Why Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and the 'New Atheists' Aren't Really Atheists

[Guy Threepwood]

There is a lack of evidence in the proposition it rejects so it is fully reasonable as a position..

Just as can be said for theism, except that it is also able to stand on it's own merits e.g. predictive ability regarding a static v created universe.. as well as rejecting the alternative proposition (atheism) which is not only utterly devoid of evidence, but has had it's core beliefs and predictions repeatedly contradicted

Unless again, you can provide a scrap of positive evidence supporting atheism?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Then I am curious as to what your point is.

That we don't know, whether it was caused by a conscious entity or not. And actually, the possibility of other universes is irrelevant for us. We just need to get past our own Big Bang, which I doubt we ever will.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Just as can be said for theism, except that it is also able to stand on it's own merits e.g. predictive ability regarding a static v created universe.. as well as rejecting the alternative proposition (atheism) which is not only utterly devoid of evidence, but has had it's core beliefs and predictions repeatedly contradicted

Unless again, you can provide a scrap of positive evidence supporting atheism?

False. One is under a default position because of a lack of evidence while the other is a proposition without evidence.

I don't have to provide a single scrap of evidence for "atheism" if there isn't a single scrap of evidence for "theism"

 

[Monk Of Reason]

That we don't know, whether it was caused by a conscious entity or not. And actually, the possibility of other universes is irrelevant for us. We just need to get past our own Big Bang, which I doubt we ever will.

And are you arguing that this is in some way not pragmatic materialism?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

False. One is under a default position because of a lack of evidence while the other is a proposition without evidence.

I don't have to provide a single scrap of evidence for "atheism" if there isn't a single scrap of evidence for "theism"

Then I think that's why most people are so skeptical of atheism, if there was any evidence for it, it would present it on it's own merits as theism has done.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Then I think that's why most people are so skeptical of atheism, if there was any evidence for it, it would present it on it's own merits as theism has done.

Many people are very skeptical of atheism for the exact same reason you are. They don't understand what it even is at the most fundamental level. And what is worse in your case is that you refuse to.

And what has theism presented in its own merits? I have asked you several times and it has gone ignored.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Many people are very skeptical of atheism for the exact same reason you are. They don't understand what it even is at the most fundamental level. And what is worse in your case is that you refuse to.

And what has theism presented in its own merits? I have asked you several times and it has gone ignored.

it's a particular belief system about the origins and nature of the universe, which rejects all other beliefs without offering any arguments for itself.

theism openly offers many arguments regarding it's own power of explanation, predictive ability, logical deduction- because it can offer them, it's not merely a disbelief of the alternative.

I gave you a prime example of it's predictive ability over atheism, the creation of the universe, that's hardly an insignificant prediction, it was validated despite being mocked and rejected by atheists. science v atheism

 

[Monk Of Reason]

it's a particular belief system about the origins and nature of the universe, which rejects all other beliefs without offering any arguments for itself.

This is completely false. Please attempt to expound in how any of the above is true.

theism openly offers many arguments regarding it's own power of explanation, predictive ability, logical deduction- because it can offer them, it's not merely a disbelief of the alternative.

They don't have any examples of this

I gave you a prime example of it's predictive ability over atheism, the creation of the universe, that's hardly an insignificant prediction, it was validated despite being mocked and rejected by atheists. science v atheism

It was an insignificant prediction. So much so that the author him self said that it was not evidence for god and people needed to quit acting like it was. We also don't know if it was a creation event at all.

Also the "theories" that you tout as "atheistic" isn't actually atheistic at all. They were scientific theories. They were wrong. And that is fine. It wasn't based off of atheism and in reality Lemaitre's work wasn't based on his belief in god.

 

[LuisDantas]

What is skepticism of atheism? Is it at all different from simply not being atheistic, i.e. being theistic, deistic or something else?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

What is skepticism of atheism? Is it at all different from simply not being atheistic, i.e. being theistic, deistic or something else?

Its nonsensical really. Atheism isn't a positive claim in most cases. He is literally saying "I am skeptical of skepticism".

 

[Guy Threepwood]

This is completely false. Please attempt to expound in how any of the above is true.

They don't have any examples of this

It was an insignificant prediction. So much so that the author him self said that it was not evidence for god and people needed to quit acting like it was. We also don't know if it was a creation event at all.

Also the "theories" that you tout as "atheistic" isn't actually atheistic at all. They were scientific theories. They were wrong. And that is fine. It wasn't based off of atheism and in reality Lemaitre's work wasn't based on his belief in god.

back we go, you'd have to argue that with the self described atheists who came up with the explicitly atheist theories which they claimed made God redundant, as opposed to Lemaitre's which they rejected specifically because it clashed with their atheist beliefs.

We agree Lemaitre took the higher scientific road, he separated his belief from his work because he could- he didn't claim his beliefs were 'default' explanations as some atheists do.

How do you separate your beliefs when you don't even admit having them?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Its nonsensical really. Atheism isn't a positive claim in most cases. He is literally saying "I am skeptical of skepticism".

Then you are also skeptical of my skepticism of atheism, still works both ways Monk, we both know what we believe and what we don't, no matter the semantics

 

[LuisDantas]

Then you are also skeptical of my skepticism of atheism, still works both ways Monk, we both know what we believe and what we don't, no matter the semantics

Asymmetry is asymmetry. Being set on saying that it is not so does not make it so.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

back we go, you'd have to argue that with the self described atheists who came up with the explicitly atheist theories which they claimed made God redundant, as opposed to Lemaitre's which they rejected specifically because it clashed with their atheist beliefs.

No where in their scientific achievements did they say that they made god redundant or that they did it so they could prove god was redundant.

They have said later in their own remarks that they believe in their personal opinion that it makes god redundant. But it has nothing to do with the science itself.

We agree Lemaitre took the higher scientific road, he separated his belief from his work because he could- he didn't claim his beliefs were 'default' explanations as some atheists do.

I would only ever assume that as far as science is concerned he was a pragmatic materialist. His position on the scientific high road is not an uncommon one.

How do you separate your beliefs when you don't even admit having them?

By dealing with facts and explanations when dealing with science and then expressing your beliefs and personal opinions on your own time. Pretty simple. I admit I have beliefs. I don't admit that your claims about my beliefs are correct or accurate.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Then you are also skeptical of my skepticism of atheism, still works both ways Monk, we both know what we believe and what we don't, no matter the semantics

No. I believe you to not know what you are talking about when you say "atheism". You act as if it was a dogma of some kind. When it has no dogmatic principles or tenants. It by logic, cannot be dogmatic. Yet you claim ti does. You claim scientists were doing things int he name of atheism or worse that the whole "science" is somehow atheistic and keeping religion down. None of which is true.

Pragmatic Materialism is atheistic in nature because there is not physical evidence to suggest that god exists or even had a roll in any of this. The only time you have been able to interject god has been in total unknowns such as the cause of the big bang. But this is nothing new. It is simply called "god of the gaps".

 

[Willamena]

So the fact that far more fail to believe in atheism, by your argument, means there is far more evidence for God!

That makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[LuisDantas]

back we go, you'd have to argue that with the self described atheists who came up with the explicitly atheist theories which they claimed made God redundant, as opposed to Lemaitre's which they rejected specifically because it clashed with their atheist beliefs.

We agree Lemaitre took the higher scientific road, he separated his belief from his work because he could- he didn't claim his beliefs were 'default' explanations as some atheists do.

How do you separate your beliefs when you don't even admit having them?

You should write fiction.

A self described atheist is an atheist, unless he is somehow lying about his disbelief.

An explicitly atheist theory would be one that takes the trouble to say that it does not believe in deities. That would be cute, but unlikely to happen and change nothing. All theories are implicitly atheistic simply because they do not rely on god beliefs.

"Theories that made God redundant"... have you written that part already? I'm excited to read about that world where atheists have such nifty powers. How would such a fictional world be exactly?

And this conspiracy about rejecting non-atheist beliefs just because... am I supposed to take that seriously?

 

[Willamena]

Out of curiosity, is there any evidence at all that it is correct?

Atheism isn't "there is no god," it is "there are people who don't believe in god."

 

[tiki]

No, it shows a patch of radiation had a beginning. The universe is a lot bigger than that.

Mostly scientists say it has a beginning because big bang and such.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Atheism isn't "there is no god," it is "there are people who don't believe in god."

And I don't believe in atheism.... but I'm willing to acknowledge and able to defend what I do believe in, why don't atheists?