That seems like the most logical thing to do. I mean, defenders of a faith are usually well practiced, and will go to any lengths to argue their beliefs, even in a dishonest way. They're like trained soldiers. — Purple Pond

Sure. And even with, well, theists who are not like this, or really anyone who does not share your beliefs, it's a rare discussion that changes people's minds. And there are very few actual open minds out there, even though many people like to constrast themselves with whomever their ideological or paradigmatic enemies are. It doesn't even have to be dishonest. People's minds will slide away from discomfort or put your arguments in grooves, rather than responding to them specifically. This is common here and I am sure it happens with me also. We do not like cognitive dissonence. In all the arguments and discussions I have read online, it has so rarely happened that anyone has every said 'You point here I think must be wrong, but so far I can't see why.' Let me get back to you on that. And that's in discussions between secular people also. I do see people concede points, though it's rare. But actually admitting being stumped but not ready to give in - a very common and natural state - I almost never see written down online or hear it in live discussions. There are other types of admission I never see either. Generally speaking most posts will contain statements of certainty, no concessions, and this can go on between two or more quite rational and very intelligent people for page after page. That simply can't be a full disclosure type of discussion. They must be hopping over moments of confusion or not even noticing points they didn't like the feel of or missing that they slightly changed the argument they are responding two, or shifted the context and so on. Defenders of the faith may well deserve their rep, but I think the difference is more one of elegance and subtlety than stubbornness and irrationality.

where are the 'old-fashioned atheists' nowadays who can provide me with the intellectual tools to reinforce my atheistic beliefs? — Purple Pond

I suspect they're around, but keeping out of the limelight. I'm a believer, btw, not an atheist. But I think the real atheists find the concept of God so unlikely that they simply take no notice of it at all, and just get on with their lives. These are the atheists I respect the most. They don't get into the faces of believers, attacking their beliefs, they just get on with their own lives, and their own beliefs.

As I understand it, the 'new atheists' you list are conceited and unpleasant people who assert, loudly and longly, that their atheist views are the only views possible for a rational and intellectually-aware human. Everyone else is wrong. This is dogmatism, and just as nonsensical and unpleasant as any believer who also holds that their truth is the One and Only Truth. I think you are right to have drifted away from this position. :up:

Proclaiming 'no God' as true for sure fails just as much as proclaiming 'God' as true for sure because neither can be shown to be fact; — PoeticUniverse

That would only be the case if nothing can shown to be a fact. But I wouldn't say that.

You don't need to defend NOT believing in something. — khaled

This is said so often in discussions of atheism, but it's not as clear as it looks. Only those who are indifferent to God, and get on with their lives without a second thought of God, are properly covered by your sentiment. Any atheist who proclaims or asserts their views are indulging in belief, not a lack of it. They believe that God does not exist. This is an active belief, which (I suppose) justifies as much defending as any other belief. For myself, I don't care to defend my beliefs, although I'll happily tell you what they are, and discuss them with you, if you ask.

That would only be the case if nothing can shown to be a fact. But I wouldn't say that. — Terrapin Station

Perhaps you wouldn't.

Almost nothing can be shown to be a fact. You might not choose to say that either, but I would. :razz:

Almost nothing can be shown to be a fact. — Pattern-chaser

What would one of your exceptions be?

I was only trying to avoid expressing myself dogmatically, so I allowed for exceptions. Recognition and acceptance only seem possible if you retain a strictly flexible approach, don't you think? :wink:

Recognition and acceptance only seem possible if you retain a strictly flexible approach, don't you think? — Pattern-chaser

Um . . . I'm skeptical of that unless there's a good reason to believe it.

It seems silly to me to say that "almost nothing can be shown to be a fact" unless you think that some things can be shown to be a fact.

I already explained my intent. Perhaps you correctly diagnose my ramblings as "silly"?

[ I'm a designer by profession. Flexibility of thought is a way of life for us, and rigidity of thought the worst fate we could encounter. Other perspectives are available. ]

More specifically, I've lost some of my ability to defend myself from attacks on my atheistic beliefs. — Purple Pond

Well, as noted, each side has to give a little, in that invisibles can neither be shown nor not shown, and thus there remains a 'maybe' either way, no matter how unlikely one has it.

There is the outside chance of self contradiction, as well as logical and natural impossibility, but it will probably get down to probability winning the day, for that's about all we have to work with on invisible realms.

The religious advocate returns…

You again!

Yes, we're supposed to try to convert non-believers into followers.

OK, I'm a philosopher, and thus well able to counter your claims. Come on in.

God grants us free will.

Absolutely free; we can do whatever we want?

Yes.

Truly free; our will doesn't have to match God's will?

Yes, free, God is all love.

Unconditional; no strings attached?

Would you like to be saved?

From what?

From not being with God.

What's so bad about that? I'm free.

It would be Hell. Would you like to be saved?

No, for your supposed God through you as his follower just reneged on the 'free'. That's bad character.

Jesus rectified that mistake. Would you like to be saved?

Oh, so there was a mistake that had to be fixed. So much for the Perfect Being. God remains as a problem, as supposedly Jesus' father. Plus, we are still thrown out Eden from the taint God designed into us, that of our human nature being able to sway from good to bad and all in-between, just as we see it does, as fact, to no one's surprise.

Would you like to be saved?

What do I have to do to avoid burning in Hell?

All you have to do is merely accept God with all your heart. OK?

No, for to accept is to approve, and thus I wouldn't have integrity. God broke his own commandment in the Great flood, and more that I could list. I don't make deals with controllers and coercers. Your God is easily out thought, plus He is not all love, but ugly, even.

You're going to the smoking section.

Good joke. Do you recall that all of this supposing is but a 'maybe' and so is not necessarily true?

Blah, blah, blah. We were put on Earth to worship God.

God needs this? There's the door.

You make a good point. However, the OP was about atheism, no? — Noah Te Stroete

The OP is about atheism, but more specifically it is about a better 'kind' than militant and/or "new atheism". The author asked about better reasoning/reasons for being atheist. I took that to be the main thrust.

I offered a simple foundational tenet/belief regarding warrant(that which constitutes sufficient/adequate reason to believe something or other. The point was that being the result of a valid conclusion does not constitute warrant and/or sufficient/adequate ground to believe. All belief in and/or notions of God boils down to(is based upon) logical possibility alone. As best I can tell there is no distinction to be drawn between God and belief in God. New Age mysticism confirms this on a daily basis.

Then there is Epicurus accompanied by common sense(for the omni-gods out there like the God of Abraham).

Of course I hope you got the point about the claims against fundamentalism. If all certainty counts, then it is itself untenable, because by virtue of being certain that fundamentalism is the problem, well... surely you get the point.

Certainty is but one element of many that make up fundamentalism(the kind I think you're referring to). Unshakable certainty despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The glorification of continued belief despite evidence to the contrary. The notion of faith no matter what. The book by Russell I mentioned earlier spells these sorts of problems with Christianity out better than I could ever hope to.

A pivotal read.

It's not so much the certainty that is the issue so much as what one is certain of.

I more or less agree with the atheist critique that the burden of proof is on whoever is making "outrageous" claims.


To return to the topic at hand, I kind of feel like the New Athiests got sort of a bad rep because of Dawkins. Dawkins is certainly a part of the movement. but not the whole movement itself. His approach to the critique of Islam is totally out of hand, but there is a critique to be made. Religious fundamentalism really is kind of terrible. I don't know that the Left has really adequately dealt with the situation either. I remember being turned off by the International Socialist Organization's support of the Muslim Brotherhood during the Egyptian Revolution. I was of the opinion that they had sort of co-opted the protests. Most of the Left adopts oddly apologetic positions concerning Islam. I think that to seriously consider what does the most good for people in the region means to be willing to be critical of the faith, as it is oppressive. It's all just a matter of how you handle things. A person in the West should seek to alleviate the plights incurred in the region by the West. The focus, therefore, shouldn't necessarily be upon the faith at all. What is oppressive about Islam will ultimately need to be taken into consideration, however.

That was kind of a ramble into this nebulous territory that I honestly haven't quite figured out how to navigate. In so far that Dawkins is the movement, perhaps it should be abandoned, but I do kind of think that it might be worthwhile to salvage it. Perhaps they're just wrong, and you just shouldn't be anti-religious, but I kind of think that there really is a critique to made of religion in general. Religions are kind of like state-sponsored cults. I do kind of think that, while they don't necessarily need to be railed against, people should abandon them.

Why do you think Dawkins is “totally out of hand” on Islam? Ive never read or heard anything from him that would indicate that.

He just kind of went of the rails on the defensive and really did come off as sort of closet racist in my opinion. I don't really care to treat Dawkins too harshly as I just think that he's kind of just reacting. His way of handling that situation, to me, was fairly disappointing.

Sorry, missed what situation you are talking about.

He called Islam a "cancer". It's been a while since this happened and so, I'm trying to dig up the articles. He's said that it's "the greatest force of evil in the world today". He has said ""Of course you can have an opinion about Islam without having read Qur'an. You don't have to read Mein Kampf to have an opinion about Nazism." When he called it the "greatest force of evil in the world today" he was trying to be somewhat concerted. Here is the full quote:

"It’s tempting to say all religions are bad, and I do say all religions are bad, but it’s a worse temptation to say all religions are equally bad because they’re not. If you look at the actual impact that different religions have on the world it’s quite apparent that at present the most evil religion in the world has to be Islam. It’s terribly important to modify that because of course that doesn’t mean all Muslims are evil, very far from it. Individual Muslims suffer more from Islam than anyone else. They suffer from the homophobia, the misogyny, the joylessness which is preached by extreme Islam, Isis and the Iranian regime. So it is a major evil in the world, we do have to combat it, but we don’t do what Trump did and say all Muslims should be shut out of the country. That’s draconian, that’s illiberal, inhumane and wicked. I am against Islam not least because of the unpleasant effects it has on the lives of Muslims."

I don't think that he's racist against Arabs, but I do think that he is somewhat Islamophobic. It's not deep seated or anything, but just in a sense that is somewhat disconcerting.

The Left made really big deal out of it a while ago.

Dawkins — DingoJones

He's rather a grouch, but his books are great. Evidently, he doesn't realize that people have to do what they do. Yes, there can be learning, but there's still a 'maybe' to the 'God' idea, which he allows as a slim chance. Since rewards are said to await in Heaven, it's understandable that people would want it. He is one extreme and severe 'invisibility disorder' is the other.

I think I've lost something. More specifically, I've lost some of my ability to defend myself from attacks on my atheistic beliefs. — Purple Pond

OK, PurplePond, so far, we've given the believers their 'maybe', but will call them out as being dishonest for preaching the 'maybe' as if it were truth, which is a fair and decent step, and one that can be applied to any discipline touting 'perhaps' as fact.

Next, the Biblical version of 'God' was demolished, which takes a lot away, but there can still be people saying different to you than of the holy-holy religious aspect, those who have a plain old regular person God responsible for everything. For them, we'll have to access the probability of a fully intact Person being able to be First and Fundamental, but there will be no real win either way.

I'm a lower case "new atheist" because I became an atheist in middle age and worked on it for quite a while. Unpleasant atheists? Indeed there are. I had not heard of, and did not read, any of the New Atheists back when I was busy uprooting the sacred tree in the garden of good and evil.

I don't argue with believers; first, as a former believer I know where they are coming from. It isn't all bad; it isn't all good either. Two, if they think they are missionaries to the heathen or apostate damned, they will derive more fulfillment and a sense of justification from haranguing and arguing with you than one may wish to give them.

IF, and only IF you enjoy arguing with believers, and derive a commensurate satisfaction from attempting to undermine their sense sanctified entitlement, then you can productively argue with them. Otherwise, tell them to take a flying fuck at Ezekiel's wheel (Ezekiel 1:16).

Lower case "new atheists" of the world UNITE. Since we've already lost our tickets on the Hallelujah Express Salvation Train to heaven, we'd best take care of one another in this world.

Im having strong deja vu we have discussed this before.
Anyway, I don’t disagree with any of that quote. You have to do a pretty uncharitable reading of it to come up with “islamaphobic” (whatever thats supposed to mean), and a charge of racism is obviously absurd. Islam is not a race.
Its baffling to me how you missed important caveats in that quote, like “that doesnt mean mean all Muslims are evil, very far from it” or the very last line.

I didnt read any of his books, Im not even a particular fan of his but it provokes my sensibilities when people, anyone even someone like Trump, are demonised. If someone is evil or otherwise shitty, then an honest and fair treatment will bare that out.

We have not discussed this before to my knowledge, but you may have discussed this with someone else. In that quote he's not all that bad, but I do think that he has sort of alarmist opinions about Islam which are motivated by Western cultural fears of the faith. It's not severe or anything. I just think that he's a little bit Islamophobic.

Is someone who dislikes swimming in shark infested waters a “sharkaphobe”?
There is a real problem with Islam, as he describes. Why is he some kind of bigot because he identifies a major problem concerning Islam? Especially when he is careful to caveat like he did?
Also,if this isn't a good example of why he is “out of control” on islam, what is? Thats what I asked you for.
What is it that makes him an alarmist about Islam?

I didnt read any of his books, Im not even a particular fan of his but it provokes my sensibilities when people, anyone even someone like Trump, are demonised. If someone is evil or otherwise shitty, then an honest and fair treatment will bare that out. — DingoJones

His 'The God Delusion' book would apply here. Although the Biblical, fundamentalist 'God' is an easy mark, he also includes evolution science and more. With such great writing, he needn't use anger in public to bolster his case, for it drives people away to be insulted, but, as we've found from the 'free will' threads, people have to do what they do, and, lacking learning to chill out, keep on doing it.

He's just alarmist, man. He's not all that bad, but he's just kind of alarmist. That he's alarmist is indicitave of that he's somewhat Islamophobic.

I understand that, I just want to know what exactly makes him an alarmist. That quote? Seems perfectly sensible to me, not alarmist at all. Islam IS by far the most evil religion in the world today, because of its extremists. They are without question the most extreme and dangerous.

If you've found you can't defend your atheistic beliefs anymore, then why have them?

There are extremists of all faiths, spiritualities, and ideologies. That terrorism is a common means of resistance in the region is resultant of the situation that the West has created there. There are, to them, no other means of revolt. That's not to justify such actions. I actually think that terrorism is reprehensible and tragic.

Consider how many people have died in the "War on Terror" and how many people died because of Islamic terrorist attacks. Is, say, the American presence there, to them, not a form of terror? Is that not motivated, in part, by Christian ideology?

Say you can regard some, but not all of the deaths caused by the "War on Terror" to have been engendered by Christianity. I would bet that Christianity still has a higher body count than Islam.

The West is far more intimidating to anyone living in the region than anyone living in the region is to the West. I do think that Dawkins is being somewhat alarmist. I don't think that he's all that bad. I was actually trying to partially defend him in the first place, but I do think that people should acknowlege that his statements on Islam are a little bit out of place. It's not quite what the Left made it out to be, but it is indicative of a certain Western lack of cultural awareness or something. It's only so big of a deal to me. I kind of get why Dawkins is the way that he is.

I just think that he kind of took the line of the Right in regards to Islam, that that line is motivated by reactinoary Christian fears of the faith, and that he should have, as an atheist developed a better approach.

I don't think that Dawkins is really a terrible person or anything. I just thought that the way that he handled that was disappointing.