HOT TOPIC REPOSTED BY POPULAR DEMAND
Not sure, but I don’t think the Brit author of this piece likes these guys.
The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it
It’s an extraordinary publishing phenomenon – atheism sells. Any philosopher, professional polemicist or scientist with worries about their pension plan must now be feverishly working on a book proposal. Richard Dawkins has been in the bestseller lists on both sides of the Atlantic since The God Delusion came out last autumn following Daniel Dennett’s success with Breaking the Spell. Sam Harris, a previously unknown neuroscience graduate, has now clocked up two bestsellers, The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation. Last week, Christopher Hitchens’ God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything was published in the US. The science writer, Matt Ridley, recently commented that on one day at Princeton he met no fewer than three intellectual luminaries hard at work on their God books.
[…]Surely not since Victorian times has there been such a passionate, sustained debate about religious belief.
And it’s a very ill-tempered debate. The books live up to their provocative titles: their purpose is to pour scorn on religious belief – they want it eradicated (although they differ as to the chances of achieving that). The newcomer on the block, Hitchens, sums up monotheism as “a plagiarism of a plagiarism of a hearsay of a hearsay, of an illusion of an illusion, extending all the way back to a fabrication of a few non-events”.
The durability and near universality of religion is one of the most enduring conundrums of evolutionary thinking […] Scientists have argued that faith was a byproduct of our development of the imagination or a way of increasing the social bonding mechanisms. Does that make religion an important evolutionary step but now no longer needed – the equivalent of the appendix? Or a crucial part of the explanation for successful human evolution to date?
A thought.
I don’t like being called an Atheist. Or an Antitheist. Both imply the existence of a theism I am opposed to. No, I am not opposed to your theism. All that is your belief and belief structure. It has nothing to do with me.
I believe in reality. That which can be shown. That which can be demonstrated. And that which can be repeated. With scientific, mathematical, or biological explanation. My beliefs are not rooted in any way shape or form in something beyond the scope of reality.
I am normal. So please, next time don’t call me an atheist, call me normal.
As a wise anon once said, and as requoted by OFTLO (#27)…
“Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby”
Argument, as stated by noname:
“Notable Atheist: Joseph Stalin world’s worst mass-murderer”
I repeat my sentiments about the theists on this thread. “Once again, theists have not presented any arguments for theism that can stand honest and logical scrutiny.”
In other words, Joseph Stalin was NOT evil because he was atheist. Furthermore, he was NOT evil because he was a non stamp collector, a non skier, a non clairvoyant …….
Do you u-n-d-e-r-s-t-a-n-d noname?
@21: The atheist fanatic: “Anything religious is patently absurd, and I will not only ignore it, but shred into the religious with an excess of vitriol, because I am obviously, scientifically correct in saying that science can explain the whole of reality” From what experience I have (the above 60 posts provide a reasonable example) Many atheists seem to be quite dogmatic in their denial of God. There is no more proof for that position than there is proof for the position that there is a God. This position I find to be, boiled down, that science and human rationality can explain all of reality, and truth. That they, the atheist, are the all-powerful being in (at least this corner of) the universe. I may be reaching here, but there are certain beliefs that follow quite logically from the denial of God, and the common reasons for that denial. This would constitute an atheist belief system. You have the great teachers, like Dawkins ect. I agree with the earlier poster, it smells like a religion. And, like 53, many of the arguments made against the existence of God are based on the existence of God being patently absurd. That seems inherently illogical, as it implicitly assumes the conclusion (and then hides that assumption behind rhetoric about flying teapots). My two cents.
#64, Mr. Fusion, I wish someone would call me normal too.
Geez, I hate it when people argue about religion.
re: #17
Bryan,
I would challenge your basic premise — that atheists are atheists because they more rational than those of us who believe in God.
In my observation, people can’t help whether they do or don’t perceive God — it’s a perception of reality that is, ultimately, not logical.
I liken it to the ability to perceive love. Most people perceive love and many order their lives around that perception. A few people don’t and they think the rest of us are disillusional.
Yes, perhaps “love” is a collective fantasy but it doesn’t make us any less rational in the other area of our lives for believing in it. The same goes for perception of God/god/gods.
You can’t call me religious but I do have a belief system: I believe I’ll have another beer. 🙂
Evolution thinks that the appendix provides no function? Ignorance thinks that the appendix provides no function. Current real science recognizes that the appendix plays a role in our immune system.
#68 – And I hate it when people use their religion to try and legislate their narrow idea of what morality it, and impose their draconian world view on the rest of us… Until that stops, there is gonna be an argument about religion.
At least until someone posts another YouTube video about a guy getting hit in the nuts. We are all like parrots after all, only it isn’t shiney stuff, but rather dumb ass low res amature video clips that distract us.
#64 – Mr Fusion,
I’d rather call you smart than normal. Consider that a compliment. But, of you prefer normal, fine with me. Please don’t anyone call me normal. IMHO, normal people are boring.
#66 – Bruce IV,
As an antitheist, I do not claim science has all the answers. However, I will state that the god hypothesis fails utterly and completely. It is based on the assumption that all effects have a cause. Firstly, this is patently false, as evidenced by quantum mechanics that denies cause and effect. If you don’t like quantum mechanics, turn off your computer now and leave it that way. The semiconductors inside your computer rely on the lack of cause and effect of quantum mechanics.
Further, even if cause and effect applied, you would merely be adding a new effect to be explained. Where did your god come from? Clearly an amazingly complex creature that can go around creating a universe a week requires some explanation. So, there must be a god creator and a god creator creator and a god creator creator creator, etc. This type of logic flies up its own asshole in endless recursion.
Atheists in my experience are merely OK with admitting that humans don’t know everything. People that choose the god-of-the-gaps explanation for those things not yet explained by science are not. This subset of the faithful will have an ever shrinking god in which to believe.
So, if you reject the idea that the person making the extraordinary claim must provide the proof, I assume you remain at least agnostic about the existence of faeries, hobbits, gnomes, elves, fire breathing dragons, unicorns, teapots orbiting between the earth and mars, and many others. Is that true? Do you allow for the possibility of all of these? You can’t disprove them. If you do not admit their possibility, why not?
#71 – ‘RealScience’
Um … I think that evolution does not get that specific about the appendix. If a purpose is found for it, it does not challenge the fundamentals of evolution, which merely state that current species have evolved from earlier species. In fact, even natural selection, which states simply that those features that convey a survival advantage will be retained in future generations.
Costly features that do not provide an advantage will be eliminated. Features that are not costly but have neither an advantage nor a disadvantage may persist for a long time. All change will be gradual. Even punctuated equilibrium talks about change being rapid on a geologic time frame, not a human one. So, all evolutionists, including Eldredge and Gould, are gradualists of a sort with some dispute over the rate of change being slow by geological time or fast by geological time, but always slow in terms of generations.
I think you may have some misunderstanding about what evolution does and does not say. I’d suggest reading some more in depth writings about evolution before making such comments.
@73 – God doesn’t need another god to create Him, He just is. (and He isn’t a creature.) There is no recursion. (Its sorta like that causeless effect you were talking about – ask the Big Bang folks where the Bang came from, and then where whatever that was came from, ect.) As for the hobbits, ect. well, I have heard no credible evidence of them. I have personal experience of God, and have heard the same from people I trust. It cannot be scientifically proved, and others, such as yourself, can propose other rational explanations for that experience – which also are unproveable. I choose to keep the view I have.
Incidentally, young earth creationism provides a reasonable explanation for legends of fire-breathing dragons. It is possible that some dinosaurs survived the world flood (the world flood being a key component of the young-earth model), especially if said dinosaurs were aquatic. Sightings of such would explain the dragon legends. They may or may not have been fire-breathing (though there is a type of beetle in Africa that can spray hot acid, so the fire-breathing is not completely incredible), but would certainly be terrifying enough that the legends could be based on them (and grow and expand from there). This only works from a young-earth perspective, as while it would be difficult for a species of dinosaur to survive the six to 10 thousand years since the flood, it would be all but impossible for it to survive the millions since the dinosaurs supposedly went extinct.
#74 – “He just is.”
He just is?
In other words, you lack any intellectual curiosity at all? You require no explanations for the amazing myth you’ve been taught to believe?
“He just is” and presumably always has been and always shall be… is logically impossible, therefore untrue. It’s bullshit and since logic and reason cannot rationalize your fanatasy father figure, you choose to be willfully and blissfully ignorant of reality in a misguided attempt avoid the reality of death…
You know, you can talk about your Heavan all you like, but at least Islam rewards your piety with an orgy or virgins… All you have is crappy harp music and… and… well, there’s the harp music.
#23
I never said you are an idiot, although your posts do strongly support the posibility.
I said that you come off like an idiot which in MY OPINION is TRUE. Nothing you have said here leads me to think otherwise.
i, for one, welcome our new supernatural overlords.
#77 – You know… I NEVER get tired of that joke 🙂
#74: “He just is”
mu
So you’re saying science fails to explain the origins of life or the universe and you’re using this as your filler?
Would you please make that statement again? I would hate to jump to conclusions when I declare you completely nuts.
pj
#66:
oh
so let’s see.
Thesis: there is a teapot between earth and mars
Proof: none
Disproof: none
Social consensus: we have to protect the teapot believers from the violent teapot disbelievers
let me say it again, loud and clear:
There is no need to disprove something for which there is zero evidence. If you have a thesis, you’re the one to prove it, not the other way round
And if you really want good reasons why you should doubt the existence of any god-like being, go and buy some of those books talked about here. Try to get a minimum of a scientific foundation! If you really want to advocate theism, try to know at least some minor bits about the science you’re trying to diss.
We might seem fanatic at times, but really we’re just amazingly irritated by the utter lack of basic knowledge that we have to put up with when talking to so called believers.
Look at the creationists: “The eye is so amazingly complex that it can’t have evolved. What good is half an eye?” That’s like saying “I know nothing, but I have a pretty strong opinion”.
I’m not sure I can make up only half a comparison of how amazingly irritating this is. Talking to Theists often feels like talking to a broken record. A very limited number of sentences repeated over and over with a complete lack of understanding.
Let’s take another example that has actually been used here: “god has created the earth, he himself has always existed”. Another one of those. This really means “I feel mighty smart to have transposed the original problem to the meta level, I am, however, completely oblivious of the fact that there’s no explanation for the meta level at all”.
I have really no idea how I can make you feel the frustration I feel when I hear those things said. I always try to believe in every human to be able to think and reason and understand. Theists are constantly trying to prove the opposite. Very irritating. This might be why we seem “fanatic” at times.
pj
I just saw Dawkins interviewed on CBC last night and he talks a lot about truth and yet makes no attempt whatsoever to say what that truth is. These atheists are long on rhetoric and short on facts. After all if you say something long enough and loud enough people will eventually start to believe you.
#81 – I’ll be sorry I asked… But what facts are you hoping to hear? What truth are you seeking…
We live on a rock in space.
We use science to learn about the rock.
It’s a long slow process and it will take a long time.
We don’t know everything, probably never will, but we learn something new every day.
We love our kids.
What “truth” are you asking for? Meaning? You are not the child of a god… make your own meaning. The rest of us did.
Evolve already….
Truth is a product of our physical interaction with matter.
A god is nothing more than imagination.
Carl Jung had the basic concept right a hundred years ago, that deity archetypes get “installed at the factory” into every newborn. Hence that pesky “need to believe” & requisite overvaluation of such belief (“faith” as an end in itself). A precious few psychologically self-aware individuals may ultimately be able to expunge a belief system from their lives, whereas those ignorant of the underlying mechanism are held in its thrall.
But Dr. Jung is hopelessly out of fashion these days.
The original deity in its ancient, “purest” form was a divine duality consisting of the goddess Sophia & her second banana, Yahweh. Probably thought he was the one running the show. Anyway, they had kids, of course, a “Holy Family” (another archetypal idea) whose pantheon included, but was by no means limited to, Son-o-God, who’s forever being reborn here & there disguised as a human; Poseidon, ruler ‘neath the waves & of all things aquatic; the guy that lives in the volcano, forging iron; Helios, who arcs across the sky in his chariot shedding daylight. Thunderbird-Man lives up in a cloud & likes to stir up scary storms The list goes on & on.
Sadly, nowadays the “one God” we are left with in this so-called modern age lost His better half somewhere along the line (now she’s just a “Holy Ghost”), He never gets laid any more &, judging from His works— or lack thereof— is either incompetent or criminally negligent in maintaining His creation. He is saturnine & remote. Has a flare for the enigmatic, suggestive of infantile passive-aggressive tendency. Has a history of serious anger management issues & is excessively fond of praise & flattery from subordinates.
One might well call oneself atheist or agnostic, confront the deity inhabiting one’s own head & throw the bum out, but He’s not so easily got rid of; more like a fungal infection under the toenail of humanity that never quite goes away.
@75 – please explain how this is logically impossible – God is outside of the physical world, of which time is a part – without time, there is no necessity for a beginning or end. Just because your logic can’t incorporate something doesn’t make it false – I’m sure there were plenty of “logical” arguments that the earth is flat and heavy things fall faster.
@80 – And why isn’t “There is no God” a thesis – Reality is not formal logic. Things aren’t always black and white, true and false. There are gradations, bands of grey in the middle, areas of murky uncertainty from which one may veer in one direction or another. I would say that to make any statement (besides “I don’t know) places the burden of proof on he (or she) who states it.
Another thing – this is like geometry – we’re just starting from different postulates and reasoning from there – the trouble is that while geometry describes abstract concepts, that have no intrinsic connection to reality (that’s where science comes in). To make a claim that one’s beliefs (by beliefs I mean that which cannot be rationally derived through observation – there is a God, who established the physical universe; some complicated molecules bunched together and formed the first life billions of years ago; ect) are true, or describe reality is where the conflict comes in. One can simultaneously use both Euclidean and spherical models of geometry for their respective purposes, but one cannot simultaneously believe Christianity, atheism, Islam, Buddism, and ect. (anyone who tells you that all religions agree is deluded and hasn’t looked into any of them enough)
I’m not really trying to make a point, perhaps just agreeing to disagree, and we’ll find out who is right come Judgement Day (or lack thereof).
Earth is hell for sodium based entities transferred here from outside our universe because they were not sulfurous. Our god is an evil bastard. Prove me wrong Bruce IV.
It’s interesting to read all of these rational arguements about a nonrational subject. It’s kinda of like shot gunning a beer with out feeling full.
Atheism is not a belief. It’s just a word to describe someone who believes that imagination isn’t reality.
Um, that should have been
…”someone who knows that imagination isn’t reality.”
Yawn. Good night.
#74
> As for the hobbits, ect. well, I have heard no credible evidence of them.
Exactly! You refuse to accept the claim that hobbits exist because you have yet to be shown credible evidence of their existence. The god claim is exactly the same. Looking past the fact that theists cannot even define what “god” is, atheists simply state that mankind has yet to be shown credible evidence that such a being exists and thus give no credence to the claim.
Everything else is an issue of how we determine “credible evidence.” For atheists, credible evidence *only* includes evidence that can be gathered scientifically. *That* is where theists and atheists differ. Anecdotal evidence such as “I have personal experience of God” or “He just is” is not scientific and is thus dismissed.
> It cannot be scientifically proved, and others, such as
> yourself, can propose other rational explanations for that
> experience – which also are unproveable. I choose to keep
> the view I have.
If you cannot establish the existence of your god creature scientifically, then he is no better than the Easter Bunny.
> Incidentally, young earth creationism provides a reasonable
> explanation for legends of fire-breathing dragons.
Your statement is a non-sequitur. You cannot have a “young earth creationist” theory that is “reasonable” because by definition the founding premise of a young earth is wholly unreasonable and unfounded.
#85
> I would say that to make any statement (besides “I don’t
> know) places the burden of proof on he (or she) who states
> it.
“I don’t know” is a very valid statement to an atheist but not a theist. There is always a reason to a theist: God(s) did it. Further, atheists refuse to accept statements as true until proof is provided. For example, if you asked an atheist whether or not parallel universes exist, their answer would be “Perhaps, but we don’t know for sure. Until that time, the answer is no they don’t since we don’t have proof that they do.”
Atheists are not making the claim that a supernatural being (whatever that is) exists. The burder is absolutely without question on theists to substantiate their claim that such a thing exists. The very meaning of “God” or deity is not even defined.
My god (FSM) can beat up your god. And you can’t prove me wrong. I love belief.
I’m tired of reading of Uncle Dave’s atheist jihad in this blog. Nobody cares if you’re an atheist, Dave, and everybody else who isn’t an athiest isn’t necessarily a buffoon as you repeatedly portray in this blog. You shouldn’t need to attack everyone else to validate your own atheism.
I’m struck by the lack of tolerance displayed by someone who blames religion for all of the intolerance in the world.