, etc.), but I have a few papers on background reading on this while I try to find the electronic versions of some of what I have in physical form (if they exist), or the equivalent. The "Element synthesis in stars" may be overly simplistic and is somewhat outdated.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I am familiar with his proof, but see no point in re-stating it. As I said, if there is an element of it you think you can challenge, then out with it?

Clearly not. First because he offered several, second because he didn't go over them but referred the reader to another book (again; here's where you can say you are familiar with "his [the author's] proof" in that book and I can tell you again there isn't one but many), and third because the "proofs" he does describe in detail are still plural, and are less clearly proofs than the ones he doesn't go over but lists.

You really should be familiar with the works you are defending when you are criticizing opposing literature you haven't read either.

 

[Bunyip]

Clearly not. First because he offered several, second because he didn't go over them but referred the reader to another book (again; here's where you can say you are familiar with "his [the author's] proof" in that book and I can tell you again there isn't one but many), and third because the "proofs" he does describe in detail are still plural, and are less clearly proofs than the ones he doesn't go over but lists.

You really should be familiar with the works you are defending when you are criticizing opposing literature you haven't read either.

Yeah sure, his disproof has a number of points, they are as you say in the form of a list of points. I said that. As I said which one are you wanting to discuss? Most are along the lines of 'if there was a god, we would expect to see ______'. I am familiar with all of them, which are you most interested in discussing?

His argument is 294 pages long, please stop trying to have a go at it for not wishing to re-state it. There is a word limit here, and that is an absurd demand.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Yeah sure, his disproof has a number of points, they are as you say in the form of a list of points.

Nice try. I didn't say that. He lists the names of proofs as offered in another book. And just as a test, I used the word list, but didn't mention that he lists classes of proofs. In fact, he specifically states that for actual, individual proofs, he gives just "a sample of nonexistence arguments" and states that "[f]or the details, see..." and refers the reader elsewhere even for the few actual proofs he covers. Apart from that, again, he simply lists classes of proofs he stole from another book without going over them at all.

How long are you going to pretend you have any idea how he describes how we can disprove god's existence in precisely the way you state is impossible?

 

[Bunyip]

Nice try. I didn't say that. He lists the names of proofs as offered in another book. And just as a test, I used the word list, but didn't mention that he lists classes of proofs. In fact, he specifically states that for actual, individual proofs, he gives just "a sample of nonexistence arguments" and states that "[f]or the details, see..." and refers the reader elsewhere even for the few actual proofs he covers. Apart from that, again, he simply lists classes of proofs he stole from another book without going over them at all.

How long are you going to pretend you have any idea how he describes how we can disprove god's existence in precisely the way you state is impossible?

Legion, I said no such thing - all you are doing is deflecting.
Mate, you are just playing games - if you have something, out with it please?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Legion, I said no such thing - all you are doing is deflecting.
Mate, you are just playing games - if you have something, out with it please?

I do you. You stated that you could reproduce his proof (or disproof), but you have fundamentally disagreed that the proofs of god's non-existence he offers could possible exist (and mocked me as if I were saying they were). You've described (unknowlingly) the idiocy of this new atheist author who literally wrote the book on The New Atheism, but as you don't apparently read much of this literature (still less actual atheist literature or apologetics), you can't live up to what you (unasked for) offered: to disprove god as Stenger did. Instead, you've argued that the kind of disproof he and other "NAs" offer can't exist.

As I said, you really should read the literature you are defending against attacks by atheists and theists in other works you also are unfamiliar with.

I'm literally having to describe to you what the new atheists have written in order to debate these points. Your participatory value here is rather negligible, other than to introduce inaccuracies about the new atheist literature (from how they do concern themselves with textual criticism and the history of religion and so forth, so that by correcting these I am describing the literature for those who haven't read it). Even this aspect of you defeating yourself is becoming boring.

 

[Bunyip]

I do you. You stated that you could reproduce his proof (or disproof), but you have fundamentally disagreed that the proofs of god's non-existence he offers could possible exist (and mocked me as if I were saying they were). You've described (unknowlingly) the idiocy of this new atheist author who literally wrote the book on The New Atheism, but as you don't apparently read much of this literature (still less actual atheist literature or apologetics), you can't live up to what you (unasked for) offered: to disprove god as Stenger did. Instead, you've argued that the kind of disproof he and other "NAs" offer can't exist.

As I said, you really should read the literature you are defending against attacks by atheists and theists in other works you also are unfamiliar with.

I'm literally having to describe to you what the new atheists have written in order to debate these points. Your participatory value here is rather negligible, other than to introduce inaccuracies about the new atheist literature (from how they do concern themselves with textual criticism and the history of religion and so forth, so that by correcting these I am describing the literature for those who haven't read it). Even this aspect of you defeating yourself is becoming boring.

I read his book. You make, avoidance into an art form. Stengers proof does exist - I have said that specifically at least half a dozen times, you are just ranting.I've read it, found it interesting. What aspect of it can you challenge?

 

[Looncall]

They can. Look at the periodic table, the elements have different numbers of protons. In fact the elements in the periodic table are organised according to how many they have.

An element with one proton is called hydrogen. The next has two and is called helium, the next has three and is called lithium.
So if you had an element with 18 protons, just look at number 18 on the periodic table - it is argon.
If you had an element with 88 protons, look at number 88 - it is radium.
Hope that helps.

That is my point. The post I originally responded to indicated that nuclei with different numbers of protons could still be the same element. That is not so.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Stengers proof does exist - I have said that specifically at least half a dozen times

Yes, however, he offers several classes of proof in about 3 pages, including the specific examples of some, and none of these are his. He believes that they disprove god in a way that you state is impossible, but you continually state you've read his "proof" (whatever the hell that means, as it is singular and he doesn't have a singular proof), so either you really didn't understand what you read, you have no memory about what you read but have created a false memory, or you never read the book.

What aspect of it can you challenge?

One example would be what you challenged: that it is possible to prove the universal absence of an immaterial entity/being. He lists in a few pages various classes of such proofs as well as a few example, and argues that the proofs he gives as examples and the classes of proofs he name do what you state is impossible.

 

[Bunyip]

Yes, however, he offers several classes of proof in about 3 pages, including the specific examples of some, and none of these are his. He believes that they disprove god in a way that you state is impossible, but you continually state you've read his "proof" (whatever the hell that means, as it is singular and he doesn't have a singular proof), so either you really didn't understand what you read, you have no memory about what you read but have created a false memory, or you never read the book.

This would be about the ninth time I have told you that I have read it - you are just stuck in one of your evasion loops where you repeat the same silly accusations over and over again because you have been stumped and can think of nothing better.

One example would be what you challenged: that it is possible to prove the universal absence of an immaterial entity/being. He lists in a few pages various classes of such proofs as well as a few example, and argues that the proofs he gives as examples and the classes of proofs he name do what you state is impossible.

I have specifically cleared up that very point eight times now - it is NOT impossible, you just have to specify the characteristics of the being. Of course you will ignore that and for some unimaginable reason simply repeat yourself over and over again like a broken record.

I offered a disproof that you completely ignored, I have also offered to discuss any element of Stengers disproof you wish to challenge - but you can do neither and so just go about in a sad little circle repeating yourself.

I can only assume you do not realise it - but your last six or eight posts are almost identical to each other, you repeat the same stuff several times in each of them - and then post it all over again in your next post....and then again..and again....

Meanwhile you ignore all requests that you simply identify the argument you wish to challenge, along with the disproof you demanded.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I have specifically cleared up that very point eight times now - it is NOT impossible, you just have to specify the characteristics of the being.

Which Stenger doesn't do.

 

[Bunyip]

Which Stenger doesn't do.

Sure it does. He is referring to a specific conception of god, he makes that clear. It is the personal, theistic god of Abraham.

So what now? I guess you post six more comments, each of which repeating the same stuff and still avoid identifying anything you can challenge? Or dealing with the proof I gave?

I guess just repeating ' you haven't read it, you haven't read it' in an endless loop is easier. Why not just write out that paragraph of ad hoc evasions and accusations, copy paste it four times or so - so that you have a single post with four repetitions and then just copy paste that whole thing for your future responses? It would save you a lot of time wasted on redundancy? Re-wording essentially the same response must be getting tiresome.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Sure it does.

It?

"let us make a quick review of those disproofs of God's existence that are based on philosophy. For a recent survey, see The Non-Existence of God by Nicholas Everitt."
First I have that book. It isn't about specific god's. Second, Stenger goes on to contrast these with the work of two other philosophers who he specifically states "show the impossibility of of gods with various attributes." He then gives a few examples of each type. Here is one of the examples he gives of a proof based on attributes:
"If God exists, then he is nonphysical.
A person (or personal being) needs to be physical.
Hence, it is impossible for God to exist."

Note a few things. First, this is a proof that no immaterial god can exist, and thus is supposed to be a proof of the "universal absence of an immaterial entity", something you claimed is impossible. Second, it is an "attribute" proof, from the work of two other philosophers (Martin & Monnier's The Impossibility of God), NOT the kind of proof found in Everitt. Yet it is precisely a "proof" that you said was impossible, except that "immaterial" is replaced with "nonphysical".

Second, this is a pathetic proof. It is utterly lacking the sophistication even Anselm offered.

Third, it's one of several examples given in a few pages. So you can stop all this nonsense about "his proof" as if there were only one that he offers.

 

[Bunyip]

It?

Yes, it. His argument relates to the god of Abraham.

"let us make a quick review of those disproofs of God's existence that are based on philosophy. For a recent survey, see The Non-Existence of God by Nicholas Everitt."
First I have that book. It isn't about specific god's. Second, Stenger goes on to contrast these with the work of two other philosophers who he specifically states "show the impossibility of of gods with various attributes." He then gives a few examples of each type. Here is one of the examples he gives of a proof based on attributes:
"If God exists, then he is nonphysical.
A person (or personal being) needs to be physical.
Hence, it is impossible for God to exist."

Yes, the God in question is Yahweh in case you hadn't figured that out.

Note a few things. First, this is a proof that no immaterial god can exist, and thus is supposed to be a proof of the "universal absence of an immaterial entity", something you claimed is impossible. Second, it is an "attribute" proof, from the work of two other philosophers (Martin & Monnier's The Impossibility of God), NOT the kind of proof found in Everitt. Yet it is precisely a "proof" that you said was impossible, except that "immaterial" is replaced with "nonphysical".

Second, this is a pathetic proof. It is utterly lacking the sophistication even Anselm offered.

Third, it's one of several examples given in a few pages. So you can stop all this nonsense about "his proof" as if there were only one that he offers.

We covered that before, several times - his proof is composed of many elements. You are just obfuscating.