Is there such a thing as New Atheism?

[Stranger]

...'Do new/modern/contemporary/bright/militant/campaigning/public antitheists/atheists understand the beliefs they have actually been observed coming out with?'

Who can say? You seem to have joined a bunch of terms together to describe some vague group or groups of people and then asked if they understand some unspecified beliefs.

I think you need to be more specific...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Unless you are saying that no groups of Christians believe in the god of the omnis (good luck with that), and that it was made up by atheists, it can't be a straw man.

I think that the importance to which Christians place the philosophical notions of ''the omnis'' is exaggerated by the New atheists. They are as Gerald Priestland would say, saddling Christians with a God they don't subscribe to anyway. So as far as that is true, New atheists are making a strawman argument.


As Steve has pointed out these ideas are more greek philosophy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Who can say? You seem to have joined a bunch of terms together to describe some vague group or groups of people and then asked if they understand some unspecified beliefs.

I think you need to be more specific...

I'm trying to be gracious and offer a range of handles before being brutally social scientific and putting the widest employed title for their category on them.


The beliefs are those expressed by persons of that category.

[Stranger]

I think that the importance to which Christians place the philosophical notions of ''the omnis'' is exaggerated by the New atheists.

What are you basing this view on?

They are as Gerald Priestland would say, saddling Christians with a God they don't subscribe to anyway. So as far as that is true, New atheists are making a strawman argument.

So is it about importance or belief - do make up your mind. If (some) Christians believe in a god of the omnis, they aren't being saddled with it, are they? As I said, unless you want to claim that there aren't significant groups of Christians who believe in a god of the omnis, then it isn't a straw man.

As Steve has pointed out these ideas are more greek philosophy.

It's origin really doesn't matter to the point.

[Stranger]

I'm trying to be gracious and offer a range of handles before being brutally social scientific and putting the widest employed title for their category on them.

I still don't know who they are.

The beliefs are those expressed by persons of that category.

I still don't know what beliefs you are referring to.

[Gordon]

I'm trying to be gracious and offer a range of handles before being brutally social scientific and putting the widest employed title for their category on them.


The beliefs are those expressed by persons of that category.

This is the category of 'new/modern/contemporary/bright/militant/campaigning/public antitheists/atheists'?

I suggested you find a member of this category of yours and ask them: how is that going?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What are you basing this view on?

In all my years I never heard a sermon or theological debate internal to the church that was in anyway similar to the frequent discussion by atheists on the issue of the omnis. Not being able to lift a stone you created has nowhere near the import to Christians as it has for atheists for whom it is one of the Knockdown arguments

So is it about importance or belief - do make up your mind. If (some) Christians believe in a god of the omnis, they aren't being saddled with it, are they? As I said, unless you want to claim that there aren't significant groups of Christians who believe in a god of the omnis, then it isn't a straw man.

How a christian understands the term, the Omnis is different from what atheist think a christian understands the term Omni......so yes it is a strawman argument.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This is the category of 'new/modern/contemporary/bright/militant/campaigning/public antitheists/atheists'?

I suggested you find a member of this category of yours and ask them: how is that going?

I'm sorry I'm involved with serious enquirers and haven't got time for your wee capers.

[Stranger]

In all my years I never heard a sermon or theological debate internal to the church that was in anyway similar to the frequent discussion by atheists on the issue of the omnis. Not being able to lift a stone you created has nowhere near the import to Christians as it has for atheists for whom it is one of the Knockdown arguments

So Christians don't concentrate on the logical problems with their beliefs...  no shit. Who are these atheists who think the thing about stones is a "Knockdown" argument?

How a christian understands the term, the Omnis is different from what atheist think a christian understands the term Omni......so yes it is a strawman argument.

Which Christian and which atheist? The problem here is that Christians don't all think the same thing and atheists have even less in common. In my experience are are Christians who have a very literal view of the omnis.

You can't level an accusation of straw man at people if the actual beliefs in question are genuinely held be some of those criticised, rather than made up by their critics.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So Christians don't concentrate on the logical problems with their beliefs...  no shit.

I think it's more Christians don't concentrate on the logical problems of a God as proposed by greek philosophy

In my experience are are Christians who have a very literal view of the omnis.

I could be cute here and throw the ''who are these people'' schtick back at you.

You can't level an accusation of straw man at people if the actual beliefs in question are genuinely held be some of those criticised, rather than made up by their critics.

To quote that great atheist commentator Gordon.....Who are these people?

[Gordon]

To quote that great atheist commentator Gordon.....Who are these people?

So I did: and you haven't yet told us who these 'new/modern/contemporary/bright/militant/campaigning/public antitheists/atheists' are and what it is they believe, in which context you mentioned them (whoever they are).

I realise I'm being optimistic here, but have you actually asked any of these 'new/modern/contemporary/bright/militant/campaigning/public antitheists/atheists' about their beliefs yet?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So I did: and you haven't yet told us who these 'new/modern/contemporary/bright/militant/campaigning/public antitheists/atheists' are and what it is they believe, in which context you mentioned them (whoever they are).

I realise I'm being optimistic here, but have you actually asked any of these 'new/modern/contemporary/bright/militant/campaigning/public antitheists/atheists' about their beliefs yet?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_atheism

[Stranger]

I think it's more Christians don't concentrate on the logical problems of a God as proposed by greek philosophy

Vlad, are you seriously trying to claim that the omni characteristics of god are not subscribed to by some groups of Christians?

Characteristics of God
Attributes of God in Christianity

Seriously?

[Gordon]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_atheism

Don't see that this links deals with all the other attributes you mentioned in your 'new/modern/contemporary/bright/militant/campaigning/public antitheists/atheists' category.

I guess this is yet another example of a routine Vlad strategy - 1) you fly a kite, 2) if anyone asks to inspect the kite you indulge in evasive waffle.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Don't see that this links deals with all the other attributes you mentioned in your 'new/modern/contemporary/bright/militant/campaigning/public antitheists/atheists' category.

I guess this is yet another example of a routine Vlad strategy - 1) you fly a kite, 2) if anyone asks to inspect the kite you indulge in evasive waffle.

It isn't evasive waffle it is a list of New atheist who can also be described as modern, contemporary, bright, militant, campaigning, public antitheist or atheist.


The question is therefore whether you like the label to which the obvious response is.....tough.

[Gordon]

It isn't evasive waffle it is a list of New atheist who can also be described as modern, contemporary, bright, militant, campaigning, public antitheist or atheist.

Who is described as such by whom (apart from you)?

The question is therefore whether you like the label to which the obvious response is.....tough.

You've forgotten to tell us who conforms to this label: until such times as you can justify said label it is, as I said, evasive waffle which troubles me not.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Who is described as such by whom (apart from you)?

You've forgotten to tell us who conforms to this label: until such times as you can justify said label it is, as I said, evasive waffle which troubles me not.

It's in the link Gordon, i'm sure you'll find it eventually.

[Gordon]

It's in the link Gordon, i'm sure you'll find it eventually.

The link mentions 'new',Vlad, and not 'new/modern/contemporary/bright/militant/campaigning/public antitheists/atheists'.

Maybe your enthusiasm for kite-flying is getting the better of you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The link mentions 'new',Vlad, and not 'new/modern/contemporary/bright/militant/campaigning/public antitheists/atheists'.

Yes, I should have said that those without the wit to make the link between new/modern/contempory or the link between the new atheists and atheists who were described as brights, militant, campaigning, antitheist or public...………...should concentrate on the 'New' part.

[jeremyp]

They are part of the philosophical treatment of God.

There is the difference between a theology embarked on from a base of religious experience and conviction and philosophy.


In your model Jeremy, Christians propose a God of the Omnis and weary old philosophers have had to come in and put them straight.


I don't think Christians started with a God of the omnis, they might have considered them in the height of the scholastic period but even Anselm talks about God being 'the most' rather than ''the omni'' and Aquinus abruptly finishes his philosophical take on God and returns to his religious life.


The atheist demolition of the God of the omnis is therefore IMHO a strawman argument.

Glad you think that. But it does lead me to ask why you were so vociferously arguing against my definition of omniscient if you don’t think the Christian god is necessarily omniscient.

When I was a Christian, it seemed obvious to me that God could be neither omniscient nor omnipotent based only on my observations of the World and what was in the Bible. The whole story of the Fall makes no sense unless you assume that God did not know whether the humans would choose to eat the forbidden fruit or not.

[jeremyp]

I'm sorry I'm involved with serious enquirers and haven't got time for your wee capers.

That’s a clear lie. You spend a lot of time here so you clear do have time for our wee capers.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Glad you think that. But it does lead me to ask why you were so vociferously arguing against my definition of omniscient if you don’t think the Christian god is necessarily omniscient.

When I was a Christian, it seemed obvious to me that God could be neither omniscient nor omnipotent based only on my observations of the World and what was in the Bible. The whole story of the Fall makes no sense unless you assume that God did not know whether the humans would choose to eat the forbidden fruit or not.

I don't see how you cannot see the objections to your definitions.

I do not see how the story of the fall makes no sense with God's omniscience.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That’s a clear lie. You spend a lot of time here so you clear do have time for our wee capers.

The only capers I was referring to were Gordon's.

[SteveH]

https://www.webstaurantstore.com/images/products/extra_large/11079/916601.jpg

[jeremyp]

I don't see how you cannot see the objections to your definitions.

I do not see how the story of the fall makes no sense with God's omniscience.

There are a lot of things you don't see. Your generally coherent posts on Brexit make me think the cause is wilful blindness.