Are "New Atheists" Too Obsessed With Religion?

[LegionOnomaMoi]

What point proving a tautology if we agree it is a tautology?

Again, you're quibbling. You didn't say there was no point, you said it was not possible. It could not be done. To do so would be to do the impossible. Etc. None of this indicates that there is no point, but clearly indicates that you have stated two mutually exclusive things. Which one is the one you believe false, and which one is the one you now hold to be true?

Specifically, is the following true:

You can not prove the universal non-existence of an immaterial entity - a god.

or is this true:

Sure, it is a tautology

Just name the God

No need, which is why the new atheists generally don't. They're quite clear that no gods exist, and only name them when dealing with historical or political matters.

Like what?

gravitons, emotions, vision, education, reading, runners, presidents, etc.

 

[Bunyip]

Again, you're quibbling. You didn't say there was no point, you said it was not possible. It could not be done. To do so would be to do the impossible. Etc. None of this indicates that there is no point, but clearly indicates that you have stated two mutually exclusive things. Which one is the one you believe false, and which one is the one you now hold to be true?

Specifically, is the following true:


or is this true:




No need, which is why the new atheists generally don't. They're quite clear that no gods exist, and only name them when dealing with historical or political matters.


gravitons, emotions, vision, education, reading, runners, presidents, etc.

Oh ok so the God you are referring to has qualities like all of those? He is an abstract right? We agree that such concepts exist already. I thought you meant a real God. Those are the ones the NA are more interested in.
We both agreed to that a while back, you seem to be stuck.

 

[Bunyip]

Legion

I am happy to discuss with you any God you care to discuss, and see how being immaterial applies to them. If you don't mean YHWH no problem at all. If you are arguing for a conceptual entity only I have already conceded.

You keep going back to ALL gods, so sure - I'll do it. Just name the God.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

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

I don't have to name it. This introductory logic. It's so fundamental there's even a symbol for it: ∀. Let Gx be "x is a god", Ix be "x is immaterial", and Nx be "x is non-existent".
∀x(Ix ⇔Nx)
∀x[(Gx & Ix)→ Nx]
"For all x, x is immaterial iff x is non-existent
For all x, if x is a god and x is immaterial, then x is non-existent"

 

[Bunyip]

I don't have to name it. This introductory logic. It's so fundamental there's even a symbol for it: ∀. Let Gx be "x is a god", Ix be "x is immaterial", and Nx be "x is non-existent".
∀x(Ix ⇔Nx)
∀x[(Gx & Ix)→ Nx]
"For all x, x is immaterial iff x is non-existent
For all x, if x is a god and x is immaterial, then x is non-existent"

Correct.
Which god? The term is meaningless unless you specify. In this context you must be referring to a material God right? Otherwise you are just quibbling.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I am happy to discuss with you any God you care to discuss

I would rather discuss something relevant to the OP; namely, the new atheists. They do not make this claim that one must specify which god one is talking about in order to say that god's don't exist, and whatever other flaws exist in their discourse and writings, I've yet to see them argue that they can't believe no gods exist unless they name them or that they can't make statements about every god without naming them (something they do all the time).

This conversation began with you asking me to give you an example of the new atheists that indicated they were intellectually sterile. I then used your claim that it was impossible to prove the non-existence of any immaterial god (any entity at all, in fact) to show you that by your own estimation, one of the most popular new atheists believed he could proof what was not possible to prove. Now you are saying that it is tautologically true that no immaterial gods could exist. Either claim implies Stenger is wrong if you are correct. I just want to know which one of the two is the one that you believe is correct and therefore necessarily believe Stenger is wrong.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Which god? The term is meaningless unless you specify.

The God Delusion, a title that is equivalent to The slhglihlghsrngl Delusion, sold the millions of copies it did why? After all, no god was specified, so the title has no meaning (also, given that it was translated into multiple other languages, how did translators translate a meaningless term?)

 

[Bunyip]

I would rather discuss something relevant to the OP; namely, the new atheists. They do not make this claim that one must specify which god one is talking about in order to say that god's don't exist, and whatever other flaws exist in their discourse and writings, I've yet to see them argue that they can't believe no gods exist unless they name them or that they can't make statements about every god without naming them (something they do all the time).

Sure, they assume people realise they are referring to the god most Americans believe in. The relevant God.

This conversation began with you asking me to give you an example of the new atheists that indicated they were intellectually sterile. I then used your claim that it was impossible to prove the non-existence of any immaterial god (any entity at all, in fact) to show you that by your own estimation, one of the most popular new atheists believed he could proof what was not possible to prove. Now you are saying that it is tautologically true that no immaterial gods could exist. Either claim implies Stenger is wrong if you are correct. I just want to know which one of the two is the one that you believe is correct and therefore necessarily believe Stenger is wrong.

He is only wrong if you concede that the immaterial doesn't exist - so it would be a victory for atheism anyway.

 

[Bunyip]

The God Delusion, a title that is equivalent to The slhglihlghsrngl Delusion, sold the millions of copies it did why? After all, no god was specified, so the title has no meaning (also, given that it was translated into multiple other languages, how did translators translate a meaningless term?)

Yes that was speaking to the God the majority are thinking of. The one all those churches and mosques are devoted to, the one I assumed we all realised we were discussing. Yes, that book was directed almost entirely to the God of mainstream religion and specifies when it does otherwise.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Sure, they assume people realise they are referring to the god most Americans believe in.

It was translated into many other languages such as Dutch, French, Italian, etc.

He is only wrong if you concede that the immaterial doesn't exist - so it would be a victory for atheism anyway.

He's wrong for multiple reasons. However, if it is true that

You can not prove the universal non-existence of an immaterial entity - a god.

then he is wrong because he disagrees. If it isn't true, you are wrong. Non tertium datur.

 

[Bunyip]

Legion

We have conceded the non-existence of immaterial gods, so who is this material god you want to argue for?

 

[Bunyip]

It was translated into many other languages such as Dutch, French, Italian, etc.


He's wrong for multiple reasons. However, if it is true that

then he is wrong because he disagrees. If it isn't true, you are wrong. Non tertium datur.

Yes and in each case it was largely the French, Dutch and Italian believers in the god of Abraham that it was directed towards.
And a moot point as I conceded a number of comments ago and repeated several times to clarify.
Do you have a material god you want to posit?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Yes that was speaking to the God the majority are thinking of.

Which God? You didn't specify.

The one all those churches and mosques are devoted to

One

You keep going back to ALL gods, so sure - I'll do it. Just name the God.

The name of the god all those mosques are devoted to is different from the one all those churches are devoted to.

 

[Bunyip]

Which God? You didn't specify.

You must have missed it - I did so several times specifically; YHWH/Allah - the god of Abraham.

One

The name of the god all those mosques are devoted to is different from the one all those churches are devoted to.

Different name, sure - same God. The god of the Abrahamic tradition. I must admit I am amazed you didn't know that.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

And a moot point as I conceded a number of comments ago and repeated several times to clarify.

What you've done is continuously evade the fact that you have made contradicting claims. You have not clarified how this:

You can not prove the universal non-existence of an immaterial entity - a god.

doesn't apply to any immaterial god, or why you said one can't prove this when Stenger not only says different, but gives a proof.

Do you have a material god you want to posit?

This is about the new atheists, and our opinions of them and the reasons for said opinions. You previously quite clearly stated that it was impossible to do what Stenger claims to have done. You continuously claim to have "clarified" this, but you have yet to actually do so, other than by contradicting what you said while not admitting to a contradiction and further confusing things by both stating that a claim which holds true for all immaterial gods doesn't hold true unless you name the god AND that the god named Yahweh was the same as the god named Allah.

 

[Bunyip]

What you've done is continuously evade the fact that you have made contradicting claims. You have not clarified how this:

doesn't apply to any immaterial god, or why you said one can't prove this when Stenger not only says different, but gives a proof.

It does apply to any immaterial god, I said that several times.

This is about the new atheists, and our opinions of them and the reasons for said opinions. You previously quite clearly stated that it was impossible to do what Stenger claims to have done. You continuously claim to have "clarified" this, but you have yet to actually do so, other than by contradicting what you said while not admitting to a contradiction and further confusing things by both stating that a claim which holds true for all immaterial gods doesn't hold true unless you name the god AND that the god named Yahweh was the same as the god named Allah.

Of course they are the same - Islam, Christianity and Judaeism are the Abrahamic religions, the same god mate. As I said, I'm amazed you didn't know that. Works for all immaterial gods - I said that several times as well.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You must have missed it - I did so several times specifically; YHWH/Allah - the god of Abraham.

The god of Abraham was not the god of the protestants, Catholics, or muslims, as none of these existed. Most Christians believe that Jesus Christ was god, no Muslims or Jews believe this. Is Jesus Christ also included in your exception to the "you have to specify the name of the god" rule?

The god of the Abrahamic tradition. I must admit I am amazed you didn't know that.

It could be because it is quite universally recognized that, although we refer to the Abrahamic religions because we can connect them as dependent upon one another historically, they are in fact different religions. There are a billion or so Catholics who believe that Jesus Christ is god, and no Muslims or Jews who do.

 

[Bunyip]

The god of Abraham was not the god of the protestants, Catholics, or muslims, as none of these existed. Most Christians believe that Jesus Christ was god, no Muslims or Jews believe this. Is Jesus Christ also included in your exception to the "you have to specify the name of the god" rule?

Semantically true, but irrelevant. IT is the God of Abraham regardless. The argument applies to all of those Gods equally anyway - it is irrelevant.

It could be because it is quite universally recognized that, although we refer to the Abrahamic religions because we can connect them as dependent upon one another historically, they are in fact different religions. There are a billion or so Catholics who believe that Jesus Christ is god, and no Muslims or Jews who do.

Sure, they are different religions. The argument applies equally to all of them. So what is your point ?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

It does apply to any immaterial god, I said that several times.

So you admit that this:

You can not prove the universal non-existence of an immaterial entity - a god.

was wrong?

Of course they are the same - Islam, Christianity and Judaeism are the Abrahamic religions

Plural. As in more than one.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So what is your point ?

That either you have implicitly stated Stenger is wrong for having claimed to have proved what can't be proved, or you think he's wrong for believing that immaterial means doesn't exist and to say something is immaterial is the same as saying (i.e., tautologous) they don't exist. Either way, you've stated something that implies Stenger is wrong (unless you are right) and thus I not only have my example, you provided it.