Are the New Atheists of Richard Dawkins a Religion?

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

They are the people to whom my remarks were intended. They are the people I say are guessing there are no gods (believe there are no gods)...and defending that guess (belief) to the utmost. They are, in every respect, expressing faith in their guesses.

But isn't their "faith" based on the fact that, one after one, the events and situations which were once explained by appeals to supernatural influence have been shown to have explainable, material causes – and when these explanations are found insufficient it is because of newly discovered evidence and a better, more inclusive, theoretical context? And doesn't a hypothesis – such as "there are no gods" – require a certain degree of belief simply to be held in the mind, discussed, and shared? After all, a serious belief (a hypothesis) can always be proven wrong with sufficient evidence presented in a rational manner – but it must be stated in order to be disproven. I think those people you refer to argue their position because the counter-arguments, which they themselves invite, are not persuasive.

Now, I don't state that "there are no gods"– even though I don't believe in them – because, when one side grounds its position on the basis of supernatural events or subjective experiences, there is no common ground by which these positions can be falsified. It's like arguing about a dream someone had – it doesn't make sense to accuse the dreamer of being "wrong". Likewise, if I claim that there's only one planet Earth and someone counters that there are actually two but the other one is always hidden behind the sun don't expect me to attempt rebut this argument. And sure, scientists may eventually prove the reality of reincarnation, the existence of the human soul, or the corporeal Assumption of the Virgin but until that day, my response will continue to be that I don't find the arguments particularly convincing and that neither their truth nor their falsehood has any effect on my well-being. (I don't mind arguing about religious ethics or the history of religion as these are topics that affect or take place in the real world.)

2 Replies

@Jasper10,

I would suggest that atheists get the science that they rely on so much to be verified because I assure you that there isn’t a scientist in the world that can prove that the equal but opposite electromagnetic forces in nature cancel out which is what they try to claim.

I gave up on modern day science years ago on this very point and have never looked back.

They will argue all day long that that they do cancel when applied to a single object but believe me they shut up when you remind them that you are not talking about a single object, you are talking about the electromagnetic forces between objects.

Atheists have been sold a dud science honestly.

I strongly suggest that you look into it for yourself.

I mention this because they have taken their good is bad and bad is good philosophical logic into their science which is where they have gone wrong.

1 Reply

@Jasper10,

Everything in the cosmos is a magnet with a N and S Pole.

All the planets; stars and holes are magnets with N and S poles

The atom consists of a proton;neutron and electron all of which are magnets with N and S poles.

All these magnets interact in nature in 4 off possible ways NN;NS;SN;SS

It is a fact that you cannot cancel out these electromagnetic force interactions.

All you can do is is balance these forces by the formula N/S=N/S which is the philosophical logic for all the sciences.

Science is symmetrical.It is not unsymmetrical as presently accepted science claims.

1 Reply

@Jasper10,

I would suggest that it has never been just about belief or unbelief.It has always been about acceptance or rejection within that belief or unbelief as well.

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

But isn't their faith based on...

Before I respond to your post above, Hightor, I want to post my position paper on the question of whether there are any gods or not. It is important that the final part of my position be in place.

I do not know if any GOD (or gods) exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect that gods cannot exist…that the existence of a GOD or gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that at least one GOD must exist...that the existence of at least one GOD is needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction on whether any gods exist or not...so I don't.

(When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST.)

0 Replies

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Quote:
They are the people to whom my remarks were intended. They are the people I say are guessing there are no gods (believe there are no gods)...and defending that guess (belief) to the utmost. They are, in every respect, expressing faith in their guesses.

But isn't their "faith" based on the fact that, one after one, the events and situations which were once explained by appeals to supernatural influence have been shown to have explainable, material causes – and when these explanations are found insufficient it is because of newly discovered evidence and a better, more inclusive, theoretical context?

I doubt it.

I think it is simply a guess that there are no gods. It would make no sense for otherwise intelligent people to base their guess on the things you just mentioned. Gods may exist...but not the kind that do all those things attributed to the many gods that people have "worshiped" so far.

Quote:

And doesn't a hypothesis – such as "there are no gods" – require a certain degree of belief simply to be held in the mind, discussed, and shared? After all, a serious belief (a hypothesis) can always be proven wrong with sufficient evidence presented in a rational manner – but it must be stated in order to be disproven. I think those people you refer to argue their position because the counter-arguments, which they themselves invite, are not persuasive.

No I don't.

In that "discussion" in the other forum, the arguments actually run to "it is not even possible that any gods exist."

A rather clear proposition of mine, "It is possible that no gods exist and it also is possible that at least one god exists" has been rejected as simplistic, stupid, naïve, juvenile and several other things that involve trash talk.

And by no means are these stupid people. They are intelligent, but so fervent in their belief they sound as though they would be martyred rather than relent.

Quote:

Now, I don't state that "there are no gods"– even though I don't believe in them – because, when one side grounds its position on the basis of supernatural events or subjective experiences, there is no common ground by which these positions can be falsified.

Allow me just a short diversionary time-out here, Hightor. The word "supernatural" as presently used should never be used. It is, on its face, a grammatical misstructure. If a god (or ghost, or spirit, or afterlife) exist...they are a part of nature. They are natural. They may be undetectable to human senses, but IF they exist...they are a part of what exists...and nothing that actually exists...is supernatural. I hope we do not get hung up on this, but it is a point worth at least considering.

Quote:

It's like arguing about a dream someone had – it doesn't make sense to accuse the dreamer of being "wrong".

Agreed.

Quote:

Likewise, if I claim that there's only one planet Earth and someone counters that there are actually two but the other one is always hidden behind the sun don't expect me to attempt rebut this argument.

I understand...and feel that same way.

Quote:

And sure, scientists may eventually prove the reality of reincarnation, the existence of the human soul, or the corporeal Assumption of the Virgin but until that day, my response will continue to be that I don't find the arguments particularly convincing and that neither their truth nor their falsehood has any effect on my well-being. (I don't mind arguing about religious ethics or the history of religion as these are topics that affect or take place in the real world.)

I agree totally...and feel the same way.

BUT...that is not even close to the kind of thing I would use to conclude, "Therefore there are no gods" or "Therefore it is impossible for there to be gods."

The lack of evidence, no matter how good the reason for the lack, can never logically be used that way. Or at least that is how I see it.

We have absolutely no evidence whatever that there is any sentient life existing on any planet circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol...but there is no way a logical person can conclude, "Therefore there is no sentient life there."

The only logical conclusion I can see in that case is, "I do not know if there is any sentient life on any of those planets."

And the lack of evidence that gods exist (and all those arguments you presented up above) seems to me...to lead to a default of, "I do not know if any gods exist or not."

2 Replies

@Jasper10,

I would suggest that the starting philosophical logic that applies to everything might be +=- and -=+ or good is bad and bad is good.However,if there is a God then I would suggest that this starting philosophical logic could change.Is a God going to agree with good is bad and bad is good philosophical logic?

I would suggest not is a reasonable assumption as a possibility.

If this is indeed the case then what would the starting philosophical logic be?

As I have suggested many times, the above logic states that the + and - electromagnetic forces in nature cancel out when clearly they don’t.I would suggest that science carries out a review of this fact asap.

I would suggest that the need to cancel these forces out stems directly from the need to cancel out good and bad and this logic has merely drifted into scientific theories.

I would suggest that good and bad has absolutely nothing at all to do with the equal but opposite electromagnetic forces in nature.These forces are just that, equal but opposite and do not cancel out.

I would strongly suggest that we need a symmetrical science and not the unsymmetrical science that we presently have.

I would suggest that the starting philosophical logic needs to change therefore and a new science developed to match a starting symmetrical philosophy.

It would appear to me anyway that the starting philosophical logic that meets this criteria is +/-=+/-

It would appear to me that if a God exists then that God may be meeting us half way on the philosophical logic front.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

For a man that holds nothing extant as supernatural, what inspires or occupies the imagination?

1 Reply

@Bogulum,

Bogulum wrote:

For a man that holds nothing extant as supernatural, what inspires or occupies the imagination?

For me?

A seductively clothed, good-looking woman looking at me receptively.

That inspires me and occupies my imagination...although the sadness at knowing my body cannot cash any checks my imagination might write...is a major downer.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

The word "supernatural" as presently used should never be used.

Hmm...I don't know if we can change the definition of a word that was coined, (or is used, like "metaphysics") precisely to describe agents and events which violate the objectively observed and categorized laws governing the actual world we live in. I understand what you're saying, though. For instance, to me, the term "afterlife" is similarly grammatically misstructured. But it is a term for which people felt there was a need, whether it exists only in the imagination or in some amorphous non-physical state, somehow, somewhere.

Quote:

If a god (or ghost, or spirit, or afterlife) exist...they are a part of nature. They are natural.

They are part of nature only because they exist as concepts in the minds of natural beings. Invisible "beings" which can penetrate solid walls, which are not subject to gravity, which are exempt from disease, death, and decay, and whose presence may be perceived by one person but remain undetectable to others in the same space – do we really want to expand the definition of "natural" to include these sorts of phenomena?

It reminds me of arguments about the word "artificial". People have claimed that since humans are "natural", anything they make or do is natural as well. Should we then expunge the term "artificial"? I think there are situations where the distinction is proper and useful – isn't that why we even have the term in the first place?

Again, reference to supernatural events, belief in spiritual beings, and the notion of an immortal soul can have real world effects on human behavior and as such may be said to "exist" – but only as expressed by the actions of those who have been taught or have chosen to believe them.

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Quote:
The word "supernatural" as presently used should never be used.

Hmm...I don't know if we can change the definition of a word that was coined, (or is used, like "metaphysics") precisely to describe agents and events which violate the objectively observed and categorized laws governing the actual world we live in. I understand what you're saying, though. For instance, to me, the term "afterlife" is similarly grammatically misstructured. But it is a term for which people felt there was a need, whether it exists only in the imagination or in some amorphous non-physical state, somehow, somewhere.

I understand where you are coming from. I am a voice in the wilderness on this...and I doubt there will be any change in the way the word "supernatural" is used. Just expressing a feeling I have for the word. I feel that same way about the word "believe" when used in religious discussions. It is my opinion that the word is inappropriate...that it is a disguise for the word "guess." Blind guess at that.

That's going nowhere also.

Quote:

Quote:
If a god (or ghost, or spirit, or afterlife) exist...they are a part of nature. They are natural.

They are part of nature only because they exist as concepts in the minds of natural beings.

I wonder. Perhaps, though, they do exist in the REALITY. Maybe we humans just cannot sense them. I suspect...just suspect...that there is as much reality that we humans cannot sense...as there is that we can.

No way to find out.

Quote:

Invisible "beings" which can penetrate solid walls, which are not subject to gravity, which are exempt from disease, death, and decay, and whose presence may be perceived by one person but remain undetectable to others in the same space – do we really want to expand the definition of "natural" to include these sorts of phenomena?

IF they actually exist (I do not know if they do or do not)...then they exist. To me, IF THEY EXIST, they would be natural.

Quote:

It reminds me of arguments about the word "artificial". People have claimed that since humans are "natural", anything they make or do is natural as well. Should we then expunge the term "artificial"? I think there are situations where the distinction is proper and useful – isn't that why we even have the term in the first place?

I personally have no trouble with "artificial"...or a similar word, "fictional."

Both refer to real things...albeit in the sense in which the words steer. Bond, James Bond, is a real fictional character. So is Peter Rabbit and Anakin Skywalker.

Artificial sweeteners exist. (I tend to use them because they taste sweeter than sugar to me.) Artificial flowers exist. (They turn me off.)

Quote:

Again, reference to supernatural events, belief in spiritual beings, and the notion of an immortal soul can have real world effects on human behavior and as such may be said to "exist" – but only as expressed by the actions of those who have been taught or have chosen to believe them.

Yup. And that can become a very difficult problem.

I suspect the coming AI will solve all that.

0 Replies

@Jasper10,

I would suggest that +/-=+/- is the perfect symmetrical (balanced) united philosophical formula which has the correct flexibility within it to allow for all possibilities.In science, I would suggest that the above formula is related to action and reaction electromagnetic force pairs (NN;SN;NS;;SS) which do not cancel.

I would suggest that +=- and -=+ are unsymmetrical (unbalanced) divided philosophical formula/s which have no flexibility within them to allow for all possibilities.I would suggest that the science that is put forward to support this philosophy is unsymmetrical (unbalanced).

1 Reply

@Jasper10,

You've shut down yet another thread with this pointless drivel.

Nobody is interested.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Which bit izzy. Can you explain. I doubt it.

I'm sure that htam9876 doesn't think so for one.

You seen to be a lone voice.

Go on hit the button again and block this one as well.

You are not prepared for truth then?

Science will spilt in two directions.

2 Replies

@Jasper10,

How can a SYMMETRICALLY balanced scientific explanation of the perfect philosophical formula be drivel izzy?

0 Replies

@Jasper10,

All of it.

You can't "explain" anything, you have not progressed from vague notions, at all.

Not only do you not understand science, you don't uncerstand anything, your sentence construction is appalling.

Every single time you have been asked to provide any evidence you have responded with vague fatuous nonsense.

Every single time.

When you come up with a theory,one with formulas, equations and a clear explanation you can accuse others of not understanding anything.

You have nothing at all, and you're not smart enough to realise that.

Everyone else realises it.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Explain yourself izzy..Dont rant.

Give a reason as to why it is drivel....

If the truth be known that is all you do..... rant.

2 Replies

Well, so much for civility.

1 Reply

@Jasper10,

I have explained it, countless times, yet it is beyond you.

0 Replies

@Bogulum,

I was talking about another thread Jasper shut down.

If he's talking theology instead of his usual plus minus nonsense I have no problem, it's when he claims to talk about science but knows nothing about it.

All his posts make wild boasts about how "science" is stumped by him, but he can never provide any evidence to back up his nonsense just the same repetitive drivel.

0 Replies

Are the New Atheists of Richard Dawkins a Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know