Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Keith Maitland on October 25, 2017, 01:58:17 PM
-
"The problem with New Atheism was that its whole shtick was repeating obviously true things that everyone already knew? But about 80% of Americans identify as religious, 63% claim to be “absolutely certain” that there is a God, and 46% think the world was literally created in seven days. This is a surprising number of people disagreeing with a thing that everybody already knows. I could be misreading the article. The article could be wrong. But I don’t think so. This is my intuitive feeling of what was wrong with New Atheism as well. It wasn’t that they were wrong.... Just that they were right in a loud, boring, and pointless way"
RTWT here:
http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/24/how-did-new-atheism-fail-so-miserably/
-
What makes you think that what you call 'new atheism' has failed?
-
But about 80% of Americans identify as religious, 63% claim to be “absolutely certain” that there is a God, and 46% think the world was literally created in seven days.
Single snap-shot statistics aren't very helpful in looking at trends. When one compared longitudinal data - looking at how religiosity is changing over time - then the USA is just the same as nearly every other developed country with longstanding freedom of religion. That trend being an increase in the proportion of the population that are non religious and are atheist, and a decrease in the proportion that are religious.
Now the USA does differ from many other countries, most notably western European countries, in that the starting point levels of religiosity are high, but the trend is the same - declining religiosity and increasing atheism. In fact the proportion of people in the USA saying they are atheist pretty well doubled from 2007 to 2014, albeit from a low base.
-
In my, optimistically enthusiastic, opinion, the momentum towards atheism has begun as more and more people watch and listen to the news and achievements of scientists and engineers who have sent probes to outer planets and their satellite moons which have sent back an enormous amount of information.
The reliability of such science and the continued total absence of objective evidence of any god/spirit/et wil gradually impinge itself more and more on minds so that that momentum will continue. A pity it will not be strong enough before the end of my life.
-
"The problem with New Atheism was that its whole shtick was repeating obviously true things that everyone already knew? But about 80% of Americans identify as religious, 63% claim to be “absolutely certain” that there is a God, and 46% think the world was literally created in seven days. This is a surprising number of people disagreeing with a thing that everybody already knows. I could be misreading the article. The article could be wrong. But I don’t think so. This is my intuitive feeling of what was wrong with New Atheism as well. It wasn’t that they were wrong.... Just that they were right in a loud, boring, and pointless way"
RTWT here:
http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/24/how-did-new-atheism-fail-so-miserably/
How can it so confidently claim that 'New' atheism has failed, when there is no clear definition of what 'New' atheism is, or what it's goal was. If, perhaps, 'New' atheism is just old atheism without a self-imposed mute button, I'd say the fact that people claim they're fed up hearing about it probably means that it's been successful. Atheism is no longer taboo, no longer the abnormal, it's just another point on the spectrum that people are welcome to attest to.
Job done, I'd say.
O.
-
I found it a baffling link, partly because as Outrider has said, it doesn't define what New Atheism is. Well, it talks a bit about Dawkins and Harris and others, but I'm not sure how they have failed. To do what?
Actually, reading the previous article (in the Baffler), helps, as it sets the scene in the US, and various groups such as atheism+, and varying fallings out among such groups on the left. I don't think it makes much sense in the UK.
-
They failed to give anybody a philosophical erection.
New atheism was identified by D Sloan Wilson as a stealth religion and as the prof has pointed out is going the way of religions
The growth area I would have thought is apatheism. And you won't find many of those on a forum with the title Religion ethics.
-
They failed to give anybody a philosophical erection.
New atheism was identified by D Sloan Wilson as a stealth religion and as the prof has pointed out is going the way of religions
The growth area I would have thought is apatheism. And you won't find many of those on a forum with the title Religion ethics.
So if I 'identify' D Sloan Wilson as a red cummerbund waist size 32, that means he's the wrong colour and size for my black tie evening?
-
New atheism was identified by D Sloan Wilson as a stealth religion and as the prof has pointed out is going the way of religions
Which Prof? Are you talking about me, in which case I said nothing of the sort. Rather I explained that atheism was growing in the USA - I was silent on 'new atheism' firstly as I have no idea what this is, and secondly because I don't believe there has been a survey that specifically asks people whether they are 'new atheists' (or is it New Atheists) rather than just atheist.
-
New atheism is like new romantics, better hair, more make up than the old romantics and lots of cool new atheist clubs like Ricky's and The Dawkz.
-
Others have correctly identified the central flaw in the thesis: for 'new atheism' to fail it would have had to have had some sort of programme or mission or objective at which it could fail (or succeed) in the first place. In reality it was no more than a convenient shorthand, thought up by an interviewer from IIRC Slate magazine, to refer to three people (Dawkins/Dennett/Harris) who separately published books within a short space of time of each other.
-
New atheism is like new romantics, better hair, more make up than the old romantics and lots of cool new atheist clubs like Ricky's and The Dawkz.
go on then , I'll have a giggle with you 😂😂😂
-
Others have correctly identified the central flaw in the thesis: for 'new atheism' to fail it would have had to have had some sort of programme or mission or objective at which it could fail (or succeed) in the first place. In reality it was no more than a convenient shorthand, thought up by an interviewer from IIRC Slate magazine, to refer to three people (Dawkins/Dennett/Harris) who separately published books within a short space of time of each other.
Cunningly crafted post disguises that there was a fourth Christopher Hitchens. Collectively referred to by disciples as the four horsemen the new atheists then prefaced and postscripted each others books and toured with each other and made mutual youtubes in each other's houses and shows.
Know this New Atheist officer? I've never published dependently on him in my life.
-
Cunningly crafted post disguises that there was a fourth Christopher Hitchens.
Not mentioned in the aforementioned Slate article as his book came later.
Collectively referred to by disciples as the four horsemen the new atheists then prefaced and postscripted each others books and toured with each other and made mutual youtubes in each other's houses and shows.
And?
-
New atheism is like new romantics, better hair, more make up than the old romantics and lots of cool new atheist clubs like Ricky's and The Dawkz.
I get the impression that Keith is arguing the opposite, in that the lveiws of the ikes of Dawkins, Gervais, etc have not had the success that they should have had because the they are seen as unpleasant belligerent repetitive bores?
-
In my, optimistically enthusiastic, opinion, the momentum towards atheism has begun as more and more people watch and listen to the news and achievements of scientists and engineers who have sent probes to outer planets and their satellite moons which have sent back an enormous amount of information.
The reliability of such science and the continued total absence of objective evidence of any god/spirit/et wil gradually impinge itself more and more on minds so that that momentum will continue. A pity it will not be strong enough before the end of my life.
New Atheism according to Wikipedia and atheist philosopher of science Massimo Piglucci is characterised by commitment in various measure to Secular humanism, antitheism, scientism and partially overlapping magisterial or POMA and your commitment the latter is evident here.
There is of course no commitment to these on the part of apatheism.Most apatheists would start to whistle and thumb twiddle in the presence of a New Atheist.
The problem for religion and new atheism of course is commitment. Given what we are required by government and society to be committed to, most people given a choice will not emotionally invest in anything else but play and low level sensual stimulation.
This means that enthusiasm for science is replaced by scientism and the comforting tones of Attenborough and dancing dolphins.
This isn't true of the states where the religious impulse and room for zealous discipleship and commitment is ingrained and where the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens located in order IMHO to tap in and advance their world view.
-
IMO many of the atheists (New and Old...what's the difference?) are not just repetitive bores but they also lack vision and insight. Intelligent perhaps but no wisdom. Sorry guys...no offence... :D
Britain in particular, being one of the pioneers in Science and modern thinking...seems to have gotten stuck in its own success and glory. Science is the new 'religion'. Britishers seem to be resting on their laurels and wallowing in their atheism as though it is some sort of a path breaking new find that no one has thought of before.
This is a pity because atheism is as old as the hills but lacks any true insight or comprehensive perspective. It lacks integration and a big picture view. Most recent atheists are looking out of a window that someone like Dawkins or Harris have shown them and believe that the little window gives them access to all the world, beyond which there cannot possibly be anything else.
I guess it will change in the coming decades.
-
You seem to be confusing atheism with some kind of organised 'big picture' religion: it isn't, and involves little more than simply not holding any beliefs about supernatural agents.
There is no atheist 'big picture' as far as I can see.
-
IMO many of the atheists (New and Old...what's the difference?) are not just repetitive bores but they also lack vision and insight. Intelligent perhaps but no wisdom. Sorry guys...no offence... :D
Most of us are wise enough not to take any notice of such blinkered assertions!
Britain in particular, being one of the pioneers in Science and modern thinking...seems to have gotten stuck in its own success and glory. Science is the new 'religion'. Britishers seem to be resting on their laurels and wallowing in their atheism as though it is some sort of a path breaking new find that no one has thought of before.
This is a pity because atheism is as old as the hills but lacks any true insight or comprehensive perspective. It lacks integration and a big picture view. Most recent atheists are looking out of a window that someone like Dawkins or Harris have shown them and believe that the little window gives them access to all the world, beyond which there cannot possibly be anything else.
I guess it will change in the coming decades.
An you know all this how? Are you one of those who believes that, as someone I know says, consciousness came before the sun!!!
-
You seem to be confusing atheism with some kind of organised 'big picture' religion: it isn't, and involves little more than simply not holding any beliefs about supernatural agents.
There is no atheist 'big picture' as far as I can see.
But there is a New Atheist big picture.The advancement in various measure of secular humanism, scientism, antitheism and partially overlapping magisteria.
-
You seem to be confusing atheism with some kind of organised 'big picture' religion: it isn't, and involves little more than simply not holding any beliefs about supernatural agents.
There is no atheist 'big picture' as far as I can see.
Yes...I am in fact saying that Atheism does not have a Big Picture view of the world. It merely asserts that it does not believe in anything that cannot be explained by natural law. That is its limitation as also perhaps that of science itself. Any philosophy that ties itself with science is limited by its scope.
-
Yes...I am in fact saying that Atheism does not have a Big Picture view of the world. It merely asserts that it does not believe in anything that cannot be explained by natural law. That is its limitation as also perhaps that of science itself. Any philosophy that ties itself with science is limited by its scope.
either my mind has not fully woken up yet or you are talking bollocks , not sure which yet?
-
But there is a New Atheist big picture.The advancement in various measure of secular humanism, scientism, antitheism and partially overlapping magisteria.
you need to stop seeing things as organised brain dead people all worshiping at the same temple chanting prayers in some kind of repulsive self absorbed happy clappy 'we know the truth' kind of way . Most atheists I know are simply private individuals , a bit like people who wear false dentures , you wouldn't know unless you asked them
-
either my mind has not fully woken up yet or you are talking bollocks , not sure which yet?
I'll go for (b) please Bob.
-
I'll go for (b) please Bob.
Me too! And thank you, Walter, for the laugh on a grey morning.
-
Yes...I am in fact saying that Atheism does not have a Big Picture view of the world. It merely asserts that it does not believe in anything that cannot be explained by natural law. That is its limitation as also perhaps that of science itself. Any philosophy that ties itself with science is limited by its scope.
It doesn't, and it seems that you are equating atheism with philosophical naturalism.
It simply means that I (a common or garden atheist) don't currently hold any beliefs about gods (or supernatural agents in general).
-
Me too! And thank you, Walter, for the laugh on a grey morning.
you're welcome ........... its proper backendish now though eh Susan!!!!!
-
you're welcome ........... its proper backendish now though eh Susan!!!!!
Had to google a definition for that one!
It's not too bad, really, because theres very little wind and it's quite mild. No tap this morning, so I'll walk somewhere.
-
Had to google a definition for that one!
It's not too bad, really, because theres very little wind and it's quite mild. No tap this morning, so I'll walk somewhere.
tap? as in dancing ?
-
Yes...I am in fact saying that Atheism does not have a Big Picture view of the world. It merely asserts that it does not believe in anything that cannot be explained by natural law.
Wow. Just wandered back to see how things are going here, only to stumble upon this staggering example of complete ignorance with a large side dish of utter nonsense.
No, atheism doesn't say anything at all about "natural law" or what can or can't be explained by it. Atheism is not believing in any gods (how many times has that been said here and how many more times does it need to be said before the hard of thinking get it into what passes for their minds?)
There is no logical contradiction between atheism and a belief in (for example) magic, an afterlife, ghosts, or even homeopathy.
As for "not believe in anything that cannot be explained by natural law" - it doesn't even make sense. We don't know what can and cannot be explained by 'natural law' because we don't have a complete theory of everything - and even if we did, we couldn't be sure that it was complete. You can only make a coherent belief system from the statement if you insert 'known' into it: "not believe in anything that cannot be explained by known natural law" but then it would be a stupid position to adopt because we know that there are physical situations that can't be so explained.
-
Yes, I thought everyone knew I tap dance weekly. There's a video which my daughter-in-law very kindly made for me because I thought it would be a great shame if I died without my sons having seen me doing my favourite hobby, for which I keep fit!Actually, I run the class... The video is the Intermediate warm-up, but of course we do the Advanced grade syllabus too.
If you pm me your e-mail address, I can get the Tech chap I know to send it to you if you like. My granddaughters were quite impressed! :) They think I'm quite an unusual Granny!
-
Yes...I am in fact saying that Atheism does not have a Big Picture view of the world.
Does it need one, and why?
Welcome back to SkoS by the way. Stick around!
-
It doesn't, and it seems that you are equating atheism with philosophical naturalism.
It simply means that I (a common or garden atheist) don't currently hold any beliefs about gods (or supernatural agents in general).
Well...I am probably talking about Philosophical Naturalism.
But many atheists do have a problem not just with the idea of God but even with spirits and afterlife etc. I know many atheists who do not accept anything that is not explained by natural law (science). So the difference between the two is rather thin.
-
Well...I am probably talking about Philosophical Naturalism.
But many atheists do have a problem not just with the idea of God but even with spirits and afterlife etc.
I'd imagine they do, which is why they are atheists.
I know many atheists who do not accept anything that is not explained by natural law (science).
Then they subscribe to philosophical naturalism, foolishly in my opinion: but I've yet to come across any who state they adopt a PN stance.
So the difference between the two is rather thin.
Atheism doesn't entail PN - they are very different things.
-
I'd imagine they do, which is why they are atheists.
Then they subscribe to philosophical naturalism, foolishly in my opinion: but I've yet to come across any who state they adopt a PN stance.
Atheism doesn't entail PN - they are very different things.
Well...Ok. I would really like to know sometime why Atheism does not entail PN.....and how they are different.
Meanwhile...how many people here would claim to be atheists (don't believe in a God) but nevertheless believe in soul/spirit, after-life, ghosts, reincarnation or heaven-hell, karma whatever....even though none of these are proved or fit into Natural Law as we know it?!
Is there anyone at all.... and will he/she have the guts to admit to that on here, I wonder!?
-
Well...Ok. I would really like to know sometime why Atheism does not entail PN.....and how they are different.
All atheism means is that I don't have beliefs about supernatural agents, and this doesn't entail a belief that there are no supernatural agents - just that there are no good reasons to think there are. Nor does it entail a commitment to PN.
Meanwhile...how many people here would claim to be atheists (don't believe in a God) but nevertheless believe in soul/spirit, after-life, ghosts, reincarnation or heaven-hell, karma whatever....even though none of these are proved or fit into Natural Law as we know it?!
I doubt there are any, since all these are claims involving supernatural agents (be it gods or ghosts).
Is there anyone at all.... and will he/she have the guts to admit to that on here, I wonder!?
I suspect you are misunderstanding atheism, Sriram, and I've yet to come across an atheist who believed in ghosts since 'ghost-believing' and 'atheist' seem to me to be mutually exclusive.
-
I believe Floo is an atheist who also believes in ghosts - although this is from awhile ago so I may be incorrect due to fading memory.
-
Hi Sriram,
A response to your Message 16:
IMO many of the atheists (New and Old...what's the difference?) are not just repetitive bores but they also lack vision and insight. Intelligent perhaps but no wisdom. Sorry guys...no offence... :D
And no offence taken, just complete disagreement.
Britain in particular, being one of the pioneers in Science and modern thinking...seems to have gotten stuck in its own success and glory. Science is the new 'religion'.
For me science isn't a religion in any way. It is simply a method for arriving at better explanations for the things that are conducive to its applications. I would argue that it continually seeks to improve on those successes and its approach is one of critical judgement, inquisitiveness and a willingness to challenge and change if evidence demands.
Britishers seem to be resting on their laurels and wallowing in their atheism as though it is some sort of a path breaking new find that no one has thought of before.
You also seem to relate atheism to science here, which seems to me to be a very suspect approach. Also, no one that I know thinks that an atheistic point of view is anything new at all, so this idea that it is some sort of new path falls upon deaf ears as far as I am concerned.
This is a pity because atheism is as old as the hills
Of course it is. Why there is even a tradition of atheism going back at least 2000 years in India. Do you really think that atheists think that they have discovered something new? Sounds like some sort of a straw man to me.
but lacks any true insight or comprehensive perspective. It lacks integration and a big picture view.
On the contrary, I think many insights can be gleaned from atheism, and as for comprehensiveness, my feeling is that most religions are not particularly comprehensive at all. They become little more than ideologies, spouting their various 'truths' whilst denying the 'truths' of others.
Most recent atheists are looking out of a window that someone like Dawkins or Harris have shown them and believe that the little window gives them access to all the world, beyond which there cannot possibly be anything else.
Certainly not my position. I was an atheist long before Dawkins etc. came along, and I have never held the position that there couldn't possibly be anything else. I'm not sure exactly who you are speaking to here. Perhaps, yourself?
I guess it will change in the coming decades.
You mean you hope that it will change in the coming decades. Present trends seem to suggest that you could well be wrong. most people in the UK have become apathetic about religion, confining it to a position of steadily deceasing importance.
I suspect you don't really understand what atheism entails at all, simply prefering to try to pigeonhole people into your selfmade boxes. You often talk about your approach to the spiritual, and are very ready to condemn those who disagree with you, dismissing them as those who haven't yet understood the important messages that you are trying to convey. Perhaps if you did try, yourself, to understand what other people are saying, even if you disagree with them, then you may find that your big picture is more comprehensive and integrated.
-
I believe Floo is an atheist who also believes in ghosts - although this is from awhile ago so I may be incorrect due to fading memory.
I am an agnostic, who thinks it highly improbable a god or afterlife exists, however I could be wrong, I just hope I am not.
As I have stated many times with regard to the weird experiences I have had in my childhood home, and at our previous property, I am of the opinion there is a natural explanation for the 'supernatural', which science will one day come up with, even if it can't at present.
-
I am an agnostic, who thinks it highly improbable a god or afterlife exists, however I could be wrong, I just hope I am not.
As I have stated many times with regard to the weird experiences I have had in my childhood home, and at our previous property, I am of the opinion there is a natural explanation for the 'supernatural', which science will one day come up with, even if it can't at present.
And nearly every atheist I know is also agnostic. They aren't exclusionary claims. One talks about belief the other about knowledge. If the answer to the question 'Do you have belief in god(s)?' is No - you are an atheist.
-
And nearly every atheist I know is also agnostic. They aren't exclusionary claims. One talks about belief the other about knowledge. If the answer to the question 'Do you have belief in god(s)?' is No - you are an atheist.
I don't think any gods exist, but I admit to the possibility I could be wrong as I have no verifiable evidence to prove without a shadow of doubt I am right.
-
I don't think any gods exist, but I admit to the possibility I could be wrong as I have no verifiable evidence to prove without a shadow of doubt I am right.
And again - agnostic and atheist are not exclusive positions. If you answer 'Do you have belief in god(s)?' No - you are an atheist. You can also be an agnostic at the same time.
-
And again - agnostic and atheist are not exclusive positions. If you answer 'Do you have belief in god(s)?' No - you are an atheist. You can also be an agnostic at the same time.
I bow to your superior knowledge!
-
I bow to your superior knowledge!
I think you were thinking that agnostic is some half way house between theist and atheist.
It's a common mistake, do not worry.
-
I bow to your superior knowledge!
And now you know that you are an atheist. Glad to have helped.
-
And now you know that you are an atheist. Glad to have helped.
;D
-
I am an agnostic, who thinks it highly improbable a god or afterlife exists, however I could be wrong, I just hope I am not.
As I have stated many times with regard to the weird experiences I have had in my childhood home, and at our previous property, I am of the opinion there is a natural explanation for the 'supernatural', which science will one day come up with, even if it can't at present.
strange how it follows you about , don't you think.?
-
Yes...I am in fact saying that Atheism does not have a Big Picture view of the world. It merely asserts that it does not believe in anything that cannot be explained by natural law.
If that's not a big picture, what is?
That is its limitation as also perhaps that of science itself. Any philosophy that ties itself with science is limited by its scope.
Whereas the limitations of religion are that nobody has any idea how to show that any of its ideas are right or wrong.
-
either my mind has not fully woken up yet or you are talking bollocks , not sure which yet?
Fallacy of the excluded middle. Both could be true.
I'm almost certain, btw that all of the people on this thread claiming New Atheism has failed are talking bollocks. For one thing, I doubt if any of them could find any person who describes themselves as New Atheist. The whole concept is a colossal straw man.
-
Well...I am probably talking about Philosophical Naturalism.
But many atheists do have a problem not just with the idea of God but even with spirits and afterlife etc. I know many atheists who do not accept anything that is not explained by natural law (science). So the difference between the two is rather thin.
Correlation is not causation. Being an atheist does not make you less susceptible to other mumbo jumbo, rather being atheist is just one consequence of a sceptical World view that leads you to reject leprechauns, fairies, flying saucers and magic.
-
Fallacy of the excluded middle. Both could be true.
I'm almost certain, btw that all of the people on this thread claiming New Atheism has failed are talking bollocks. For one thing, I doubt if any of them could find any person who describes themselves as New Atheist. The whole concept is a colossal straw man.
''I am not a New Atheist said the New Atheist''.
A New Atheist Jeremy is as described in the Wikipedia article based on observed behaviour with regards to Secular Humanism, scientism, Antitheism and partially overlapping Magisteria. It is as does therefore.
Criticism from atheists provides enough satisfaction. But aside from criticism from atheists and the religious most people have not seriously criticised The four horsemen. This is a worry I would imagine because it might be because they haven't been taken seriously.
-
Fallacy of the excluded middle. Both could be true.
I'm almost certain, btw that all of the people on this thread claiming New Atheism has failed are talking bollocks. For one thing, I doubt if any of them could find any person who describes themselves as New Atheist. The whole concept is a colossal straw man.
TBH I rarely exclude the middle , generally it's where most fun can be found 😂👍
-
''I am not a New Atheist said the New Atheist''.
A New Atheist Jeremy is as described in the Wikipedia article based on observed behaviour with regards to Secular Humanism, scientism, Antitheism and partially overlapping Magisteria. It is as does therefore.
Criticism from atheists provides enough satisfaction. But aside from criticism from atheists and the religious most people have not seriously criticised The four horsemen. This is a worry I would imagine because it might be because they haven't been taken seriously.
So if New Atheism is a descriptive term based on certain traits that certain people display, it's a bit hard to claim it is failing since it can have no objectives.
-
''I am not a New Atheist said the New Atheist''.
A New Atheist Jeremy is as described in the Wikipedia article based on observed behaviour with regards to Secular Humanism, scientism, Antitheism and partially overlapping Magisteria. It is as does
That's not quite what it says on Wikipedia is it?
-
So if New Atheism is a descriptive term based on certain traits that certain people display, it's a bit hard to claim it is failing since it can have no objectives.
Simple anthropology and psychology Jeremy.We behave in order to achieve objectives.
-
That's not quite what it says on Wikipedia is it?
I'm afraid all these areas of New Atheist activity are discussed in the Wikipedia article.
-
Correlation is not causation. Being an atheist does not make you less susceptible to other mumbo jumbo, rather being atheist is just one consequence of a sceptical World view that leads you to reject leprechauns, fairies, flying saucers and magic.
But how do you know that all atheists reject fairies and magic and flying saucers? From what all of you are saying ...atheists are just people who do not believe in a God! Simple! They might very well believe in spirits, after life, ghosts, magic, flying saucers etc. etc.
The problem is that you people are defining atheists both as a single set of people and also as a very diverse group of people. Both can't be true.
-
Thank you, JeremyP, and Maeght, for a positive and interesting start to Friday!
-
But how do you know that all atheists reject fairies and magic and flying saucers? From what all of you are saying ...atheists are just people who do not believe in a God! Simple! They might very well believe in spirits, after life, ghosts, magic, flying saucers etc. etc.
The problem is that you people are defining atheists both as a single set of people and also as a very diverse group of people. Both can't be true.
Post of the week.
-
But how do you know that all atheists reject fairies and magic and flying saucers? From what all of you are saying ...atheists are just people who do not believe in a God! Simple! They might very well believe in spirits, after life, ghosts, magic, flying saucers etc. etc.
The problem is that you people are defining atheists both as a single set of people and also as a very diverse group of people. Both can't be true.
Leaving aside flying saucers, which if demonstrably encountered would be natural, the rejection of supernatural claims in general (of gods or fairies) is on the basis that there are no good reasons to think they exist, given that the arguments offered to date by those claiming they do exist are all flawed.
-
Post of the week.
Then you are easily pleased, Vlad.
-
Leaving aside flying saucers, which if demonstrably encountered would be natural, the rejection of supernatural claims in general (of gods or fairies) is on the basis that there are no good reasons to think they exist, given that the arguments offered to date by those claiming they do exist are all flawed.
So...according to you...do all atheists reject all paranormal/supernatural claims besides not believing in God?!!
-
So...according to you...do all atheists reject all paranormal/supernatural claims besides not believing in God?!!
No idea, since I can't speak for all atheists. However, if the arguments for ghosts are intrinsically the same as arguments for gods then I'd imagine, like me, they'd reject both - else they'd be inconsistent in their thinking.
-
Then you are easily pleased, Vlad.
I think the chance of Sriram getting a sensible balanced ungrudging response is small but I applaud incisive critique which I suspect hits the spot.
-
I think the chance of Sriram getting a sensible balanced ungrudging response is small but I applaud incisive critique which I suspect hits the spot.
Why I am not surprised that you think Sriram's post is 'incisive critique'.
-
I think the chance of Sriram getting a sensible balanced ungrudging response is small but I applaud incisive critique which I suspect hits the spot.
you highlight your inability to think critically if you think that
-
Post of the week.
Though not for the reasons you're thinking of.
-
So...according to you...do all atheists reject all paranormal/supernatural claims besides not believing in God?!!
Is this 'debate' still going on? It really isn't rocket science, you only need a dictionary and a few functioning neurons.
jeremyp's reply #49 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=14714.msg700814#msg700814) should have ended it.
Atheism is, according to Oxford Dictionaries (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheism), disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
So, if you don't have a belief in the existence of any gods you are an atheist - regardless of any other beliefs you may hold about anything else.
There is a correlation between atheism and disbelief in other woo-woo because gods are a type of woo-woo and people who generally require reasoning or evidence in order to believe something, tend to reject gods along with all the rest. In other words, a general rejection of woo-woo is a sufficient but not necessary reason to be an atheist.
However, atheism itself is just not believing in any gods.
This is really, really, really simple!
-
Though not for the reasons you're thinking of.
this is a good example of two totally different ways of thinking which appear to be innate and unchangeable in my experience over the years and arguments between the two will continue ad infinitum. From my own experience there are very few converts either way , only poor thinking on one side and critical thinking on the other
I've been wondering why that is for many years now !
-
Nowhere here does it say atheists don't believe in flying saucers, leprechauns and the like.
-
Is this 'debate' still going on? It really isn't rocket science, you only need a dictionary and a few functioning neurons.
jeremyp's reply #49 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=14714.msg700814#msg700814) should have ended it.
Atheism is, according to Oxford Dictionaries (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheism), disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
So, if you don't have a belief in the existence of any gods you are an atheist - regardless of any other beliefs you may hold about anything else.
There is a correlation between atheism and disbelief in other woo-woo because gods are a type of woo-woo and people who generally require reasoning or evidence in order to believe something, tend to reject gods along with all the rest. In other words, a general rejection of woo-woo is a sufficient but not necessary reason to be an atheist.
However, atheism itself is just not believing in any gods.
This is really, really, really simple!
Post of the month!
-
I'm afraid all these areas of New Atheist activity are discussed in the Wikipedia article.
You said that the article gave a definition of New Atheism. It does in that it says 'advocate the view that superstition, religion and irrationalism should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticised and exposed by rational argument wherever their influence arises in government, education and politics.' This seems to me to bea fair definition of New Atheism. It then goes on to refer to New Atheism lending it self to and overlapping secularism and antitheism particularly in its criticism of indoctrination of children. This isn't a definition of New Atheism but an observation of some
overlap in behaviour. Your post shows you paranoia about New Atheism by lumping all that and more into a definition which is not reflected in the Wikipedia article.
-
Your post shows you paranoia about New Atheism by lumping all that and more into a definition which is not reflected in the Wikipedia article.
Insightful observation of the week.
-
Is this 'debate' still going on? It really isn't rocket science, you only need a dictionary and a few functioning neurons.
jeremyp's reply #49 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=14714.msg700814#msg700814) should have ended it.
Atheism is, according to Oxford Dictionaries (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheism), disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
So, if you don't have a belief in the existence of any gods you are an atheist - regardless of any other beliefs you may hold about anything else.
There is a correlation between atheism and disbelief in other woo-woo because gods are a type of woo-woo and people who generally require reasoning or evidence in order to believe something, tend to reject gods along with all the rest. In other words, a general rejection of woo-woo is a sufficient but not necessary reason to be an atheist.
However, atheism itself is just not believing in any gods.
This is really, really, really simple!
Hopefully the above post will have cleared up Sriram's confusion. :)
-
Hopefully the above post will have cleared up Sriram's confusion. :)
Sriram's confusion is only that cultivated by New atheists who wish to avoid identification and responsibility for their utterances by coalescing, Slime Mould like, into a single entity which ''Merely has disbelief in Gods'' when conditions get tough for them or dispersing as lone amoeboids which ever is most useful.
-
Sriram's confusion is only that cultivated by New atheists who wish to avoid identification and responsibility for their utterances by coalescing, Slime Mould like, into a single entity which ''Merely has disbelief in Gods'' when conditions get tough for them or dispersing as lone amoeboids which ever is most useful.
shakes head and holds face in hands
-
Sriram's confusion is only that cultivated by New atheists who wish to avoid identification and responsibility for their utterances by coalescing, Slime Mould like, into a single entity which ''Merely has disbelief in Gods'' when conditions get tough for them or dispersing as lone amoeboids which ever is most useful.
So many words to say so little. More muddying the waters?
-
Sriram's confusion is only that cultivated by New atheists who wish to avoid identification and responsibility for their utterances by coalescing, Slime Mould like, into a single entity which ''Merely has disbelief in Gods'' when conditions get tough for them or dispersing as lone amoeboids which ever is most useful.
Not a candidate for post of the week.
-
Sriram's confusion is only that cultivated by New atheists who wish to avoid identification and responsibility for their utterances by coalescing, Slime Mould like, into a single entity which ''Merely has disbelief in Gods'' when conditions get tough for them or dispersing as lone amoeboids which ever is most useful.
You seem to be struggling to describe a group of independent thinkers who share some similar views about some things.
The point is that (as far as I know) there is no canonical set of beliefs that define 'new atheism' so it remains a vague description of people whose views are broadly in line with those of the authors who were first labelled as such (Harris, Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, et al.)
It is only to be expected that individuals who are so labelled don't always agree about everything.
The term atheist has a specific and accepted meaning - new atheist, not so much. Get over it.
-
The term atheist has a specific and accepted meaning - new atheist, not so much. Get over it.
New atheist, new Atheist and New Atheist even less so.
-
Yes, exactly. I'm not sure why Vlad wants to see a monolithic collection of people, which obviously isn't. In fact, I think the famous image of herding cats has often been used about atheists. I suppose the idea of a canon is being projected from Christian doctrines onto areas where it is not suitable.
-
You seem to be struggling to describe a group of independent thinkers who share some similar views about some things.
The point is that (as far as I know) there is no canonical set of beliefs that define 'new atheism' so it remains a vague description of people whose views are broadly in line with those of the authors who were first labelled as such (Harris, Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, et al.)
It is only to be expected that individuals who are so labelled don't always agree about everything.
The term atheist has a specific and accepted meaning - new atheist, not so much. Get over it.
I'm not on about atheists here but New Atheists the characteristics and behaviour of whom have been identified.
You talk about canon. Terms introduced by the four horsemen and lesser New atheists frequently surface in New Atheist argument vis The leprechaun thing, courtiers reply, extraordinary claims etc. That isn't limited to quotes but full blown ideas and vocabulary. A simulator of a simulated universe is always a spotty teenager working out of a basement for instance. AC Grayling I believe has fashioned atheist readers. It all fits in IMHO with the stealth religion theory of D. Sloan Wilson. Therefore Independent rather than increasingly collective thinking is now for many becoming less of an option.
-
I'm not on about atheists here but New Atheists the characteristics and behaviour of whom have been identified.
Identified by whom, accepted by whom?
I have never heard of anyone self defining as a New Atheist - it seems to be a pejorative term used by those who want to disparage atheism and atheists.
-
Yes, exactly. I'm not sure why Vlad wants to see a monolithic collection of people, which obviously isn't. In fact, I think the famous image of herding cats has often been used about atheists. I suppose the idea of a canon is being projected from Christian doctrines onto areas where it is not suitable.
As I read this I am visualising a certain professor going ''ooh ooh please don't accuse us of being a monolithic collection of people, that's our schtick on the religious''
What is AC Grayling with his collected works from the 'saints' of New Atheism up to?
Are there no 'greats' of popular science.
I would not expect New Atheism to be any more monolithic than any other 'stealth Religion'.
-
Sriram's confusion is only that cultivated by New atheists
Not at all. Like some people with rare orchids and bonsai trees, he seems to enjoy cultivating it himself.
-
Identified by whom, accepted by whom?
I have never heard of anyone self defining as a New Atheist - it seems to be a pejorative term used by those who want to disparage atheism and atheists.
I have never heard of a Privet hedge self identifying as Privet.
Or the earliest followers of Jesus self identifying as Christians.
-
It all fits in IMHO with the stealth religion theory of D. Sloan Wilson.
DSW definitely seems to be ousting Prof. Dawkins as the focal point of your monomania these days.
-
I have never heard of a Privet hedge self identifying as Privet.
A privet hedge is incapable of self defining as anything as it is a plant! Are you somehow suggesting that atheists are somehow non human.
Or the earliest followers of Jesus self identifying as Christians.
I've no idea whether they did or didn't, and nor do you as there isn't enough evidence either way - but that is beside the point - most now do.
-
A privet hedge is incapable of self defining as anything as it is a plant! Are you somehow suggesting that atheists are somehow non human.
A privet is a privet whether it self identifies as one or not.
Am I suggesting that atheists are somehow not human? First of all I am talking about New Atheists not atheists. Secondly I have not said that atheists are not human. Thirdly this brings us round nicely to some epithets used New Atheists. Some people of religion do not self identify as sheep some do not self identify as Just sophisticated apes and yet that is foisted on them.
If one identifies then those as sheep and just sophisticated apes are you then suggesting that religious people are somehow non human?
-
DSW definitely seems to be ousting Prof. Dawkins as the focal point of your monomania these days.
Really? What is Doctor Sloane Wilson's hair like? Does he have hair? Is it ''great'' hair?
-
A privet is a privet whether it self identifies as one or not.
A privet hedge has no capacity for high consciousness and therefore is unable to self define as anything. But the definition of a privet is clear and accepted - unlike New Atheist.
Am I suggesting that atheists are somehow not human?
you made the comparison between the two
First of all I am talking about New Atheists not atheists.
New Atheist - a term used pretty well exclusively by you and one that has no accepted definition - it is a meaningless term that you use to try to promulgate your ill informed and negative view of atheists, to try to portray them as some kind of organised group - which they are not. Atheists are people who do not believe god or gods exist - no more, no less. New Atheists aren't a thing.
-
A privet is a privet whether it self identifies as one or not [...] Some people of religion do not self identify as sheep ...
Some people of religion are sheep whether they self identify or not, then ;)
-
Simple anthropology and psychology Jeremy.We behave in order to achieve objectives.
We do indeed, but unless you can demonstrate that there are some objectives that are not being met that the people you label as new atheists have subscribed to, everything you are saying is utter bollocks.
So put your mouth where your arsehole is and tell us which new atheist objective, Richard Dawkins has explicitly signed put to an then demonstrate why that objective is less likely to be achieved now than ten years ago.
-
So put your mouth where your arsehole is [...]
Too late was the cry!
-
But how do you know that all atheists reject fairies and magic and flying saucers?
I don't. I'm not entirely sure how you came to the conclusion that I do.
From what all of you are saying ...atheists are just people who do not believe in a God!
Bingo!
They might very well believe in spirits, after life, ghosts, magic, flying saucers etc. etc.
Yes they might.
But the thing is that most atheists are atheists because there's no evidence for gods. you seem to think that being atheist is the cause of being sceptical about all sorts of phenomena. You have it exactly backwards.
-
I think the chance of Sriram getting a sensible balanced ungrudging response is small but I applaud incisive critique which I suspect hits the spot.
The chance is 100% because I just provided it. Note to Vlad: that you don't like what a post says is not evidence that it is unbalanced and grudging.
-
I don't. I'm not entirely sure how you came to the conclusion that I do.
Bingo!
Yes they might.
But the thing is that most atheists are atheists because there's no evidence for gods. you seem to think that being atheist is the cause of being sceptical about all sorts of phenomena. You have it exactly backwards.
Does that mean that some atheists have evidence for spirits, magic, leprechauns and flying saucers?
It can't all be about evidence only....in which case materialism and atheism will not be different (are they?).
I know that atheism is not the cause of skepticism. Rather, I think habitual skepticism born of an adolescence mindset that many people have not outgrown, results in scorn for all sorts of things including religious beliefs and God. This scorn is also towards science and scientists whose thinking may not match with their own.
In fact, if patron saints like Dawkins and Harris suddenly change their stand and express sympathy towards spiritual or religious thinking...most atheists will disown them.
Atheism and skepticism are not really about evidence but about a mindset that is difficult to change.
-
Does that mean that some atheists have evidence for spirits, magic, leprechauns and flying saucers?
No (but then neither does anyone else).
It can't all be about evidence only....in which case materialism and atheism will not be different (are they?).
Atheism is simply having no beliefs in God or Gods: whatever 'materialism' is, if there is such a stance, is presumably different,
I know that atheism is not the cause of skepticism. Rather, I think habitual skepticism born of an adolescence mindset that many people have not outgrown, results in scorn for all sorts of things including religious beliefs and God. This scorn is also towards science and scientists whose thinking may not match with their own.
In fact, if patron saints like Dawkins and Harris suddenly change their stand and express sympathy towards spiritual or religious thinking...most atheists will disown them.
You seem to be channelling your inner Vlad.
Atheism and skepticism are not really about evidence but about a mindset that is difficult to change.
No - they are about there being no good reasons to believe certain propositions.
-
No (but then neither does anyone else).
Atheism is simply having no beliefs in God or Gods: whatever 'materialism' is, if there is such a stance, is presumably different,
You seem to be channelling your inner Vlad.
No - they are about there being no good reasons to believe certain propositions.
I think Sriram has pointed that while it is your opinion that there are no good reasons to believe in God or gods that is an inadequate defence for someone who doesn't believe in God and gods but entertain all manner of supernatural ideas.
That brings us to the failure of New Atheism since it is reasonable to suppose that most atheists entertain some or many of these ideas. A case in point is the interest in ghost hunter shows on TVs in a supposedly majority non religious country.Materialism therefore is what these people aren't and you are.
Dawkins then has failed to bring his brand of New Atheism into the nation. Yes he will have gained some converts but I suspect that New Atheism was latent in many people on this board.
Finally NDG Tyson has supplied "good reason". I watch therefore the antitheist careers around here with interest.
-
I think Sriram has pointed that while it is your opinion that there are no good reasons to believe in God or gods that is an inadequate defence for someone who doesn't believe in God and gods but entertain all manner of supernatural ideas.
Who are all these woo believing atheists? Would be interesting to know on what basis they reject Gods but accept other supernatural claims - name some names here and we'll ask them.
That brings us to the failure of New Atheism since it is reasonable to suppose that most atheists entertain some or many of these ideas.
Not sure it is reasonable, Vlad - so you need to back-up this assertion.
A case in point is the interest in ghost hunter shows on TVs in a supposedly majority non religious country.
It's called entertainment, Vlad - people go to see horror films without being worried about demons etc being real.
Dawkins then has failed to bring his brand of New Atheism into the nation. Yes he will have gained some converts but I suspect that New Atheism was latent in many people on this board.
Finally NDG Tyson has supplied "good reason". I watch therefore the antitheist careers around here with interest.
Perhaps you should squeeze your 'New Atheism' thought onto a sandwich board and wander around your local shopping centre seeking your own converts.
-
Who are all these woo believing atheists? Would be interesting to know on what basis they reject Gods but accept other supernatural claims - name some names here and we'll ask them.
Not sure it is reasonable, Vlad - so you need to back-up this assertion.
It's called entertainment, Vlad - people go to see horror films without being worried about demons etc being real.
Perhaps you should squeeze your 'New Atheism' thought onto a sandwich board and wander around your local shopping centre seeking your own converts.
Then of course there is the homeopathy etc. And of course paganism, new age ideas, visualisation, positive thinking, reframing, managerial woo, motivational woo etc.
Hardly a victory for the New Atheism is it.
-
Then of course there is the homeopathy etc. And of course paganism, new age ideas, visualisation, positive thinking, reframing, managerial woo, motivational woo etc.
Hardly a victory for the New Atheism is it.
I wasn't aware that these 'New Atheists' (whoever they actually are) were fighting anyone, Don Quixote.
-
Does that mean that some atheists have evidence for spirits, magic, leprechauns and flying saucers?
Nobody has any evidence of those things.
It can't all be about evidence only
Why not?
I know that atheism is not the cause of skepticism. Rather, I think habitual skepticism born of an adolescence mindset that many people have not outgrown, results in scorn for all sorts of things including religious beliefs and God. This scorn is also towards science and scientists whose thinking may not match with their own.
The trouble is that your thoughts tend to be rather juvenile
In fact, if patron saints like Dawkins and Harris suddenly change their stand and express sympathy towards spiritual or religious thinking...most atheists will disown them.
Only religionists have saints.
Atheism and skepticism are not really about evidence but about a mindset that is difficult to change.
Wrong, scepticism is about evidence. Atheism is about not believing in God.
-
I wasn't aware that these 'New Atheists' (whoever they actually are) were fighting anyone, Don Quixote.
For who believes in what woo. Here is the YouGov poll of last year.
Gordon I think it blows your surprise at there being any woo in the atheist camp.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/03/26/o-we-of-little-faith/
-
Nobody has any evidence of those things.
Why not?
The trouble is that your thoughts tend to be rather juvenile
Only religionists have saints.Wrong, scepticism is about evidence. Atheism is about not believing in God.
New atheist IS a stealth religion.
-
New atheist IS a stealth religion.
No.
-
New atheist IS a stealth religion.
Come on Vlad - when you make up terms at least be consistent - I thought it was New Atheism.
-
New atheist IS a stealth religion.
No it isn't.
-
Paranoia?
No Dr SloanWilson..............he's an atheist you know.
-
For who believes in what woo. Here is the YouGov poll of last year.
Gordon I think it blows your surprise at there being any woo in the atheist camp.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/03/26/o-we-of-little-faith/
I can only assume that either you didn't read it, or if you did read it you didn't understand it.
-
No Dr SloanWilson..............he's an atheist you know.
Maybe he is - never heard of him.
-
No Dr SloanWilson..............he's an atheist you know.
Took the p word back incase unfair.
What relevance is the Dr Sloan reference?
-
I can only assume that either you didn't read it, or if you did read it you didn't understand it.
The important thing is that more people believe in ghosts than God. Which makes Sriram justified and your surprise at atheists believing in woo....less so.And that goes for your suggestion that the interest in ghosts among atheists being only for entertainment purposes.
-
The important thing is that more people believe in ghosts than God. Which makes Sriram justified and your surprise at atheists believing in woo....less so.And that goes for your suggestion that the interest in ghosts among atheists being only for entertainment purposes.
And did the survey you link to actually look at the sub-set who are atheist and their belief in ghosts? If so I can't see it from the article. What is apparent is that Christians are more likely to believe in ghosts than non Christians.
-
And did the survey you link to actually look at the sub-set who are atheist and their belief in ghosts? If so I can't see it from the article. What is apparent is that Christians are more likely to believe in ghosts than non Christians.
According to the survey less people believe in God than ghosts.
There are also other categories of what Gordon terms as woo in which there has to be an atheist believership.
-
The important thing is that more people believe in ghosts than God. Which makes Sriram justified and your surprise at atheists believing in woo....less so.And that goes for your suggestion that the interest in ghosts among atheists being only for entertainment purposes.
I think you need to read it again, Vlad - when you do perhaps you canthen point out the specific bit that says some atheists believe in ghosts.
-
I think you need to read it again, Vlad - when you do perhaps you canthen point out the specific bit that says some atheists believe in ghosts.
The belief in the creator column compared with the ghost column
-
According to the survey less people believe in God than ghosts.
There are also other categories of what Gordon terms as woo in which there has to be an atheist believership.
FFS, read it and understand it before making statements on it , you are beginning to REALLY annoy me now !!!!
-
FFS, read it and understand it before making statements on it , you are beginning to REALLY annoy me now !!!!
I've read it Walter more people believe in ghosts than a creator.
Here is another YouGov survey for you which has 26% saying they are religious but 34% saying they believe in Ghosts
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/10/31/ghosts-exist-say-1-3-brits/
-
According to the survey less people believe in God than ghosts.
There are also other categories of what Gordon terms as woo in which there has to be an atheist believership.
The survey is completely silent on the beliefs of atheists. They are presumably a subset of those who say they have no religion, but, unlike Christians there is no specific analysis of their views.
So you cannot conclude from this survey that 'there has to be an atheist believership' - that is complete speculation. It is possible but there is no evidence to support this as the data are also entirely consistent with there being no atheist believership in ghosts, with the approximately 20% of non Christian people who believe in ghosts being entirely made up of people who aren't Christian but also aren't atheist.
-
I think it blows your surprise
Excellent
-
You can have no belief in God but believe in gods therefore not be an atheist, hence the simple conclusion being drawn is not necessarily correct.
-
I've read it Walter more people believe in ghosts than a creator.
Here is another YouGov survey for you which has 26% saying they are religious but 34% saying they believe in Ghosts
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/10/31/ghosts-exist-say-1-3-brits/
either I'm missing something or the link is equating ;one in four as 39% ?
-
The belief in the creator column compared with the ghost column
Doesn't specify atheists.
-
Doesn't specify atheists.
''they'' only see what ''they'' want to see . whoooohoooa!!!
-
''they'' only see what ''they'' want to see . whoooohoooa!!!
So we are to take it that none of those who don't believe I'm a creator but believe in ghosts are not atheist?
Or
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/10/31/ghosts-exist-say-1-3-brits/
That none of these 34 Per cent are atheists where in other surveys only 26per cent claimed to be religious.
I think that shows how much in denial you are about atheists and woo.
Unless of course you are making a no true atheist appeal.
-
So we are to take it that none of those who don't believe I'm a creator but believe in ghosts are not atheist?
Or
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/10/31/ghosts-exist-say-1-3-brits/
That none of these 34 Per cent are atheists where in other surveys only 26per cent claimed to be religious.
I think that shows how much in denial you are about atheists and woo.
Unless of course you are making a no true atheist appeal.
If you're going to use published research, Vlad, there are two things you should bear in mind.
1. You need to understand the details of what the researchers actually did.
2. You don't get to add in either what you'd like them to have done or what you'd like the outcomes to have been.
So it's not a good idea to cite research that doesn't support your position (unless of course you like looking like a silly-billy).
-
So it's not a good idea to cite research that doesn't support your position (unless of course you like looking like a silly-billy).
Ah: now I think I can be of some help here ...
-
If you're going to use published research, Vlad, there are two things you should bear in mind.
1. You need to understand the details of what the researchers actually did.
2. You don't get to add in either what you'd like them to have done or what you'd like the outcomes to have been.
So it's not a good idea to cite research that doesn't support your position (unless of course you like looking like a silly-billy).
Sounds like a no true atheist argument to me Gordon.
It sounds like a lot of religious according to what I'm hearing from you guys are not atheist.
In terms of YouGov they themselves comment on the implications for atheism as you can read here
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/10/31/ghosts-exist-say-1-3-brits/
-
From you Gov
Although previous YouGov surveys have found that only 23% of British people say they are religious, this latest research finds that such atheism is not the fully scientific kind you might expect.
-
Sounds like a no true atheist argument to me Gordon.
It sounds like a lot of religious according to what I'm hearing from you guys are not atheist.
In terms of YouGov they themselves comment on the implications for atheism as you can read here
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/10/31/ghosts-exist-say-1-3-brits/
This summary, of a survey commissioned by 'The Sun', says: 'One in four British people (39%) believe that a house can be haunted by some kind of supernatural being, and almost as many (34%) think that ghosts actually exist.'
Perhaps you can explain, since you cited this, how a quarter of anything equals 39% of the whole.
-
From you Gov
Although previous YouGov surveys have found that only 23% of British people say they are religious, this latest research finds that such atheism is not the fully scientific kind you might expect.
So they say but what has atheism to do with science? Do the researchers explain the difference between 'scientific atheism' and 'unscientific atheism'?
Remember this is a survey commissioned by The Sun newspaper.
-
So we are to take it that none of those who don't believe I'm a creator but believe in ghosts are not atheist?
What we do know is that 18% of Christians do not believe in a creator.
What do you make of that?
-
This summary, of a survey commissioned by 'The Sun', says: 'One in four British people (39%) believe that a house can be haunted by some kind of supernatural being, and almost as many (34%) think that ghosts actually exist.'
Perhaps you can explain, since you cited this, how a quarter of anything equals 39% of the whole.
Highlighting that this was for the Sun has to be a fallacy Gordon.
As it happens these statements on the implications on atheism are on You Govs own website.
For some reason you are in denial about atheists and woo.
I can understand squirmage on your part. That a belief in certain kinds of woo by British atheists must come as a disappointment to the New Atheism.
-
Highlighting that this was for the Sun has to be a fallacy Gordon.
You mean The Sun isn't a quality peer-reviewed scientific journal?
Surely not!
As it happens these statements on the implications on atheism are on You Govs own website.
Even so it is an easily spotted mistake, and one that you missed - did your actually read it before citing it?
For some reason you are in denial about atheists and woo.
Not I: problem is you've haven't presented anything that supports your case; your first item didn't address atheism and neither did your arithmetically-challenged second item.
I can understand squirmage on your part. That a belief in certain kinds of woo by British atheists must come as a disappointment to the New Atheism.
You'd better tell them that, if you can find any that is.
-
This summary, of a survey commissioned by 'The Sun', says: 'One in four British people (39%) believe that a house can be haunted by some kind of supernatural being, and almost as many (34%) think that ghosts actually exist.'
So it's one in three.....I would say that is an even bigger failure for RD than a one in four......Are you hoping that a typo means that the no true atheist believes in woo line is true? Where is the evidence?
-
You mean The Sun isn't a quality peer-reviewed scientific journal?
Surely not!
Even so it is an easily spotted mistake, and one that you missed - did your actually read it before citing it?
Not I: problem is you've haven't presented anything that supports your case; your first item didn't address atheism and neither did your arithmetically-challenged second item.
You'd better tell them that, if you can find any that is.
I have not directed people to the Sun Gordon
The no atheist believes in woo argument seems to depend heavily on a typo.
Let me repeat what YouGov have said about British atheism.......
From you Gov
Although previous YouGov surveys have found that only 23% of British people say they are religious, this latest research finds that such atheism is not the fully scientific kind you might expect.
-
So it's one in three.....I would say that is an even bigger failure for RD than a one in four......Are you hoping that a typo means that the no true atheist believes in woo line is true? Where is the evidence?
I think people can have no belief in God or gods but still believe in other stuff such as ghosts. I see no reason why not.
-
You'd better tell them that, if you can find any that is.
Don't need to.......You Gov already have.
-
From you Gov
Although previous YouGov surveys have found that only 23% of British people say they are religious, this latest research finds that such atheism is not the fully scientific kind you might expect.
What's "the fully scientific kind of atheism"?
-
What's "the fully scientific kind of atheism"?
I would hazard that as New Atheism, Scientistic, no room for the supernatural, partially overlapping magisterial and all of that.
-
What's "the fully scientific kind of atheism"?
I asked him that: I'm sure his answer will arrive any time now!
-
I would hazard that as New Atheism, Scientistic, no room for the supernatural, partially overlapping magisterial and all of that.
Would they be similar to the New Christians? You know those 18% who don't believe in a creator?
-
Would they be similar to the New Christians? You know those 18% who don't believe in a creator?
That's a very new kind of Christianity.
Bit like my mate Solly, who is what's known as an unorthodox Jew.
He's a Nazi.
-
"The problem with New Atheism was that its whole shtick was repeating obviously true things that everyone already knew? But about 80% of Americans identify as religious, 63% claim to be “absolutely certain” that there is a God, and 46% think the world was literally created in seven days. This is a surprising number of people disagreeing with a thing that everybody already knows. I could be misreading the article. The article could be wrong. But I don’t think so. This is my intuitive feeling of what was wrong with New Atheism as well. It wasn’t that they were wrong.... Just that they were right in a loud, boring, and pointless way"
If they were right in a loud, boring and pointless way, it wouldn't matter because they would still be right. They would have truth on their side and the issue would be the means they use to communicate it.
However, this truth thingy is strangely absent from their position. How many people fail to accept that 1+1=2 (in base 10) or that the River Thames runs through London?
There is also a strange inconsistency in claiming certainty while failing miserably to demonstrate that certainty, yet criticizing those of religious belief who claim any kind of certainty. Maybe SusanDoris could comment on how she resolves this contradiction.
-
If they were right in a loud, boring and pointless way, it wouldn't matter because they would still be right. They would have truth on their side and the issue would be the means they use to communicate it.
However, this truth thingy is strangely absent from their position. How many people fail to accept that 1+1=2 (in base 10) or that the River Thames runs through London?
The first is axiomatic and the second a fact: so what?
There is also a strange inconsistency in claiming certainty while failing miserably to demonstrate that certainty, yet criticizing those of religious belief who claim any kind of certainty.
Leaving aside your straw man (another fallacy), about claiming certainty, reminds me of this quote from Bertrand Russell's 'A Liberal Decalogue' - 'Do not feel absolutely certain of anything: sound advice you'd do well to take heed of.
-
Atheist bus campaign: There's probably no God.
Balloon Whisk of the Nasal Polyps: Atheists claim certainty.
Anybody else seeing a bit of a problem here?
-
Atheist bus campaign: There's probably no God.
Balloon Whisk of the Nasal Polyps: Atheists claim certainty.
Anybody else seeing a bit of a problem here?
Yes. The atheist bus campaign was made to put the word probably by the bus company.
-
Yes. The atheist bus campaign was made to put the word probably by the bus company.
Any evidence of this?
-
Any evidence of this?
I read it somewhere a long time ago. Perhaps it was to satisfy advertising standards or something.
-
I read it somewhere a long time ago. Perhaps it was to satisfy advertising standards or something.
That's a no, then.
I found this:
As with the famous Carlsberg ads (‘probably the best lager in the world’), the word ‘probably’ helps to ensure that our ads will not breach any advertising codes. The Committee of Advertising Practice advised the campaign that ‘the inclusion of the word “probably” makes it less likely to cause offence, and therefore be in breach of the Advertising Code.’
Ariane Sherine has said:
There’s another reason I’m keen on the ‘probably’: it means the slogan is more accurate, as even though there’s no scientific evidence at all for God’s existence, it’s also impossible to prove that God doesn’t exist (or that anything doesn’t). As Richard Dawkins states in The God Delusion, saying ‘there’s no God’ is taking a ‘faith’ position. He writes: ‘Atheists do not have faith; and reason alone could not propel one to total conviction that anything definitely does not exist’. His choice of words in the book is ‘almost certainly’; but while this is closer to what most atheists believe, ‘probably’ is shorter and catchier, which is helpful for advertising. I also think the word is more lighthearted, and somehow makes the message more positive.
Because apparently the omission of the word probably would have been offensive ... to some ::)
-
That's a no, then.
As always I usually recommend Wikipedia on these matters. That will settle it. I'm sure I recall they were gung ho for ''There is no God'' but the bus company baulked.
-
As always I usually recommend Wikipedia on these matters. That will settle it. I'm sure I recall they were gung ho for ''There is no God'' but the bus company baulked.
Apparently not: the CAP were the ones who advised the inclusion of probably.
Wikipedia doesn't mention the bus company in this regard.