Atheist Elite College.

raah!

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Nothing here (in your whole post, actually) responds to the points made in my post you quoted, its just a rant against modern popular atheistic thinkers and how little you think of them. Your empty dismissals of their arguments aside, you have not shown how the average atheist on the street now is any different to the average atheist on the street 100 or 500 or 2000 years ago. People will always listen to and regurgitate the arguments of popular thinkers they like, you seem to think that because you, personally, dismiss the modern arguments that this makes the modern atheist different to those of the past. Its quite clear that you think "new" atheists worse for this, and its quite clear the insult hidden behind the word "new" even to one who, under your own criteria, it doesn't apply to.

I actually did in the post. And Yahweh has outlined it too. Also note I mentioned "cultural/social" which almost to a man the respondants here have ignored. There is a reason I gave a list of similar cases -emos, knackers...

Ludicrous strawman. The point is not that the average modern atheist (teenager or otherwise) is the same as ancient philosophers, or even modern philosophers, its the average modern atheist is the same as the average ancient atheist. The atheism is the same, the context has changed.

You do this alot. It's fine to chop a post up and treat the different points separately , but don't forget what the past arguments are. You've already stated that I haven't shown the average atheist isn't different. You don't have to do it again.

In your post that I didn't respond to there is a very good illustration of the danger of this method. See where you say "atheist means nothing is a strawman" and I had clearly said how I was using the term "as a lack of belief, as Is popular". This post here demonstrates the same mind boggling inability to read an argument as a whole as many of your other posts. It's not my job to teach you to read, and from now on I'm not going to respond to your ridiculous separated readings of paragraphs.

Yahweh- I recently attended a thing on newton's classical scholarship and he was a unitarian (or whatever you call someone who rejects the trinity of christianity) christian theist. I know this is irrelevant to your point but I found it interesting.

Mark Hamill

Yahew wrote: »

Dont be silly. Atheists were

1) Brave.
2) A good deal more intelligent than normal.
3) Far less common than the modern New Atheist thinks anyway. Newton was a deist, Bacon was a priest, Bayes a presbyter, Descartes a Christian, Pascal a Catholic and I could go on, and on.

however, the atheists who appeared after Darwin were smarter than normal, for sure.

Look, the issue is whether those atheists in the past wouldn't be just like modern atheists, if they had the internet access and less persecution we enjoy now (in most countries). You, nor raah!, have yet to show they wouldn't, and this bizarre strawman of comparing the modern internet forum lurking atheist to the vocal 19th or 15th or 3rd (bc) century just doesn't make any sense. I dont think any atheist in this forum has written books or given interviews on atheism, just like some of the bigger modern atheist writers have (Dawkins, Harris etc), pointing out that the average atheist of any era is different from the vocal atheist of any era is missing the point entirely. Here's hoping, not on purpose.

Yahew wrote: »

Now, since atheism is common the common are atheist. Thats is, people of normal intelligence.

Atheism may be more common, but that doesn't make it common. From wikipedia :"one study classified 2.5% of the world's population as atheists, and a separate 12.7% as non-religious."

raah!

The average atheist of the past is different from the average atheist of today. The vocal atheists are also different. I've pointed all that out actually. New atheism refers to the cultural movement inspired by a few outspoken people, it nonetheless applies to the average people moreso than the ideologies espoused (which are still different, in tone, and on average, from those in the past.I've pointed this out a million times, or more importantly, I've showed why they are different, your responses have been "it's not different")

Mark Hamill

raah! wrote: »

I actually did in the post. And Yahweh has outlined it too. Also note I mentioned "cultural/social" which almost to a man the respondants here have ignored. There is a reason I gave a list of similar cases -emos, knackers...

Yahew is wrong fro the same reasons I've already explained to you. Neither of you can account for why your reasoning doesn't mean we must label modern catholics as "new catholics" every time there is a new pope.

raah! wrote: »

You do this alot. It's fine to chop a post up and treat the different points separately , but don't forget what the past arguments are. You've already stated that I haven't shown the average atheist isn't different. You don't have to do it again.

You'd do well taking your own advice there. Its not the first time you've made that strawman.

raah! wrote: »

In your post that I didn't respond to there is a very good illustration of the danger of this method. See where you say "atheist means nothing is a strawman" and I had clearly said how I was using the term "as a lack of belief, as Is popular".

Here is my post, where exactly did I say that? Or where you talking about this post, 17 posts before it? Do you even know what post you are or aren't responding to?

raah! wrote: »

This post here demonstrates the same mind boggling inability to read an argument as a whole as many of your other posts. It's not my job to teach you to read, and from now on I'm not going to respond to your ridiculous separated readings of paragraphs.

You can back out of the debate if you like, but trying to hide it behind petty jibes does nothing to deflect from the fact that you have no argument, merely a rant. I think you know it, hence you refer to something over 20 posts ago to get out.

robindch

raah! wrote: »

I said that you derive a sense of identity from your atheism.

And I am telling you that I do not. And that post that you didn't quote referred to a philosophical position, not to a group-identity. However, I suspect that's not a concern for you.

I give up -- it's really strange that even though we've never met, you've been able to convince yourself that you know me better than I know myself!

Trippy! :rolleyes:

robindch

raah! wrote: »

I've showed why they are different

Old atheist: There's probably (or certainly) no deity/deities out there.
New atheist: There's probably (or certainly) no deity/deities out there.

Yes, I can see where the confusion is now!

Mark Hamill

raah! wrote: »

The average atheist of the past is different from the average atheist of today. The vocal atheists are also different. I've pointed all that out actually.

Actually you pointed out that the average atheist of today is different from the vocal atheist of the past. Twice, despite being corrected the first time.

raah! wrote: »

New atheism refers to the cultural movement inspired by a few outspoken people, it nonetheless applies to the average people moreso than the ideologies espoused (which are still different, in tone, and on average, from those in the past.I've pointed this out a million times, or more importantly, I've showed why they are different, your responses have been "it's not different")

Its been explained, countless times (although I'm sure you will now count in order to contradict that :rolleyes:) that the differences are in the context. Modern atheists have more outlets, with a much lower chance of persecution (depending on where they live) for their atheism related debates than in the past. You have not demonstrated that the average atheist of the past would be any different if they lived in the present. You have not demonstrated why this whole "new" business doesn't apply to theists either ("new catholic" every time there is a pope").You have not demonstrated anything, except an extended rant against the quality of arguments from Dawkins and Harris and the like, coupled with a poorly veiled dismissal of the atheists who follow them. You have only demonstrated what I've said before (here and here), "new atheist" is an insult, much like "militant atheist", used to put down and dismiss people en mass without having to listen to them.

raah!

Atheist doesn't mean nothing. Poor strawman.

With regard to "new catholics" you could use that if you wanted to, it wouldn't be useful though would it? You could just say "catholics" since "catholicism" is a well defined ideology. There is a term "a la carte catholics" which is more similar to what new atheism means. So, it was completely irrelevant to anything and everything.

I would gladly continue discussing with you, but you don't seem to be able to understand what I am saying. That thing you do where you forget what you've said, or what I've said whilst writing a post is really bad too. You've done it there in that post. You couldn't remember the last post I ignored or when you made the point. I would question how it's possible to participate in a discussion if this is how you are going to conduct it.

raah!

robindch wrote: »

And I am telling you that I do not. And that post that you didn't quote referred to a philosophical position, not to a group-identity. However, I suspect that's not a concern for you.

I give up -- it's really strange that even though we've never met, you've been able to convince yourself that you know me better than I know myself!

So what you spend a sizable portion of your time engaged in (politics relevent to atheism/secularism/skepticism) does not affect in anyway who you are. If you do think that then yes, I know you better than you know yourself. Or rather, I know what the word identity means.

robindch wrote: »

Old atheist: There's probably (or certainly) no deity/deities out there.
New atheist: There's probably (or certainly) no deity/deities out there.

I think you are perhaps taking the term "New atheist" too literally. We've all been working under the "atheism means nothing other than a lack of belief" malarky since the start.

raah!

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Actually you pointed out that the average atheist of today is different from the vocal atheist of the past. Twice, despite being corrected the first time.

We don't know what the "average atheist" of the past were. We have quotations from people like that man in his cell (whatever he was, it's not necessarily clear that he was an atheist). As far as "old atheism" is concerned there are only the writers. The average atheist of the past might have been the same, but it doesn't mattter. And I've pointed this out, you are obsessed with taking a literal meaning of the term, which I've already warned against a million times. If you think "new atheist" just means new atheist then you don't understand the term.

I have also pointed out that "New atheism" is composed primarily of "average atheists". Even Dawkins and Harris are not philosophers. They are a popular and populist. The distinction doesn't matter.

Its been explained, countless times (although I'm sure you will now count in order to contradict that :rolleyes:) that the differences are in the context.

And as I've said to you, even if we take that to be true, (I don't) even if we take only that to be true, the argument still stands. Because of the difference in context we have what yahweh explained there, and we have common people as atheists. Rather than esoteric free thinkers who were burned alive.

Modern atheists have more outlets, with a much lower chance of persecution (depending on where they live) for their atheism related debates than in the past.

Ok well lets just adress this now. Remember that even if we accept it as true the term new atheist is still valid. But now lets adress it.

The existentialists like Nietzche and Camus and Sartre often espoused things like nihilism, moral relativism and were not to far from postmodernistic in their views about science.

They were atheists openly, perhaps they were not liked, but they weren't burned at the stake.

What change in context has caused the likes of harris and dawkins to be:

-Moral objectivists (Moral landscape - Dawkins "hectoring myth that blah bla blah, on amazon, what he says about it)
-Prone to scientistic arguments veiled as scientific ones (see your misconceptions about materialism to clarify this)
-Scientific realists?
-Almost completely ignorant and negligent of any negative implications of atheism?
-Engaged in politics and book selling?

Another important factor is that they were all individualistic, while dawkins' writings are political and populist.

If we can clear that out of the way then we will be able to progress more clearly.

Now remember, I asked you what change in context has caused this change in emphasis of their arguments. I am not enquiring about the valididty of these arguments, you do not need to address this. You can after you address he question, but for the sake of clarity, address those things first.

Mark Hamill

raah! wrote: »

With regard to "new catholics" you could use that if you wanted to, it wouldn't be useful though would it? You could just say "catholics" since "catholicism" is a well defined ideology. There is a term "a la carte catholics" which is more similar to what new atheism means. So, it was completely irrelevant to anything and everything.

Nice tr..... well you tried, except that you are wrong. Well you are right that "new catholic" wouldn't be useful because its doesn't define anything new, but you are wrong in asserting that this isn't the case for atheism. Let me explain:

Atheism, as you well know, means a lack of belief in god. Thats all it means. However you seem to have an issue with the fact that many atheists go beyond this and will have somewhat common opinions on how to examine the universe, what the inconsistencies in theistic arguments are, etc etc. Well, at least that is what you are using as an excuse to rant against Dawkins and Harris and insult those that follow them, but, anyway, lets run with it.

The problem with labeling this "new atheism" is that, well, there is nothing new about it. (However labeling groups as "new" is a nice way to imply that they are poorly thought out and just a fad, so there is that...). Modern atheists are not the first to view theism as a con job (anti theist) and hold science and rationality in high esteem (materialist/naturalist). And its not like every materialistic atheist is anti-theist or vice versa.

The qualities that you claim to be trying to define either don't require definitions (atheists with the internet :rolleyes:) or already have definitions (anti-theist or materialist etc) and dont require shoehorning into any definition more restrictive that "atheist" (as a materialistic atheist may be quite apathetic towards theism).

I look forward to you quoting one sentence of this and then telling me I cant read, Its stuff like that that let me know I'm getting through

Mark Hamill

raah! wrote: »

The average atheist of the past might have been the same, but it doesn't mattter. And I've pointed this out, you are obsessed with taking a literal meaning of the term, which I've already warned against a million times. If you think "new atheist" just means new atheist then you don't understand the term.

That you say that it doesn't matter just shows that you dont understand what we are talking about. New or old, the key point is if there is sufficent difference between teh average modern atheist and teh average ancient atheist to require this "new atheist" label. If there isn't (or we dont know if there is) then we cant say a label is required, as it may be making a distinction that isn't there.

raah! wrote: »

And as I've said to you, even if we take that to be true, (I don't) even if we take only that to be true, the argument still stands. Because of the difference in context we have what yahweh explained there, and we have common people as atheists. Rather than esoteric free thinkers who were burned alive.

So you can only avoid the "new atheist" label if you could get burned alive for being an atheist? Are you for real? This is turning into "no true Scotsman" territory. What makes you think no common people were atheists in the past? If they were likely to be burned alive for it, they wouldn't really be shouting it from the hill tops, would they?

raah! wrote: »

What change in context has caused the likes of harris and dawkins to be:

-Moral objectivists (Moral landscape - Dawkins "hectoring myth that blah bla blah, on amazon, what he says about it)
-Prone to scientistic arguments veiled as scientific ones (see your misconceptions about materialism to clarify this)
-Scientific realists?
-Almost completely ignorant and negligent of any negative implications of atheism?
-Engaged in politics and book selling?

Back to the ranting, eh? Like I've said from the start: "There will always be new atheistic books with new arguments (well as long as religion exists), so people will always read them and use their arguments. Might as well call catholics "new catholics" every time there is a new pope." Your own subjective dismissal of their arguments aside (ie the second and fourth points), Dawkins et al, are not the first atheists to offer some alternative to theistic sources of morality or to try and earn a living from their material (we wouldn't have past atheists writings if they didn't publish anything they wrote).

raah! wrote: »

Another important factor is that they were all individualistic, while dawkins' writings are political and populist.

You keep asserting your own subjective opinion of Dawkins and Harris as objective truths. If I ever read a word they wrote I'd probably be insulted at the vehement disrespect you have for these men. That is, if I knew what the hell you where talking about.

raah! wrote: »

Now remember, I asked you what change in context has caused this change in emphasis of their arguments.

Simple. So simple, its been said several times already. Atheists nowadays dont have to worry (as much) about the backlash from voicing their opinions about theism with vigor and so have come out with more and more in depth arguments against all aspects of it (scientific basis for morality versus religious, secular education etc). We also have a greater understanding of the world and greater scientific resources with which to reduce theism (evolution, anthropology etc).

raah!

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Simple. So simple, its been said several times already. Atheists nowadays dont have to worry (as much) about the backlash from voicing their opinions about theism with vigor and so have come out with more and more in depth arguments against all aspects of it (scientific basis for morality versus religious, secular education etc). We also have a greater understanding of the world and greater scientific resources with which to reduce theism (evolution, anthropology etc).

I'm going to focus on this one thing. We'll move on to the others later. What is it about the arguments of Dawkins that are more "in depth"? The arguments are different. The existentialists knew about evolution, anthropology, and it is absurd to suggest that the reason they were relativists is that they were afraid to go more in depth because of persecution. They weren't really persecuted at all.

Now all of this was actually already in my post. But do you understand why it is the case that you cannot impute the change in the kinds of arguments to persecution?

Nietzche would be persecuted just as much for saying God is dead and being a relativist as he would if he said 'god is dead' and then said that sam Harris stuff (see thread on sam harris if you want to see why this is wrong, but just address the point here first).

Mark Hamill

raah! wrote: »

I'm going to focus on this one thing. We'll move on to the others later. What is it about the arguments of Dawkins that are more "in depth"? The arguments are different.

In depth meaning they attacked very specific theistic doctrine and aspects of religious culture.

raah! wrote: »

The existentialists knew about evolution, anthropology, and it is absurd to suggest that the reason they were relativists is that they were afraid to go more in depth because of persecution. They weren't really persecuted at all.

They were busy making the first arguments, which needed to be made before the (culture) specific arguments could be made.

raah! wrote: »

Now all of this was actually already in my post. But do you understand why it is the case that you cannot impute the change in the kinds of arguments to persecution?

I didn't impute the change in the kinds of arguments to persecution, that would be yet another strawman. I imputed the change to more advanced science (more scientific knowledge about the universe = less places for god to hide) and anthropology (natural altruism is source of morality). The change that I imputed to persecution was a more vocal average atheist (that and the internet giving them a place to meet like minded people to talk with).

raah! wrote: »

Nietzche would be persecuted just as much for saying God is dead and being a relativist as he would if he said 'god is dead' and then said that sam Harris stuff (see thread on sam harris if you want to see why this is wrong, but just address the point here first).

Again, you are comparing the famous intellectuals of yesteryear to the average atheist in the street today. Strawman. Even in times when atheists were under threat of physical persecution, you still had some be vocal about it. However, the common atheist would not be. Even today you see that, from people not wanting to "come out" as an atheist in some environments for fear of backlash from friends or family or employers.

robindch

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Even today you see that, from people not wanting to "come out" as an atheist in some environments for fear of backlash from friends or family or employers.

I was speaking with an American lady during the atheists conference last week -- she had a pretty hard time of it back home from "friends" and family, possessed as they were, of oodles and oodles of "christian love".

robindch

raah! wrote: »

Or rather, I know what the word identity means.

Facepalm.

recedite

raah! wrote: »

The likes of Dawkins and Harris these days...... .Their arguments are different from the average argument put forward before them. Their perspective is different, it is scientistic..

Did you mean scientific?

I think raah!'s argument is that these guys are mere scientists, and not like the more respectable "old atheists" who appear in his book of classic philosophers.

Morbert

Yahew wrote: »

Feynman is not a new Atheist because he is dead, and therefore an old atheist. Thats mild stuff compared to Grayling's sub-educated ramblings on Christian history.

Most atheists are atheists for the same reason Feynman was an atheist. I.e. They have no confidence in religious claims.

raah!

recedite wrote: »

Did you mean scientific?

I think raah!'s argument is that these guys are mere scientists, and not like the more respectable "old atheists" who appear in his book of classic philosophers.

No, and that's not my argument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

Dawkins and Harris' arguments are also philosophical ones.

raah!

Mark Hamill wrote: »

In depth meaning they attacked very specific theistic doctrine and aspects of religious culture.


They were busy making the first arguments, which needed to be made before the (culture) specific arguments could be made.

Again, the arguments of the existentialists are not mere precursers to those of Dawkins and Harris, they are different. . In many cases they are the opposite to each other. You haven't read either them or Dawkins or any of these people, yet you keep just repeating that the arguments are the same. I have shown you they are different.

Nietzche was very specific in criticising christianity, more specific than those fellows even. (he talked about christian morality being nihilistic).

Furthermore, it's not just their arguments against religion, but what they see as the implications of atheism that mark them out.

I didn't impute the change in the kinds of arguments to persecution, that would be yet another strawman. I imputed the change to more advanced science (more scientific knowledge about the universe = less places for god to hide) and anthropology (natural altruism is source of morality). The change that I imputed to persecution was a more vocal average atheist (that and the internet giving them a place to meet like minded people to talk with).

Dawkins and them aren't necessarily more vocal, just more vitriolic and polemical when it comes to religion, and more populist in their arguments. The existentialists wrote many books on these topics, they were not diffident in any way. Whatever about those advances , the arguments are different. And as I've said, evolution was already around for the existentialists. There were plenty of (purportedly) scientific argumetns against the existence of god in their time too. They made different arguments from the people in their time who were similar to Dawkins. They had different views on what atheism entailed.

Also, you're starting to contradict your recent spiel about it all being the same. If it's due to recent scientific advances then it's new. It's not though, but that's not the point. The atheism is different, it is a new kind of atheism from that of the existentialists.

Again, you are comparing the famous intellectuals of yesteryear to the average atheist in the street today. Strawman. Even in times when atheists were under threat of physical persecution, you still had some be vocal about it. However, the common atheist would not be. Even today you see that, from people not wanting to "come out" as an atheist in some environments for fear of backlash from friends or family or employers.

I'm actually comparing famous with famous... "Strawman!!!"

So, to summarise, there is a difference in the arguments made, a difference you cannot impute to mere diffidence, especially since you haven't read anything of any of these people, and haven't addressed the arguments in any way. They are similar in that they are atheists, well done there, but they are different kinds of atheism, this is very clear. (if you are in anyway familiar with them)

You'll notice I distinctly moved on to addressing just the arguments made by the prominent intellectuals. Lets stick to this, and not try to run about in circles in the hopes that people will forget what we have said earlier.


Edit: Just to summarise here:

First you say there is nothing new, there are only changes because they are less persecuted. This would still be new if their not being persecuted was modern. So contradiction number 1. Then you say their arguments are different because of science, which is the second contradiction. And thirdly, you don't seem to have any knowledge of what the arguments you are saying are the same are, so how can you say they are the same? You can't.

Mark Hamill

raah! wrote: »

Again, the arguments of the existentialists are not mere precursers to those of Dawkins and Harris, they are different. . In many cases they are the opposite to each other. You haven't read either them or Dawkins or any of these people, yet you keep just repeating that the arguments are the same. I have shown you they are different.

Yet another strawman, I've never said the arguments are the same, all I said was that the earlier philosophers arguments had to come before the modern ones. We needed big arguments against religion in general before we could argue against specific religious tradition in society. (not that modern atheist dont also come up with general arguments against religion).

raah! wrote: »

Dawkins and them aren't necessarily more vocal, just more vitriolic and polemical when it comes to religion, and more populist in their arguments. The existentialists wrote many books on these topics, they were not diffident in any way.

I'm getting sick of these pathetic strawmen, I specifically wrote that it was the average atheist on the street that has become more vocal, not the big, popular, atheist writers.

raah! wrote: »

. Whatever about those advances , the arguments are different. And as I've said, evolution was already around for the existentialists. There were plenty of (purportedly) scientific argumetns against the existence of god in their time too.

Ours are more advanced. We have more evidence for evolution, abiogenesis and the Big Bang.

raah! wrote: »

They made different arguments from the people in their time who were similar to Dawkins. They had different views on what atheism entailed.

Of course they had different views on what atheism entailed. Modern atheists also have different views on what atheism entails, different from either (or both) of modern or ancient atheists. But thats because atheists, beyond their lack of belief in god, dont have to hold the same views, even on the implications of atheism. Nothing new in that

raah! wrote: »

Also, you're starting to contradict your recent spiel about it all being the same. If it's due to recent scientific advances then it's new. It's not though, but that's not the point. The atheism is different, it is a new kind of atheism from that of the existentialists.

Except its not. And you keep showing how you dont understand or care what I am saying, pointing out that people have different opinions on top of their atheism doesn't change their atheism. You even failed to realise that yourself have just said "There were plenty of (purportedly) scientific argumetns against the existence of god in their time too. They [existentialists] made different arguments from the people in their time who were similar to Dawkins", meaning that there were atheists just like Dawkins back in their time, meaning that Dawkins, and the conclusions and arguments he represents are nothing new. You just contradicted your entire argument :pac:.

raah! wrote: »

I'm actually comparing famous with famous... "Strawman!!!"

I was talking about the average atheist on the street, you responded with a point about Nietzche, this comparing famous with average, a strawman. Do try to keep up with what posts you are responding to.

raah! wrote: »

First you say there is nothing new, there are only changes because they are less persecuted. This would still be new if their not being persecuted was modern. So contradiction number 1. Then you say their arguments are different because of science, which is the second contradiction. And thirdly, you don't seem to have any knowledge of what the arguments you are saying are the same are, so how can you say they are the same? You can't.

This is made all the more funny when you realise that I dont even need to point out how wrong you are here, you yourself have contradicted this very point, earlier in this posts . I've already quoted it twice, but here it is again:
"There were plenty of (purportedly) scientific argumetns against the existence of god in their time too. They made different arguments from the people in their time who were similar to Dawkins."
So if there where scientific arguments back then, and atheists like Dawkins back then, what exactly is new about these arguments and these atheists today? :pac:

raah!

Ok well, I'm just going to make the points again in one post, to stop you from hiding in multiquotes, and getting confused. This should sufficiently answer your question, and hopefully remove any possibility of your post being the word strawman repeated over and over and over. I am not arguing against any of your points. I'm answering your question.

Here is why the term 'new atheist' is a useful term, refers to a distinct group, and appropriately contains the word 'new'.

Dawkins hitchens etc. are different from nietzche sartre camus etc. We've established this. This alone would be enough to justify new, it is new relative to them.

Not only are they different, but they are at times opposite, and independent of each other. I pointed this out in the obvious case of moral objectivism and relativism, and of the modernistic and post modernistic views of the new and old.

It is not reasonable to say that moral relativism is a stepping stone to moral objectivism. Nor is it reasonable to say that the scientific realism of the new atheists follows naturally from scientific progress. You've already demonstrated that you don't understand the distinction between the scientific and philosophical parts of the arguments. (See where you demonstrate logical incompetence in talking about materialism/science, this was pointed out to you by another atheist, though this should not be necessary to mention to a 'defender of rationality')

In this, and all your other posts anywhwere, you have a problem when words aren't completely literal everywhere they are applied. Nobody thinks that the arguments of the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens are "brand new". The cultural/social movement in which people use these kind of arguments (which may have been used before) is certainly new. Whatever reasons you want to give for why this exists, doesn't change the fact that it is a new cultural phenomena. This is why posting a thing where someone 500 years ago said something similar to dawkins misses the point.

So, the context of the arguments is new (as you'll agree with), the content is new (as you said yourself when you say their arguments are due to progress of science (they're not btw, but it doesn't matter)), and the tone and audience is new. New atheism.

Now, this argument is completely general. It refers to dawkins/hitchens and their follows, and Camus/Sartre/Nietzche and their followers.

Saying that Dawkins/hitchens are the logical outcomes of these existentialists because of the the progress of science is just completely wrong. You can keep saying it, but it just shows that you are completely ignorant of these writers.

Now, I know you like saying "strawman strawman strawman", but remember, from the very start, I have put forward a definition and why it is appropriate. I'm not interested in representing your opinions on this, accurately or not, I have shown here what the term means. I'm not trying to argue against what you think it means.

So, it's a new cultural movement, and there is new emphasis on different kinds of argument within this cultural movement. Whether or not the arguments are brand new, or people have been atheists before. I've been saying this from the start really, but don't get hung up on that. This post shows you what new atheism is, why it's called what it's called, and why it accurately characterises a group of people of which you are a part.

Mark Hamill

raah! wrote: »

Ok well, I'm just going to make the points again in one post, to stop you from hiding in multiquotes, and getting confused.

So rather than take heed and respond to my points, you will just repeat yourself, while accusing me of dishonesty and insulting my intelligence? Everything else you repeat here has already been debunked, every point is either wrong or irrelevent and you cant escape from the fact that you have already contradicted your own argument, quite definitively:

raah! wrote: »

There were plenty of (purportedly) scientific argumetns against the existence of god in their time too. They B]ancient atheists[/B made different arguments from the people in their time who were similar to Dawkins. They had different views on what atheism entailed.

So if there where scientific arguments back then, and atheists like Dawkins back then, what exactly is new about these arguments and these atheists today? The answer is nothing and no amount of ignorance, rants or strawmen will change that fact.

raah!

hahahahaha, do you see how that question is answered? The post is an answer to the question you asked at the end. There's a reason I didn't quote all your points. If you had read past the first sentence, you would see how that question is fully answered. They are new relative to what the previous mainstay of atheists (intellectual or otherwise) were. They are new relative to the (old) atheists of nietzche and those fellows. Their arguments are different. Their following is different. Anyway, this is gone into more detail in the post up there. Just because I haven't quoted you point for point doesn't mean I haven't addressed what you are saying.

Btw, the atheists of the 19th centuary were not ancient, and the ancients you cited were not atheists.

Summary:
Your argument has been that dawkins has been the same as russell (wrong) nietzche (wrong), epicurus (wrong) and socrates (not even an atheist, neither was epicurus actually). Also that it is a term used to collectively dismiss people, this doesn't mean it is an incorrect grouping.

robindch

raah! wrote: »

So, it's a new cultural movement

The only thing that's new about it is the reaction of the religious -- previously, at worst, it was outrage followed by social sanction, legal sanction or both.

Whereas now, it's only something between outrage and resignation.

raah!

That's a strawman!!! I never mentioned the reaction of the religious!!!

robindch

raah! wrote: »

I never mentioned the reaction of the religious!!!

Yes, that's why I did -- because it's the only thing that's different

raah!

I never said you didn't! Strawman!

Anyway, sweet arguments aside. I clearly pointed out things that are new, or at least "different from the philosophers/atheists of the past", just saying "there is nothing new" is a total strawman.

Mark Hamill

raah! wrote: »

hahahahaha, do you see how that question is answered? The post is an answer to the question you asked at the end. There's a reason I didn't quote all your points. If you had read past the first sentence, you would see how that question is fully answered. They are new relative to what the previous mainstay of atheists (intellectual or otherwise) were. They are new relative to the (old) atheists of nietzche and those fellows. Their arguments are different. Their following is different. Anyway, this is gone into more detail in the post up there. Just because I haven't quoted you point for point doesn't mean I haven't addressed what you are saying.

What the hell are you talking about? Do you even read your own posts? Particularly the start of your last one where you said "Ok well, I'm just going to make the points again in one post"? You didn't respond to any of my points at all, you just repeated yourself as if I hadn't said anything.

raah! wrote: »

Summary:
Your argument has been that dawkins has been the same as russell (wrong) nietzche (wrong), epicurus (wrong) and socrates (not even an atheist, neither was epicurus actually).

Strawman, I never said any of that, I said that atheism has always been the same, that there always have been the same types of atheists, and whats changed is the environment, which in modern times has allowed more average atheists to be more vocal about their atheism. I even made the point that Dawkins et al have different arguments than the previous atheists (no sh*t sherlock, do you think they are going to write books or give interviews only repeating 200 or 2000 year old arguments, of course they are going to have their own arguments and ideas) and that this is because new scientific research gives us more ways to debunk religious claims (evolution, abiogenesis, big bang etc) and because the older general arguments have been made, we can concentrate on specific claims or acts of religion to debunk (religion as only source of morality etc.)

raah! wrote: »

Also that it is a term used to collectively dismiss people, this doesn't mean it is an incorrect grouping.

So you admit that the term "new atheist" is intended as collective dismissal of modern atheists?

Mark Hamill

raah! wrote: »

That's a strawman!!! I never mentioned the reaction of the religious!!!

raah! wrote: »

I never said you didn't! Strawman!

Ah, no wonder you cant stop making strawmen, you clearly have no idea what the term actually means.