Are "New Atheists" Too Obsessed With Religion?

[LegionOnomaMoi]

If you re-post a brief summary I will read it. I scanned it, but no relevance to the discussion in hand was apparent.

You asked an off-topic question that I answered, and followed up with another one that I also answered. The second question can barely be addressed by a separate thread, let alone a single post. Certainly, I cannot but touch upon some example summaries of cliff notes of the relevant issues and arguments in a single post.

 

[Bunyip]

You asked an off-topic question that I answered, and followed up with another one that I also answered. The second question can barely be addressed by a separate thread, let alone a single post. Certainly, I cannot but touch upon some example summaries of cliff notes of the relevant issues and arguments in a single post.

They are irrelevant anyway. Of course the NA have no new arguments, there is no new evidence. Of course it is not as intellectually interesting as counter apologetics was centuries ago - the arguments they are obliged to address were demolished before they were even born.
The criticisms of the NA you post are frankly laughable - you accuse them of a lack of intellectual vigour, and yet appear to forget that they have no arguments to apply such vigour to. Yes much of what they are doing is simply pointing out the obvious - immaterial beings are non-existent beings for example, but they are popularising these simple and obvious truths with astonishing success. The NA were and are a publishing sensation - you keep posting nonsense about how most intelligent atheists are distancing themselves from them, which I find to be hilarious. Sure they sold countless millions of books, got an incomparable amount of publicity across the world and influenced an entire generation - but they are failures because they have no new arguments and are so nasty that most atheists don't want to associate with them? ROLFMAO

Your entire argument against them is nothing short of a busload of sour grapes from offended believers.

 

[Willamena]

Wouldn't any meaningful challenge to atheism new or old have to begin with a posited God to be an atheist in relation to?

The challenge to atheism does not begin with a posit of god, but a posit of no god.

 

[Bunyip]

The challenge to atheism does not begin with a posit of god, but a posit of no god.

So nothing then?

 

[Willamena]

So nothing then?

What do you mean?

 

[Bunyip]

What do you mean?

Well shifting the burden of proof is hardly a challenge. Nor is confusing atheism for some kind of knowledge claim. That sort of blunt misconception was thoroughly dismissed centuries ago.

 

[Willamena]

Well shifting the burden of proof is hardly a challenge. Nor is confusing atheism for some kind of knowledge claim. That sort of blunt misconception was thoroughly dismissed centuries ago.

No shifting of burden of proof necessary, nor confusing atheism with nothing.

 

[Bunyip]

No shifting of burden of proof necessary, nor confusing atheism with nothing.

Like I said, there is nothing to challenge there other than your misunderstanding of basic logic.

 

[Willamena]

Like I said, there is nothing to challenge there other than your misunderstanding of basic logic.

So you're saying there are no people that deny god?

I object, being one of them.

 

[Bunyip]

So you're saying there are no people that deny god?

I object, being one of them.

No, I said nothing of the sort. Please re-read my comments.

 

[Willamena]

No, I said nothing of the sort. Please re-read my comments.

You said that a posit of no god is nothing. Did I read you wrong?

 

[Bunyip]

You said that a posit of no god is nothing. Did I read you wrong?

Clearly yes. I did not say that.

 

[Willamena]

Clearly yes. I did not say that.

Then I clearly missed what you meant by post #544 and #546. What did you mean?

 

[Bunyip]

Then I clearly missed what you meant by post #544 and #546. What did you mean?

I meant that confusing atheism for the 'posit of no god' as you put it is hardly a challenge to NA.

 

[Willamena]

I meant that confusing atheism for the 'posit of no god' as you put it is hardly a challenge to NA.

Of course it's no challenge to "Not Applicable." I wouldn't expect it to be.

 

[Bunyip]

Of course it's no challenge to "Not Applicable." I wouldn't expect it to be.

The way you simply pretend not to understand like that makes discussion with you incredibly boring and pointless. Sorry, i'll ignore your comments from now on.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

They are irrelevant anyway. Of course the NA have no new arguments, there is no new evidence.

The new atheists are new evidence, in particular a way for the cognitive and evolutionary study of religion as natural because they show that the new atheism is close enough to a religion to conform to the cognitive and evolutionary accounts of religion. I've attached/uploaded one such study for you.

As for the rest, I am willing to discuss arguments like the fine-tuning argument, but I am not going to present the argument myself just to have you either ignore most of what I state, claim it is not true without evidence, or otherwise dismiss without addressing what I state, particularly as if I present this argument I'm presenting an argument I don't find convincing either (and I'm not going to do that just to be ignored, dismissed, and/or told I'm wrong without evidence about some point relating to cosmology, particle physics, etc.).

the arguments they are obliged to address were demolished before they were even born.

Feel free also to present the arguments presented by the founders of the new atheists in relation to apologetics or apologetic arguments too.

The criticisms of the NA you post are frankly laughable

Feel free to present these and show how they are.

Feel free to present anything such that I don't find myself presenting arguments for no reason.

 

[Bunyip]

The new atheists are new evidence, in particular a way for the cognitive and evolutionary study of religion as natural because they show that the new atheism is close enough to a religion to conform to the cognitive and evolutionary accounts of religion. I've attached/uploaded one such study for you.

Sorry, mate - that objection makes no sense at all. No they are not new evidence, they are a small group of popular authors. If you are comparing NA to a religion, you are comparing the incomparable.

As for the rest, I am willing to discuss arguments like the fine-tuning argument, but I am not going to present the argument myself just to have you either ignore most of what I state, claim it is not true without evidence, or otherwise dismiss without addressing what I state, particularly as if I present this argument I'm presenting an argument I don't find convincing either (and I'm not going to do that just to be ignored, dismissed, and/or told I'm wrong about some point relating to cosmology, particle physics, etc.).

I agree, the fine tuning nonsense is not worth discussing - it is a long dead fallacy. Same with that ancient nonsense - the kalam. The argument I did give, and Stenger gave you ignored.

Feel free also to present the arguments presented by the founders of the new atheists in relation to apologetics or apologetic arguments too.

To what end?

Feel free to present these and show how they are.

Feel free to present anything such that I don't find myself presenting arguments for no reason.

I did specify, several times.
I also gave a disproof, one that is essentially the same as part of Stengers - but you have utterly ignored it.

 

[Bunyip]

Legion

Do you have any examples of immaterial beings that are known to exist? Then at least there is some kind of precedent for comparison.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Sorry, mate - that objection makes no sense at all.

I wasn't objecting. I have never been involved in a study on the scientific religion, so if atheists presented a problem for the mainstream/accepted theory I wouldn't affect me. I was just pointing out that they are evidence themselves as I find this interesting and providing you with a sample study of how this is so.

No they are not new evidence, they are a small group of popular authors.

So you've said. That's not an argument, and is why I am not going to present arguments as I have done just so you can dismiss them without evidence, as you just did.

If you are comparing NA to a religion, you are comparing the incomparable.

I am merely reporting the science. If you have objections with that or other similar research, you can present them here if you wish, but simply dismissing the literature without being aware of what it contains is the very reason I am not going to get drawn into a debate in which I present arguments and you do what you just did. In this thread, you repeatedly stated things about the new atheist that were not in fact true, you never once presented an actual argument from them I had to present their arguments and then critique them only only to have you "clarify" your position to align with what I presented theirs to be.

I agree, the fine tuning nonsense is not worth discussing

Oh it's worth discussing. Were it not, it wouldn't be considered a problem in general for physicists.