Is The New Atheist Literature Intellectually Frivolous?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think that one of the most well-known philosophers who defended atheism in recent times, has been J. L. Mackie, especially his book, 'The Miracle of Theism', which is quite a witty title.

A nod to Hume there - excellent book.

If it was written before the New Atheists it is probably a good book.

You rather gave the game away by referring to it as a defence of atheism.

New Atheists tend to be convinced automatically of the rightness of their position and attack religion and of course people who are ''nice'' to religion rather than conceding that all ideas need justification.

[Shaker]

If it was written before the New Atheists it is probably a good book.

So there's a time limit on when books about atheism can be good now, is there?

I note that true to form you're evading giving a definition of this "New Atheism" thing you bang on about.

You rather gave the game away by referring to it as a defence of atheism.

No I didn't. That was wigginhall in #122 - do keep up.

New Atheists tend to be convinced automatically of the rightness of their position

All people do that with all the positions they hold, or they wouldn't hold them.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If it was written before the New Atheists it is probably a good book.

So there's a time limit on when books about atheism can be good now, is there?

I note that true to form you're evading giving a definition of this "New Atheism" thing you bang on about.

You rather gave the game away by referring to it as a defence of atheism.

No I didn't. That was wigginhall in #122 - do keep up.

New Atheists tend to be convinced automatically of the rightness of their position

All people do that with all the positions they hold, or they wouldn't hold them.

Time limit on good atheist books? Coming over as righteous, preaching to the converted, playing to the Gallery and treating, with no evidence, moderate atheists as wankers is not a good or successful look for a fundementalist, proselytising antitheism.

The ''fuck you'' attitude of the young is what these old dudes have unsubtely tapped into.(Dawkins on Twitter) and if one supports it one is either a) trying to recapture one's youth or b)one needs one's prostate checked out.

[Shaker]

Time limit on good atheist books? Coming over as righteous

No idea what this refers to.

preaching to the converted

Convert's Corner on the Dawkins website says otherwise.

playing to the Gallery

Again, no idea what this is supposed to be about.

and treating, with no evidence, moderate atheists as wankers is not a good or successful look for a fundementalist, proselytising antitheism.

"Fundamentalist"? How pathetic.

Fundamentalist Muslims have to work at their fundamentalism to earn the title - they have to plant bombs and decapitate people and shit. If you're an atheist all you have to do is sit in your study in north Oxford and write a book.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

"Fundamentalist"? How pathetic.

Fundamentalist Muslims have to work at their fundamentalism to earn the title - they have to plant bombs and decapitate people and shit. If you're an atheist all you gave to do is sit in your study in north Oxford and write a book.

Yes but fundamentalist Christians do not as a rule nor en masse plant bombs or decapitate so you are heavy duty category fucking and redefining to suit your argument.

[Shaker]

"Fundamentalist"? How pathetic.

Fundamentalist Muslims have to work at their fundamentalism to earn the title - they have to plant bombs and decapitate people and shit. If you're an atheist all you gave to do is sit in your study in north Oxford and write a book.

Yes but fundamentalist Christians do not as a rule nor en masse plant bombs or decapitate so you are heavy duty category fucking and redefining to suit your argument.

No I'm not - I didn't bring fundamentalist Christians into the discussion or indeed fundamentalist anything; you did that with your absurd fundamentalist antitheist twaddle.

[jeremyp]

New Atheists tend to be convinced automatically of the rightness of their position

Can you name me some new atheists that are convinced automatically of their position.

Aso, you seem to be couching being "convinced automatically" as a pejorative. How do you square that with the fact that you, Hope, Spud, 2 Corrie, Bashful Anthony, TW and both Alans are convinced automatically of the rightness of Christianity.

[jeremyp]

Time limit on good atheist books? Coming over as righteous, preaching to the converted, playing to the Gallery and treating, with no evidence, moderate atheists as wankers is not a good or successful look for a fundementalist, proselytising antithesis.

So there's never been a good Christian book.

The ''fuck you'' attitude of the young is what these old dudes have unsubtely tapped into.(Dawkins on Twitter) and if one supports it one is either a) trying to recapture one's youth or b)one needs one's prostate checked out.

I find this quite risible. All the things you ascribe to "New Atheists" are attributes of Christians throughout the ages.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

New Atheists tend to be convinced automatically of the rightness of their position

Can you name me some new atheists that are convinced automatically of their position.

Aso, you seem to be couching being "convinced automatically" as a pejorative. How do you square that with the fact that you, Hope, Spud, 2 Corrie, Bashful Anthony, TW and both Alans are convinced automatically of the rightness of Christianity.

Yeah, alright, it was a bit of a shit argument.

[Shaker]

Yeah, alright, it was a bit of a shit argument.

A very gracious concession, thank you.

Now we just need to wade our way through all the other 24,637,336 shit arguments you've advanced and we'll be getting somewhere 

[splashscuba]

Oh and by the way, what's a new atheist again ? Last time I asked you just insulted me.

[Outrider]

God is described as being out of time.

I think you're liberally interpreting the idea of gods being described as an anachronism 

Material which is out of time? How is that therefore related to Material which is in time where causation is all?

Good question... no idea yet. The hypotheses that have been put forward are purely mathematical, we possibly don't have the cognitive framework to develop language that would accurately convey the ideas.

In terms of consciousness all is required is awareness of oneself surely. I notice you have had to coin the phrase 'a stream of awareness' for your argument to work. I think you are touting a theory of consciousness.

No, you're the one that pitched in with 'in terms of consciousnes all is required is an awareness of oneself'... It may be that a stream of general awareness is sufficient, it might be self-awareness is required, I'd not really gone into it here as it seems extraneous to the discussion.

I'm glad in your closing statements you concede the possibility of an ''uncreated'' ......that is aristotelean.

I never denied it was a possiblity, I just didn't limit my considerations to just that possibility because it fit a preconception I had.

You are however left with this mysterious material which is outside of time. It is i'm afraid definitionally uncreated but you are so reluctant to face up to this.

If we know nothing about it, how can we definitively state anything about it? Us not knowing how it came about - if it came about at all - is not the same as it being uncreated.

If it remains the uncreated out of time it has no obvious relationship to time and is a red Herring.

No - if time came from it, and time exists purely within the universe which the maths and evidence seem to suggest is the case, then why does the extra-universal material have to be unrelated? Nature is an ongoing sequence of one form of things coming from another.

That effectively leaves us with material in time and if that was not created then it must be uncreated and that too is Aristotelian.

Any other argument is avoidance of that.

No-one's avoiding that, but Aristotle and you both seem averse to just accepting an infinite, unconscious reality, without any explanation of why.

O.

[BashfulAnthony]

Yeah, alright, it was a bit of a shit argument.

A very gracious concession, thank you.

Now we just need to wade our way through all the other 24,637,336 shit arguments you've advanced and we'll be getting somewhere 

 
Don't exaggerate!  It was never more than 15,500,815.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

God is described as being out of time.

I think you're liberally interpreting the idea of gods being described as an anachronism 

Material which is out of time? How is that therefore related to Material which is in time where causation is all?

Good question... no idea yet. The hypotheses that have been put forward are purely mathematical, we possibly don't have the cognitive framework to develop language that would accurately convey the ideas.

In terms of consciousness all is required is awareness of oneself surely. I notice you have had to coin the phrase 'a stream of awareness' for your argument to work. I think you are touting a theory of consciousness.

No, you're the one that pitched in with 'in terms of consciousnes all is required is an awareness of oneself'... It may be that a stream of general awareness is sufficient, it might be self-awareness is required, I'd not really gone into it here as it seems extraneous to the discussion.

I'm glad in your closing statements you concede the possibility of an ''uncreated'' ......that is aristotelean.

I never denied it was a possiblity, I just didn't limit my considerations to just that possibility because it fit a preconception I had.

You are however left with this mysterious material which is outside of time. It is i'm afraid definitionally uncreated but you are so reluctant to face up to this.

If we know nothing about it, how can we definitively state anything about it? Us not knowing how it came about - if it came about at all - is not the same as it being uncreated.

If it remains the uncreated out of time it has no obvious relationship to time and is a red Herring.

No - if time came from it, and time exists purely within the universe which the maths and evidence seem to suggest is the case, then why does the extra-universal material have to be unrelated? Nature is an ongoing sequence of one form of things coming from another.

That effectively leaves us with material in time and if that was not created then it must be uncreated and that too is Aristotelian.

Any other argument is avoidance of that.

No-one's avoiding that, but Aristotle and you both seem averse to just accepting an infinite, unconscious reality, without any explanation of why.

O.

Well Outrider you have already conceded at least one....''Don't know''.

If there is an infinite unconscious reality, you still haven't explained what it has got to do with finite conscious reality.

If it is infinite it has to be uncaused (No precedent in this universe or in science).............and that is an Aristotelean idea........which is what this thread has been been all about.

I do not avoid the possibility. The argument has merit......but it is miles away from the New Atheist avoidance and Nearly Sane's refuge in ''Dunno''.

....And all that is before we look at your definition of being out of time.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yeah, alright, it was a bit of a shit argument.

A very gracious concession, thank you.

And certainly one the gargantuan collective Ego of the antitheist fraternity will never make.... Because they are always right about everything........(keep up with this perfection on Richard Dawkin's Twitter account)

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yeah, alright, it was a bit of a shit argument.

A very gracious concession, thank you.

Now we just need to wade our way through all the other 24,637,336 shit arguments you've advanced and we'll be getting somewhere 

 
Don't exaggerate!  It was never more than 15,500,815.     

Bashful your post reminds me of Anchorman when Brick is standing with the opposition laughing at the News team........

With friends like these who needs enemies.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

The argument has merit......but it is miles away from the New Atheist avoidance...

An "avoidance" you've yet to demontsrate. 

...and Nearly Sane's refuge in ''Dunno''.

Why is "dunno" a "refuge" when it's the honest answer?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderer,

The argument has merit......but it is miles away from the New Atheist avoidance...

An "avoidance" you've yet to demontsrate. 

...and Nearly Sane's refuge in ''Dunno''.

Why is "dunno" a "refuge" when it's the honest answer?

No, philosophically the end game is either matter which creates itself or uncreated matter or matter created by an uncreated creator or an infinite number of creators. To say I don't know in a philosophical argument in the face of all those possibilities is a refuge and an alternative to admitting an Aristotelean possibility.

And that of course is what Feser accuses the New Atheist's of doing.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

No, philosophically the end game is either matter which creates itself or uncreated matter or matter created by an uncreated creator or an infinite number of creators. To say I don't know in a philosophical argument in the face of all those possibilities is a refuge and an alternative to admitting an Aristotelean possibility.

It's no such thing - even if they are the only possibilities, there are no tools available to decide which one - if any - is the correct one. That's why "don't know" is the honest response - just guessing at an "uncreated creator", calling it "God" and worshipping it is epistemically hopeless.   

And that of course is what Feser accuses the New Atheist's of doing.

And if he is then he's wrong to do so - at least unless he's managed to do the thing you always run away from and provided a robust method to explain how he gets from his personal faith conviction verifiably to one of the possible answers.

Has he?

[Outrider]

Well Outrider you have already conceded at least one....''Don't know''.

I've conceded many don't knows, that's the nature of human understanding at this point.

If there is an infinite unconscious reality, you still haven't explained what it has got to do with finite conscious reality.

Who said anything about a 'conscious reality'? Or do you mean us, as conscoius organisms within that reality?

If it is infinite it has to be uncaused (No precedent in this universe or in science).............and that is an Aristotelean idea........which is what this thread has been been all about.

No, Aristotle was explicitly against the possibility of an infinite regression, and regurgitates Plato's special pleading to do so.

I do not avoid the possibility. The argument has merit......but it is miles away from the New Atheist avoidance and Nearly Sane's refuge in ''Dunno''.

I don't know is perfectly honest - none of us know. We can suggest possibilities, but in the absence of a reliable means of getting sufficient data at this time, we're left with either absolute logic - which to date has proven to be insufficient - or we have to wait.

....And all that is before we look at your definition of being out of time.

Feel free to try, as I've said before I'm not sure we have the capacity to really conceive of a timeless physics in anything other than mathematical abstractions.

O.

[Outrider]

No, philosophically the end game is either matter which creates itself or uncreated matter or matter created by an uncreated creator or an infinite number of creators. To say I don't know in a philosophical argument in the face of all those possibilities is a refuge and an alternative to admitting an Aristotelean possibility.

Some of them are logically untenable (self-creating matter) or are special pleading (uncreated creator). Whether we have inifinite matter or inifinite chain with 'creators' in there is something that requires more data than we have.

And that of course is what Feser accuses the New Atheist's of doing.

And, like you, that's because the honesty of saying 'we don't know' is somehow pathologically avoided. What's the problem with saying that we don't have enough information to differentiate between possibilities?

O.

[Red Giant]

No, philosophically the end game is either matter which creates itself or uncreated matter or matter created by an uncreated creator or an infinite number of creators.

At least two more possibilities - matter that spontaneously came into existence, and matter that has always existed.

All the options are weird, but which one you think is less weird than the rest is entirely subjective.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, philosophically the end game is either matter which creates itself or uncreated matter or matter created by an uncreated creator or an infinite number of creators. To say I don't know in a philosophical argument in the face of all those possibilities is a refuge and an alternative to admitting an Aristotelean possibility.

Some of them are logically untenable (self-creating matter) or are special pleading (uncreated creator). Whether we have inifinite matter or inifinite chain with 'creators' in there is something that requires more data than we have.

And that of course is what Feser accuses the New Atheist's of doing.

And, like you, that's because the honesty of saying 'we don't know' is somehow pathologically avoided. What's the problem with saying that we don't have enough information to differentiate between possibilities?

O.

The accusation of special pleading is straight out of the antitheists bumper book ......and wrong!

An uncreated universe is on the same footing as an uncreated creator. Neither need be ''specially pled'' as long as the other remains an argument.

Is self creating matter untenable logically? Stenger and Krauss don't seem to think so. Their problem is that they try to explain it within the laws of physics......which leaves them actually with Nothing really being an unstable something.

It is all up in the air of course but I move that the antitheist position at present is to duck the issue or to come up with a fix in which two conflicting ideas are held simultaneously. uncaused cause and cause and effect.

It's what the duallists call the ''give us one miracle and philosophical naturalism will explain the rest''.

[Gordon]

An uncreated universe is on the same footing as an uncreated universe

True, as far as it goes, although I suspect this is because the invisible (and allegedly pink) typo-fairy has visited you for breakfast this morning, Vlad) 

Good morning, by the way.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

An uncreated universe is on the same footing as an uncreated universe

True, as far as it goes, although I suspect this is because the invisible (and allegedly pink) typo-fairy has visited you for breakfast this morning, Vlad) 

Good morning, by the way.

Many thanks to you and thanks for your vigilance. Top of the morning to you sir. Good to see your faereology is in the ....er,pink.