Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Atheist Elite College.
Options
Comments
-
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.
You also clearly said:raah! wrote:There were plenty of (purportedly) scientific argumetns against the existence of god in their time too. They [ancient atheists] made different arguments from the people in their time who were similar to Dawkins. They had different views on what atheism entailed.
So all you are clearly doing is contradicting yourself.0 -
Mark Hamill wrote: »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.
I had to make the points again without quoting you because you were doing this thing were you take everything I said to be a reference to what you were saying so that you could use the word strawman. Almost every single time you've used that word it's been wrong.
An example of this: In that post which I didn't quote word for word (did clearly responded to) you said "I was talking about the average atheists". Now you'll notice in my earlier post, to remove exactly this kind of trickery, I said "lets just focus on the difference in the arguments of the big wigs". In an ironic twist you then "strawmanned" this by interpreting it as a statement about the average atheist. Very hilarious.
I also satirically reproduced the tactic in your post there in my responses to robindch.
Furthermore, you've earlier agreed that we didn't know about the average atheist on the street, and that because we didn't know this makes the term un usuable. This is also a silly point. But it does contradict what you are saying in that post about "the average atheist is more vocal".
Well forgive me then, other posters were doing it. And you strongly suggested as much with your "what exactly is new".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.)
And anyway, you have just escaped into the territory of "new advances + old atheistm = new atheism". This is completely wrong. I've shown you in many posts. Luckily for you, you are able to avoid this by pretending I am addressing your opinion on something which I clearly stated taht I was not, so you can say "strawman"
Any term for for a group can be used to dismiss that group. It could also be used to say "they're great".So you admit that the term "new atheist" is intended as collective dismissal of modern atheists?
How strawman of you.Mark Hamill wrote: »Ah, no wonder you cant stop making strawmen, you clearly have no idea what the term actually means.
Well thanks for showing us all again your peculiar failings with language. From the very start, when I've use the word 'new' I was very specific that it was reffered to the average (now this can be to the average prominent top atheist, or their followers, it makes nooooooo difference) arguments of the atheist. Back in the time of Sartre and those fellows the average was the nihilistic existential kind, these days it is the scientistic kind.Mark Hamill wrote: »You also clearly said:
"atheists like dawkins"
So all you are clearly doing is contradicting yourself.
And yes, these days they are less sophisiticated. In fact, from this thread and what Yahweh has said, I think that new atheism arises completely out of the popularisation of atheism. This would explain the tone of the arguments of the major proponents, and also the lack of quality.
So, remember here, I am not trying to represeent you, I am just showing you what the term new atheist means. You have already agreed that the atheist of today is different from the atheist of yesterday, taht's one thing. And you have also agreed (implicitly, by refering to their collectively used arguments) that the atheists of today and yesterday use different kinds of arguments.
Also, scientism/new atheism does not come out of existentialism/post modernism with the advance of science. What you are saying there is absurd. I tried to focus in on this one point with you earlier, you cleverly ignored this completely and then "strawmanned" me by saying that I was trying to represent your opinions.
So, while you think I have misrepresented you often, you have come to the agreement that the kinds of arguments of atheists on average were different (this does not meant the arguments of just common atheists, but of all, the common ones, as todays atheists show, repeat the argumetns of the ones who speak for them. Though perhaps this is only possible with todays populist atheists. Anyway, so you don't get upset and start saying strawman, just ignore the people who don't write the books, pretend we are only refering to those who do. Remember I asked you to do this earlier). And you also came to the conclusion (in saying that their arguments follow naturally from scientific progress) that they were new. This argument is wrong, but it is enough to show you that you actually have come around to agreeing with everything I've said.
It seems all you have left is saying "you said there were atheists like dawkins, but you use the word new". Now I've clearly explained why it was not contradictory, as I had been using the term new in a relative way the whole time. But if that bothers you, just erase that statement, it's not very important. You'd still have agreed to what the term new atheist means.
***Here is the only argument you've ever made. I've shown it's wrong in nearly every post I've made. If you still don't understand I can quote that text alone, and faithfully follow your interpretation, and show you why it is wrong.0 -
No, and that's not my argument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
Yeah I'm not sure I'll accept that scientistic is a proper word, just because it's listed online as a pejorative term.
I could start using the word religionistic instead of religious, if I wanted to insinuate that someone was deluded, as opposed to pious.
But that would be a bit petty.0 -
Well, it's fairly frequently used in philosophical things. Not just wikipedia. And wikipedia isn't very good. It's just the quickest way to link to something. Here are two further appearances:
http://www.naturalism.org/scientism.htm
http://carbon.ucdenver.edu/~mryder/scientism_este.html
http://www.michaelshermer.com/2002/06/shamans-of-scientism/
Also, I have one of those crappy 'very short introduction' books on Descartes (it was 3 for 2). It is written by Tom Sorell, and in the back there he has also apparently written a book on scientism. He's not very good though, but that's just an example.
Anyway, just because a term can be used to insult someone, doesn't mean it is not a useful descriptive tool. There is far too much word censoring going on in this forum of freethinkers. For example you need someones name if you are to insult them when they are not present or cannot be referenced. As in "Tom's a dork". If Tom isn't there to be pointed at you can do no other than say Tom.
So, I could have said "people who think that science answers every question that humans have to propose, and ones it can't aren't questions", but that would be a bit longer wouldn't it? This is a massively different thing from scientific. That is why there is a different word for it. So, their arguments are not scientific, that's why I didn't use the word scientific.0 -
I had to make the points again without quoting you because you were doing this thing were you take everything I said to be a reference to what you were saying so that you could use the word strawman. Almost every single time you've used that word it's been wrong
I've used it every time you countered a point that was superficially similar to my points, but crucially different in terms of content and implication. You made up these points yourself, these strawmen, and then preceded to argue against them.An example of this: In that post which I didn't quote word for word (did clearly responded to) you said "I was talking about the average atheists". Now you'll notice in my earlier post, to remove exactly this kind of trickery, I said "lets just focus on the difference in the arguments of the big wigs". In an ironic twist you then "strawmanned" this by interpreting it as a statement about the average atheist. Very hilarious.
No, in your earlier post, you strawmaned me. This debate is not about the big wigs, its about the average atheist on the street and whether labeling them as "new atheist" is apt. To start comparing the big wigs both misses the point of this debate and supports my earlier assertion that this is just an excuse for you to rant against Dawkins et al.Furthermore, you've earlier agreed that we didn't know about the average atheist on the street, and that because we didn't know this makes the term un usuable. This is also a silly point. But it does contradict what you are saying in that post about "the average atheist is more vocal".
It doesn't contradict it. Do you have any evidence to assume that there weren't atheists in the past who didn't talk about it, because of the fear of repercussions? We know that there are atheists nowadays who dont tell anyone about it for fear of repercussions, so its logical that there were in the past.Well forgive me then, other posters were doing it. And you strongly suggested as much with your "what exactly is new".
The argument has always been that the atheism has always been the same, as it has, and that the difference is in context, atheists can be more vocal now. That arguments have advanced and new points made hasn't changed that.And anyway, you have just escaped into the territory of "new advances + old atheistm = new atheism". This is completely wrong. I've shown you in many posts. Luckily for you, you are able to avoid this by pretending I am addressing your opinion on something which I clearly stated taht I was not, so you can say "strawman"
Wow, when you make stuff up, you really go for it dont you? Your said, in the summary that I was responding to, "Your argument has been that ...", so you were very clearly addressing my argument, no pretending about. Next time you try to change history, do try and remember that your previous posts are there for everyone to see.Any term for for a group can be used to dismiss that group. It could also be used to say "they're great".
Thats a yes then? "New atheist" is a pejorative? Glad we got that sorted out then, I was correct back at the start then /thread.How strawman of you.
J C, that you?Well thanks for showing us all again your peculiar failings with language. From the very start, when I've use the word 'new' I was very specific that it was reffered to the average (now this can be to the average prominent top atheist, or their followers, it makes nooooooo difference) arguments of the atheist. Back in the time of Sartre and those fellows the average was the nihilistic existential kind, these days it is the scientistic kind.
We dont know what the average atheist was then, we only know what the popular atheist was. But given that there was scientific atheists in the past and given that there is philosophical atheists today, what exactly is new about the situation? Overall, the types have always existed, popularity has grown or waned (because of context, because we have a better scientific understanding of the world) but the atheism is still the same.And yes, these days they are less sophisiticated. In fact, from this thread and what Yahweh has said, I think that new atheism arises completely out of the popularisation of atheism. This would explain the tone of the arguments of the major proponents, and also the lack of quality.
Ah, back to ranting I see.So, remember here, I am not trying to represeent you, I am just showing you what the term new atheist means. You have already agreed that the atheist of today is different from the atheist of yesterday, taht's one thing. And you have also agreed (implicitly, by refering to their collectively used arguments) that the atheists of today and yesterday use different kinds of arguments.
Not quite. The atheists of today use similar arguments to the past (you, yourself admitted there where scientific atheists in the past), but there have been philosophical atheists and scientific atheists all throughout history. In fact, most atheists would be a bit of both, as most religious "arguments" are so moronic that they dont lend themselves to scientific inquiry.Also, scientism/new atheism does not come out of existentialism/post modernism with the advance of science. What you are saying there is absurd. I tried to focus in on this one point with you earlier, you cleverly ignored this completely and then "strawmanned" me by saying that I was trying to represent your opinions.
It might no come directly out of it, but it certainly comes along with it. There is only so far you can go with philosophy before you have to realise that every argument you create, no matter how eloquent, means jacksh*t without actually evidence, as reality doesn't have to agree with a bunch of uppity monkeys bending a language originally developed to point out the best and worst places to take a dump.So, while you think I have misrepresented you often, you have come to the agreement that the kinds of arguments of atheists on average were different (this does not meant the arguments of just common atheists, but of all, the common ones, as todays atheists show, repeat the argumetns of the ones who speak for them. Though perhaps this is only possible with todays populist atheists. Anyway, so you don't get upset and start saying strawman, just ignore the people who don't write the books, pretend we are only refering to those who do. Remember I asked you to do this earlier). And you also came to the conclusion (in saying that their arguments follow naturally from scientific progress) that they were new. This argument is wrong, but it is enough to show you that you actually have come around to agreeing with everything I've said.
Nothing here is new (the arguments of atheists in the 1800s was different to those in the 1500s or in the 200BCs) and if worthy of distinction, you might as well call modern catholics "new catholics" every time they get a new pope or someone like William Lane Craig comes along.You'd still have agreed to what the term new atheist means.
It shouldn't surprise me that you dont see why I disagree with you. I'm not disputing that there are some people who follow the criteria you suggested a few pages back (basically, mindlessly agrees with and repeats all arguments they hear from Dawkins et al, throwing around sciency terms to support), as every subject has its fanatics. The problem is that you clearly apply to this to anyone who follows anything Dawkins-et-al say, because you clearly have a vehement hatred of the lot of them and their arguments. Your entire argument, pulled kicking and screaming out of its semantic hiding place, is " Anyone who listens to Dawkins or the rest is clearly a mindless gimp who wouldn't know pure (ie philosophical) atheists if it hit them in the face, so we need to label them so we can dismiss them as quick as possible". Right from the start thsi was obvious, and every little rant you have gone on since has only justified it more and more. You dont really want to use the word "new", you want to call them fake atheists, because to you, anyone who listens to Dawkins-et-al isn't a real atheist, just some hipster moron going along with a fad.0 -
Advertisement
-
Well, it's fairly frequently used in philosophical things. Not just wikipedia. And wikipedia isn't very good. It's just the quickest way to link to something. Here are two further appearances:
http://www.naturalism.org/scientism.htm
http://carbon.ucdenver.edu/~mryder/scientism_este.html
http://www.michaelshermer.com/2002/06/shamans-of-scientism/
Looking at the defintions given in those links (scientism is a worldview that encompasses natural explanations for all phenomena, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason), I fail to see the difference between scientism and science.0 -
Mark Hamill wrote: »Looking at the defintions given in those links (scientism is a worldview that encompasses natural explanations for all phenomena, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason), I fail to see the difference between scientism and science.
Science is not a philosophical stance. It refers to either the results of scientific investigations, or the method of investigation itself. Hence, Christians can fully accept science, even if they reject Scientism.0 -
Science is not a philosophical stance. It refers to either the results of scientific investigations, or the method of investigation itself. Hence, Christians can fully accept science, even if they reject Scientism.
But if they do they can't reject Bayesian inference when science and religion are competing in terms of explanations.0 -
Here we go again; after the New V Old atheists discussion, we have another "spot the difference" :pac:Mark Hamill wrote: »I fail to see the difference between scientism and science.
I'd imagine it is used in "theological things" alright.Well, it's fairly frequently used in philosophical things.
http://www.michaelshermer.com/2002/06/shamans-of-scientism/
So, I could have said "people who think that science answers every question that humans have to propose, and ones it can't aren't questions"
But anyway, science doesn't answer every question, that's why Hawking refused to answer the god question in the Shermer article you linked to. I can only assume Shermer was trolling for attention. Check the comments at the end to see some well deserved criticism.
Or take this next quote from the article, there is no reason to use the word scientism instead of science.
The term scientistic is purely subjective, so you should stick to the more objective word scientific when in this forum. It's a bit like someone coming to Ireland from another country and referring to the locals as aliens.First, cosmology and evolutionary theory ask the ultimate origin questions that have traditionally been the province of religion and theology. Scientism is courageously proffering naturalistic answers that supplant supernaturalistic ones0 -
Well, this is just you saying what the debate is about. I am arguing that the term new atheist accurately describes this modern social phenomenon, which has Dawkins et al. at it's head.Mark Hamill wrote: »I've used it every time you countered a point that was superficially similar to my points, but crucially different in terms of content and implication. You made up these points yourself, these strawmen, and then preceded to argue against them.
No, in your earlier post, you strawmaned me. This debate is not about the big wigs, its about the average atheist on the street and whether labeling them as "new atheist" is apt. To start comparing the big wigs both misses the point of this debate and supports my earlier assertion that this is just an excuse for you to rant against Dawkins et al.
I'm not saying that all atheists these days are new atheists, but the sort who are inspired by the likes of Dawkins generally fall quite neatly into the categories I've given.It doesn't contradict it. Do you have any evidence to assume that there weren't atheists in the past who didn't talk about it, because of the fear of repercussions? We know that there are atheists nowadays who dont tell anyone about it for fear of repercussions, so its logical that there were in the past.
I'm not actually assuming that at all. I said we don't know about them, they haven't written any books. Perhaps they were the exact same as the common atheist today, but hid away, this still would make the term "new atheist" an appropriate term for the common man atheist of today who likes Richard Dawkins and falls into those categories. Whether or not these same people existed in the past, it's obvious that they did not exist to the same extent.
So the term is still useful, if the only atheists in the past we heard about were the likes of nietzche and them, then it is still useful to have a word which draws a distinction between them and the more common atheist of today, and their more populist ringleaders.The argument has always been that the atheism has always been the same, as it has, and that the difference is in context, atheists can be more vocal now. That arguments have advanced and new points made hasn't changed that.
Well I'd like to question what you mean by the "atheism is the same". This sounds like a bit of empty rhetoric to me. Nobody is saying taht the new atheists aren't still atheists. They use different kinds of arguments. This is what people mean when they say "new atheists". The atheism of Dawkins is not the same as the atheism of nietzche, just as the atheism of nietzche is probably not the same as that of a 13 year old, because they use different arguments and view it differently.
Well the comments about you playing your rhetorical "strawman" grames were about your posts in general. Not that one specifically. What you are doing here is another such trick, a strawman if you will!Wow, when you make stuff up, you really go for it dont you? Your said, in the summary that I was responding to, "Your argument has been that ...", so you were very clearly addressing my argument, no pretending about. Next time you try to change history, do try and remember that your previous posts are there for everyone to see.
So, your argument has been that the existentialists were the same as the likes of Dawkins. You tried to escape saying this by saying that that while the arguments are different they are logically entailed in each other, and the environment has just changed. This is the same as saying they are the same, and it's still wrong.
Yes it can be used to dismiss groups. Just as any name for any group can be. And I've adressed this too. See post to recedite about the name of Tom.Thats a yes then? "New atheist" is a pejorative? Glad we got that sorted out then, I was correct back at the start then /thread.
Your argument is along the lines of "I don't like this category, therefore it's invalid". If you think that something being an insult makes it invalid.
That's a strawman, I never mentioned J CJ C, that you?
The difference is which version is more popular. The different emphasis on different kinds of arguments. While in the past the emphasis may have been nihilistic and postmodernistic, these days it is scientistic and such. While scientism existed in the time of the existentialists, it was not the prevelent form. Now it is, the new wave of atheists are predominantly scientistic. I think This is because the new wave are predominantly regular people, and not academics. Because yes, the arguments of the likes of Harris are just bad.We dont know what the average atheist was then, we only know what the popular atheist was. But given that there was scientific atheists in the past and given that there is philosophical atheists today, what exactly is new about the situation? Overall, the types have always existed, popularity has grown or waned (because of context, because we have a better scientific understanding of the world) but the atheism is still the same.
So again, you are just saying this strange thing "the atheism is the same", of course they are all still atheists, but there is a marked difference between an atheist who thinks that atheism leads directly to prespectivism (nietzche) and one who thinks that it leads to a secular utopia and objective knowledge (dawkins et al.). (Note, secular utopia etc was a sarcastic paraphrase, please don't base your entire next post around calling this a strawman)
You can't be both a scientific realist and a scientific anti realist. You can't be both a moral objectivist and a moral relativist. You can't be both a modernist and a post modernist.Not quite. The atheists of today use similar arguments to the past (you, yourself admitted there where scientific atheists in the past), but there have been philosophical atheists and scientific atheists all throughout history. In fact, most atheists would be a bit of both, as most religious "arguments" are so moronic that they dont lend themselves to scientific inquiry.
Again, while there might have been people liek dawkins in the past, they were not the most prominent. The "new atheism" movement is the rise of this kind of atheism to prominence. And this is because common people are atheists, and this kind is easier. That is, as I've said, it's populist. (see Sam Harris justifiying his lack of moral arguments by saying things like "moral philosophy is boring lol!")
I've pointed out how they had almost opposite views. The only sense in which they come along with it is as an opposite.It might no come directly out of it, but it certainly comes along with it. There is only so far you can go with philosophy before you have to realise that every argument you create, no matter how eloquent, means jacksh*t without actually evidence, as reality doesn't have to agree with a bunch of uppity monkeys bending a language originally developed to point out the best and worst places to take a dump.
The change in emphasis from the existential style arguments to the current model is more distinct than anything that has ever occured in the catholic church. The change in the adherents is also very marked.Nothing here is new (the arguments of atheists in the 1800s was different to those in the 1500s or in the 200BCs) and if worthy of distinction, you might as well call modern catholics "new catholics" every time they get a new pope or someone like William Lane Craig comes along.
The other thing is, there are words for when religions change. Protestants , Luterans etc.
Again, these are actually bad examples, because those are definite shifts in ideology, new atheism is more a cultural movement, in which certain arguments are more likely to arise than others. It is not as well defined. As I've said before, it's a grouping similar to that of "knacker, emo".
I don't think it applies to all atheists. I think it's likely that a Dawkins fan also falls into many other new atheist categories.It shouldn't surprise me that you dont see why I disagree with you. I'm not disputing that there are some people who follow the criteria you suggested a few pages back (basically, mindlessly agrees with and repeats all arguments they hear from Dawkins et al, throwing around sciency terms to support), as every subject has its fanatics. The problem is that you clearly apply to this to anyone who follows anything Dawkins-et-al say, because you clearly have a vehement hatred of the lot of them and their arguments.
Well I'm not just drawing a distinction between "philosophical" and "scientific". You don't seem to know what science is. See post below. (below the post I have quoted)Your entire argument, pulled kicking and screaming out of its semantic hiding place, is " Anyone who listens to Dawkins or the rest is clearly a mindless gimp who wouldn't know pure (ie philosophical) atheists if it hit them in the face, so we need to label them so we can dismiss them as quick as possible". Right from the start thsi was obvious, and every little rant you have gone on since has only justified it more and more. You dont really want to use the word "new", you want to call them fake atheists, because to you, anyone who listens to Dawkins-et-al isn't a real atheist, just some hipster moron going along with a fad.
The people of this forum are more than aware that you can't say things like "science says God isn't real". Science doesn't actually say anything for that matter. But the statement "the only real things are those that can be examined with physical science" is a philosophical position, whether or not you want to recognise that.
And yes, I think that the reasons for which people say things are often that it is fashionable for them to do so. I would apply the same reasoning to religious people. Many religious people are religious for social reasons, they might say they believe this or that, but it is really just a 'banal social membership'.0 -
Advertisement
-
CerebralCortex wrote: »But if they do they can't reject Bayesian inference when science and religion are competing in terms of explanations.
Yes, Francis Collins would not be able to say he accepts science if he claimed the human genome is inserted into everyone at birth by angels.0 -
-
Science is not a philosophical stance. It refers to either the results of scientific investigations, or the method of investigation itself.
Scientific methods and results are pretty useless if you dont accept the underlining assumptions (philosophy). You can distinguish scientism as accepting the logical implication of following the scientific method, but it seems like an unnecessary distinction, like saying carpentry is the act of building out of wood and carpentry-ism is the philosophical posiiton that you can build things out of wood.Hence, Christians can fully accept science, even if they reject Scientism.
Christians can, and do, accept a great many contradictory positions.0 -
Mark Hamill wrote: »Scientific methods and results are pretty useless if you dont accept the underlining assumptions (philosophy). You can distinguish scientism as accepting the logical implication of following the scientific method, but it seems like an unnecessary distinction, like saying carpentry is the act of building out of wood and carpentry-ism is the philosophical posiiton that you can build things out of wood.
Carpentry-ism is the position that all things can be built out of wood. Or that only things built out of wood exist.
I missed this earlier post.But scientific methodologies only work if they are testing something assumed to be naturally consistent, if you allow for the possibility that there is an inconsistent unnatural/supernatural element, then no result can be taken as indicative of a meaningful result. Scientific results would be useless if you had to assume that a non-natural, non measurable source was or could be interfering, as any and all seemingly consistent results could possibly be coincidence, with no way of measuring how likely the coincidence is.
Under methodological naturalism, it is assumed that no supernatural element is interfering.Christians can, and do, accept a great many contradictory positions
You have not shown that it is contradictory.0 -
Whether or not these same people existed in the past, it's obvious that they did not exist to the same extent.
No, all thats obvious is that they didn't exist in the same context, in the same environment. I'm not likely to talk up my atheism somewhere where I am likely to be physically hurt or harassed because of it, that doesn't make me a different atheist in those situations.Well I'd like to question what you mean by the "atheism is the same".
I mean exactly what I say, atheism is the same. If someone is honest when they call themselves an atheist, then they are saying they dont belief in god. Sometimes this is backed with philosophical arguments against god, scientific arguments against religious doctrine (usually a mixture) and this is the way its always been.Well the comments about you playing your rhetorical "strawman" grames were about your posts in general. Not that one specifically. What you are doing here is another such trick, a strawman if you will!
No, I wont, because you are lying. You have been caught out and now are saying that a point you were clearly making in response to a specific point I made, was actually a general response to the argument as whole.This is getting pathetic.So, your argument has been that the existentialists were the same as the likes of Dawkins. You tried to escape saying this by saying that that while the arguments are different they are logically entailed in each other, and the environment has just changed. This is the same as saying they are the same, and it's still wrong.
No its not the same and I never said the existentialists were the same as Dawkins (I've been saying that the atheism has always been the same, and that there have always been philosophical and scientific atheists) this is another strawman. Are you playing a drinking game, or something/ take a drink for every strawman you insert?Yes it can be used to dismiss groups. Just as any name for any group can be. And I've adressed this too. See post to recedite about the name of Tom.
I saw your post, its nonsense. "New atheist" is only a pejorative.Your argument is along the lines of "I don't like this category, therefore it's invalid". If you think that something being an insult makes it invalid.
My argument is that the category is a pejorative masquerading as distinction between two groups that, overall, aren't different sufficiently different to require a distinction. We dont call football today "new football" because it isn't relevantly different from football a hundred years ago to bother.That's a strawman, I never mentioned J C
Do yourself a favour and find out the definition of a strawman. Your ignorance is just embarrassing at this stage.Again, while there might have been people liek dawkins in the past, they were not the most prominent. The "new atheism" movement is the rise of this kind of atheism to prominence. And this is because common people are atheists, and this kind is easier. That is, as I've said, it's populist.
And here we cut to the core of your argument! Why you vehemently hate Dawkisn-et-al and why you dislike and insult the people who listen to them - you see them as common people, uneducated and popularist. Your bias is what is driving you to label people en mass, not an objective need or qualification for a distinction. You have some sort of superiority complex and believe that atheism is only in the remit of the academics and philosophers. That most other atheists must be dullards and Dawkins followers (hence you assumed i was).I've pointed out how they had almost opposite views. The only sense in which they come along with it is as an opposite.
The existentialists made more than just philosophical ramblings on reality and not every philosopher atheist made or accepted moral objectivism or scientific anti-realist and not every argument they made was anti religious. They made specific arguments against religion, which go hand in hand with the scientific arguments against doctrine. You can accept an argument someone makes without being required to agree with everything they say.The people of this forum are more than aware that you can't say things like "science says God isn't real". Science doesn't actually say anything for that matter. But the statement "the only real things are those that can be examined with physical science" is a philosophical position, whether or not you want to recognise that.
Two more strawman, drink up, drink up! Science doesn't say god doesn't exist, because science is waiting for a definition of god to test. So far at best, it can say that god is indistinguishable from not existing. Your statement is also laughably incomplete. A more accurate one is that only things that have been examined scientifically can be determined as real, anything without scientific evidence is indistinguishable from simply being made up.they might say they believe this or that, but it is really just a 'banal social membership'.
Which is what you see modern atheists as. Because they dont share your mindless love of the old philosophers, dont repeat the same arguments as them (even if they are wrong), dont hold philosophy as they purest source of truth, dont see science as flawed and unreliable, dont exist as lone wolf atheists like you, do they? Everything you respond with just supports my initial impression of you, you just dont like Dawkins-et-al, or any scientifically based argument, because of your philosophy-based superiority complex.0 -
Under methodological naturalism, it is assumed that no supernatural element is interfering.
Well no, you assume that no supernatural element exists. You cant assume that supernatural elements exist, but dont interfere, as if they exist, why wouldn't they interfere? At what stage could you stop and say "maybe that supernatural element IS interfering"? How do you take account of the need reproducibility (is it interfering thsi time?)? Regardless of whether you think its ultimately right or wrong, when approaching something scientifically you have to assume that all phenomena have naturalistic explanations, otherwise your conclusions are based on some unmeasurable external element not interfering simply because you dont want it to.0 -
-
Mark Hamill wrote: »No, all thats obvious is that they didn't exist in the same context, in the same environment. I'm not likely to talk up my atheism somewhere where I am likely to be physically hurt or harassed because of it, that doesn't make me a different atheist in those situations.
Do you think there are the same number of atheists now as there were then so? There weren't.
Well I've shown you it wasn't and isn't.I mean exactly what I say, atheism is the same. If someone is honest when they call themselves an atheist, then they are saying they dont belief in god. Sometimes this is backed with philosophical arguments against god, scientific arguments against religious doctrine (usually a mixture) and this is the way its always been.
I don't really care about representing your opinion. Ok. Get over that. I am showing you, and have, that the atheism of dawkins and those is different and not in anyway entailed in that of the atheists before them. I have done this, you can keep whatever points you think you have won by saying the word "strawman" over and over and over. This is just a result of your failings when it comes to reading comprehension, by the way.No, I wont, because you are lying. You have been caught out and now are saying that a point you were clearly making in response to a specific point I made, was actually a general response to the argument as whole.This is getting pathetic.
What? Where is the content in these statements? There is none. You are saying nothing.No its not the same and I never said the existentialists were the same as Dawkins (I've been saying that the atheism has always been the same, and that there have always been philosophical and scientific atheists) this is another strawman. Are you playing a drinking game, or something/ take a drink for every strawman you insert?
Well, it's a pity you haven't been able to use reason or logic to show this.I saw your post, its nonsense. "New atheist" is only a pejorative.
And I've shown you it's an accurate distinction, and you are just repeating this retarded "new football, new catholic" business, and ignoring the actual meaning of the term. I mean, this is really really amazing, it's the name of the group. It doesn't matter that it's not entirely brand new. I've explained to you the sense in which it is new.My argument is that the category is a pejorative masquerading as distinction between two groups that, overall, aren't different sufficiently different to require a distinction. We dont call football today "new football" because it isn't relevantly different from football a hundred years ago to bother.
That you can't read posts in context, frequently misunderstand language which moves any way from direct literal statements, and have now misunderstood this obvious joke, strongly suggests that you are autistic. I've pointed it out to you before that you have a poor grasp of language. If you are, then I think you should be honest about it, and I can be more literal if then if you'd likeDo yourself a favour and find out the definition of a strawman. Your ignorance is just embarrassing at this stage.
Wow, I didn't know I vehemently hated them. I have no objective need? Oh no. No qualification for a distinction too?And here we cut to the core of your argument! Why you vehemently hate Dawkisn-et-al and why you dislike and insult the people who listen to them - you see them as common people, uneducated and popularist. Your bias is what is driving you to label people en mass, not an objective need or qualification for a distinction. You have some sort of superiority complex and believe that atheism is only in the remit of the academics and philosophers. That most other atheists must be dullards and Dawkins followers (hence you assumed i was).
To be honest, yes, I think intellectual issues are best left with intellectuals, not group thinking little teenagers. This doesn't mean I don't like "common people" it just means I don't like populist arguments and give them less attention than I would a properly formulated and researched one.
I also do find it extremely irritating when a group of people makes claims to intellectual superiority merely by being a member of a group. Baseless arrogance is very unattractive.
And nothing here changes the fact that we have one group who made a certain kind of argument, and now we have another that makes a different kind of argument.The existentialists made more than just philosophical ramblings on reality and not every philosopher atheist made or accepted moral objectivism or scientific anti-realist and not every argument they made was anti religious. They made specific arguments against religion, which go hand in hand with the scientific arguments against doctrine. You can accept an argument someone makes without being required to agree with everything they say.
You yourself now recognise the difference, and I've explained to you that the term is used to mark distinctions between the prevalent forms of atheism of the time. And when we say 'forms of atheism' we mean 'the kind of arguments causing and resulting from the atheism'. This was different. The atheism is different.
Read very closely what I said in the segment you quoted there. It may illustrate some of your common mistakes for you.Two more strawman, drink up, drink up! Science doesn't say god doesn't exist, because science is waiting for a definition of god to test. So far at best, it can say that god is indistinguishable from not existing. Your statement is also laughably incomplete. A more accurate one is that only things that have been examined scientifically can be determined as real, anything without scientific evidence is indistinguishable from simply being made up.
Hhahahahahhaha. I've just said that the arguments of Dawkins and them are themselves philosophical. It's not that they are "not philosophical" they are just different. You have realised this yourself.Which is what you see modern atheists as. Because they dont share your mindless love of the old philosophers, dont repeat the same arguments as them (even if they are wrong), dont hold philosophy as they purest source of truth, dont see science as flawed and unreliable, dont exist as lone wolf atheists like you, do they? Everything you respond with just supports my initial impression of you, you just dont like Dawkins-et-al, or any scientifically based argument, because of your philosophy-based superiority complex.
So, you've admitted already that there is a difference, and surely you've realised that the modern prevalent atheists are a 'new' kind of prevalent atheist.
Is the average atheist today different from the average atheist in the time of the existentialists? And do you now see why the term is useful to describe this new cultural movement and it's adherents? I'm pretty sure you do. Congratulations on using the word strawman though. It's a really good alternative to addressing points.
I also noticed there, that while you give the impression that you are "dissecting" a post, you leave some of the more important parts out, and subsequently just quote isolated sentences. You should address full points. I use paragraphs myself for a reason.
Edit: It's clear we are wasting each others time Mark Hamill. Perhaps we can continue this discussion another time, and focus only on one point at a time to prevent cross confusion and misrepresentation. You keep saying "strawman strawman", but I am not interested in attacking one of your opinions. I am making a case for the term new atheist. I don't care what you have or have not said (even though I was quite accurate in representing you the whole time). So I think I'll not continue our interactions in this thread.0 -
No such person exists, especially not a carpenter.
So, can you give an example of someone who is an advocate of scientism?
When Sam Harris says that "science can determine human values" he is expressing a "scientistic" view. Since human values are not something which were traditionally thought to be in the remit of science, and for good reason. Poor Sam Harris discovered this himself shortly after publishing his book. It still sold many copies though.
Shermer seemed to be advocating it in that blog also.0 -
Mark Hamill wrote: »Well no, you assume that no supernatural element exists. You cant assume that supernatural elements exist, but dont interfere, as if they exist, why wouldn't they interfere? At what stage could you stop and say "maybe that supernatural element IS interfering"? How do you take account of the need reproducibility (is it interfering thsi time?)? Regardless of whether you think its ultimately right or wrong, when approaching something scientifically you have to assume that all phenomena have naturalistic explanations, otherwise your conclusions are based on some unmeasurable external element not interfering simply because you dont want it to.
If you stopped and said "maybe that supernatural element IS interfering", then you are no longer adopting a methodological naturalism. I.e. you are no longer assuming the phenomenon has a natural explanation.recedite wrote:So, can you give an example of someone who is an advocate of scientism?
I do not know of any.0 -
Advertisement
-
When Sam Harris says that "science can determine human values" he is expressing a "scientistic" view. Since human values are not something which were traditionally thought to be in the remit of science, and for good reason. Poor Sam Harris discovered this himself shortly after publishing his book. It still sold many copies though.
Shermer seemed to be advocating it in that blog also.
Harris is being a little sensationalist. In his defence, he is not claiming science can determine human values. He is saying, once we adopt human values, science can inform our actions in order to live by those values.0 -
Do you think there are the same number of atheists now as there were then so? There weren't.
Of course not, there well less people in general. Whats your point? What has that got to do with my point?I don't really care about representing your opinion. Ok. Get over that.
I'm going to stop here, because, honestly, how could we go on debating after you have admitted that you dont care what I say? What difference will any point I put forward make if you are just going to strawman it and repeat something al;ready debunked?0 -
If you stopped and said "maybe that supernatural element IS interfering", then you are no longer adopting a methodological naturalism. I.e. you are no longer assuming the phenomenon has a natural explanation.
Sow what exactly is the difference between assuming there is no supernatural entity, and assuming that one wont interfere? Either way you have to assume naturalistic explanations for everything.0 -
Ok guys just to let you know, the word 'strawman' appeared 53 times in page 5. It has thus far appeared twice in page six. I really want to count that as some progress in the lines of communication. Please don't shatter my dream.0
-
Harris is being a little sensationalist. In his defence, he is not claiming science can determine human values. He is saying, once we adopt human values, science can inform our actions in order to live by those values.
He should have picked a different title for his book then
. As I said, I think this is the position he started at (how science can determine human values), but changed once someone taught him something about logic.
If he is not suggesting "how science can determine human values", then I guess all we can say about his book is that it is little more than reheated utilitarianism by someone who doesn't know about utilitarianism.0 -
When Sam Harris says that "science can determine human values" he is expressing a "scientistic" view. Since human values are not something which were traditionally thought to be in the remit of science
OK, so that's something of a retraction, compared to saying that the scientistic community purports to be able to explain everything through science.
You are saying that whenever the boundaries of science expand to explain something that formerly had only a mystical or supernatural explanation, that is scientism.
I put it to you; that is science, as seen from the subjective viewpoint of the defeated mystic.
Dawkins explored the mechanisms by which altruism might have evolved. Harris explores morality in the context of culture and the human brain.
Check out this youtube clip, @ 5:50 Harris says "I'm not saying that science will have answers to every conceivable moral question"
0 -
I meant to say that most people do not think that human values are not within the remit of science, contrary to the scientistic views of harris. Not that the "scientistic community" thinks that.
The views that science can determine human values is scientistic in that this is a case where someone believes science can provide answers in an area which most people know it cannot. Hume's gap.
Anyway, we need not dwell on that word. My point was that the arguments of the likes of dawkins and harris are for the most part not scientific. Harris' arguments about what science can determine are not only not scientific, but they are circular. As we can see, though, in classic sophistical style, he likes to make his "how science can determine human values" argument, and then quickly retreat away from it.0 -
Surely you mean "this is a case where someone believes science can provide answers in an area which most people believe it cannot".this is a case where someone believes science can provide answers in an area which most people know it cannot.
When Galileo the Heretic supported the idea that the earth revolved around the sun, he was messing about in an area (celestial matters and the heavens) that had traditionally been the preserve of religionists. So by your criteria, was he an advocate of scientism, or just a pioneering scientist?
We still haven't found an example of anyone matching the earlier definition of scientism, ie one who says science can answer every question.0 -
Mark Hamill wrote: »Sow what exactly is the difference between assuming there is no supernatural entity, and assuming that one wont interfere? Either way you have to assume naturalistic explanations for everything.
You do not have to assume naturalistic explanations for everything. You only have to assume the phenomena scientists study have naturalistic explanations. This is why it is called methodological naturalism.0 -
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rg2yll0pgu0Advertisement