A great many children improve their behaviour before Christmas since they are aware that Santa Claus does not bring presents to naughty children. But the fact that belief in Santa Claus can be used to improve behaviour does not strike me as much of an argument for the existence of Santa Claus.
What about the fact that you cannot absolutely disprove that he exists? Surely that convinces you he exists!
It actually IS possible to prove a negative or a non-existence in some limited ways. For example, if you will agree with me about the average size of a full-grown African elephant and if you will believe me when I say that my coffee cup in front of me has a maxiumum volume of 250 ml, then I think we can accept that I have proven that a full-sized African elephant does NOT exist within the confirnes of my coffee cup.
But if I had to prove to you that Leprechauns do not exist in Ireland, we would have to agree on what constitutes a Leprechaun, their size range, etc. I guess we would have to define “Ireland” (any Ulster Protestants care to join the debate, feel free :D) including how far down in the ground and how far up in the sky “Ireland” extends. Maybe Leprechauns exist in the clouds above Ireland. (♫ Shore a liddle bit of Heaven♪ Fell out of the da sky one day♫ ♪)
Now, since we are using the plural “Leprechauns” we would be looking for at least two. So to prove that they do not exist, I imagine I would have to be able to see every square inch of Ireland, of the ground below Ireland and the skies above Ireland at the same time. I would have to see behind every stone and tree all in one fell swoop.
But wait a minute! Even if I could do this, how do you know the little folk didn’t just make themselves invisible? Maybe they are there in their thousands, and I just can’t see them.
Damn it all, how CAN I prove that Leprechauns don’t exist in Ireland? I can’t!
Waiiiiiiiiiit just a second. Maybe I have been going about it all wrong. Maybe it is not up to ME at all to prove that Leprechauns don’t exist . Maybe it is up to those who say they do to bring up some evidence. Does that seem to make sense to anyone out there? Or should I order several million surveillance cameras to install in the Emerald Isle?
What fact?
If 2+2=4, then Santa Claus doesn’t exist.
2+2=4.
Therefore, Santa Claus doesn’t exist.
Hitler and Stalin didn’t believe in Santa Claus. Hitler and Stalin were genocidal monsters. Therefore Santa exists. QED.
You want the truth?
There really is a Santa Claus.
And he really does know if you’ve been bad or good.
And he can get into any house in the world at any time of night.
And he has this really, really mean side nobody ever talks about . . .
Remember: Every time you kill God, a kitten masturbates.
Well, I’ll dispute this. Every atheist I’ve ever met has quite happily questioned religion. Many quite vociferously.
Surprise: They’re new atheists.
I don’t know many “old” atheists, either.
Suppose I were to claim that elephants don’t exist. Then supposed that anytime you showed me real elephant or a picture or movie thereof or an elephant footprint or a pile of elephant dung or any other evidence for the existence of elephants, I responded that that particular elephant did not actually count as an elephant for some reason.
In this thread, the question that we took up was whether the species ‘outspoken and confrontational atheists, prior to Dawkins & Co.’ actually existed. Well they did exist. I gave you the example of the pro-atheist groups in the Soviet Union. You say that that group doesn’t actually count. Likewise, I provided plenty of other examples in posts 46 and 60. If you were to acknowledge those, you’d doubtlessly come up with some reason why they don’t count either. But the species exists. That’s all that’s under debate here, and motivations are irrelevant. To say that these particular atheists were motivated by communism and therefore don’t count as confrontational atheists is like saying that an elephant motivated by hunger is not an elephant.
The Soviets engaged in both mass-slaughter of Christians and in writing books and giving talks about atheism, as the cites I’ve given show. Therefore, when the new atheists give talks and write books about atheism, they’re doing something that the atheists of the Soviet Union did. More relevant to this thread, they are also doing something that atheists in England and America have been doing for a long time; I’ve already given plenty of examples and could easily give plenty more. So far you’ve refused to acknowledge this point. Are you willing to acknowledge these examples or are you still going to insist that the confrontational attitude of the New Atheists is somehow different from the old atheists?
As far as this thread is concerned, I don’t see how that changes anything. The question we’re debating is whether the confrontational attitude of the New Atheists is actually new. The existence of the League of the Militant Godless and countless other organizations like it proves that it is not. How long those organizations existed doesn’t change anything.
Don’t respond. People let you believe whatever it is you believe. You accord the same courtesy to them. Or is that too hard for ya?
When, exactly, did I “tar everybody outside of the theism circle with [communism]”. I don’t recall doing that. I certainly am aware that a great many posters have accused me of doing that, but that’s because those posters have preferred pinning fictional arguments on me and countering those, rather than countering the arguments I’m actually making. If you actually read my posts and paid attention to them, you’d know that I’ve been at pains to discuss examples of atheists who were not communists. See posts 46, 60, and others.
As far as your Venn diagram goes, it’s completely in agreement with everything I said, the only exception being that the communist circle would not be small, but very large, considering how much of the world was communist for much of the 20th century.
This is the best solution I’ve heard yet!
Communism was just another religion, ITR. They weren’t atheists, they were true believers.
Those aren’t mutually exclusive.
Only to the extent that there can be non-theistic religions, but woo is still woo, and Communism was woo.
Three things. First, as I stated clearly above, my response is to focus on the most easy and obvious mistakes that Dawkins makes, the ones that an average 12-year-old could easily pick off, while the more complicated, philosophical discussions I leave to those more intelligent than me. I’ve already offered a book for that, so you’ve no excuse for saying that I didn’t deal with “the meat”.
Second, Dawkins does not argue that there is no evidence for the Christian God, but rather claims to have a positive argument proving that god “almost certainly does not exist”. Hence it’s entirely valid for me to shoot down that argument. Maybe you don’t want to defend the argument that Dawkins made–that’s quite understandable for obvious reasons–but you can hardly blame me for responding to what Dawkins wrote.
Third, as far as urging me to believe things without evidence, Dawkins & Co. do so more than anyone else I know. For one example, they’re big one multiple universes. Dawkins tells that a very large number exist. Others have told me that specific number such as 10 to the 500 power, and still others say there’s an infinite number of universes. I recall reading one article saying that there are four levels of universes, with an infinitie number of Level 1 parallel universes all inside one of an infinite number of Level 2 universes and so forth. No evidence for any universe other than this one exists. Or, for another example, Stenger wants me to believe that the universe arose out of quantum fluctuations, and his argument for this rests on concepts not backed by any evidence, such as negative energy and exotic matter. Or, for a third example, Dawkins, Dennett, and Stenger are big on evolutionary psychology, the idea the genes inherited from our remote ancestors create modules in our mind which control our thoughts, behaviors, and preferences. There’s no evidence that any of these genes or modules exist. etc… The bottom line being that if the goal is to choose the way of thought that involves believing in the fewest imaginary things, then I’d want to stay away from being an atheist, since they believe in more imaginary things than anyone else I know. By that metric even Mormonism and Scientology would be preferable.
What is I point out that the statement “2+2 is 4” is based on the assumption that the addition is occuring within the ring of integers, and that if we interpret the problem “2+2” as occuring in the free group generated by the digits then 2+2 is 22 instead?
Perhaps you view this as a nitpick, but aren’t the “modules” in a/the “modular theory of mind” (mostly) metaphorical?
Who wants to have pie and coffee with assholes?