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

[LuisDantas]

More shooting fish in a barrel, attacking the biblical God. He also says he can't speak for all atheists. Atheists typically, if they have any integrity at all, back down from hard atheism when trying to discuss the possibility of deism. And again, the core question is not whether God exists, but rather how the universe could have come to be.

You are lying through this whole reply. Is it intentional?

 

[Awkward Fingers]

You are lying through this whole reply. Is it intentional?

I think we passed the point where it even COULD be accidental awhile ago.

 

[Willamena]

You are lying through this whole reply. Is it intentional?

Excellent debate technique!

 

[Willamena]

And again, the core question is not whether God exists, but rather how the universe could have come to be.

Why would that be the core question? There are people who believe the universe may have always been.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

That may be a core question for cosmologists - but it is irrelevant to atheism.

Do you speak for all atheists, your phone must be ringing off the hook. The question of God is irrelevant? Show me a definition of atheism that doesn't use the word God or some equivalent.

You are lying through this whole reply. Is it intentional?

Are you going to ask me if I've stopped beating my wife next?

Excellent debate technique!

What she said.

Why would that be the core question? There are people who believe the universe may have always been.

Yeah they used to, until they found the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation and a lot of other evidence that shows the universe had a beginning. The fundamentalist atheists and the fundamentalist theists haven't been able to figure out exactly what to do with that, but it looks like they decided to just disagree with everybody. But hey, it keeps em busy. I talk to em for a while and then just sort of tip toe outta the room.

 

[LuisDantas]

Are you going to ask me if I've stopped beating my wife next?

Perhaps, if I see evidence that you started.

I doubt you wil believe me, but that is just how things flowed. I saw you doing the deed, I asked why you did. It was not planned.

It was just the logical, the necessary question to ask. I am genuinely curious whether you realize that you lied.

Do you?

 

[Bunyip]

Do you speak for all atheists, your phone must be ringing off the hook. The question of God is irrelevant? Show me a definition of atheism that doesn't use the word God or some equivalent.

No, you need to show me a definition of atheism that refer d to the origin of the universe. Good luck with that.

Are you going to ask me if I've stopped beating my wife next?



What she said.



Yeah they used to, until they found the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation and a lot of other evidence that shows the universe had a beginning. The fundamentalist atheists and the fundamentalist theists haven't been able to figure out exactly what to do with that, but it looks like they decided to just disagree with everybody. But hey, it keeps em busy. I talk to em for a while and then just sort of tip toe outta the room.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

And again, the core question is not whether God exists, but rather how the universe could have come to be.

Ironic that you suggested Bunyip couldn't speak for atheists then follow up by speaking for everyone.

1) allowance for deism, something I do, doesnt turn the 'issue' into a 50/50, nor into a 2 horse race.

2) deism doesnt concern me for the same reasons i see it as possible. It lacks the man-made hallmarks and impact. For you, the question might be 'how was the universe created' but I assure you that's not the case for me. My focus, religiously speaking is on what decisions and actions we should take based on a higher power.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Do you speak for all atheists, your phone must be ringing off the hook. The question of God is irrelevant? Show me a definition of atheism that doesn't use the word God or some equivalent.

That's not what he was responding to. He was responding to your statement:

"And again, the core question is not whether God exists, but rather how the universe could have come to be."

Note that you didn't mention the word "God". The question of how the Universe came to be is irrelevant to atheism, because the origin of the Universe isn't necessarily a theistic question. Regardless of exactly how the Universe started, all that matters to atheism is whether or not there is a God that did it. As Bunyip rightly said, the question of the origin of the Universe is a core problem for cosmologists, not atheists, and at no point does he claim to speak for all atheists. Please refrain from such red herrings in future.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

"Atheist scientists are finally beginning to admit that deism can't logically be ruled out"--.

After static, eternal, steady state, Big crunch, being debunked, the alternatives are getting pretty thin. Increasingly many atheist scientists are beginning to accept intelligent design as feasible- 'alien' creators etc- as long as they don't have to call it God of course!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You can be an atheist and remain open to changing your mind if you see convincing evidence. God could come down from the sky and telepathically communicate his message to every human being on earth at the same time.. There could be a mass rapture-like event where non-believers are punished and believers are taken to heaven. if something like that happens I wlll have to stop being an atheist because of new evidence.

Atheism is not ruling out every possibility of a god existing; you are an atheist when you are unconvinced by traditional arguments for God's existence. You say "I don't believe God exists," not "I believe no God exists."

See: Russel's Teapot.

I am unconvinced by arguments for atheism, So the alternative can be assumed true until more evidence for atheism appears!

It works just as well both ways,- that is to say not very well.. framing your belief as a disbelief of the alternative, only attempts to shift burden of proof, it doesn't change your belief or make it any more plausible.

Theists don't do this because they don't have to, they can defend their own beliefs on their own merits.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I am unconvinced by arguments for atheism, So the alternative can be assumed true until more evidence for atheism appears!

It works just as well both ways,- that is to say not very well.. framing your belief as a disbelief of the alternative, only attempts to shift burden of proof, it doesn't change your belief or make it any more plausible.

Theists don't do this because they don't have to, they can defend their own beliefs on their own merits.

It doesn't work both ways. Logically it doesn't. I don't have to assume anything to take an atheist worldview from a scientific point. In fact that is called pragmatic materialism. We can only assume what we have evidence for. There is no evidence for a god created universe so we will continue to function as if it was not until then.

In your proposition you take on the assumption of god as truth and then work backwards until evidence of an atheist universe (which doesn't actually make sense. what would an "atheist" universe look like to you?). That is arriving at a conclusion without any evidence and is a highly illogical and foolish proposition for determining truth if one were to talk about it from a scientific or evidence based point.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It doesn't work both ways.

let's see

I don't have to assume anything to take a non-spontaneous worldview from a scientific point. In fact that is called pragmatic materialism. We can only assume what we have evidence for. There is no evidence for a spontaneously created universe so we will continue to function as if it was not until then.

In your proposition you take on the assumption of atheism as truth and then work backwards until evidence of a theistic universe. That is arriving at a conclusion without any evidence and is a highly illogical and foolish proposition for determining truth if one were to talk about it from a scientific or evidence based point.

Same thing, except again I do NOT take this stance, you do. it was just to demonstrate it was an illogical one- as you point out, we agree- call it Russell's teapot or whatever, there is no default assumption here, each belief must stand on it's own merits.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

let's see

I don't have to assume anything to take a non-spontaneous worldview from a scientific point. In fact that is called pragmatic materialism. We can only assume what we have evidence for. There is no evidence for a spontaneously created universe so we will continue to function as if it was not until then.

In your proposition you take on the assumption of atheism as truth and then work backwards until evidence of a theistic universe. That is arriving at a conclusion without any evidence and is a highly illogical and foolish proposition for determining truth if one were to talk about it from a scientific or evidence based point.

Same thing, except again I do NOT take this stance, you do. it was just to demonstrate it was an illogical one- as you point out, we agree- call it Russell's teapot or whatever, there is no default assumption here, each belief must stand on it's own merits.

No one claims atheism as truth.
No one claims "spontaneous" created universe.

You just make stuff up and say that science says it just to tear it down? You are only tearing down this strange and illogical "science" that you have made up. It doesn't actually exist.

To correct you;
Science doesn't say anything about atheism. It doesn't say anything about god. It only talks about what we have been able to observe. We have found no observations of a god. Therefore we don't assume a god. We don't assume there isn't a god either but we simply lack that assumption there is a god. The lack of any "assumptions" is a pragmatic view where god isn't considered. He isn't rejected but he simply isn't considered as there isn't anything yet to consider.

There is a default lack of assumption. That is what you don't get. I don't have to assume anything. Neither does science. And it often does not.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No one claims atheism as truth.

you acknowledge faith then?

Science doesn't say anything about atheism. It doesn't say anything about god.

You'd have to argue that assertion with 'religious pseudo-science' Hoyle, 'makes God redundant' Hawking, 'God delusion' Dawkins and almost every prominent atheist, who explicitly talk about God and relate their own theories explicitly to their preferred atheist implications.

A rare exception in dealing with matters of cosmogony and restraining from inferring their personal beliefs was Lemaitre- who went out of his way to distance his faith- because he could.
We've been over this before, it is atheists who have their beliefs inexorably linked with their theories, because they by definition, and by your admission, refuse to even recognize their beliefs as such.

I lack any assumptions, including those you don't acknowledge, I deduce God and am willing to defend that on it's own merits

 

[Monk Of Reason]

you acknowledge faith then?

Not at all. However this doesn't mean its a claim of atheism. I agree that it is atheistic in nature but only because the default of no assumptions beyond what is supported by evidence deems it so.

You'd have to argue that assertion with 'religious pseudo-science' Hoyle, 'makes God redundant' Hawking, 'God delusion' Dawkins and almost every prominent atheist, who explicitly talk about God and relate their own theories explicitly to their preferred atheist implications.

A rare exception in dealing with matters of cosmogony and restraining from inferring their personal beliefs was Lemaitre- who went out of his way to distance his faith- because he could.
We've been over this before, it is atheists who have their beliefs inexorably linked with their theories, because they by definition, and by your admission, refuse to even recognize their beliefs as such.

You keep naming people who make lots of personal appearances and livings off of the philosophical and social aspect of atheism rather than actually quoting their works. What scientific paper have they put in that proves atheism?

I lack any assumptions, including those you don't acknowledge, I deduce God and am willing to defend that on it's own merits

I am calling bull on this. You assume far to much.

But lets hear your best argument for the evidence of god. On its own merits.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

you acknowledge faith then?

Non-sequitur.

You'd have to argue that assertion with 'religious pseudo-science' Hoyle, 'makes God redundant' Hawking,

That simply means "God is unnecessary", not "science indicates God does not exist", just that the BELIEF in God is not required to make sense of the Universe.

'God delusion' Dawkins and almost every prominent atheist, who explicitly talk about God and relate their own theories explicitly to their preferred atheist implications.

Dawkins, and almost every scientist like him, makes no claim that science demonstrates or even indicates the nonexistence of God - just that the belief in God is ill-founded and science lends it no credibility and, in some cases, makes the proposition of God redundant, as Hawking correctly asserts.

A rare exception in dealing with matters of cosmogony and restraining from inferring their personal beliefs was Lemaitre- who went out of his way to distance his faith- because he could.

That is not a rare exception. Scientists, both religious and otherwise, distance their beliefs from their science

We've been over this before, it is atheists who have their beliefs inexorably linked with their theories, because they by definition, and by your admission, refuse to even recognize their beliefs as such.

That makes no sense. What do atheists believe?

I lack any assumptions, including those you don't acknowledge, I deduce God and am willing to defend that on it's own merits

The existence of God is an assumption. Ergo, you don't lack assumptions. You assume God, and the merits of your position have repeatedly been refuted. You have no logic, only faith.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Not at all. However this doesn't mean its a claim of atheism. I agree that it is atheistic in nature but only because the default of no assumptions beyond what is supported by evidence deems it so.


You keep naming people who make lots of personal appearances and livings off of the philosophical and social aspect of atheism rather than actually quoting their works. What scientific paper have they put in that proves atheism?

I am calling bull on this. You assume far to much.

But lets hear your best argument for the evidence of god. On its own merits.

Nothing proves atheism, that was my point- those theories were all debunked- static, eternal, steady state, big crunch- the remaining ones are utterly unfalsifiable and hence unscientific

If we are debating our two beliefs on their own merits, they must both be acknowledged as such- otherwise one of us still holds the default unfalsifiable Russell's teapot claim.

God on the other hand is perfectly falsifiable- just show that the universe was uncreated- no creation = no creator. And this is exactly what atheist scientists have striven to do for over a century with a long list of debunked non-creation models. The only theory that was validated was the atheists worst nightmare at the time- the specific creation event of everything.- mocked as religious psuedo-science and 'big bang' for it's non atheist implications

So I agree entirely with atheists here, on what they themselves considered evidence- the implications of a created v uncreated universe. Had their prediction panned out, I'd accept those implications.
I'm willing to accept the opposite evidence also- of observed reality, the prediction that DID pan out.

 

[jonathan180iq]

God on the other hand is perfectly falsifiable- just show that the universe was uncreated- no creation = no creator.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Nothing proves atheism, that was my point- those theories were all debunked- static, eternal, steady state, big crunch- the remaining ones are utterly unfalsifiable and hence unscientific

Atheism isn't a "theory". It is a rejection of a poorly constructed theory. Science is not "atheistic" as any sort of philosophy. Science does not adhere to "atheism" nor does it go out of its way to be "atheistic". It just so happens that all of the evidence that we have doesn't point to god.

If we are debating our two beliefs on their own merits, they must both be acknowledged as such- otherwise one of us still holds the default unfalsifiable Russell's teapot claim.

I can debate your beliefs all day long. I don't really have that many beliefs regarding god. Its mostly....lacking.

God on the other hand is perfectly falsifiable- just show that the universe was uncreated- no creation = no creator. And this is exactly what atheist scientists have striven to do for over a century with a long list of debunked non-creation models. The only theory that was validated was the atheists worst nightmare at the time- the specific creation event of everything.- mocked as religious psuedo-science and 'big bang' for it's non atheist implications

I don't know why I never fact checked this before. But actually your full of hot air on this one. It was called pseudo-science not because of any atheist agenda but because there was little evidence to support it. suddenly when the evidence was actually found the entire scientific field turned around and accepted it. But until then it was more or less considered a fringe theory. There was only one person I could find that ever said anything anywhere near as vocal as what you keep implying and yes it was an atheist, much like Richard Dawkins, who spoke casually about it on a radio station. Overall he was not ostracized from the scientific community and has actually had long standing respect in the scientific community.

So I agree entirely with atheists here, on what they themselves considered evidence- the implications of a created v uncreated universe. Had their prediction panned out, I'd accept those implications.
I'm willing to accept the opposite evidence also- of observed reality, the prediction that DID pan out.

And can you link how the big bang has anything to do with god? Please do.