Why on Earth would someone provide a bibliography to support what they think? I’d wager that this is a similar problem to many theists have with atheism in general, in that the two are seen to somehow be identical. You often get your ideas about religion through a book, or someone’s written/spoken analysis of that book, or what have you.
But no such dynamic is required in order to find that you don’t believe that the concept of a deity falsifies the null hypothesis.
The five-minute rule applies to everyone. If you will check out the About This Message Board forum, you will find a thread explaining why, but briefly it’s this: the board management (and, hell, most of us long-time members) tends to feel that allowing longer edit times would confuse debate, lead to dishonest tactics, and other bad stuff. They may have a point; I’m certainly not to be trusted. I’d like to that thread but I’m incredibly lazy.
Diogenes currently has a thread running here on the subject.
When you provide citations for what you believe you thereby add credence to your claims. I’m sure you see the difference between “DTC says XYZ” and “DTC agrees with reputably published author A, who says XYZ”.
Do you really believe that requesting or citing academic sources is somehow a bad thing; an affront? Why that would b, b, be, … anti-intellectual!
Now DTC has flatly stated certainty that the flavour of atheism he likes (the mythical Diogenes is a he, anyway) is presently current in academic circles. That’s great. I’d like to learn more about it.
OK, thanks for the clarification.
I wanted to be a little more clear about my last remark. Let’s recap:
The reason that’s uninteresting is because that’s almost tautologically true for anyone who doesn’t believe a fantastically wild claim. The fact that the original claim is so fantastic makes the non-acceptance seem automatically fantastic too.
Example: I claim I just won 3 billion dollars in the lottery. You don’t believe me because I just asked you for some money for a cup of coffee. The difference between both claims is 3 billion dollars, so both claims might look amazingly fantastic, and you could be tempted to split the difference and say I only won 1.5 billion. In actual fact, there was no 3 billion dollars to begin with.
As far as the difference between “new” atheism and the “old” version, there is none. Read “some mistakes of Moses” (R. Ingersoll, 1879 - available on the web everywhere). It’s hilariously outrageous.
Hmm. Nope. DTC cites no sources in that thread, as of 19:53 EDT on April 21, 2011.
As DTC states that he knows for a fact that the version of atheism he propounds is the currently received academic version, I look forward to being enlightened by what, for me, and I suspect for many other reasonably well read people of good faith, will be a new chapter in their understanding of the debate around the margins of what counts and doesn’t count as clear talking about religion.
He did not.
The definition (not version) of atheism he likes is one that means simply
no belief in a deity
I will refer you to “The God Delusion”, Dawkins, paperback edition, page 73 (the god hypothesis - dealing with probabilities).
Are you going to provide cites that atheism is a form of theism?:
“religious” is not synonomous with “theistic.” Theism is only one kind of religious belief.
They are. They all lack theistic belief. They’re all apolitical too.
That’s your definition.
When?
And mine, too, or at least close enough. Do we need a show of hands or what?
Not doing the play by play with Dio.
Show of hands, everyone? Tables are atheists?
If so, we need to start being VERY DESCRIPTIVE about what we mean, because I am not going to put my intellectual capacity on par with a toilet seat.
Strictly speaking, yes… but we’re generally referring to beings with consciousness and, what’s more, volitional consciousness/sapience. It is certainly true, for instance, that my cats are not Scientologists. Of course, my table isn’t, either.
For humans though, a-theism seems to work by describing those who lack theism. Of course, it can further be subdivided into ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ atheists, but the general principle is solid.
I think the broad one you subscribe to is bad precedent.
Of course there are fundamentalist atheists. They are those who have rejected one or more of the monotheistic patriarchal gods, and believe that, therefore, nothing can exist beyond our current scientific knowledge.
They will argue that an atheist cannot be spiritual.
Their understanding of scientific concepts are roughly that of an American 8th grader (some very bright people do not understand how homosexuality could persist if there were a genetic basis for it).
They will insist that any event beyond their knowledge base be attributed to coincidence, confirmational bias, or lies to a point well beyond credibility.
They are as open to opposing viewpoints as religious fundamentalists, and viewpoint is a valid issue because there are many questions for which we do not have any data.
Let me be clear: I think textual literalists are nuts - not mistaken or misled - and should be hit over the head by a metaphor until they get it.
I also think only atheists can be ‘good’ because they do not do good for future reward. Sort of.
But, yes, there are people for whom atheism and science are belief systems.
The problem with this approach is that we are still left with the issue of “fundamentalism.”
Fundamentalism was originally a self-applied term to a specific group of (American) Christians who were adherents of textual literalism and a range of other topics in regards to Christian belief and took their name from The Fundamentals, a series of about twelve separate tracts on the issues about which they felt strongly.
As the word “fundamentalist” came to be regarded more broadly as a religious believer who held closely to the doctrines set forth in a specific religious scripture, it was extended to include the Salafist/Wahhabist “reformers” of Islam. No such set of “scriptures” is employed by any group of atheists, (not even the collected writings of Huxley, Russell, Dawkins, and Hitchens). Beyond that there is not really even a “movement” among atheists and the few atheists who have chosen to gather to exchange ideas qua atheism are massively outnumbered by the atheists who really don’t care to even bother discussing what they fail to believe.
So, while there are a few zealous atheists, the notion of using the word “fundamentalist” fails on so many levels as to render its use silly.
On the other hand, I suppose one might regard the more obstreperous atheists as “fundy” atheists, based on the slang term for the more obstreperous Christians whose tactics in personal and public discourse are so similar. The use of “fundy,” while hearkening back to the “fundamentalist” origins, is sufficiently removed from that origin as to not make a direct association while conveying the basically rude and unthinking characteristics common to all such intolerant individuals.
“Fundamentalist Atheist,” however, is a non-starter.
I refer you to posts #175 and #176 in this thread. But that’s OK. This thread is not about backing DTC (or myself, or anyone else) into a corner, or showing anyone up. I hope.
Citing Dawkins hurts rather than helps claims that DTC’s type of atheism is the received version among current academics. If Dawkins had stayed with memes, he would have been all right. A charming gentleman in person, but on the big issues he’s lost the plot.
Perhaps though there is more to this new version of atheism. That would be most interesting. I look forward to being further enlightened.
I am using the definition of atheism used acedemically. This is a pointless argument. Do you think you’re going to convince slf-identified atheists that they have a positive belief in non-exisytence based on your preferred definition? maybe you think that (incorrect) definition is easier for you to attack, but since that isn’t a belief held by anyone you’re arguing with, you’re kind of wasting your time.
Arguments like this miss the point. Atheism is the lack of religious belief. Atheists ignore religion . It is just not part of their life . It is absent. As a matter of fact atheist spend almost no time thinking about religion or god. It is gone from their life.
In no way is that like a religion nor can atheists act like religious people do. Smugness and ego are not allowed for atheists in real life. They could be ostracized easily. They are badly outnumbered. It is only on the net and a few select circumstances that they feel free to express themselves at all. Most of the time you keep thoughts to yourself.