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

[DoubtingNate]

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.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Well because pretty much anything is possible. Why deny it?
It is possible that superman and batman are real and living on the moon with Elvis. It is sure as hell not likely.

No, there's an enormous number of things that aren't possible, including that. Why do you come here? You don't refute anything, you merely declare this to be bogus or that to be true on your say so; or as you say, "I know things to be true for myself". Being a solipsist means you're just playing with yourself. So when you say I'm wrong, you're actually you saying you're wrong to yourself--and you'd be right. Sort of like meeting yourself in a time travel paradox. Confusing, I know, and irrational as hell, so maybe y'all need to just sit down and have a good heart to hearts with yourselves. Sort of like a committee of you deciding that you're right. I don't know, I'll let you decide. One thing this means is that you're your own mother, and father. Now take that to it's logical conclusion: You telling you to "remember" you conceiving you with yourself. Just remember it's not me saying this, it's you.

Group Hug.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

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.

If you're that way fine, that means you aren't a hard, fundamentalist atheist. But they're out there. BTW, when you're arguing against God in that first paragraph, you're arguing against a biblical/revealed God. That's shooting fish in a barrel, and if that was the only option for God, I'd be a fundamental atheist myself.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

See: Russel's Teapot.

B&BTW, this old argument about proving a negative is just the logical fallacy, in this case a red herring. The issue in debate is not whether God exists, but how the universe (the evidence) came to be, with one of the two possibilities being God or some sort of conscious power. Atheist scientists are finally beginning to admit that deism can't logically be ruled out. If we ever come up with evidence concerning what's on the other side of that Big Bang firewall, of which there is none at this point, then we'll be able to get off that 50/50 no evidence for either scenario, dime. There's only two options, either the superpower that sparked the Big Bang is conscious, or it's not.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No, there's an enormous number of things that aren't possible, including that.

Please demonstrate an example of something that is necessarily impossible.

If you're that way fine, that means you aren't a hard, fundamentalist atheist.

There is no such thing as a "fundamentalist atheist". Fundamentalism is defined as strict adherence to theological doctrines. Since atheism has no doctrine, you can't be a "fundamentalist atheist". It's a nonsense phrase used in an attempt to dismiss attitudes and opinions the speaker doesn't wish to acknowledge.

B&BTW, this old argument about proving a negative is just the logical fallacy, in this case a red herring. The issue in debate is not whether God exists, but how the universe (the evidence) came to be, with one of the two possibilities being God or some sort of conscious power.

How do you know there are only two possibilities?

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

I'd love to hear an example of this.

If we ever come up with evidence concerning what's on the other side of that Big Bang firewall, of which there is none at this point, then we'll be able to get off that 50/50 no evidence for either scenario, dime. There's only two options, either the superpower that sparked the Big Bang is conscious, or it's not.

Or it wasn't a superpower, or nothing sparked the big bang, or one of any number of infinite possibilities implied by a quantum state which is not beholden to the laws of physics as we currently understand them.

Also, you have yet to explain how Russel's teapot is a red herring argument. Please go right ahead.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Please demonstrate an example of something that is necessarily impossible.

Bunyap's example to which I was responding.

There is no such thing as a "fundamentalist atheist". Fundamentalism is defined as strict adherence to theological doctrines. Since atheism has no doctrine, you can't be a "fundamentalist atheist". It's a nonsense phrase used in an attempt to dismiss attitudes and opinions the speaker doesn't wish to acknowledge.

Your quibbling in an effort to sidestep the issue.

How do you know there are only two possibilities?

Either the creative power is conscious or it isn't.

I'd love to hear an example of this.

Lawrence Krauss (theoretical physicist, cosmologist and atheist activist/anti-theist) debate with William L. Craig youtube.com/watch?v=Fs_pgaSrxP8 begin @ 3:15…Uploaded 03/30/11
“I actually think deism, the possible existence of a divine intelligence is not an implausible postulate. And I won’t argue against it. It could be, I mean the Universe is an amazing place."....
...."So I think the possible existence of a divine intelligence is perfectly plausible and addresses some of the perplexing issues associated with the beginning of the Universe."

Or it wasn't a superpower, or nothing sparked the big bang, or one of any number of infinite possibilities implied by a quantum state which is not beholden to the laws of physics as we currently understand them.

Those all fall under the category of an event of spontaneous creation.

Also, you have yet to explain how Russel's teapot is a red herring argument. Please go right ahead.

Already answered, I'm not going to repeat myself in the same thread to answer another effort to divert the issue.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Bunyap's example to which I was responding.

Can you demonstrate that it is necessarily impossible?

Your quibbling in an effort to sidestep the issue.

It's not quibbling. There is no such thing as a "fundamentalist atheist", and your attempt to invent the category is nothing but an attempt to distract from the actual debate by intentionally mis-characterizing those you disagree with as some form of extremists. This is not the case, and it is dishonest for you to imply it is.

Either the creative power is conscious or it isn't.

Or it isn't a "creative power". Or it isn't a thing that can be defined. Or consciousness is indeterminate at that point. Or, as I said, one of any number of other infinite probable states that can result from a point at which no known or understood physical laws exist. It is a false dichotomy.

Lawrence Krauss (theoretical physicist, cosmologist and atheist activist/anti-theist) debate with William L. Craig youtube.com/watch?v=Fs_pgaSrxP8 begin @ 3:15…Uploaded 03/30/11
“I actually think deism, the possible existence of a divine intelligence is not an implausible postulate. And I won’t argue against it. It could be, I mean the Universe is an amazing place."....
...."So I think the possible existence of a divine intelligence is perfectly plausible and addresses some of the perplexing issues associated with the beginning of the Universe."

Ah, so all he's saying it "it's not impossible". Gotcha.

Those all fall under the category of an event of spontaneous creation.

How can an infinite number of probable states that we can't possibly understand given the potential lack of adherence to physical laws be categorized as "spontaneous"?

Already answered, I'm not going to repeat myself in the same thread to answer another effort to divert the issue.

You said Russel's teapot was a red herring, I expect you to support the statement. Please do so, or I will consider it dodging the question.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Ah, so all he's saying it "it's not impossible". Gotcha.

This best exemplifies all your responses. You turned his statement that it is "perfectly plausible" into "not impossible".

ImmortalFlame, an apparent transliteration of inflammatory. You obviously don't care about the Truth or consider reason an important component of serious discussion. Good by.

 

[Bunyip]

No, there's an enormous number of things that aren't possible, including that.

It is improbable, but not impossible.

Why do you come here? You don't refute anything, you merely declare this to be bogus or that to be true on your say so; or as you say, "I know things to be true for myself". Being a solipsist means you're just playing with yourself. So when you say I'm wrong, you're actually you saying you're wrong to yourself--and you'd be right. Sort of like meeting yourself in a time travel paradox. Confusing, I know, and irrational as hell, so maybe y'all need to just sit down and have a good heart to hearts with yourselves. Sort of like a committee of you deciding that you're right. I don't know, I'll let you decide. One thing this means is that you're your own mother, and father. Now take that to it's logical conclusion: You telling you to "remember" you conceiving you with yourself. Just remember it's not me saying this, it's you.

Group Hug.

Sorry, the rest of that made no sense to me whatsoever.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I agree that they mark a different way of "doing" atheism. However, it also strikes me as a sort of "no true Christian/no true Scotsman" sort of argument.

 

[DoubtingNate]

If you're that way fine, that means you aren't a hard, fundamentalist atheist. But they're out there. BTW, when you're arguing against God in that first paragraph, you're arguing against a biblical/revealed God. That's shooting fish in a barrel, and if that was the only option for God, I'd be a fundamental atheist myself.

Fair enough.. but it's natural to focus on gods of "revealed" faiths, since those are the ones who inspire people not to eat pork or to hate on gay people. And in America there is a small but loud minority of 'Christian dominionists' who want to implement 'Christian sharia' laws, executing adulterers and whatnot. So those low hanging fruits, while easy to refute logically, are still very important because they are dangerous to society.

If there is a God out there but he isn't revealing himself, interacting with the observable universe or telling anybody what to do, why should we care? As an atheist, I could imagine that such a being could exist, but it wouldn't change my values or how I live my life. I just don't see much practical difference between your deism and my atheism.. Do you?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Fair enough.. but it's natural to focus on gods of "revealed" faiths, since those are the ones who inspire people not to eat pork or to hate on gay people. And in America there is a small but loud minority of 'Christian dominionists' who want to implement 'Christian sharia' laws, executing adulterers and whatnot. So those low hanging fruits, while easy to refute logically, are still very important because they are dangerous to society.

I know, but trying to reason with fundamentalists of any strip is banging your head on a brick wall. I think emphasizing a strict adherence to precision in discussion is necessary so it will be there for the unsure, undecided, curious and the occasional fundamentalist doubter looking for some deprogramming that wander in. And for me, it also helps to organize clarify and solidify my own thoughts.

If there is a God out there but he isn't revealing himself, interacting with the observable universe or telling anybody what to do, why should we care? As an atheist, I could imagine that such a being could exist, but it wouldn't change my values or how I live my life. I just don't see much practical difference between your deism and my atheism.. Do you?

I say the same exact thing all the time. For us in this universe, there should be no difference in our actions between the two; but I lean to deism which offers hope involving whatever follows our demise here. I keep saying there's absolutely no evidence for or against a God's involvement in the creation on the far side of the Big Bang; but if I wanted to create self-aware creatures with free will, I'd create a universe to evolve them where they wouldn't be able to know that I existed; and I couldn't lie and build in evidence that I didn't exist. It's suspicious that if the universe's beginning was spontaneous yet not designed, you'd think there'd be some evidence for that.....that the Big Bang wouldn't be such a perfect firewall. Unfortunately we can't use a complete lack of evidence, as evidence. Still.....it does get curiouser and curiouser, the longer we go without finding anything.

 

[paarsurrey]

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

They are Anti-Theists; the zealots of Atheism.

Regards

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

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

They are Anti-Theists; the zealots of Atheism.

Regards

Well, they can reasonably be both, but I think I know what you mean--they're anti-theists and don't care about (hard-?)atheism, or the Truth. Though in fairness, I think Dawkins has maybe taken a shift towards the more mellow side. Don't know for sure cause I only notice them from the periphery.

 

[Willamena]

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.

Just so.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This best exemplifies all your responses. You turned his statement that it is "perfectly plausible" into "not impossible".

Actually, no. Here's what you quoted again:

"So I think the possible existence of a divine intelligence is perfectly plausible and addresses some of the perplexing issues associated with the beginning of the Universe."

This is different to saying:

"So I think the existence of a divine intelligence is perfectly plausible and addresses some of the perplexing issues associated with the beginning of the Universe."

One is saying the POSSIBILITY is plausible, not the actual existence.

ImmortalFlame, an apparent transliteration of inflammatory. You obviously don't care about the Truth or consider reason an important component of serious discussion. Good by.

And you apparently don't read the quotes you paste. See you soon!

 

[DoubtingNate]

perfect summary of so called 'atheist fundamentalism:'

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

"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."
--Just so.

Just not so. The former are agnostics. And, what word from the dictionary are you gonna torture so that it fits that latter position.

Actually, no. Here's what you quoted again:

"So I think the possible existence of a divine intelligence is perfectly plausible and addresses some of the perplexing issues associated with the beginning of the Universe."

That's an accurate quote, but to that you responded:
"Ah, so all he's saying it 'it's not impossible'".

You converted the possible existence of God being perfectly plausible into not impossible. They aren't the same, at all. In fact "not impossible" is even more negate that the "possible" it wants to de-emphasize.

On top of that, I put Krauss' comment up in response to your disbelief and wanting to see an example of my claim that "Atheist scientists are finally beginning to admit that deism can't logically be ruled out"--which it did, in spades. Honesty would compel you to at least acknowledge it. Instead you tried to reinterpret the quote to fit your agenda and it even failed at that, though I'm sure you won't admit that either.

Then you said:

One is saying the POSSIBILITY is plausible, not the actual existence.

More disingenuousness. Who here, on either side, is claiming to know what "actual existence" is? Nobody.

And you apparently don't read the quotes you paste.

I nominate this for the Ironic Quote of the Year. And it's doubly ironic since it's about quotes.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

perfect summary of so called 'atheist fundamentalism:'

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.

 

[Bunyip]

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.

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