• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

New Atheists?

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Funny, I see a lot angry atheists. Not several, many. All the time. Pretending to be scholars of a religion, spreading lies, arguing with no knowledge whatsoever, and making things up like 'oh your religion wants to burn my children' with no analysis at the level of a sophomore.

Did I respond with your same standards?

Please name them because i for one don't believe that is a true statement. You can, if you are too embarrassed, pm me your list. Then we can ask them whether that is a true statement or not
 
Last edited:
I have just had an exchange with an atheist, who treat it like a fact, that religion is a crutch.

Religion is a crutch. The problem is not that many atheists see religion as a crutch, it's that they are ignorant of the fact their own ideology is also a crutch.

What is the value of a belief system if not to make the world seem better?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Religion is a crutch. The problem is not that many atheists see religion as a crutch, it's that they are ignorant of the fact their own ideology is also a crutch.

What is the value of a belief system if not to make the world seem better?
Atheism doesn't make the world seem better or otherwise to me.
It's simply a compelling state of mind.
A "crutch"?
Nah.
It offers me nothing.
 
Last edited:

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
Of course there are types of atheist, hence I can use the term New Atheist and most people here know what I am talking about.
Question begging.
The issue is whether the term "New Atheist" is justified, so you can't use the term as evidence of "types of atheist". In reality, a "New Atheist" is just an atheist. Whether an atheist keeps their atheism to themselves, or shouts it from the rooftops, the principle is exactly the same. A rejection of the existence of gods. They do not believe different things.

Types of atheist are defined by the other beliefs they hold, and, whether you like it or not, that's just the way language works.
So not to do with their atheism.
Obviously atheists can differ widely. An atheist can follow any ideology, as long as it doesn't involve belief in gods - but this does not define or affect their atheism.
A Tory atheist and a Labour atheists are the same "atheist", but they have different political beliefs.

"New Atheists" are generally completely ignorant of religious history. Not my fault you aren't aware of it.
:tearsofjoy:
Of course they are.

You asked for evidence re Sam Harris which I provided.
I have not mentioned Harris.

You seem quite upset about these "New Atheists". Did your girlfriend run off with one, or something?
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
Their choice, however, clearly indicates that science and religion need not be mutually exclusive.
A religious scientist can do reputable and credible work, but they have to set all religious ideas aside. This is why the biologist Behe lost his credibility with his constant insistence that Intelligent Design was a real phenomenon. He admitted under oath in the Dover, PA lawsuit that ID isn't science.

Indeed, Indian physicists must sometimes wonder how it is that science took several millennia to arrive at certain revelations already known to the writers of the Upanishads and the Gita; that everything is connected, that the material world is elusive and insubstantial, that time and space are not what they seem to us.
Different cultures had different insights. Did you know the arch was known to be an architectural success in the Roman Empire, but in Asia it was never discovered and used?

If there is some divine influence, as you are certainly suggesting (without any evidence) we would see it consistent as humans developed civilizations. We don't. We see how cultures had their own discoveries and insights, and as they progressed they built on these discoveries. No magic involved.

If you read quantum physicist Carlo Rovelli’s Helgoland, in which he expounds for the layman, the relational interpretation of QM, you’ll find a chapter on 1st century Indian monk Nagarjuna. Erwin Schrodinger had a lifetime interest in Vedic scripture. So it does not surprise me to learn that many Indian scientists are theistic.
An ancient guy was on to something. It's an anomaly. How did the ancient guy make use of the idea to benefit humanity? It didn't. If he discovered micro-organisms and sanitary methods through divine seeing, not that would have saved lives. It didn't happen. Not until the 19th century and the microscope was invented. God didn't have to create micro-organisms, did it? Since it did, why not a heads up to primitive people about them?

Let me guess, God's subtle 5,000 year long lesson for humans to learn to wash their hands before dinner. Or maybe there is some obscure Bible reference to the "unseen" and that must be referring to micro-organisms.

This is what we atheists deal with in debate.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Ah, you mean "A specific movement with an agenda may have a doctrine, and the members of that movement may be atheists", not "Atheism has a doctrine".
Atheism does not have a doctrine. If you believe it has, perhaps you can present it, along with the texts where this doctrine is laid out.

Hope this helped.
It's like saying the doctrine of not collecting stamps, then citing someone who said something, who also doesn't happen to collect stamps, of course you might find a few people who agree broadly on a few topics, and they also happen not to collect stamps, that doesn't mean the things they agree on represent a doctrine for people who don't collect stamps.

It's perhaps understandable, but theists view atheism as an important decision, but atheists I have read and spoken to generally don't, I only disbelieve in one more deity than most theists after all. If theism didn't come with some pernicious beliefs and ideas, and theists never tried to claim to know what a deity wants from us, I seriously doubt I'd ever mention my lack of belief.
 
Last edited:

F1fan

Veteran Member
Indeed. Critical thinking gave us the iPhone (and the H-bomb). Magical thinking gave us Milton, Blake, Keats and Shelley. It’s not a matter or either/or, unless we choose to impose such limited horizons on ourselves.
Magical meaning creative, not necessarily religious, yes?

Similarly, science can tell us much about how the universe works; but it cannot tell us why, in the words of Stephen Hawking, “it went to all the bother of existing in the first place”.
And science is honest about not answering "why". It doesn't create an answer and sell it as truth. It informs us about how things are.

But let's note, science does take a lot of creativity. This is how advances are made. It's just that the ideas have to be tested and verified FIRST.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
*collection of books. But yeah, similar principle. A rebranding exercise

I've read Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens's books, I can't say I noticed atheism being rebranded, I mean it's a pretty simple concept to disbelieve something, they may have voiced some of their own ideas and even beliefs on theism, so what?
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Indeed. Critical thinking gave us the iPhone (and the H-bomb). Magical thinking gave us Milton, Blake, Keats and Shelley.

Yo, s'up? Oh you mean the poet Shelley, as you were.

It’s not a matter or either/or, unless we choose to impose such limited horizons on ourselves.

I don't believe poetry or great literature requires magic, other than in a very laboured metaphor. Nor have I ever seen a so called new atheist suggest we have to choose between scientific technology and literature?

Similarly, science can tell us much about how the universe works; but it cannot tell us why, in the words of Stephen Hawking, “it went to all the bother of existing in the first place”.

Tucking the why all the way back there was clever, kudos, but it remains a begging the question fallacy, since we don't know there is a why. Of course Stephen Hawking was also an atheist, so it's unlikely he intended the question to mean what you seem to be implying here. You should also stick a yet in there, as you can't know what science may help us understand in the future.
 
The issue is whether the term "New Atheist" is justified, so you can't use the term as evidence of "types of atheist". In reality, a "New Atheist" is just an atheist. Whether an atheist keeps their atheism to themselves, or shouts it from the rooftops, the principle is exactly the same. A rejection of the existence of gods. They do not believe different things.

The term is justified if it points to something meaningful and people can use it to convey information. Your post illustrates you haven't worked out what it is pointing to.

It may be beyond your grasp, but others manage to use it just fine in this manner.

As I said, don't qualify the term and people complain, qualify the term and they still complain.

I have not mentioned Harris.

:handpointdown:

Feel free to cite some of Dawkins', Dennett's, Harris' or Hitchens' "historical illiteracy".

From about 22.20 for 3 or so minutes Sam Harris is certainly terribly wrong about history.

Christianity lead to the downfall of the Roman Empire and ushered in the Dark Ages.

Classical knowledge was only preserved in the Islamic world

The church, which was opposed to science, refused to look through Galileo's telescope to confirm he was right

etc.


You don't actually think he is right do you?

:tearsofjoy:
Of course they are.

Yes, in the above video Sam Harris is totally in line with scholarly consensus :facepalm:

You never see New Atheist types parroting Conflict Thesis nonsense either. They are all massively knowledgeable and completely rational because they say they are rational sceptics.

You seem quite upset about these "New Atheists". Did your girlfriend run off with one, or something?

Odd comment.

They are more comical than upsetting...
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Religion is a crutch. The problem is not that many atheists see religion as a crutch, it's that they are ignorant of the fact their own ideology is also a crutch.

What is the value of a belief system if not to make the world seem better?


Belief system? I know of course I have a belief system, and that it is necessarily atheistic, but atheism is not itself a belief system. I also don't understand the last sentence sorry, didn't you just accept that atheism is not an ideology, or am I misunderstanding?

I'd also argue that one can pursue the truth for it's own sake, it doesn't have to make you feel better at all. I'd like to think I care more whether what I believe is true, than how it makes me feel. Though of course entirely eradicating subjective bias is impossible, but one can strive to be as objective as possible. Species evolution is not a cheerful idea, I don't accept it because it makes me feel better, you'd need to be slightly insane.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Whether you have a religious worldview or an irreligious one, you still hold to an ideology to make sense of the world.

I agree, but the way you worded it might have been misread as implying atheism is an ideology. I wasn't sure, but yes I have an ideology, as do we all, though I doubt I could label it, and yes it encompasses my atheism, as it would have to.
 
Ah, you mean "A specific movement with an agenda may have a doctrine, and the members of that movement may be atheists", not "Atheism has a doctrine".
Atheism does not have a doctrine. If you believe it has, perhaps you can present it, along with the texts where this doctrine is laid out.

If only someone had coined a term that referred to a specific movement comprised of atheists promoting a certain ideological outlook with the express purpose of differentiating their views from simple atheism... ;)
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
Since everyone can only see it the way you do? I don't think the myopia is his to be honest. I just think you have a very different idea of what represents scientism than I do.


Probably. Perhaps we could agree on the definition given by the OP in the Scientism on Wikipedia thread. But that still wouldn’t get us anywhere, because the apologists for dogmatic hardline atheism would claim nothing fitted the description. Isn’t that a No True Scotsman fallacy? I know how you love to claim “fallacy”.

So probably best to let it go. Won’t be long though, you can bet, before yet another atheist declares religion dead and “Science” the victor, in a combat that never happened.

Incidentally, I am aware that a lot of the antipathy towards religion from some quarters, is down to creationism vs evolution. For the record, I think creationists are deluded (though the universe does appear to have a had a moment of creation, 14 billion years ago).
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Their choice, however, clearly indicates that science and religion need not be mutually exclusive. Indeed, Indian physicists must sometimes wonder how it is that science took several millennia to arrive at certain revelations already known to the writers of the Upanishads and the Gita; that everything is connected, that the material world is elusive and insubstantial, that time and space are not what they seem to us.

If you read quantum physicist Carlo Rovelli’s Helgoland, in which he expounds for the layman, the relational interpretation of QM, you’ll find a chapter on 1st century Indian monk Nagarjuna. Erwin Schrodinger had a lifetime interest in Vedic scripture. So it does not surprise me to learn that many Indian scientists are theistic.

If I were to quote a line like “who picks a flower on earth, moves the farthest star”, you might think that was written by a Hindu, Buddhist or Sufi poet. In fact, it was physicist Paul Dirac. And so it goes on; the mysterious improbability of our very existence borders on the miraculous, which is one reason why, though they may not be religious at all, scientists like Niels Bohr, Einstein, Dirac, Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking etc, cannot avoid talking about God. Like atheists, they bring His name into conversations all the time.
To believe in God, soul, heaven, hell, end of days, judgement, resurrection, reincarnation, deliverance, etc.; a scientist will have to make huge compromises. There are no revelations in Hinduism, Upanishads or Gita, and there has been none to 'reveal' anything. This is a monotheist/Abrahamic thing. Sure, Hindu/Buddhist analysis of things and philosophy is second to none. Sure, I too talk about impossibility of any God/Goddess or soul to exist. Discussions are interesting. However, I am not one to be impressed by mention of names. Buddha said in 'Kesamutti Sutta' that one should think for his/herself.
 
Belief system? I know of course I have a belief system, and that it is necessarily atheistic, but atheism is not itself a belief system. I also don't understand the last sentence sorry, didn't you just accept that atheism is not an ideology, or am I misunderstanding?

You can have a religious ideology or an irreligious one. Replacing a religious ideology with an irreligious one is still a crutch.

And there is nothing wrong with that. Or ability to change the world through stories is perhaps the defining human trait.

I'd also argue that one can pursue the truth for it's own sake, it doesn't have to make you feel better at all. I'd like to think I care more whether what I believe is true, than how it makes me feel. Though of course entirely eradicating subjective bias is impossible, but one can strive to be as objective as possible. Species evolution is not a cheerful idea, I don't accept it because it makes me feel better, you'd need to be slightly insane.

People can try, yes, but they construct narratives to make the world more palatable.

They might talk about a responsibility to future generations, or that being 'less wrong' is important and noble, or that they are more virtuous than the greedy billionaire who exploits people to further their own aims or whatever else gets them through the night.

These are not in any way 'true' though, they are just things we tell ourselves to feel better.
 
Top