The central contradiction running through the arguments of many of those new atheists authors

[Eric0802]

Atheism, not being a belief, cannot directly “produce” action. Action is the fruit of things you do believe, not things you don’t believe.

For example, you can’t logically get from “There are no gods” to “I should destroy all followers of all religions.” There’s no way to do it. You have to start from a belief like, “All religious people are bad.” Then, starting from that belief, you can deduce the conclusion, like this: “All religious people are bad; I should destroy all bad people; I should destroy all followers of all religions.”

Antitheist, I think the problem here is a confusion of different tokens of the type ‘atheism.’

Take, for example, the atheism of a feral child and the atheism of J.L. Mackie. Both lack belief in god, but not in the same way. The feral child lacks belief primarily because he lacks the conceptual equipment to formulate such a belief, while Mackie lacks belief because he thinks belief is irrational. That is, whenever we speak about S’s atheism, we can never speak about it in isolation from the explanation (not just the reasons!) of his atheism.

So, I think it’s uncontroversially true that we cannot logically move from the atheism of a feral child to “destroy all followers of religion.” However, we can move from “atheism is rational while theism isn’t” to “destroy all followers of religion” without much difficulty with the addition of (1) premises that while not strictly entailed by the rationality of atheism and irrationality of theism, are either implied or presupposed by it, such as “rationality is preferable to irrationality” and “people should be rational” (an example of a premise presupposed by the Mackie type of atheism), or “atheists of the Mackie type are rational, while theists are irrational” (which is implied by Mackie atheism), and (2) from premises (usually concomitants of (1)) concerning the dangers of irrationality and the difficulty of persuading irrational people by means of rational arguments.

Now I’m not saying this is the ineluctable result of what I’ve called Mackie atheism here (as Mackie’s life demonstrated); rather, I’m only saying that it’s not the case that there’s no logical move whatsoever from atheism to violence when we consider atheism as something more than the absence of belief exemplified by the feral child, since it almost always involves something more than such an absence of belief in modern atheists.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

I had intended to abandon this thread, but I glanced at it just now, and I just can’t resist pointing out ridiculous falsehoods:

Disappointing that you would abandon a thread without answering the challenges to your assertions. I’m glad you came back.

Atheism, not being a belief, cannot directly “produce” action. Action is the fruit of things you do believe, not things you don’t believe.

Again I deny your claim that atheism is a “lack of belief”. I will repost here what I said above – which you did not answer:

I’m sorry, but this is intellectual gymnastics designed to hide the fact that you have a belief that there is no God. Quote all the philosophers you like; provide as many half-baked analogies as you can. The bottom line is that, if you were asked “Do you believe there is a God”, your answer would be some variation of “No” – if you were being intellectually honest – just as if a member of your hypothetical jury were asked about his/her belief in the defendant’s guilt there would likely be a majority who felt one way or another and the rest who weren’t sure. This is not analogous to a “lack of belief”, however; it is an indication of uncertainty between two given alternatives.

Assuming your intellectual honesty and the resulting “No” to the above question, it is plain that you DO have a belief – that there is no God. Your claims of having no beliefs on the issue fly in the face of common sense.

Now as far as religion giving people a “moral compass,” I’ll simply point out that the Bible, as a whole, endorses slavery. Not only are there laws pertaining to the keeping of slaves in the Old Testament, and not only does Jesus not preach against slavery, there is a specific injunction in the letters of Paul for slaves to obey their masters.

In order to find slavery wrong, a Christian has to interpret the Bible with some extra-Biblical standard (i.e. values, either individual or those of “tradition”) – this being the case, the Bible is completely and totally superfluous to a discussion of morality. We can skip the Bible and go directly to the values that underlie the interpretation.

This wildly inaccurate interpretation takes Scripture entirely out of context – a typical maneuver for those who seek to discredit it.

Without going into a thread-derailing treatise, let me sum up by saying that Christ taught us to love our neighbor – with the understanding that love means sacrifice and selflessness. Eventually, that understanding led to the development of a morality that rejects slavery in all its forms.

Your premise that “the Bible is completely and totally superfluous to a discussion of morality” is inherently flawed.Scripture is not and never was the sole rubric by which Christian morality is formed. It is the beginning of revealed truths about morality, the doctrines of which developed gradually in the intervening centuries.

Peace,
Dante

 

[ThomasToo]

Again I deny your claim that atheism is a “lack of belief”. I will repost here what I said above – which you did not answer:

I’m sorry, but this is intellectual gymnastics designed to hide the fact that you have a belief that there is no God. Quote all the philosophers you like; provide as many half-baked analogies as you can. The bottom line is that, if you were asked “Do you believe there is a God”, your answer would be some variation of “No” – if you were being intellectually honest – just as if a member of your hypothetical jury were asked about his/her belief in the defendant’s guilt there would likely be a majority who felt one way or another and the rest who weren’t sure. This is not analogous to a “lack of belief”, however; it is an indication of uncertainty between two given alternatives.

I think the following quote from Richard Dawkins’s book The God Delusion seems apt here:

1 Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C. G. Jung, ‘I do not believe, I know.’
2 Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. ‘I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.’
3 Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. ‘I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.’
4 Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. ‘God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.’
5 Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. ‘I don’t know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be sceptical.’
6 Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. ‘I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.’
7 Strong atheist. ‘I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung “knows” there is one.’ (50-51)

Professor Dawkins says he is a around a 6.5. The issue is that while we, as atheists, do not suppose the existence of any of the gods mankind has ever dreamed up, the vast majority of us do not say that it is impossible for them to exist. That said, we do not think it is fair to suppose that the supposition that gods exist and that they don’t are on equal footing any more than the claim that there is a teapot orbiting the Sun between the Earth and Mars (stipulated to be small enough, with sufficiently low albedo and with a given orbit that its presence cannot be detected with existing astronomical equipment) and claims that it does not exist are on the same level. While if we are being, as you said, intellectually honest, we must be willing to admit that there may be a teapot that exists as so described but I think we would agree that it is highly unlikely that it does.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

I think the following quote from Richard Dawkins’s book The God Delusion seems apt here:

Professor Dawkins says he is a around a 6.5. The issue is that while we, as atheists, do not suppose the existence of any of the gods mankind has ever dreamed up, the vast majority of us do not say that it is impossible for them to exist. That said, we do not think it is fair to suppose that the supposition that gods exist and that they don’t are on equal footing any more than the claim that there is a teapot orbiting the Sun between the Earth and Mars (stipulated to be small enough, with sufficiently low albedo and with a given orbit that its presence cannot be detected with existing astronomical equipment) and claims that it does not exist are on the same level. While if we are being, as you said, intellectually honest, we must be willing to admit that there may be a teapot that exists as so described but I think we would agree that it is highly unlikely that it does.

With all due respect, why can’t you just answer The Question with a straight answer? Why all the analogies and for-instances? Why not just say, “I/we believe there is no God”?

The answer you give seems to be more dodging the question by trying to imbue it with a philosophical depth it doesn’t have. It’s a yes-or-no question to which “I don’t know” is an adequate response. Atheists believe there is no God; when it comes to this debate, designating atheists as “weak” or “strong” is as pointless as designating theists the same way: it does nothing but cloud the issue and avoid the essential question.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Slowlearner]

What’s with this “science” stuff? I believe in evidence-based inquiry when it comes to determining fact claims about the universe.

When it comes to questions that aren’t fact claims (like “should” claims…what “should” I do?), I appeal to my values, and yes, I don’t rule out selfish desires, but I also don’t rule out the necessities of my environment, which include a need to cooperate with others.

I would think the behaviors of appealing to one’s values and considering benefits of cooperation are universal human traits. Good to know we got a human on the other end of the line.

Do you have a purpose for engaging in this behavior?

 

[Slowlearner]

My experience as well. Earlier I said that I think this is caused by nihilism and hopelessness. While I still thing this is true, after further reflection I think there’s something else, in addition. Deep down, I think most atheists sense that there is something wrong with their position; that atheism is not the Truth. Thus, when they are challenged, the response is defensive - not just an attempt to prove the other person wrong, but also a deep need to try to validate their own position in their own mind. It’s the same way with radical abortionists, despite the claims of abortion rights advocates of pro-life people being angry, what I have seen is that it is the abortion rights radicals that have the most bile and vitriol coming from them. Again, I think they know deep down that tearing apart a baby in the mother’s womb is terribly wrong, and so they are desperate to prove to themselves that they are right and avoid acknowleding that they are complicit in the horror.

More likely they do not show you anger because you hold the same position of atheism. A person’s true colors are shown when deeply held positions are challenged. Trust me, you really are the exception rather than the rule. While it is also true that you can find plenty of religious people that have anger issued when challenged, including Christians, a good Christian doesn’t become angry; or at least controls the anger relatively easily. Empassioned, maybe, but not the kind of rage I’ve commonly seen when debating atheists. The two reasons for this are simple, 1) the good Christian knows that God is in control and so doesn’t have to worry about it; and 2) God is love (agape), and anyone who abides in God does not become enraged, and can more readily channel natural anger appropriately. A good example is when Mother Theresa confronted the Clintons. She chided them, was even angry, but was never enraged; she never lost her sense of peace.

To add a bit to your good comments. Anger is the result of not getting what we want. Anger may be associated with having ones belief’s challenged, but the underlying root is that the person’s desires are being thwarted. For instance, when someone gets angry when their views/knowledge/beliefs are challenged, the desire often being thwarted is the desire to he held in esteem for intelligence or wisdom. Also people desire power and control and often get angry when their power/control is thwarted. Thus an abortionist’s anger is a fight for control over whether a woman should become a mother (this is stated explicitly by many pro-abortion feminists and is implicit in the moniker “pro-choice”). The bottom line is that anger is a selfish emotion (and thus sinful) except in rare cases (e.g. desecration of the temple).

As you say, Christians believe God is in control. But further they believe one should give up one’s self to God and serve him. Many atheists place their self as primary in the world. To these atheists, discussions about God will result in anger because their personal power/control is being challenged.

I posit that Leela does not get angry because she believes in Love. If so she has accepted the presence of something more powerful than herself that is to be served.

So, I believe that some atheists are very troubled by nihilism and hopelessness (as you said) and also by desire to be in control. Until recently, that described me.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

AntiTheist
*
Number 2 is a value judgment that is not a part of atheism. You can’t logically get from “There are no gods” to “I hate all religious followers…etc.” It does not automatically follow, and we know that there are plenty of examples of atheists who don’t hate “all religious followers.”*

This is not the sense one gets from visiting atheist websites. The hateful character of such websites is very evident from the remarks made there.

Atheism is a profoundly existential decision. Any existential decision that opposes atheism, such as Christianity, must be viewed as a threat to that decision, and therefore must be viewed as fair game. Since atheism does not of itself preach love, as Christianity does, the atheist is free to hate Christians with all his heart and (dare I say it?) soul.

Hatred takes many forms. Sometimes it take the form of open insults. Sometimes it takes the form of quiet contempt. I don’t know which is worse. At least with open insults we know with whom we are dealing.

 

[Leela]

Atheism is a profoundly existential decision. Any existential decision that opposes atheism, such as Christianity, must be viewed as a threat to that decision, and therefore must be viewed as fair game. Since atheism does not of itself preach love, as Christianity does, the atheist is free to hate Christians with all his heart and (dare I say it?) soul.

Hatred takes many forms. Sometimes it take the form of open insults. Sometimes it takes the form of quiet contempt. I don’t know which is worse. At least with open insults we know with whom we are dealing.

All people are free to hate Christians. We know from history and current global conflicts that even Christians are free to hate other types of Christians. Given that anyone is capable of hate, shouldn’t you restrict your condemnation to people who actually do hate?

Condemning atheists en masse is as off point as an atheist condemning all religious people. Both are exmaples of bigotry. Though you are religious and I am not, we should still agree that some religious people do bad things and some do good things and that the same is true of atheists.

best,
Leela

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

Though you may think that Christians are in general more moral, I think it should be easy for you to imagine an atheist who cold claim the moral high ground over such Christians who have murdered abortion doctors.

He sinned, and he sinned greatly; and when he sinned he violated his Christian conscience. At the same time, he suffered from a moral quandary. Do nothing, or stop the abortionist (Tiller) who pretended to be a Christian from killing more children.

The 40 million babies who have been murdered in the womb were not murdered as a matter of policy and financial gain by Christians. My guess is that the vast majority were murdered by atheists physicians who had falsely taken an oath to heal, rather than to kill.
*
I am sure that there are one or two arrogant Christians out there somewhere*.

I had no trouble naming a couple of famous arrogant atheists. I could name a dozen more easily. Would you like to name a couple of famous arrogant Christians?

There are lots of ways of being religious and lot of Christian practices. Some are better and worse than others. Some are good and others bad.

Could you name a couple of Christian practices that are bad?

 

[ThomasToo]

With all due respect, why can’t you just answer The Question with a straight answer? Why all the analogies and for-instances? Why not just say, “I/we believe there is no God”?

The answer you give seems to be more dodging the question by trying to imbue it with a philosophical depth it doesn’t have. It’s a yes-or-no question to which “I don’t know” is an adequate response. Atheists believe there is no God; when it comes to this debate, designating atheists as “weak” or “strong” is as pointless as designating theists the same way: it does nothing but cloud the issue and avoid the essential question.

Peace,
Dante

Because the answer simply isn’t that simple. I did answer your question(s), just not the way you wanted me to and not the way you expected. Do I think that it is likely that gods of any sort exist? Not really. Am I 100% absolutely positive, there is nothing that can change my mind, fixed in stone about it? No. I’m probably 6 ish on Dawkins’s scale.

There is no question to which ‘I don’t know’ is an inadequate response. The question has philosophical depth insofar as you’re asking us to speculate about the possible existence of an entity. As I’m sure you’ve encountered in debates with other atheists the phrase ‘you can’t prove a negative’ comes up and in being (as you said) intellectually honest many of us concede that fact which is why ‘I don’t know’ is in fact the most honest answer we can give if we’re forced into a single sentence, bumper sticker answer to this question.

I used the examples I did because they give full form to how I and many other atheist answer your question. To be frank I’m sorry if that means we don’t fill the stereotype you have set up for us or the niche in your worldview we need to fill but please actually try to listen to my earnest answer to your question even if it defies expectations.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

Though you are religious and I am not, we should still agree that some religious people do bad things and some do good things and that the same is true of atheists.

In the case of Christianity, you cannot indict Christian practices as bad, though you can indict certain Christians as bad. Do you get the difference? Christians do not always live up to their religion. Some don’t even keep their religion. When people abandon Christ, it is not because Christ is bad, but because people have decided they don’t want any more to live up to the high standard of morality Christ set down for us.

Who are such people? Go into any prison and you will find plenty of them.

 

[Leela]

Leela

Though you are religious and I am not, we should still agree that some religious people do bad things and some do good things and that the same is true of atheists.

In the case of Christianity, you cannot indict Christian practices as bad, though you can indict certain Christians as bad. Do you get the difference? Christians do not always live up to their religion. Some don’t even keep their religion. When people abandon Christ, it is not because Christ is bad, but because people have decided they don’t want any more to live up to the high standard of morality Christ set down for us.

Who are such people? Go into any prison and you will find plenty of them.

It would then seem that you’d like to contrast “Christian practices” (which do vary from place to place and denomination to nondenomination) with something like “atheistic practices.” But there are no particular set of practices that atheists must conform to, so if you are unwilling to compare atheist people with Christian people, then there is just no comparison to be made.

You keep trying to beg the question be comparing the ideal Christian with the worst possibilities for atheism.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Because the answer simply isn’t that simple. I did answer your question(s), just not the way you wanted me to and not the way you expected. Do I think that it is likely that gods of any sort exist? Not really. Am I 100% absolutely positive, there is nothing that can change my mind, fixed in stone about it? No. I’m probably 6 ish on Dawkins’s scale.

There is no question to which ‘I don’t know’ is an inadequate response. The question has philosophical depth insofar as you’re asking us to speculate about the possible existence of an entity. As I’m sure you’ve encountered in debates with other atheists the phrase ‘you can’t prove a negative’ comes up and in being (as you said) intellectually honest many of us concede that fact which is why ‘I don’t know’ is in fact the most honest answer we can give if we’re forced into a single sentence, bumper sticker answer to this question.

I used the examples I did because they give full form to how I and many other atheist answer your question. To be frank I’m sorry if that means we don’t fill the stereotype you have set up for us or the niche in your worldview we need to fill but please actually try to listen to my earnest answer to your question even if it defies expectations.

First of all, I’m sorry if I offended you with the tone of my previous post - it was not my intent.

I am not trying to force you into a niche of any kind, but it seems to me that your answer boils down to a simple “I don’t know”. If this is the case, why not explore with an open mind the possibility that there IS a God? Surely, if there is one, such a quest would be worth the effort.

Peace,
Dante

 

[ThomasToo]

First of all, I’m sorry if I offended you with the tone of my previous post - it was not my intent.

I am not trying to force you into a niche of any kind, but it seems to me that your answer boils down to a simple “I don’t know”. If this is the case, why not explore with an open mind the possibility that there IS a God? Surely, if there is one, such a quest would be worth the effort.

You didn’t offend me at all but I appreciate your concern.

Because ‘I don’t know’ is not the same as ‘it is equiprobable.’ This was the point of my teapot example. The full quote that gave rise to this example is from Bertrand Russell’s “Is There a God?”

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

*You keep trying to beg the question be comparing the ideal Christian with the worst possibilities for atheism. *

Please show me where I said that. Why do you distort my views? There are Christians in prison. Christians do sin. But there are a vastly greater number of people in prison who gave up on religion than there are who practice it.

But as long as you have made this point, I do believe that the best Christian will be better than the best atheist. Why? Because he is following Christ. Whom does the best atheist follow? Usually himself … not as a rule the best of all leaders.

It would then seem that you’d like to contrast “Christian practices” (which do vary from place to place and denomination to nondenomination) with something like “atheistic practices.” But there are no particular set of practices that atheists must conform to, so if you are unwilling to compare atheist people with Christian people, then there is just no comparison to be made.

Finally you are admitting to the fundamental defect of atheism: it denies objective right and wrong. There is no moral glue that can hold together an atheistic society. The only thing that really unites all atheists is their hatred and contempt for all religion. Not a sound foundation for any moral system.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

*If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. *

Russell, when he was talking about religion, was almost always full of prunes.

To compare God with a teapot circling Earth is patently absurd. Not only is it false analogy, but Russell, as usual, cannot conceive of anything that might exist outside the universe that is the cause of the universe and everything in it. Nor can he conceive of the possibility that this thing called God might rightly be beyond physical detection.

So long as you are locked into this universe and this universe only thinking, you will never even begin to approach God.

 

[Leela]

*You keep trying to beg the question be comparing the ideal Christian with the worst possibilities for atheism. *

Please show me where I said that. Why do you distort my views?

I never said that you specifically announced that this is what you are doing, yet this is what you keep doing. I’m not trying to distort your views. I’m trying to change your views concerning predjudice against atheists. It seems that you think when you encounter any Christian and any atheist that it is a safe bet that the Christian is morally superior. I think you’d be wrong enough of the time that you should find this a predjudice not worth relying upon.

There are Christians in prison. Christians do sin. But there are a vastly greater number of people in prison who gave up on religion than there are who practice it.

I suggest you look up some statistics on the matter and get back to me. In fact, please, please, please, look up prison stats.

But as long as you have made this point, I do believe that the best Christian will be better than the best atheist. Why? Because he is following Christ. Whom does the best atheist follow? Usually himself … not as a rule the best of all leaders.

I would expect that you would think so or you would not be a Christian. That is not the issue for me.

Best,
Leela

 

[ThomasToo]

*If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. *
…
To compare God with a teapot circling Earth is patently absurd. Not only is it false analogy, but Russell, as usual, cannot conceive of anything that might exist outside the universe that is the cause of the universe and everything in it. Nor can he conceive of the possibility that this thing called God might rightly be beyond physical detection.

So long as you are locked into this universe and this universe only thinking, you will never even begin to approach God.

I think Russell used this example because we have problems thinking of things outside the Universe–a point Christians grant with the relation, negation and analogy situation–so he made an example in the Universe to help us think about it. I also think this intellectual limitation is meaningful because there is most likely nothing but the universe.

That said, his point is that anything for which there is no (physical, i.e. real and objective) evidence must be said to possibly exist can, and should, still be doubted. Seems reasonable to me even though his parallel is physical.

 

[Slowlearner]

I’ve looked up such stats in the past. What I’ve found is the results of surveys of prison populations regarding religious affiliation. I’m not surprised there are many Christians in prison because there are many, many Christian prison ministry groups. (And we could go off on a whole tangent about whether there are atheist prison ministry groups and if so, what do they tell the prisoners – ok I’m sure there are some non-religious prisoner charities and some atheists volunteer on with these.)

Have you seen surveys that ask prisoners whether they were practicing, believing members of a faith before they committed their crimes? If you’ve seen that, I’d like to hunt it down. Thanks.

 

[Slowlearner]

I also think this intellectual limitation is meaningful because there is most likely nothing but the universe.

And you are the guy who brought up Galileo?