New Atheists and Old Atheists

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Philosophy Now
Posts: 997
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:49 am

New Atheists and Old Atheists

Post by Philosophy Now »

chaz wyman
Posts: 5305
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: New Atheists and Old Atheists

Post by chaz wyman »

Philosophy Now wrote:by Fr. Andrew Pinsent

http://philosophynow.org/issues/78/New_ ... d_Atheists

Fr. Andrew Pinsent is an ideological fool and like all persons absorbed by religion he judges the world in those terms.
Open the Pages of Hitches; "God is not Great" and you find an equally damning report of the 'religion' of socialism as can be found anywhere.
Atheism, new or old, does not include a creed or dogma. It is a negative phrase invented by those of Faith who try an impose systems of Faith generally even where they do not exist.
Korean ideology and the worship of Stalin or Hitler is exactly to be criticised because of the resemblance it has to religion; not because it is 'atheist' - because religion by any other name is still religion; the abrogation of the responsibility of thinking by placing it in the hands of a priestly class. And that is to be a object of derision be it atheist or theist.

A man who studies religion and science is either living in confusion or is missing the point about science- or both.

If he is a friar, maybe he should stick to frying eggs (and bacon - if his religion allows).
tbieter
Posts: 1201
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:45 pm
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota, USA

Re: New Atheists and Old Atheists

Post by tbieter »

chaz wyman wrote:
Philosophy Now wrote:by Fr. Andrew Pinsent

http://philosophynow.org/issues/78/New_ ... d_Atheists

Fr. Andrew Pinsent is an ideological fool and like all persons absorbed by religion he judges the world in those terms.
Open the Pages of Hitches; "God is not Great" and you find an equally damning report of the 'religion' of socialism as can be found anywhere.
Atheism, new or old, does not include a creed or dogma. It is a negative phrase invented by those of Faith who try an impose systems of Faith generally even where they do not exist.
Korean ideology and the worship of Stalin or Hitler is exactly to be criticised because of the resemblance it has to religion; not because it is 'atheist' - because religion by any other name is still religion; the abrogation of the responsibility of thinking by placing it in the hands of a priestly class. And that is to be a object of derision be it atheist or theist.

A man who studies religion and science is either living in confusion or is missing the point about science- or both.

If he is a friar, maybe he should stick to frying eggs (and bacon - if his religion allows).
From the article:

"Yet even on the latter issue, there are some unsettling hints that the New Atheists have a hankering for some of the methods of the Old Atheists.

As Daniel Dennett wrote in a blog in the Washington Post just a few weeks ago, “If quacks and bunko artists can be convicted of fraud for selling worthless cures, why not clergy for making their living off unsupported claims of miracle cures and the efficacy of prayer?” Elaborating further, Dennett says that, “I also look forward to the day when pastors who abuse the authority of their pulpits by misinforming their congregations about science, about public health, about global warming, about evolution must answer to the charge of dishonesty.”

Dennett thus looks forward to the day in which members of the clergy can be brought to court for teaching, for example, that prayer is efficacious, or for ‘misinforming’ their congregations about global warming."

Dennett displays intolerance, at least, but more likely the totalitarianism practiced by the Old Atheists.
chaz wyman
Posts: 5305
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: New Atheists and Old Atheists

Post by chaz wyman »

tbieter wrote:
chaz wyman wrote:
Philosophy Now wrote:by Fr. Andrew Pinsent

http://philosophynow.org/issues/78/New_ ... d_Atheists

Fr. Andrew Pinsent is an ideological fool and like all persons absorbed by religion he judges the world in those terms.
Open the Pages of Hitches; "God is not Great" and you find an equally damning report of the 'religion' of socialism as can be found anywhere.
Atheism, new or old, does not include a creed or dogma. It is a negative phrase invented by those of Faith who try an impose systems of Faith generally even where they do not exist.
Korean ideology and the worship of Stalin or Hitler is exactly to be criticised because of the resemblance it has to religion; not because it is 'atheist' - because religion by any other name is still religion; the abrogation of the responsibility of thinking by placing it in the hands of a priestly class. And that is to be a object of derision be it atheist or theist.

A man who studies religion and science is either living in confusion or is missing the point about science- or both.

If he is a friar, maybe he should stick to frying eggs (and bacon - if his religion allows).
From the article:

"Yet even on the latter issue, there are some unsettling hints that the New Atheists have a hankering for some of the methods of the Old Atheists.

As Daniel Dennett wrote in a blog in the Washington Post just a few weeks ago, “If quacks and bunko artists can be convicted of fraud for selling worthless cures, why not clergy for making their living off unsupported claims of miracle cures and the efficacy of prayer?” Elaborating further, Dennett says that, “I also look forward to the day when pastors who abuse the authority of their pulpits by misinforming their congregations about science, about public health, about global warming, about evolution must answer to the charge of dishonesty.”

Dennett thus looks forward to the day in which members of the clergy can be brought to court for teaching, for example, that prayer is efficacious, or for ‘misinforming’ their congregations about global warming."

Dennett displays intolerance, at least, but more likely the totalitarianism practiced by the Old Atheists.
You are kidding?

Dennett is making a claim for justice. This is not intolerance in any sense. I agree with him in the same way I agree that rapist should be tried by a court, fakers and quacks should also be brought to book for the crime of peddling false cures.
All Dennett is asking is that priests should be charged with "dishonesty".

If asking for the truth is intolerance, what the fuck chance does the human race have?
tbieter
Posts: 1201
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:45 pm
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota, USA

Re: New Atheists and Old Atheists

Post by tbieter »

Dennett seeks to squelch opinion under the pretense that he is only seeking truth ( knowledge ) and justice.

Generally, religion is just opinion and in the great tradition of Western civilization, opinion is to be tolerated.

The totalitarian does not distinguish opinion from knowledge, but seeks to suppress what he finds inconsistent with his ideology.
tbieter
Posts: 1201
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:45 pm
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota, USA

Re: New Atheists and Old Atheists

Post by tbieter »

chaz wyman wrote:
Philosophy Now wrote:by Fr. Andrew Pinsent

http://philosophynow.org/issues/78/New_ ... d_Atheists

Fr. Andrew Pinsent is an ideological fool and like all persons absorbed by religion he judges the world in those terms.
Open the Pages of Hitches; "God is not Great" and you find an equally damning report of the 'religion' of socialism as can be found anywhere.
Atheism, new or old, does not include a creed or dogma. It is a negative phrase invented by those of Faith who try an impose systems of Faith generally even where they do not exist.
Korean ideology and the worship of Stalin or Hitler is exactly to be criticised because of the resemblance it has to religion; not because it is 'atheist' - because religion by any other name is still religion; the abrogation of the responsibility of thinking by placing it in the hands of a priestly class. And that is to be a object of derision be it atheist or theist.

A man who studies religion and science is either living in confusion or is missing the point about science- or both.

If he is a friar, maybe he should stick to frying eggs (and bacon - if his religion allows).
What, then, is the true content under the concept of the word "atheism" as commonly defined in any dictionary?
chaz wyman
Posts: 5305
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: New Atheists and Old Atheists

Post by chaz wyman »

tbieter wrote:
chaz wyman wrote:
Philosophy Now wrote:by Fr. Andrew Pinsent

http://philosophynow.org/issues/78/New_ ... d_Atheists

Fr. Andrew Pinsent is an ideological fool and like all persons absorbed by religion he judges the world in those terms.
Open the Pages of Hitches; "God is not Great" and you find an equally damning report of the 'religion' of socialism as can be found anywhere.
Atheism, new or old, does not include a creed or dogma. It is a negative phrase invented by those of Faith who try an impose systems of Faith generally even where they do not exist.
Korean ideology and the worship of Stalin or Hitler is exactly to be criticised because of the resemblance it has to religion; not because it is 'atheist' - because religion by any other name is still religion; the abrogation of the responsibility of thinking by placing it in the hands of a priestly class. And that is to be a object of derision be it atheist or theist.

A man who studies religion and science is either living in confusion or is missing the point about science- or both.

If he is a friar, maybe he should stick to frying eggs (and bacon - if his religion allows).
What, then, is the true content under the concept of the word "atheism" as commonly defined in any dictionary?
On the most basic level 'atheism' simply indicates an absence of belief in a god or gods.
That's why you can only with some difficulty attribute to is a set of 'beliefs', dogma or system of belief.
What system of belief tends to involve some idea of which god you happen to be talking about - which is far from clear.

Historically the word emerges as an accusation by Catholics against the up-and-coming Protestants, or others who are non-religious, or anti-religious. In fact anything not completely in its following.
I submit that Old atheists and New atheists are terms just a vague and generalising.
For me being an atheist does not involve me in a belief about anything. It only means that I do not have a belief in god (whatever that is).

If you want a dictionary definition - then read one.
If you want to know what makes me an atheist - then ask me.
tbieter
Posts: 1201
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:45 pm
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota, USA

Re: New Atheists and Old Atheists

Post by tbieter »

What makes you an atheist?
chaz wyman
Posts: 5305
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: New Atheists and Old Atheists

Post by chaz wyman »

tbieter wrote:What makes you an atheist?

I do not believe in god.
MGL
Posts: 235
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:58 pm

Re: New Atheists and Old Atheists

Post by MGL »

chaz wyman wrote:
tbieter wrote:What makes you an atheist?

I do not believe in god.
Presumably this implies you have a positive belief that there is no God.
chaz wyman
Posts: 5305
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: New Atheists and Old Atheists

Post by chaz wyman »

MGL wrote:
chaz wyman wrote:
tbieter wrote:What makes you an atheist?

I do not believe in god.
Presumably this implies you have a positive belief that there is no God.
No.
What do you mean God?
Felasco
Posts: 544
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 12:38 pm

Re: New Atheists and Old Atheists

Post by Felasco »

On the most basic level 'atheism' simply indicates an absence of belief in a god or gods. That's why you can only with some difficulty attribute to is a set of 'beliefs', dogma or system of belief.
There's no difficulty at all. Atheism is the belief that human reason is currently qualified to determine whether there is a god or not.

As example, the atheist will ask for evidence, a key ingredient of the reasoning process. The atheist then assumes that a lack of evidence equals a lack of god, when the lack of evidence could just as easily be evidence of ignorance and inability.

Until only 100 years ago we had no evidence of billions of galaxies, and thus assumed there was only one galaxy.

At one time we assumed the Earth was flat, and all the heavens revolved around the Earth, because even a child could see that for themselves.

All of this has been explained on this forum a thousand times, all to no effect whatsoever. It's a completely hopeless endeavor that only a fool would attempt, which explains why I'm typing this paragraph.

The problem with atheists is not that they don't believe in god, but that they don't actually believe in reason.

Reason, a careful objective examination of the evidence, would likely lead a truly impartial observer to the conclusion that there's simply no way this human animal that was only recently living in caves would be able to determine what is or isn't present at the heart of all reality.

We might as well ask a dung beetle where San Francisco is.
chaz wyman
Posts: 5305
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: New Atheists and Old Atheists

Post by chaz wyman »

Felasco wrote:
On the most basic level 'atheism' simply indicates an absence of belief in a god or gods. That's why you can only with some difficulty attribute to is a set of 'beliefs', dogma or system of belief.
There's no difficulty at all. Atheism is the belief that human reason is currently qualified to determine whether there is a god or not.

Nope. It is not even that. If that rubric had to be attributed to atheism, then it would also have to be attributed to theism.



As example, the atheist will ask for evidence, a key ingredient of the reasoning process.

Not all atheists. Atheism is simply a lack of belief as a starting point. No atheist is necessarily committed to ask for anything. The burden of belief is on the theist to demonstrate his case.


The atheist then assumes that a lack of evidence equals a lack of god, when the lack of evidence could just as easily be evidence of ignorance and inability.

No, there is no assumption necessary. A Buddhist does not have a god, not because of lack of evidence, or reason, but because he does not have a god.

Until only 100 years ago we had no evidence of billions of galaxies, and thus assumed there was only one galaxy.

No the idea of 'galaxies' did not exist. There were no a-galaxians from who it was demanded that they had no right to assume such a thing did not exist, being as there was no evidence.


At one time we assumed the Earth was flat, and all the heavens revolved around the Earth, because even a child could see that for themselves.

No one every believed that; its a common misconception. The idea of a round earth goes back before recorded history.
The only ones that might have thought that, was religious people that were told that the earth was the centre of the universe. Its a shame your god had not thought it a good idea to separate them from that opinion. Sadly the adoption of Aristotle buy the Catholic church put the brakes on scientific progress for over 1000 years.


All of this has been explained on this forum a thousand times, all to no effect whatsoever. It's a completely hopeless endeavor that only a fool would attempt, which explains why I'm typing this paragraph.

It has no effect whatever as it is without merit. Obviously I cannot prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist. But that is no reason to act as if he does.

The problem with atheists is not that they don't believe in god, but that they don't actually believe in reason.

I think it is the Theists that, despite the difficulties, assert not only that a god exists, but that they also know the mind of god, in diverse matters such as the impure existence of the foreskin; what you should and should not eat; who you are allowed to sleep with; that you should not masturbate; that you need to fight those that do not have exactly the same belief; that you need to get on your knees and pray; and that you need to participate in a series of ridiculous rituals.

For me God (whatever that means; or which ever version you choose to bash me over the head with today is not a credible way to explain the origin of the universe in any sense it is beyond my interest).

What is not beyond my interest is the mind numbingly dangerous, ridiculous, and stultifying systems of beliefs that have continued to cause war, fear and shame amongst their congregations, and are based on the unknowable. Where is your horror? Where is your outrage?

Reason, a careful objective examination of the evidence, would likely lead a truly impartial observer to the conclusion that there's simply no way this human animal that was only recently living in caves would be able to determine what is or isn't present at the heart of all reality.

Humans never lived in caves either - you are full of common misconceptions aren't you?
I'm not surprised that a person of so little learning, but of obviously some intelligence can come to the sort of conclusion that you do.
You are railing against a strawman. Where are these atheists of whom you speak?

We might as well ask a dung beetle where San Francisco is.
Felasco
Posts: 544
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 12:38 pm

Re: New Atheists and Old Atheists

Post by Felasco »

chaz wyman wrote:Nope. It is not even that. If that rubric had to be attributed to atheism, then it would also have to be attributed to theism.
True to a degree, though I would propose that the foundation of theism is really faith, not reason. Reason is very often used to rationalize and explain the faith.
The burden of belief is on the theist to demonstrate his case.
The burden of proof is on ANYONE who makes an assertion, a very simple fact which it must be said has yet to be comprehended by huge numbers of internet atheists.

I would agree that not all atheists make assertions, and that all atheists are not internet warriors.
No the idea of 'galaxies' did not exist. There were no a-galaxians from who it was demanded that they had no right to assume such a thing did not exist, being as there was no evidence.
This is quibble mania....
No one every believed that; its a common misconception. The idea of a round earth goes back before recorded history.
The only ones that might have thought that, was religious people that were told that the earth was the centre of the universe. Its a shame your god had not thought it a good idea to separate them from that opinion. Sadly the adoption of Aristotle buy the Catholic church put the brakes on scientific progress for over 1000 years.
More of the us vs. them ideological warfare. Every point on every subject being converted in to a dogma chanting attack upon religion.
It has no effect whatever as it is without merit. Obviously I cannot prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist. But that is no reason to act as if he does.
What you can't prove is that you are in a position to know whether the FSM exists or not, thus pulling the rug out from under the twenty thousand adamant posts you've penned on such subjects. And besides, I can prove that the FSM does exist. :-)
I think it is the Theists that, despite the difficulties, assert not only that a god exists, but that they also know the mind of god, in diverse matters such as the impure existence of the foreskin; what you should and should not eat; who you are allowed to sleep with; that you should not masturbate; that you need to fight those that do not have exactly the same belief; that you need to get on your knees and pray; and that you need to participate in a series of ridiculous rituals.
Again, a consistent pattern of changing every statement on every subject in to yet another repetitive anti-religion diatribe. Please revisit the subject line of this thread, the topic is atheists.
For me God (whatever that means; or which ever version you choose to bash me over the head with today is not a credible way to explain the origin of the universe in any sense it is beyond my interest).
Shifting focus away from defending atheism, towards attacking theism, revealing a lack of confidence in your own position.
What is not beyond my interest is the mind numbingly dangerous, ridiculous, and stultifying systems of beliefs that have continued to cause war, fear and shame amongst their congregations, and are based on the unknowable. Where is your horror? Where is your outrage?
Here's my reply to that. Yada, yada, yada, yada, yada, yada, yada, yada, yada, yada, yada, yada, yada, yada, yada, yada, yada, yada, yada, yada, yada, yada, yada, yada, yada. Yada!
Humans never lived in caves either - you are full of common misconceptions aren't you?
More hyper reactive gibberish resulting in your public embarrassment.
I'm not surprised that a person of so little learning, but of obviously some intelligence can come to the sort of conclusion that you do. You are railing against a strawman. Where are these atheists of whom you speak?
Their leader goes by the name Chaz Wyman. Look it up! :-)
chaz wyman
Posts: 5305
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: New Atheists and Old Atheists

Post by chaz wyman »

Felasco wrote:
chaz wyman wrote:Nope. It is not even that. If that rubric had to be attributed to atheism, then it would also have to be attributed to theism.
True to a degree, though I would propose that the foundation of theism is really faith, not reason. Reason is very often used to rationalize and explain the faith.
The burden of belief is on the theist to demonstrate his case.
The burden of proof is on ANYONE who makes an assertion, a very simple fact which it must be said has yet to be comprehended by huge numbers of internet atheists.

Atheism makes no assertion. It is a negation.


I would agree that not all atheists make assertions, and that all atheists are not internet warriors.
No the idea of 'galaxies' did not exist. There were no a-galaxians from who it was demanded that they had no right to assume such a thing did not exist, being as there was no evidence.
This is quibble mania....

No it is not. You are demanding that an atheist PROVES his case when there is not case to prove. There are no a-dragonists, a-fairyists, a-unicornists that you demand they prove their case, so why atheists?
No one ever believed that; its a common misconception. The idea of a round earth goes back before recorded history.
The only ones that might have thought that, was religious people that were told that the earth was the centre of the universe. Its a shame your god had not thought it a good idea to separate them from that opinion. Sadly the adoption of Aristotle buy the Catholic church put the brakes on scientific progress for over 1000 years.
More of the us vs. them ideological warfare. Every point on every subject being converted in to a dogma chanting attack upon religion.

It is a fact of history that the Catholic church stopped scientific progress for a 1000 years. This is a tragedy of human history, why ignore it?
It has no effect whatever as it is without merit. Obviously I cannot prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist. But that is no reason to act as if he does.
What you can't prove is that you are in a position to know whether the FSM exists or not, thus pulling the rug out from under the twenty thousand adamant posts you've penned on such subjects. And besides, I can prove that the FSM does exist. :-)

Dah! That is the whole point of the FSM, to demonstrate that I have no need to disprove anything. You have pulled the rug from under your own feet here.
I think it is the Theists that, despite the difficulties, assert not only that a god exists, but that they also know the mind of god, in diverse matters such as the impure existence of the foreskin; what you should and should not eat; who you are allowed to sleep with; that you should not masturbate; that you need to fight those that do not have exactly the same belief; that you need to get on your knees and pray; and that you need to participate in a series of ridiculous rituals.
Again, a consistent pattern of changing every statement on every subject in to yet another repetitive anti-religion diatribe. Please revisit the subject line of this thread, the topic is atheists.

Okay - I will when you stop demanding that I prove god does not exist. I can be an atheist without having to do this. My statement here about theists serves to demonstrate why I am not one, that MEANS why I am an atheist, which is completely apposite to the title of the thread.
When you stop bitching about me, and actually say something of your own position rather than hiding like a coward from saying anything positive, then we shall see how robust your position is.

So whilst we on the subject of YOU. What do you mean by GOD?

For me God (whatever that means; or which ever version you choose to bash me over the head with today is not a credible way to explain the origin of the universe in any sense it is beyond my interest).
Shifting focus away from defending atheism, towards attacking theism, revealing a lack of confidence in your own position.

Not in the slightest. The above IS a defence of atheism; it is not an attack on theism in any sense. It is possible to believe in a god that is NOT the creator of the universe. Which simply re-inforces my point that the notion of a God is incoherent and confused.

. What is your position? Let's see how confidently you support your position?

What is not beyond my interest is the mind numbingly dangerous, ridiculous, and stultifying systems of beliefs that have continued to cause war, fear and shame amongst their congregations, and are based on the unknowable. Where is your horror? Where is your outrage?
Here's my reply to that. Yada, yada, yada, yada, yada, yada, yada, yada, yada, yada, yada, yada, yada, yada, yada, yada, yada, yada, yada, yada, yada, yada, yada, yada, yada. Yada!

Here's my response to that - you are a fucking moron, too cowardly to defend or even state his position.
Humans never lived in caves either - you are full of common misconceptions aren't you?
More hyper reactive gibberish resulting in your public embarrassment.

I have a BA(hons) in Archaeology and Ancient History, I know that the idea of the cave-man is a fallacy of evidence. If I thought you were interested in anything but yourself, I would be happy to explain further.

I'm not surprised that a person of so little learning, but of obviously some intelligence can come to the sort of conclusion that you do. You are railing against a strawman. Where are these atheists of whom you speak?
Their leader goes by the name Chaz Wyman. Look it up! :-)

Unless you have the courage to state a position I think we are done here.
Post Reply