Are "New Atheists" Too Obsessed With Religion?

[Bunyip]

So his frequent references to other gods and religions, such as Allah and Islam (and the same for Dawkins, Hitchens, & Harris), indeed entire chapters and sections devoted to such other religions, are included in these works because the authors are interested in Yahweh?

Correct, same guy - the God of Abraham, Yahweh, Allah.

But you did specify, or enough to prove (according to Stenger and now apparently you too) that your previous claim was false. You specified that no matter what conception of god you meant here:


...that god was an immaterial entity. Stenger gives a disproof of all such entities, and you just stated that immaterial means non-existent, making it impossible for their to be "an immaterial entity - a god" as you described. The statement "the universal non-existence of an immaterial entity- a god" is tautologically true (true no matter what) granted your assertion that immaterial means non-existent. That is, granted your assertion that immaterial means non-existent, you must be able to prove what you stated we can't.

Why it's moot? We agree it doesn't exist. Sure, it is a tautology - there is no need to disprove the existence of the by definition non-existent.

 

[Bunyip]

If it is moot, why did you insist that it can't be proven? Especially given that it is necessarily true and thus must be capable of being proven?

I didn't. You just focussed on that much more than I did.

The new atheists believe that gods don't exist, and therefore that all gods are non-existent. All of their work is devoted to what they believe are non-existent entities.

Correct.

 

[Bunyip]

Whatever you meant here:

Oh ok - well I don't have any idea what an immaterial entity is beyond a figment of the imagination. I just have to refer to them with some sort of label because theists do believe in such things - and I need words to refer to them. To me I can not see how it is possible to be an entity and immaterial at the same time.
I know of no other examples of immaterial entities other than the so far unevidenced God. So I have no precedent upon which to compare the notion.

So if you mean what I meant by 'immaterial entity' I guess I meant imaginary.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Correct, same guy - the God of Abraham, Yahweh, Allah.

Ok, so why the time devoted in their work to the pantheism and deism? On Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.? Hitchens has an entire chapter "There is no 'Eastern' solution", talks about Krishna, castigates Ghandi, discusses different types of Buddhism, etc. The same is true (to varying degrees) in the works of all the founders of the new atheists.

We agree it doesn't exist.

"We" don't agree. And neither do you and Stenger, who considers it enough of a point to insert a "disproof" of such an entity in his book. You also said it was impossible to prove. Not that there is no need, but that it cannot be done.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Oh ok - well I don't have any idea what an immaterial entity

So why state that it is impossible to prove their non-existence? Why does Stenger find it important to offer such a proof?

 

[Bunyip]

Ok, so why the time devoted in their work to the pantheism and deism? On Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.? Hitchens has an entire chapter "There is no 'Eastern' solution", talks about Krishna, castigates Ghandi, discusses different types of Buddhism, etc. The same is true (to varying degrees) in the works of all the founders of the new atheists.

Well because those conceptions of god are also interesting to engage with. Seemed obvious to me. They are all interesting notions to consider.

"We" don't agree. And neither do you and Stenger, who considers it enough of a point to insert a "disproof" of such an entity in his book. You also said it was impossible to prove. Not that there is no need, but that it cannot be done.

Yes, and clarified that I was referring to small 'g' unspecified conceptions of god at least ten times now.

 

[Bunyip]

So why state that it is impossible to prove their non-existence? Why does Stenger find it important to offer such a proof?

I clarified a number of times.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Well because those conceptions of god are also interesting to engage with. Seemed obvious to me. They are all interesting notions to consider.

Great, Yahweh is the God the NA are interested in, and the one Stenger sold millions of books about

So "Yahweh is the God the NA are interested in", but they find other gods interesting too, Allah is Yahweh, and therefore (to bring us back to why you started making such claims) Stenger was only referring to Yahweh (and by extension Allah), and his disproof all gods and discussions of specific other gods is due to...?

Yes, and clarified that I was referring to small 'g' unspecified conceptions of god at least ten times now.

The "small 'g' unspecified conceptions of god" you specified were immaterial. By definition, then, they are nonexistent. Which means, by your definition, they can't exist, yet you stated it is impossible to prove their non-existence. Why did you state it is impossible to prove that something defined to be non-existent can't be proven not to exist?

 

[Bunyip]

Legion

That the notion of an immaterial entity is in incoherent is hardly Stenger's problem. Sure he is obliged to address it - he is challenging just such a belief. But that it is in incoherent is hardly on the burden of the NA.

 

[Bunyip]

So "Yahweh is the God the NA are interested in", but they find other gods interesting too, Allah is Yahweh, and therefore (to bring us back to why you started making such claims) Stenger was only referring to Yahweh (and by extension Allah), and his disproof all gods and discussions of specific other gods is due to...?


The "small 'g' unspecified conceptions of god" you specified were immaterial. By definition, then, they are nonexistent. Which means, by your definition, they can't exist, yet you stated it is impossible to prove their non-existence. Why did you state it is impossible to prove that something defined to be non-existent can't be proven not to exist?

I clarified on this pont several times.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

That the notion of an immaterial entity is in incoherent is hardly Stenger's problem. Sure he is obliged to address it - he is challenging just such a belief. But that it is in incoherent is hardly on the burden of the NA.

He never asserts it is incoherent. He depends upon it being coherent in his proof. YOU claim it is incoherent, but also claimed that we can't prove any god who is immaterial doesn't exist, despite the fact that you now claim this means by definition they do not exist.

Stenger I understand. He is quite clear that he doesn't think it incoherent. You I do not, because you have stated that by definition no god that is immaterial can exist, yet you also stated we can't prove the nonexistence of any immaterial god.

 

[Bunyip]

He never asserts it is incoherent. He depends upon it being coherent in his proof. YOU claim it is incoherent, but also claimed that we can't prove any god who is immaterial doesn't exist, despite the fact that you now claim this means by definition they do not exist.

Stenger I understand. He is quite clear that he doesn't think it incoherent. You I do not, because you have stated that by definition no god that is immaterial can exist, yet you also stated we can't prove the nonexistence of any immaterial god.

We don't need to prove the non-existence of the non-existent - immaterial Gods are immaterial. What on earth do YOU mean by immaterial?

You are just quibbling. Name the God you are arguing for if not Yahweh, if you don't mean a specific God the term has no meaning. And if it is immaterial then it doesn't exist right? We agree on that?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I clarified on this pont several times.

Every time you say you've clarified something, you are contradicting something you stated clearly elsewhere. That's not clarification, it's the opposite. You specifically stated that no matter what god we are talking about, indeed any entity we are talking about, we can't prove the non-existence of that entity. That was some time ago. Now, after I give you one of the proofs Stenger uses, you claim that immaterial means non-existent and admit that it is a tautology to say that something which is immaterial is non-existent. This means your previous statement can't be true. It must be false, because it asserts a tautology is false.

 

[Bunyip]

Every time you say you've clarified something, you are contradicting something you stated clearly elsewhere.

No, I have clarified something you misconstrued earlier.

That's not clarification, it's the opposite.

Actually yes it it.

You specifically stated that no matter what god we are talking about, indeed any entity we are talking about, we can't prove the non-existence of that entity.

No, on the contrary I have clarified on that specific point many times.

That was some time ago. Now, after I give you one of the proofs Stenger uses, you claim that immaterial means non-existent and admit that it is a tautology to say that something which is immaterial is non-existent. This means your previous statement can't be true. It must be false, because it asserts a tautology is false.

Erm....a tautology is false mate, it is a tautology. Brilliant word play - but where's yer God? Oh - that's right, he's nowhere, cos he's immaterial right?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You are just quibbling

You flat out denied that it was possible to prove what you now admit is a tautology. I'm not the one quibbling.

if you don't mean a specific God the term has no meaning

...unless you mean any god. As the new atheists are anti-religion in general and are quite clear they believe no gods exist (indeed, that they can either prove this or "falsify" the hypothesis that any god exists), they don't need to be specific. There is no god that they believe exists, so the term refers to all of them.

And if it is immaterial then it doesn't exist right? We agree on that?

No. The primary definition of immaterial (not to mention the etymological basis for the word) is "not formed or consisting of matter". Plenty of immaterial things exist.

 

[Bunyip]

You flat out denied that it was possible to prove what you now admit is a tautology. I'm not the one quibbling.

What point proving a tautology if we agree it is a tautology? If you agree that it is a tautology - there is no point of difference to argue. You would have already conceded that the entity in question does not exist.

...unless you mean any god. As the new atheists are anti-religion in general and are quite clear they believe no gods exist (indeed, that they can either prove this or "falsify" the hypothesis that any god exists), they don't need to be specific. There is no god that they believe exists, so the term refers to all of them.

No problem at all. Just name the God and we can see how the arguments apply to it. Happy to oblige.

No. The primary definition of immaterial (not to mention the etymological basis for the word) is "not formed or consisting of matter". Plenty of immaterial things exist.

Like what? Other than concepts of course - you know, abstracts, ideas etc; the things we have already both conceded.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Erm....a tautology is false mate, it is a tautology. Brilliant word play

"one judges that some statements are 'tautologous'; this, in the non-technical sense, means that those statements are trivially true, they just (as they etymology of 'tautologous' suggests) say the same thing twice, and consequently couldn't be false. The informal notion of a tautology, of course, is broader than the technical usage, which includes only logical truths of truth-functional logic."
Haack, S. (1978). Philosophy of Logics. Cambridge University Press.

 

[Bunyip]

"one judges that some statements are 'tautologous'; this, in the non-technical sense, means that those statements are trivially true, they just (as they etymology of 'tautologous' suggests) say the same thing twice, and consequently couldn't be false. The informal notion of a tautology, of course, is broader than the technical usage, which includes only logical truths of truth-functional logic."
Haack, S. (1978). Philosophy of Logics. Cambridge University Press.

Lovely copy paste.
Well done. Now back on topic please. Or at least stop denying that you are quibbling over semantics to dodge meaningful engagement.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Lovely copy paste.
Well done. Now back on topic please. Or at least stop denying that you are quibbling over semantics to dodge meaningful engagement.

You said that a tautology was false. I figured this was so obviously wrong that in order to think it true you must be convinced of it for some reason and wouldn't trust me saying otherwise.

 

[Bunyip]

Ok. Now what? Name your God and we can discuss how being immaterial effects it?