"New Atheism"

Deus Ex

I class myself as an atheist, and have done so for a number of years now. It was the writings of Bertrand Russell that first made me question religion, but I must admit to being swept along with Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris. As I believe many people on this forum were, such was the force of their argument.

The problem now, for me at least, is that I am becoming very disillusioned with what has been dubbed 'New Atheism'. This is not because I've changed my position on the existence of God, which I certainly have not. It is perhaps because many people who identify themselves with the whole 'New Atheism' movement seem not to be able to elevate their arguments above "science is good/true, religion is false/bad". It's too simplistic. The problem is too serious to be dealt with in this manner. I realise that Dawkins and Hitchens aren't this simplistic, but unfortunately, some of their fanboys are.

I guess I'm looking for a higher standard of debate. One that would take into account the importance of religion in people's lives. I believe that religions 'work' for people because they answer questions that are existentially important to them. We may not like the answers, which often appear ridiculous, but they nonetheless satisfy the metaphysical concerns of people in a very profound way.

I guess I'm writing this post because I'm currently reading Andre Comte-Sponville's The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality. Sponville is steadfast in his atheism, but he sees no reason why we can't balance a rigourous criticism of religion and religious institutions, with a deeper respect for why religions develop and thrive. This is kind of where I'm at at the moment with regard to my atheism. I haven't come on here to offend, I'm just wondering is there anybody else who can relate to my situation?

GLaDOS

I respect that religion can provide comfort and strength to individuals and I wouldn't question their beliefs unless it was affecting someones life in a negative way or they wanted a debate.

Unfortunately there are people who take advantage of this and sadly in a lot of cases it is leaders of the religion itself. This is where my main gripe with religion comes from.

ColmDawson

Deus Ex wrote: »

It is perhaps because many people who identify themselves with the whole 'New Atheism' movement seem not to be able to elevate their arguments above "science is good/true, religion is false/bad". It's too simplistic. The problem is too serious to be dealt with in this manner. I realise that Dawkins and Hitchens aren't this simplistic, but unfortunately, some of their fanboys are.

I doubt that this is a recent simplification, and I'd be wary of associating it with a 'New Atheism'.

I think it's important to avoid crude simplifications like that one, and to acknowledge the importance (good or ill) of religion in many people's lives. However, let's not let that dilute our criticism. Religion may have comforted and strengthened some people, but I think the truth is always preferable in the long run.

robindch

Deus Ex wrote: »

The problem now, for me at least, is that I am becoming very disillusioned with what has been dubbed 'New Atheism'. [...] I realise that Dawkins and Hitchens aren't this simplistic, but unfortunately, some of their fanboys are.

It's been dubbed "new atheism" by its opponents in order to discredit the movement. But it's the same as what, by implication, must have been "old atheism" -- god doesn't exist and that's about it.

There are separate positions against the various churches and against religion, but they can be classified along with a broad anti-clerical movement, which is close to but certainly not the same as, the atheistic position. If you look, however, at the people who bang on about "new atheism", you'll usually find that this distinction is not made (and generally deliberately too).

Deus Ex wrote: »

I guess I'm looking for a higher standard of debate. One that would take into account the importance of religion in people's lives.

I can't speak for the wider community, but here in the A+A forum over the last two or three years or so, we've had a very small number of nutty posters who ranted, machine-gun like, about religion (all the ones I can recall were ultimately banned). But outside of this small number, I can't really think of all that many posters who don't respect the power of religion within the community, or its position within people's lives -- the silly claims of the religious to the contrary notwithstanding.

PeterIanStaker

ScienceNerd wrote "Unfortunately there are people who take advantage of this and sadly in a lot of cases it is leaders of the religion itself. This is where my main gripe with religion comes from. "

I would agree very much with the above, the leaders, whether they are televangelists, the pope or Abu Hamza, are power hungry hypocrites just like politicians. I do know that religion provides solace to many people, these include elderly members of my own family who I have nothing but love and respect for.

Deus Ex

robindch wrote: »

It's been dubbed "new atheism" by its opponents in order to discredit the movement. But it's the same as what, by implication, must have been "old atheism" -- god doesn't exist and that's about it.

One of my lectures makes the distinction between atheists like Richard Dawkins, who he believes to be theologically ignorant; reading religious texts in the same manner as those he criticises, and those that he describes as classical or philosophical atheists, like J.L Mackie.

I haven't read Mackie yet, so I'm not sure how their arguments differ, but it sounds like an interesting distinction.

Deus Ex

ColmDawson wrote: »

I doubt that this is a recent simplification, and I'd be wary of associating it with a 'New Atheism'.

There are two groups of people I speak to regarding religion and atheism. The younger group, my classmates, are very much 'New Atheists', meaning their primary, if not only source of reference is the works of Dawkins & friends, complete with a contemptuous view of religion in all its forms and expressions.

The older group would be lectures in college that I regularly converse with, who associate themselves more with what they believe to be classical atheists, that is to say philosophical atheists. They have a view of religion similar to that of Comte-Sponville which I described above.

I should be wary of associating crude forms of atheism with 'New Atheism', but regrettably, in my own personal experience at least, this isn't too far from the truth.

sonicthebadger*

Deus Ex wrote: »

One of my lectures makes the distinction between atheists like Richard Dawkins, who he believes to be theologically ignorant; reading religious texts in the same manner as those he criticises, and those that he describes as classical or philosophical atheists, like J.L Mackie.

I haven't read Mackie yet, so I'm not sure how their arguments differ, but it sounds like an interesting distinction.

One of my Christian friends also accused Dawkins of "getting his Atheism on the cheap" because of his supposed theological ignorance. I pointed out that she had got her Christianity on the cheap since she hasn't so much as opened 99% of all the other religious texts there are. She knows a hell of a lot about Christianity and the political and social driving forces that gave birth to it but was willing to accept she got her Christianity as cheaply as Dawkins got his atheism.

You don't need a PhD in anything to dismiss "God did it" as an answer to any question.

iUseVi

I don't really know what you mean by "crude forms of atheism". If you are suggesting you must have a degree in philosophy and/or theology to see that religious claims are nonsense I highly disagree.

At the end of the day atheism is non-belief in gods and just because some kids don't know all the fancy arguments doesn't stop them seeing through the b*ll****.

Ickle Magoo

Deus Ex wrote: »

There are two groups of people I speak to regarding religion and atheism. The younger group, my classmates, are very much 'New Atheists', meaning their primary, if not only source of reference is the works of Dawkins & friends, complete with a contemptuous view of religion in all its forms and expressions.

The older group would be lectures in college that I regularly converse with, who associate themselves more with what they believe to be classical atheists, that is to say philosophical atheists. They have a view of religion similar to that of Comte-Sponville which I described above.

I should be wary of associating crude forms of atheism with 'New Atheism', but regrettably, in my own personal experience at least, this isn't too far from the truth.

Does it matter what their primary source of reference is? Crude atheism? Have I just witnessed my first ever showing of atheistic snobbery?

I was three or four when I declared I had no faith in the existence of a god, I could barely read or write far less a theology degree. A lack of belief is a lack of belief is atheism. Does it matter if people read and like dawkins and hitchens rather than philosophers and theologians? Does everyone who knows they lack belief now have to be armed to the teeth with philosophical arguments that cover every conceivable angle?

Deus Ex

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

One of my Christian friends also accused Dawkins of "getting his Atheism on the cheap" because of his supposed theological ignorance. I pointed out that she had got her Christianity on the cheap since she hasn't so much as opened 99% of all the other religious texts there are. She knows a hell of a lot about Christianity and the political and social driving forces that gave birth to it but was willing to accept she got her Christianity as cheaply as Dawkins got his atheism.

You don't need a PhD in anything to dismiss "God did it" as an answer to any question.

I don't know if Dawkins got his atheism 'cheaply' or not. He does, however, pick the most obvious and extreme examples of religious belief with which to attack moderate believers. That isn't so much an issue for people who only buy their books from the Eason's best-seller list. But for people with a professional and academic interest in the discussion it doesn't quiet cut the mustard. I'm more the former than the latter, but I do try make myself aware of all the arguments available, that includes criticisms of Dawkins. Unfortunately, Dawkins' fan-boys don't allow for any level of criticism of the man. Even when those criticisms are intellectually sound.

Hitchens does similar things when discussing the Old Testament, he reads it in a literal sense, then dismisses its claims and mocks those who believe it to be true. Hitchens studied Philosophy, and should know that Abrahamic texts, like Greek mythology, weren't intended to be read literally, and in the case of the Greeks, their texts never were. They were figurative representations of metaphysical questions/dilemma's. Why somebody who knows these texts were written as fiction takes such delight in claiming they are fiction is beyond me. 'Straw Man' and 'Bleeding Obvious' are words that come to mind.

Joe1919

Deus Ex wrote: »

I guess I'm looking for a higher standard of debate. One that would take into account the importance of religion in people's lives.

Dennett's book goes some way in this direction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaking_the_Spell:_Religion_as_a_Natural_Phenomenon

sonicthebadger*

Deus Ex wrote: »

One of my lectures makes the distinction between atheists like Richard Dawkins, who he believes to be theologically ignorant; reading religious texts in the same manner as those he criticises, and those that he describes as classical or philosophical atheists, like J.L Mackie.

I haven't read Mackie yet, so I'm not sure how their arguments differ, but it sounds like an interesting distinction.

I may have misunderstood the parts in bold. Is he or is he not Theologically ignorant? As for how someone reads a text, I don't think there is any way to read a text which claims to be true except extremely critically. Any idea, whatever the source, should be examined in detail and discarded if it does not stand up. What is wrong with reading Religious texts critically?

Deus Ex wrote: »

I don't know if Dawkins got his atheism 'cheaply' or not. He does, however, pick the most obvious and extreme examples of religious belief with which to attack moderate believers. That isn't so much an issue for people who only buy their books from the Eason's best-seller list. But for people with a professional and academic interest in the discussion it doesn't quiet cut the mustard. I'm more the former than the latter, but I do try make myself aware of all the arguments available, that includes criticisms of Dawkins. Unfortunately, Dawkins' fan-boys don't allow for any level of criticism of the man. Even when those criticisms are intellectually sound.

Hitchens does similar things when discussing the Old Testament, he reads it in a literal sense, then dismisses its claims and mocks those who believe it to be true. Hitchens studied Philosophy, and should know that Abrahamic texts, like Greek mythology, weren't intended to be read literally, and in the case of the Greeks, their texts never were. They were figurative representations of metaphysical questions/dilemma's. Why somebody who knows these texts were written as fiction takes such delight in claiming they are fiction is beyond me. 'Straw Man' and 'Bleeding Obvious' are words that come to mind.

Hitchens attacks literal belief in the Old Testament (amongst many other types of faith). How can he do that without reading it as if it was meant literally? Many people claim that these texts were most certainly meant to be taken literally and if you doubt that have a look at the "Spare the Rod Spoil the Child" thread in the Other Forum. That's a whole lot of what I would consider fairly moderate Christians taking the Bible pretty damn literally.

Deus Ex

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Does it matter what their primary source of reference is? Crude atheism? Have I just witnessed my first ever showing of atheistic snobbery?

I was three or four when I declared I had no faith in the existence of a god, I could barely read or write far less a theology degree. A lack of belief is a lack of belief is atheism. Does it matter if people read and like dawkins and hitchens rather than philosophers and theologians? Does everyone who knows they lack belief now have to be armed to the teeth with philosophical arguments that cover every conceivable angle?

I'm a big Hitchens fan, but a lot of his work is poorly researched, badly referenced (some times not at all), and often times sensationalist and misleading. Those criticisms extend to God Is Not Great. In that respect, he does represent a crude form of atheism. Crude meaning "rough or inexpert in plan or execution". There are hours upon hours of video footage available of Hitchens debating religion. Often times he is more sensitive, and by inference effective, in his comments on religious observance on camera than he is in print.

I'm not a snob in any sense of the word.

Deus Ex

Joe1919 wrote: »

Dennett's book goes some way in this direction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaking_the_Spell:_Religion_as_a_Natural_Phenomenon

Thanks for the link, I'm actually a big Dennett fan.

iUseVi

EDIT: maybe a bit rash, long day. Damn you ash cloud, damn you.

Deus Ex

iUseVi wrote: »

EDIT: maybe a bit rash, long day. Damn you ash cloud, damn you.

What did that picture mean?

Ickle Magoo

Deus Ex wrote: »

I'm a big Hitchens fan, but a lot of his work is poorly researched, badly referenced (some times not at all), and often times sensationalist and misleading. Those criticisms extend to God Is Not Great. In that respect, he does represent a crude form of atheism. Crude meaning "rough or inexpert in plan or execution". There are hours upon hours of video footage available of Hitchens debating religion. Often times he is more sensitive, and by inference effective, in his comments on religious observance on camera than he is in print.

I'm not a snob in any sense of the word.

I don't think there is such a thing as crude atheism, atheism is a lack of belief in god or gods - there is no svelt or crude atheism. There are some damn fine debates raging regarding theism, anti-theism and theological matters but none of those are a form of atheism, crude or otherwise.

Deus Ex

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

I may have misunderstood the parts in bold. Is he or is he not Theologically ignorant? As for how someone reads a text, I don't think there is any way to read a text which claims to be true except extremely critically. Any idea, whatever the source, should be examined in detail and discarded if it does not stand up. What is wrong with reading Religious texts critically?



Hitchens attacks literal belief in the Old Testament (amongst many other types of faith). How can he do that without reading it as if it was meant literally? Many people claim that these texts were most certainly meant to be taken literally and if you doubt that have a look at the "Spare the Rod Spoil the Child" thread in the Other Forum. That's a whole lot of what I would consider fairly moderate Christians taking the Bible pretty damn literally.

I never claimed that Dawkins was theologically ignorant, and where have I implied that there is something wrong with reading texts critically?

The point I was trying to make about Hitchens, and this can also be said of Dawkins & Harris, is that they pick examples of fundamentalist religious belief and use it to attack moderates.

Deus Ex

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I don't think there is such a thing as crude atheism, atheism is a lack of belief in god or gods - there is no svelt or crude atheism. There are some damn fine debates raging regarding theism, anti-theism and theological matters but none of those are a form of atheism, crude or otherwise.

When I say crude atheism I mean there are crude representations of atheistic arguments. I don't believe that one form of atheism is better than another, or more importantly, that there are different 'types'. As you have clearly explained, atheism is a single position.

Joe1919

Deus Ex wrote: »

When I say crude atheism I mean there are crude representations of atheistic arguments. I don't believe that one form of atheism is better than another, or more importantly, that there are different 'types'. As you have clearly explained, atheism is a single position.

But......there is a difference between atheism and anti-theism.
I have respect for atheists (but not the same for anti-theists ).

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismatheiststheism/a/AntiTheism.htm

Daftendirekt

Deus Ex wrote: »

The point I was trying to make about Hitchens, and this can also be said of Dawkins & Harris, is that they pick examples of fundamentalist religious belief and use it to attack moderates.

I get what you're saying here. I never really bought the whole 'moderate religion allow fundamentalism to exist' argument either. It seems like a bit of a stretch to me, and an attempt to dodge the benefits that religion seems to provide to some.

I think it'd be a far more honest approach to simply acknowledge that yes, there are some positives to belief (not that I think these can only be obtained through religion), but even so, the alternative is still preferable.

Deus Ex

Daftendirekt wrote: »

I think it'd be a far more honest approach to simply acknowledge that yes, there are some positives to belief (not that I think these can only be obtained through religion), but even so, the alternative is still preferable.

My sentiments exactly.

Sea Sharp

I agree, I can see a lot of people jumping on the Richard Dawkins band-wagon. A lot of atheists are people that never really cared about god vs evolution but then read one or two informative books and/or are p1ssed off at the Catholic church.

ColmDawson

It sounds to me like a case of young people (your classmates) having positions less mature than those of older people (your lecturers). This is hardly surprising and isn't, to me, indicative of a 'New Atheism'.

To be fair to your classmates, it's not exactly difficult to make a coarse but accurate criticism of religion.

Ickle Magoo

A wish for higher standard of debate from someone with a sig of tits getting stared at, lol.

I'm not sure the current wave of anti-catholicism isn't driven by the catholic church rather than anything dawkins or hitchens et al have to say. The crises in the church and the growing acceptance of atheism and of anti-religious sentiment - again mostly driven by anti-muslim and tabloid driven terrorist hysteria along with the inaction and astoundingly bad PR from the vatican - seems to have handed several authors on anti-theistic matters their pension on a plate.

Deus Ex

Somebody posted a picture of a troll earlier. I wasn't sure what it referred to at the time, but after a quick google search I now presume I was being called a 'concern troll'. Meaning I'm using a 'false-flad pseudonym' to present arguments contrary to what I actually believe, in order to create uncertainty and unrest.

I'm not that interested in engaging in argumentum ad hominem, so I don't have much to say about the person in question. But I think it's really childish to assume that because I've adopted a contrary position, I'm actually being dishonest and have a hidden agenda.

i joined this forum so I could discuss and debate with intelligent like-minded individuals. However, I didn't expect to meet individuals so like-minded that we would agree on everything. And I certainly didn't expect to be thought of as being on the 'other team' because I don't lap up every word Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens utter. I really hope that the atheist community on this forum isn't so narrow-minded and insular that it can't accept criticism every now and then. Dogma anyone?

Deus Ex

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

sig of tits getting stared at

I've no idea what this means..?

Ickle Magoo

Deus Ex wrote: »

I've no idea what this means..?

I'm sorry, it was a jovial rib dig at GaNjaHaN....look carefully at his sig. :pac:

Deus Ex

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'm sorry, it was a jovial rib dig at GaNjaHaN....look carefully at his sig. :pac:

No need for an apology, just thought I was missing out on something. All is good.

sonicthebadger*

Deus Ex wrote: »

I never claimed that Dawkins was theologically ignorant, and where have I implied that there is something wrong with reading texts critically?

The point I was trying to make about Hitchens, and this can also be said of Dawkins & Harris, is that they pick examples of fundamentalist religious belief and use it to attack moderates.

I thinks 'twas here. Mayhap I misread. By 'those' I have come to think you mean "believers in the literal truth of the Bible" not 'those' as in "other texts criticised by Dawkins". Which I hope explains my confusion. I still stand by my point that to talk about literal belief one must read the text as if one believes it literally.

Deus Ex wrote: »

One of my lectures makes the distinction between atheists like Richard Dawkins, who he believes to be theologically ignorant; reading religious texts in the same manner as those he criticises, and those that he describes as classical or philosophical atheists, like J.L Mackie.

I haven't read Mackie yet, so I'm not sure how their arguments differ, but it sounds like an interesting distinction.

I think the point Dawkins, Hitchens, et. al. are trying to make is that it's time to drop the unquestioning respect of Religion and look at it as just another idea. If it has merits keep them and if it has flaws discard them. If some of the more unbelievable passages in the holy books are not really meant to be taken literally even though said holy book claims to be from the horse's mouth then why not other passages? All of it should be open to being discarded if necessary. But therein lies the problem with a "Holy Book", it's not really open to having bits of it thrown away because of sillyness or outright harmfulness.

Dr. Loon

Deus Ex wrote: »

Hitchens does similar things when discussing the Old Testament, he reads it in a literal sense, then dismisses its claims and mocks those who believe it to be true. Hitchens studied Philosophy, and should know that Abrahamic texts, like Greek mythology, weren't intended to be read literally, and in the case of the Greeks, their texts never were. They were figurative representations of metaphysical questions/dilemma's.

How are these books supposed to be read? How is one to know what to take literally and what metaphorically? How do we know the intent of how they're supposed to be read?

robindch

Deus Ex wrote: »

One of my lectures makes the distinction between atheists like Richard Dawkins, who he believes to be theologically ignorant; reading religious texts in the same manner as those he criticises,

I'm not sure how familiar you are with what Dawkins has written, but he does generally take religious texts and the writings of religious apologists at their word. Now, one can certainly argue about whether that's a wise thing to do, but any theological ignorance that passes through him certainly doesn't start with him.

I'm reminded of PZ Myer's Courtier's Reply:

PZ Myers wrote:

I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk.

Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.

Personally, I suspect that perhaps the Emperor might not be fully clothed — how else to explain the apparent sloth of the staff at the palace laundry — but, well, everyone else does seem to go on about his clothes, and this Dawkins fellow is such a rude upstart who lacks the wit of my elegant circumlocutions, that, while unable to deal with the substance of his accusations, I should at least chide him for his very bad form.

Until Dawkins has trained in the shops of Paris and Milan, until he has learned to tell the difference between a ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon, we should all pretend he has not spoken out against the Emperor's taste. His training in biology may give him the ability to recognize dangling genitalia when he sees it, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics.

antiskeptic

iUseVi wrote: »

I don't really know what you mean by "crude forms of atheism". If you are suggesting you must have a degree in philosophy and/or theology to see that religious claims are nonsense I highly disagree.

At the end of the day atheism is non-belief in gods and just because some kids don't know all the fancy arguments doesn't stop them seeing through the b*ll****.

You don't need a degree in philosopy or theology but if your arguments cannot approach your opponant on his strongest turf then you're engaged in crude atheism. Just like you're doing here in presenting no argument.

antiskeptic

Deus Ex wrote: »

Somebody posted a picture of a troll earlier. I wasn't sure what it referred to at the time, but after a quick google search I now presume I was being called a 'concern troll'. Meaning I'm using a 'false-flad pseudonym' to present arguments contrary to what I actually believe, in order to create uncertainty and unrest.

I'm not that interested in engaging in argumentum ad hominem, so I don't have much to say about the person in question. But I think it's really childish to assume that because I've adopted a contrary position, I'm actually being dishonest and have a hidden agenda.

i joined this forum so I could discuss and debate with intelligent like-minded individuals. However, I didn't expect to meet individuals so like-minded that we would agree on everything. And I certainly didn't expect to be thought of as being on the 'other team' because I don't lap up every word Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens utter. I really hope that the atheist community on this forum isn't so narrow-minded and insular that it can't accept criticism every now and then. Dogma anyone?

You seem to be encountering difficulty establishing the simplest of points - a reflection perhaps of those aspects of modern atheism you're trying to highlight.

We (on the 'other' channel, that is) would welcome as a breath of fresh air, the one who can approach Christianity on it's strongest points. It can get a bit wearisome dealing with the "faith is blind" element of atheism all the time.

iUseVi

antiskeptic wrote: »

You don't need a degree in philosopy or theology but if your arguments cannot approach your opponant on his strongest turf then you're engaged in crude atheism. Just like you're doing here in presenting no argument.

I disagree. I think a child's rejection of religion is fully formed and valid, and not at all crude. People who need to resort to fancy word play are IMO pompous and desperate.

It's really not that hard to see the ridiculous side of religions, and people are under no obligation to meet theological arguments which tend to be complete wastes of breath. If the opponent's "strongest turf" is IMO complete nonsense there's no need for people to argue with it. I don't need to know every ridiculous creationist argument to reject the entirety of creationism.

As it is, I have excellent knowledge of argument's for and against god, but only because it interests me. I really don't think they are at all necessary to fully and rationally reject the notion. But that all IMO and you shall of course disagree.

Dades

I'm finding it difficult to see a meaningful distinction between crude or classical, or philosophical atheism.

Atheism is what it is, and, as mentioned already, it doesn't take much analysis to find it a reasonable conclusion. Some people reject religion as children others after a lifetime of faith. Ultimately they all reject it for the same reasons.

This idea that someone has to be theologically educated to draw a 'mature' conclusion is way off, imo. No matter how many times, or through what lens you read (for example) the Bible doesn't change the fact that the stories in a book written many centuries ago are simply not enough to make the vast leaps of faith required to believe in the Christian God.

If you get bogged down in the minute details of each and every religion, you lose sight of the wood for the trees. Stepping out of the trees gives a much clearer picture.

The disdain the "older" generation of atheists have is more to do with the anti-theism that is characteristic of some newer atheists (the internet generation). And I can't help but think there's an element of snobbery too.

Ickle Magoo

Courtier's Reply

His training in biology may give him the ability to recognize dangling genitalia when he sees it, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics.

Exactly, the emperors clothes of theology "arguments" in a nutshell.

antiskeptic

iUseVi wrote: »

I disagree. I think a child's rejection of religion is fully formed and valid, and not at all crude. People who need to resort to fancy word play are IMO pompous and desperate.

It's really not that hard to see the ridiculous side of religions, and people are under no obligation to meet theological arguments which tend to be complete wastes of breath. If the opponent's "strongest turf" is IMO complete nonsense there's no need for people to argue with it. I don't need to know every ridiculous creationist argument to reject the entirety of creationism.

As it is, I have excellent knowledge of argument's for and against god, but only because it interests me. I really don't think they are at all necessary to fully and rationally reject the notion. But that all IMO and you shall of course disagree.

I will. And I think the OP will too. Which confirms both his and my suspicion. If not yours.

iUseVi

antiskeptic wrote: »

I will. And I think the OP will too. Which confirms both his and my suspicion. If not yours.

Eh? What? Talking a bit cryptic there.

Blackhorse Slim

antiskeptic wrote: »

We (on the 'other' channel, that is) would welcome as a breath of fresh air, the one who can approach Christianity on it's strongest points. It can get a bit wearisome dealing with the "faith is blind" element of atheism all the time.

A chain is only as strong as it weakest link, not the strongest. Even if christianity was absolutely internally consistent (which it is not) that would not be evidence for christian religious beliefs being true. You could perhaps argue that christianity is valid, useful, logical or benevolent, but atheism doesn't essentially claim that it is not. Atheism simply claims that christianity (and other religions) are not true.

antiskeptic

Dades wrote: »

Atheism is what it is, and, as mentioned already, it doesn't take much analysis to find it a reasonable conclusion. Some people reject religion as children others after a lifetime of faith. Ultimately they all reject it for the same reasons.

Probably.

The trouble comes when those who've rejected it go on to suggest that everyone else should reject it. At which point that which happens to have convinced the atheist to occupy his position needs to come out of th closet to see if it can convince everyone else. And so, argument needs to be brought to bear.

That argument can consist of the crude - more or less asserting that because you find atheism a comfortable resting place means everyone else should find the same, and if they don't .... well. This level of 'argument' characterises much of what passes for atheistic apologetics on the like of this forum and RD.net.

Or it can be Dawkinsian in it's thinking, supposing for instance, faith to be what you yourself define it to be (sidestepping what theists define it to be, and so sidestepping argument altogether)

Or it can consist of something that attempts to elevate itself off the bottom of the barrel.

I think that's what the OP is getting at.

antiskeptic

Blackhorse Slim wrote: »

A chain is only as strong as it weakest link, not the strongest.

By strongest, I mean choosing to step out from behind atheist projections of what Christianity is about. For instance, Dawkins makes much of faith being blind in the God Delusion and supposes Christianity to progress on the basis of faith being blind. He doesn't address the Christian position that holds faith anything but blind and so sidesteps a Christian stronghold. Now it might well be that he would have something to say about non-empirical evidence and it might be that he can make strong argument about it. But to not address it at all leaves him (as Terry Eagleton puts it) "lunging, flailing, mispunching".

We theists just sit there scratching our heads thinking, "what is he on about?"

Even if christianity was absolutely internally consistent (which it is not) that would not be evidence for christian religious beliefs being true.

Whether Christianity is or isn't internally consistant is a matter of debate. It is crude atheism that simply asserts so.

I agree that the truth value of Christianity isn't established beyond all doubt by internal consistancy. It would a dyed-in-the-wool unbeliever however, who wouldn't be troubled on finding sound internal consistancy within Christianity - seeing the time span over which the Bible was written.

Atheism simply claims that christianity (and other religions) are not true.

Anyone can claim anything. The issue is showing it. Crudely or otherwise.

sonicthebadger*

antiskeptic wrote: »

The trouble comes when those who've rejected it go on to suggest that everyone else should reject it. At which point that which happens to have convinced the atheist to occupy his position needs to come out of th closet to see if it can convince everyone else. And so, argument needs to be brought to bear.

Why, oh why, oh why is the need for EVIDENCE so difficult to understand? The 'it' you speak of could be anything. I automatically don't believe things, literally an infinity of things, every single day. Until I see some evidence, then I start to investigate.

There's no closet involved in my lack of belief and I am not ashamed of it, nor should I be.

Ickle Magoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

Anyone can claim anything. The issue is showing it. Crudely or otherwise.

That goes for all argument on all and any side of the fence, surely? This idea that atheists are using crude methods to point out why they lack belief in a god while claiming some ancient book of unknown authorship provides sophisticated argument in the positive is rather contradictory.

antiskeptic

iUseVi wrote: »

Eh? What? Talking a bit cryptic there.

I do indeed disagree with your position.

I think the OP will disagree with your position.

I think the OP will also agree that the manner in which you've presented your position in these last few posts typifies the very crudeness he was decrying in his OP.

You're demonstrating his very point in other words: that modern-era atheism has, in the main, retreated to simplisticism about what can't be but one of lifes very biggest questions.

God/no God will always be the most important question anyone can obtain an answer to. Whether you choose to deal with it in a manner befitting it. Or not.

antiskeptic

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

That goes for all argument on all and any side of the fence, surely? This idea that atheists are using crude methods to point out why they lack belief in a god while claiming some ancient book of unknown authorship provides sophisticated argument in the positive is rather contradictory.

Another plain example of what the OP is talking about.

A complete strawman representation of the best Christian positions. - preferring instead to muscle up to the worst Christian positions.

Ickle Magoo

Well, no, it was more your self-propulsion as an exponent of all that is good and honest about intellectual debate actually.

But interesting that the worst christian positions are in the bible...good to know.

sonicthebadger*

antiskeptic wrote: »

Anyone can claim anything. The issue is showing it. Crudely or otherwise.

Exactly. Show me a god please. As crudely as you like. I'll be converted.

antiskeptic wrote: »

God/no God will always be the most important question anyone can obtain an answer to. Whether you choose to deal with it in a manner befitting it. Or not.

There are no more important questions than that? Really? Really? Frankly what I'm having for lunch is a more important question to me right now. And hot on the heels of that is the Higgs Boson, how the recently discovered 'Impossible Star' birth is happening and why it is possible when thus far birth of these stars has not been understood. It really doesn't matter to me if Unicorns exist or not. Waste of time considering it.

antiskeptic

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

Why, oh why, oh why is the need for EVIDENCE so difficult to understand?

Perhaps unbeknownst to you, you're coming from a rationalist empiricist position: suggesting that the only way to know things is via empirical evidence.

Unfortunately for that philosophical position (just one of a mukltitude possible), it is as impossible for you to demonstrate it true as it is for the Christian to demonstrate Christianity true. Which leads you to stalemate.

Which is unfortunate if you take the modern atheist position of suggesting that everyone dump religion. You kind of need to ensure your own position stands on concrete before decrying the foundations of everyone elses position.

It's crude atheism that ignores this and marches off assuming the higher ground.

Blackhorse Slim

antiskeptic wrote: »

I agree that the truth value of Christianity isn't established beyond all doubt by internal consistancy.

So how is it to be established?