Myths of the New Atheism

[`mud]

Ahhh...the fear of `God` not being there !
Now that has to be perplexing !

 

[Truly Enlightened]

The 'New Atheism' is a movement started by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett. They have made a crusade out of protesting religion, in efforts to establish Scientific reason at the forefront of society. They debate religion regularly and have written very popular books speaking out against the evils of religion.

Wouldn't that just make them "New Atheists", or are they changing the meaning of Atheism itself? The "Old Atheists" generally kept their lack of belief in the background, or to themselves. These "New Atheists" only put their belief in the foreground, and encourage people to question the rationale behind their beliefs. They also provide a support outlet for those emotionally crippled by being an Atheists.

 

[Yerda]

It depends on the parameters within the "mental stuff". Mathematics is a description. 2 + 2 = 4 is true because it is true within the material world. In my dream world that doesn't actually exist it could be something else entierly.

I'm not so sure. We don't see numbers themselves anywhere in the material world. Likewise we don't see true right angled triangles. Yet we do believe Pythagoras' theorem is true (and we can prove that it is).

It seems more likely to me that 2+2=4 is true in the material world because it is true in any world where the symbols have the meaning we agree they have.

 

[Drunk_Uncle_Bob]

I'm not so sure. We don't see numbers themselves anywhere in the material world. Likewise we don't see true right angled triangles. Yet we do believe Pythagoras' theorem is true (and we can prove that it is).

It seems more likely to me that 2+2=4 is true in the material world because it is true in any world where the symbols have the meaning we agree they have.

We do have right angles. We see any "number" of things. Math is just models to help us quantify what exists. The fact we can do hypothetical with the math doesn't mean that it is free from the material but that the material is consistent with itself.

How does something "exist" outside of the material? That is a separate question I had while thinking about this discussion. Everything we have ever known is material. Our thoughts are part of materialism. Our concepts are part of materialism. We have seen claims of things that are non-material but I haven't actually seen any with evidence of existence. Math is an example you have used that I disagree with because materialism uses math with no contradiction.

 

[`mud]

Chalk on a blackboard is like gnats in the air, hard to catch them.
And especially difficult to understand them, even with materialism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Wouldn't that just make them "New Atheists", or are they changing the meaning of Atheism itself? The "Old Atheists" generally kept their lack of belief in the background, or to themselves.

It seens to me that the "New Atheists" are nothing compared to the "Old Agnostics." All the theists who clutch their pearls at things Richard Dawkins says should really try Googling what T.H. Huxley, Robert Ingersoll, and Bertrand Russell had to say about Christianity and belief in God.