Having criticized atheism, now it’s time to defend it against strawmen

Led by luminaries such as the late Christopher Hitchens and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, New Atheism takes as its core creed a species of Enlightenment liberalism that exalts reason and free inquiry, without bothering to define reason or to explain what is worthy of inquiry, and why. For a school of thought that presents itself as intellectually robust, it is philosophically bankrupt and evidently blind to its similarities to the religions it derides.

Because it is more critical of religion than introspective about its own moral commitments, it assumes there is broad agreement about what constitutes decency, common sense, and reason. Yet in doing so, New Atheism tends to simply baptize the opinions of young, educated white men as the obviously rational approach to complicated socio-political problems. Thus prejudice in its own ranks goes unnoticed.

Eilzel wrote:Veya by the definitions you are laying out 99% of the world is agnostic.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Just because something is possible doesn't mean it's at all probable. I'm going with probabilities, you don't seem to accept that.

I've always promoted the idea that the supernatural's so improbable, it's not worth worrying about. If it is, show me how; that's all I'm asking.

Light was brought into the dark world by Yhi, the sun spirit. As few living things can grow without light, there was a close association between the two great spirits Yhi and Baiame . Light and warmth were necessary for the preservation and growth of the animate world of Baiame's creation, and these were provided by Yhi.

For astrophysicists this was a victory long in coming - 33 years. Ray Davis, the pioneer of solar neutrino detection won the 2002 Nobel Prize in Physics in recognition of that life long work. As for particle physicists, while it was they who have now solved the long standing "solar neutrino problem", they've got their work cut out for them in coming up with a significant revision to the standard model of fundamental particles to understand why neutrinos have tiny but non-zero (rest) mass.

Eilzel wrote:But people do identify as Christian, Hindu or whatever else veya because they are convinced with minimal doubt that they are right- again its semantics.

Eilzel wrote:Atheists are on the list vey, though it wasn't really a list just two examples. The difference is our beliefs aren't based on impossible to prove divine assertions.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Honestly, why should I worry about a god that doesn't have anything to do with my life? That's all I want to know. If you can show me how something god-like affects me or the world and show how that works, I'll listen. But I have fallen for too many lies to accept something on no proof.

Sheeeeeeeeeit.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70eU840lc38

The solar interior is not directly observable, and the Sun itself is opaque to electromagnetic radiation. However, just as seismology uses waves generated by earthquakes to reveal the interior structure of Earth, the discipline of helioseismology makes use of pressure waves (infrasound) traversing the Sun's interior to measure and visualize its inner structure.[39] Computer modeling of the Sun is also used as a theoretical tool to investigate its deeper layers.

Ultraviolet light from the Sun has antiseptic properties and can be used to sanitize tools and water. It also causes sunburn, and has other medical effects such as the production of vitamin D. Ultraviolet light is strongly attenuated by Earth's ozone layer, so that the amount of UV varies greatly with latitude and has been partially responsible for many biological adaptations, including variations in human skin color in different regions of the globe

Detailed observations of the neutrino spectrum from the more advanced neutrino observatories also produced results which no adjustment of the solar model could accommodate. In effect, overall lower neutrino flux (which the Homestake experiment results found) required a reduction in the solar core temperature. However, details in the energy spectrum of the neutrinos required a higher core temperature. This happens because different energy neutrinos are produced by different nuclear reactions, whose rates have different dependence upon the temperature; in order to match parts of the neutrino spectrum a higher temperature is needed. An exhaustive analysis of alternatives found that no combination of adjustments of the solar model was capable of producing the observed neutrino energy spectrum, and all adjustments that could be made to the model worsened some aspect of the discrepancies

Eilzel wrote:Lol I don't get that...  (that it is all irrelevant    don't tell Ben   )

Atheists tend to trust science but our disbelief in god/s (which is what defines us by name) is not based on belief in things like gravity, evolution or the big bang. Those things are nice support sure but you can not believe all of them and still be an atheist.

Science is not to atheists what the Bible is to Christians.

darknessss wrote:
FREDRIC BROWN......."ANSWER"


Dwan Ev ceremoniously soldered the final connection with gold. The eyes of a dozen television cameras watched him and the subether bore throughout the universe a dozen pictures of what he was doing.
He straightened and nodded to Dwar Reyn, then moved to a position beside the switch that would complete the contact when he threw it. The switch that would connect, all at once, all of the monster computing machines of all the populated planets in the universe -- ninety-six billion planets -- into the supercircuit that would connect them all into one supercalculator, one cybernetics machine that would combine all the knowledge of all the galaxies.
Dwar Reyn spoke briefly to the watching and listening trillions. Then after a moment's silence he said, "Now, Dwar Ev."
Dwar Ev threw the switch. There was a mighty hum, the surge of power from ninety-six billion planets. Lights flashed and quieted along the miles-long panel.
Dwar Ev stepped back and drew a deep breath. "The honor of asking the first question is yours, Dwar Reyn."
"Thank you," said Dwar Reyn. "It shall be a question which no single cybernetics machine has been able to answer."
He turned to face the machine. "Is there a God?"
The mighty voice answered without hesitation, without the clicking of a single relay.
"Yes, now there is a God."
Sudden fear flashed on the face of Dwar Ev. He leaped to grab the switch.
A bolt of lightning from the cloudless sky struck him down and fused the switch shut.

darknessss wrote: "insecurity of fearing death as most religious people do."

really????


"or if one does it is nothing short of evil."

who said god needs to be universally "good" or "benign"?


and back to an old argument...what IS "good" or "evil"

and does either exist as an "absolute" form (which hypothesis I reject)

Brasidas wrote:

darknessss wrote: "insecurity of fearing death as most religious people do."

really????


"or if one does it is nothing short of evil."

who said god needs to be universally "good" or "benign"?


and back to an old argument...what IS "good" or "evil"

and does either exist as an "absolute" form (which hypothesis I reject)

You can reject all you like, that does not mean you are in anyway right
Simple, you fail to understand the well being of people.
If you claim people should not have well being then you need to show you or anyone else does not deserve well being and that you are happy to have for example acid thrown in your face and that this would be fine for you to suffer with. You would find it also for example to be gang raped.
Are you saying this is not evil or wrong for an innocent person to suffer?
If not I am sure you have not the first clue what you are talking about if you claim it is not wrong or what we would define as evil.
The fear of death certainly brings about the need for belief.
So if God does nothing in regards to anything that happens to people, he either does not have the ability to do anything or just does not give a shit to do so, you need to offer another explanation, of which you failed to do so in any answer above.

veya_victaous wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

You can reject all you like, that does not mean you are in anyway right
Simple, you fail to understand the well being of people.
If you claim people should not have well being then you need to show you or anyone else does not deserve well being and that you are happy to have for example acid thrown in your face and that this would be fine for you to suffer with. You would find it also for example to be gang raped.
Are you saying this is not evil or wrong for an innocent person to suffer?
If not I am sure you have not the first clue what you are talking about if you claim it is not wrong or what we would define as evil.
The fear of death certainly brings about the need for belief.
So if God does nothing in regards to anything that happens to people, he either does not have the ability to do anything or just does not give a shit to do so, you need to offer another explanation, of which you failed to do so in any answer above.

Multiple gods with conflicting goals attempting to exert their wills with varying success  I.e the basis of most Pantheon religions
the very dynamic changes as soon as the 'devil' is equal to 'god' let alone when you add 3rd and 4th directions too.

Brasidas wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

You can reject all you like, that does not mean you are in anyway right
Simple, you fail to understand the well being of people.
If you claim people should not have well being then you need to show you or anyone else does not deserve well being and that you are happy to have for example acid thrown in your face and that this would be fine for you to suffer with. You would find it also for example to be gang raped.
Are you saying this is not evil or wrong for an innocent person to suffer?
If not I am sure you have not the first clue what you are talking about if you claim it is not wrong or what we would define as evil.
The fear of death certainly brings about the need for belief.
So if God does nothing in regards to anything that happens to people, he either does not have the ability to do anything or just does not give a shit to do so, you need to offer another explanation, of which you failed to do so in any answer above.

Multiple gods with conflicting goals attempting to exert their wills with varying success  I.e the basis of most Pantheon religions
the very dynamic changes as soon as the 'devil' is equal to 'god' let alone when you add 3rd and 4th directions too.

Who is talking about the devil or a pantheon of deities in my point?
Satan in the biblical works is nothing short of kind compared to the biblical deity, so what on earth are you going on about? just using polar examples... a single all powerful deity makes no sense as there is too much conflict in the world... therefore at a minimum there would need to be an entity that can go toe to toe with them to create conflict ... or that one deity is fucked in the head
This is about the well being of people (disagree... see end... divinity doesn't have to be about kindness, the fact that Abrahamism does is part of the reason it so easy to prove false.. Also why should the divine be different than the mortal in scope of actions? the mortal world should leave you with no doubt about it's potential for cruelty), where would you like to have the most unimaginable suffering done to you and think it is acceptable for this to happen to you? (things are because they are... my liking them or not have no bearing
Whether it is one or many Gods, they allow innocent people to suffer unnecessarily if they ave the power to do so, which is nothing short of at the very least uncaring and the worst what we constitute as evil. AND in a pantheon some are 'evil' although really imperfect with extreme tendencies is probably more accurate, they are often representations of the extreme... bit much to say a War god is supposed to be kind and nice and not cause death and destruction

Brasidas wrote:Whether you believe one makes no sense is of no consequence to my points at hand to the well being of people, that is a separate debate you can have with believers, here to me it is all nonsense where none make any sense or if they do, they are nothing short of barbaric.
It has everything to do with well being as we are conscious beings which from the moment we are born are cared for by our parents. The fact is again you claim some Gods are good and some are bad is even worse because the ones who are good would then clearly be inept to do anything about the ones who are evil, being as so much pain and suffering happens throughout history and today to humanity. It shows they are powerless to stop any suffering to people which happens daily. (or just to stop ALL suffering they are NOT perfect all powerful beings The fact is your way is even worse where we would then have Good Gods that are constantly losing to the more powerful evil gods. You then have the problem of who created any of these Gods in the first place. WAIT you see no goodness in the world?? if that is true I am sorry for you

There is nothing flawed, that is just an opinion by yourself that offers nothing to what we humans are as conscious beings. All life is important and why many look at the value of all life. This is though using humans as we are humans as a bench mark to well being based around the existence or not of deities. But human's well being has led to direct suffering for most life from we have come in contact with, man is far worse than the cruelty you claim of the gods... your argument is flawed if 'god is made in the image of man' that he should wipe out most life forms just through carelessness, he should kill main rape for fun. he should destroy entire planets because it will improve his views, genocide for a few pretty trinkets.... THAT IS THE WAY HUMANS ACT
So again would you find it acceptable to have acid thrown in your face, your children murdered for example? Completely irrelevant loaded and stupid question asks a proper question...If people believe suffering is acceptable (inevitable) to innocent people, then they are callous and have no care or understanding of love itself.

Ben_Reilly wrote:I just want to know:

1) How does any supernatural whatever pertain to me?

2) What evidence do you have that this is true?

If you can't meet those basic criteria for the giving-of-a-shit, well, GUESS THE FUCK WHAT?

I am a person who has been lied to. I have all sorts of negative experiences behind those lies. I don't want to go through all that fallout again.

So until somebody can give me a good concrete reason to believe in something beyond my own objectively considerable faculties ... you know what comes next. But in the U.S. we might phrase it as "fuck y'all, show me." Because honestly, why should I worry about something which has nothing to do with anything? Why should I waste my time and efforts?

And, by the way, if I choose to declare that I don't see any reason to believe in the supernatural and call myself an atheist because of that, that's as much my right as any Christian who doesn't live by the book of Leviticus -- and if I allow that I might be wrong, that makes me nothing more than reasonable.

veya_victaous wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:I just want to know:

1) How does any supernatural whatever pertain to me?

2) What evidence do you have that this is true?

If you can't meet those basic criteria for the giving-of-a-shit, well, GUESS THE FUCK WHAT?

I am a person who has been lied to. I have all sorts of negative experiences behind those lies. I don't want to go through all that fallout again.

So until somebody can give me a good concrete reason to believe in something beyond my own objectively considerable faculties ... you know what comes next. But in the U.S. we might phrase it as "fuck y'all, show me." Because honestly, why should I worry about something which has nothing to do with anything? Why should I waste my time and efforts?

And, by the way, if I choose to declare that I don't see any reason to believe in the supernatural and call myself an atheist because of that, that's as much my right as any Christian who doesn't live by the book of Leviticus -- and if I allow that I might be wrong, that makes me nothing more than reasonable.

 You're no fun

Brasidas wrote:

darknessss wrote: "insecurity of fearing death as most religious people do."

really????


"or if one does it is nothing short of evil."

who said god needs to be universally "good" or "benign"?


and back to an old argument...what IS "good" or "evil"

and does either exist as an "absolute" form (which hypothesis I reject)

You can reject all you like, that does not mean you are in anyway right
Simple, you fail to understand the well being of people.
If you claim people should not have well being then you need to show you or anyone else does not deserve well being and that you are happy to have for example acid thrown in your face and that this would be fine for you to suffer with. You would find it also for example to be gang raped.
Are you saying this is not evil or wrong for an innocent person to suffer?

you are conflating wrong with evil, If you consider a "god" to be "involved" in human affairs (which I dont) as per the abrahamic "god" then evil is a possibility

if not , all the shit that happens is just random "shit that happens"
It may be unfair....it may well be the result of wrongful actions of others....but evil it aint

EVIL requires the malicious intent of a singular untouchable supernatural power (as opposed to the malicious intent of a collective human power...which is wrongfull acts of a group, be it govt or corporate or a gang)
which is why I argue you cannot (and have singularly failed to when asked) define absolute evil.
just as you cannot define absolute "good" there is NO such thing






If not I am sure you have not the first clue what you are talking about if you claim it is not wrong or what we would define as evil.
The fear of death certainly brings about the need for belief.

some times.....
So if God does nothing in regards to anything that happens to people, he either does not have the ability to do anything or just does not give a shit to do so, you need to offer another explanation, of which you failed to do so in any answer above.

Brasidas wrote:I see plenty of good in the world but it is ineffective against the bad, because the bad continues to happen and has continued to happen for thousands of years
You did not even address a single point accept using some belief you have based around all life on this planet, which I already stated is important. You are just going off on tangent. If you do not believe you are not special as all human life is, you again fail to understand well being. Again answer the question of whether you think it is acceptable to be raped or have acid thrown in your face?
It is not loaded it is you running away from answering a very important aspect of understanding why you yourself is important, just as all life is. We need to eat to survive and all animals kill or destroy something in essence to eat. What is wrong by humans is where they have decimated life, which I am not arguing against, but you are deflecting the main point on well being.
So going off how some humans act towards other life is as bad as they to to humans and is of the same argument, where you are equating then all humans as the same as doing wrong to other life, which is absurd, missing the whole point.
So humans well being has not led to other life suffering and does not even need to. Just because the current situation and civilization we live in may well affect other life does not mean the well being of others is responsible for this. It actually shows some do not care for the well being of others when they affect the planet and its nature. They are also wrong, but the essence of well being is about the value of our own lives. This shows you do not understand what the well being is of yourself and others. Sadly wrongs have be done to other life, but a human life is more important than any other life, otherwise you value your own life as worthless and thus fail to understand your own well being. That means your own well being is meaningless, which would mean you believe harm should come to you.
Do you believe you should be harmed?
the question is wrong.. Do I believe I could be harmed? and the answer is Yes... why do you keep proposing a divine that BOTH has the power to change EVERY little thing and gives a fuck? as your not arguing with an Abrahamist I DO NOT believe that divinity is that. My argument is the SUN is a God (therefore all stars are gods), nothing on earth would exist without the light and heat it provides, our planet would be subject to the chaos of floating through space with out a star holding us in our orbit. Our existence and everything we rely one for our continued existence is thanks to the Sun  

Brasidas wrote:You want to quibble over defining words now.
Lets change it to wrongs then on the well being of people
Does that change anything?
Not really, think about that Victor if we know about how bad a wrong is based on the well being of people?

darknessss wrote:

Brasidas wrote:You want to quibble over defining words now.
Lets change it to wrongs then on the well being of people
Does that change anything?
Not really, think about that Victor if we know about how bad a wrong is based on the well being of people?

I think this is the crux of our disagreement on this subject
however the point still stands that wrongs on peoples well being are unlikely to be absolute
since as I have argued before  ONE single instance of a society (however you wish to define that) accepting a wrongdoing, refutes is"absoluteness"
YOU (and I) both think torturing people is wrong ...yes??   yet the BDSM brigade do it for fun......
etc etc etc.....
part of the trouble is we tend to project OUR abhorence of certain actions onto others...forgetting that they may well not see things  as we do....
its like the "historical perspective" thing
Today most of the civilised world at least finds child abuse intolerable
the romans reveled in it
does that make them "evil"
or were they simply "people of their times"
ALL we can say is That by OUR standards" that were wrong/evil/whatever...but that does not make it absolute  

Brasidas wrote:


No sorry Victor you will find wrongs that are standards and have been standards for a very long time like rape and murder and you can set a again this off well being where again would anyone like something wrong to happen to them that denies them of their their life. An innocent person denied of their life is a wrong, there is no two ways about this in regards to murder. You cannot say a person has wanted to be murdered as a person that wants to kill themselves is something different in suicide. We are talking about where life and harm is inflicted on people who have no wish to have harm inflicted on them and claiming BDSM is where people get sexual pleasure and is consented. You are confusing very different concepts where again people that do not wish harm to come to them is a standard that can be set on well being. Just because somebody even makes something acceptable it does not mean you yourself find something acceptable as happening to you as right and it is the basic standard of your own well being. This point is crucial as it is your well being. Making precedents where people think it is okay to inflict harm still affects the well being of others, which you are neglecting at every turn. You are trying to make exceptions to the rules which just is not a reality.
So again think about the worst king of imaginable nastiness that you can think of to happen to people and to people to have to live that where it affects their well being to have to live like that daily. The standard is set  where you are affecting the well being of people. Just because you may not happen to agree with this, does not mean you are not affecting that person where they have not consented.
That is the crucial point. If somebody has not consented to where known harm can be done to them, then it most certainly is an absolute, just like with murder and rape. They do not have to be absolutes, but they certainly are a standard that the vast majority of rational people live by. There will always be irrational people who are exceptions to the rule by the fact is many people do not consent to their well being that is then harmed. So well being is a very good standard that we live by. Does anyone want to have someone take their arm or a leg or even their head when they are perfectly functional? If they did, they would clearly be insane or suicidal. Does anyone want to have acid disfigure their face. Again this is about the well being of people which I think you are missing the whole point on.
NO IT IS NOT A POINT!!! YOU HAVE NO POINT!!!! THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REQUIREMENT FOR THE WELL BEING OF PEOPLE You can keep saying it but it JUST 100% PROVES the OP is full of shit as it says you wont keep 'White Mansplaining' what religions, values or Gods are.. Your Culture Was completely Fucking wrong Doesn't mean every one else is AND THEY ARE NOT because they Don't place such ridiculous requirements like Perfection or Caring for Humans..

standards and have been standards for a very long time like rape and murder