Myths of the New Atheism

[ChristineM]

Who told you that abstractions aren't realities???? That is YOUR error. Materialism is a big mista. ke. 3x2=6 is an abstraction and a reaity, both. Saying I have three plants with two flowers each, meaning six flowers in all, is merely an application of 3x2=6. It is not the equation in its pure form.

You are merging different disciplines of maths to suite your own belief. I see the same tactic in reverse with your subdivisions of atheism claim. Not my problem if you dont understand them.

Applied maths deals with physical reality
Pure maths deals with abstract concepts.

 

[Yerda]

Dawkins does not consider himself atheist so your accusation falls over at the first name. And if, as you claim, you are familiar with his debates you would know this

He most certainly does.

 

[ChristineM]

He most certainly does.

By his own mouth he cannot be sure god exists making him at most an agnostic

In a debate with the archbishop of Canterbury held at oxford university he state that that he preferred to call himself an agnostic rather than an atheist.

 

[Yerda]

By his own mouth he cannot be sure god exists making him at most an agnostic

In a debate with the archbishop of Canterbury held at oxford university he state that that he preferred to call himself an agnostic rather than an atheist.

I've heard him refer to himself as an atheist at least a dozen times over the years. He argues constantly for atheism.

Militant atheism

 

[Augustus]

By his own mouth he cannot be sure god exists making him at most an agnostic

In a debate with the archbishop of Canterbury held at oxford university he state that that he preferred to call himself an agnostic rather than an atheist.

"I'm Richard Dawkins. I've been an atheist since I was a child..."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sure, but if you subdivide that small, it is not helpful.

Whether you find something helpful has no bearing on whether it's correct.

However, I agree that it isn't useful to try to categorize atheists. It gets a bit ridiculous: "he's the sort of atheist who always wears a Mets hat." "She's the sort of atheist who has conservative politics." "He's the sort of atheist who thinks Christians are bonkers and prefers dogs to cats."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

By his own mouth he cannot be sure god exists making him at most an agnostic

In a debate with the archbishop of Canterbury held at oxford university he state that that he preferred to call himself an agnostic rather than an atheist.

"Atheist" and "agnostic" aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[ChristineM]

I've heard him refer to himself as an atheist at least a dozen times over the years. He argues constantly for atheism.

Militant atheism

Are you saying he is not entitled to review his beliefs?

 

[Augustus]

Whether you find something helpful has no bearing on whether it's correct.

However, I agree that it isn't useful to try to categorize atheists. It gets a bit ridiculous: "he's the sort of atheist who always wears a Mets hat." "She's the sort of atheist who has conservative politics." "He's the sort of atheist who thinks Christians are bonkers and prefers dogs to cats."

Atheists follow various atheistic ideologies. Why would it not be meaningful to discuss atheistic ideologies?

Personally I find it quite useful to be able to differentiate between New Atheism, Marxism, Secular Humanism, etc. and I'm sure you do to.

 

[ChristineM]

"Atheist" and "agnostic" aren't mutually exclusive.

The definitions of each are specific.

Dawkins prefers to call himself agnostic, who am i or anyone else to contradict his views?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The definitions of each are specific.

Dawkins prefers to call himself agnostic, who am i or anyone else to contradict his views?

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins

 

[ChristineM]

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins

Yup.

And

Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yup.

And

Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist

"I can't be sure God does not exist" <> "I am not an atheist."

 

[Yerda]

Are you saying he is not entitled to review his beliefs?

I wish he would!

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The definition is clear, what are you not understanding about it?

If you want to subdivide thats up to you.

So you are basing your view on one atheist? That explains much.

And please dont insult me with your ignorance. I am not a part of your confirmation bias. That is yours and yours alone.

Christine, I bear you no ill will. But clearly there is a great divide in the substance of our thought. You don't even understand what I'm saying. So let's not waste any more of each other's time. I wish you all the very best.

 

[ChristineM]

"I can't be sure God does not exist" <> "I am not an atheist."

Atheist : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

"Can't be sure" does not meet those 2 criteria.

Also, read the article, not just the headline.

"He told the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, that he preferred to call himself an agnostic rather than an atheist."

 

[ChristineM]

I wish he would!

He has.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You are merging different disciplines of maths to suite your own belief. I see the same tactic in reverse with your subdivisions of atheism claim. Not my problem if you dont understand them.

Applied maths deals with physical reality
Pure maths deals with abstract concepts.

Right. Applied math is APPLIED math, not math. Your taking the tool and using it. It's not the same as the tool itself.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Atheist : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

"Can't be sure" does not meet those 2 criteria.

Actually, "can't be sure" overlaps with both.

Also, read the article, not just the headline.

The effort I expend in replying to a post is generally proportional to the effort that was put into the post I'm replying to.

It takes almost no effort to copy-paste a URL. You doing this doesn't create any obligation for me to read the whole article and read your mind to decide which parts you though supported what you're saying. You're more than capable of quoting an article yourself to support your own argument.

"He told the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, that he preferred to call himself an agnostic rather than an atheist."

I'd be interested to hear an actual quote instead of a paraphrase. I have sneaking suspicion he might have said something like "while I am an atheist, I prefer to call myself an agnostic.

 

[ChristineM]

Christine, I bear you no ill will. But clearly there is a great divide in the substance of our thought. You don't even understand what I'm saying. So let's not waste any more of each other's time. I wish you all the very best.

No ill will but you insult me
You cannot explain why you believe you are more credible than the definition.
But ok, if thats how you want to leave it.