Tricks New Atheist Play (Part 1)

[Uber Genius]

In 2006 Wired Magazine author Mark Wolf coins the phrase, "New Atheist." The author described Richard Dawkins arguments as "logical," demonstrating that journalism schools don't require one to have even a basic understanding of logic.

Once open to scrutiny, professional philosophers that shared the atheistic worldview, but not the propagandistic approach, started speaking out.

Michael Ruse, atheist, philosopher of biology at Florida State, and author of hundreds of popular and scholarly papers, observes in an article about the new atheists,

"I have written elsewhere that The God Delusion makes me ashamed to be an atheist. Let me say that again. Let me say also that I am proud to be the focus of the invective of the new atheists. They are a bloody disaster and I want to be on the front line of those who say so."

Read more at Why I Think the New Atheists are a Bloody Disaster - Science and the Sacred

There are a host of rhetorical tricks played by so-called New Atheist and their fundamentalist followers these days. These tricks have leached into intellectually-challenged minds for decades and have achieved a certain acceptance by tweeting millennials and their ilk.

The goal of this series will be to help Christians defend against the rhetoric with rationality. There is much to be discussed with "Seekers," but little or none with "Seekers In Name Only," referred to as SINOs.

I will arrange these threads by the logical fallacy deployed by these New Atheists in order to serve as both a critique but also to familiarize the reader with plenty of examples so as to not follow in their footsteps.

Definitions are a good place to start. Dictionaries used to be a good resource but slang and Wikipedia have led to equivocation in favor of definitions that are not either historical or very descriptive.

You get to define the terms of an argument but when making truth claims make them clear by defining terms.

"God exists," is a truth-claim.

"God does not exist," is a truth-claim.

In both cases a truth-claim is being made.

In both cases the truth-claim must be defended.

Now historically they were defended. But recently, the last few decades, the New Atheist says, "Atheism is the lack of belief in Gods," by this redefinition they hope to avoid the burden of proof. But it muddles the meaning of "atheism," quite badly.

On this view, my cat and dog are "Atheists."

I'm sitting on an "Atheist," chair as I write this thread on my "Atheist," ipad.

If we wanted to join the New Atheist in their word games we could say that "Theism is the lack of belief that their are no gods," BAM we no longer have to defend our claim because I is stated in the negative!

Just kidding here. We do not have to act as if we haven't ever had a philosophy 101 class. We can take an intellectual honest route of defending our claims.

Of coarse we would give various arguments such as:

Cosmological (Leibniz/Kalam)

Teleological (fine-tuning or design inference for life from DNA etc.)

Moral

Existence of miracles/ fulfilled prophecy

Various arguments from desire (no atheists in fox holes)

Now to my theist friends I give the following advise:

1 - Learn how to spot logical fallacies and not use them in an argument.

2 - We can be generous to those who are genuinely seeking. If you were unaware of some of these tricks so too may some of the seekers be.

3 - If the advise above fails to help, you may just have to disengage. I often link debates and other critical peer-reviewed discussions so my opponent can engage the real argument and not play tricks. But many of these individuals are SINOs as mentioned above. You will determine this by their refusal to do the smallest amount of research on topics.
A blanket statement advising a philosophy 101 course at their nearest jr. college when they are finally motivated to get up off their couch should suffice as an exit strategy.

4 - Remember that you engaged the conversation in good-faith and have been manipulated by propaganda. Propaganda is a shortcut for the intellectual lazy or intellectually challenged. You don't (I hope) use propaganda to manipulate the seeker, you deserve the same respect. Don't be bullied by ignorant fools.

This advise cuts both ways. Ray Comfort, Ken Ham, Duane Gish all use similar fallacious propagandistic approaches to manipulate people to adopt the Christian Worldview.

5. We are not "proving anything!"

Since Descartes modern philosophy has shown that we can't "prove" we are not a brain in a vat being manipulated to experience everything we experience. In fact we can't "prove" we live in an external world, with other minds (people), or that the past is real, or that the world operates consistently over time. In none. Our most foundational knowledge assumptions are "provable," what are the chances of proving theological truths based on historical information, especially given all the competing explanatory inferences?

So don't get drawn into "proving" just focus on theism being the best explanation of the things we experience and the concepts we know.

For theists, I recommend anything by William Lane Craig, his site is a valuable resource for beginners and advanced apologetics.

For atheists, I recommend Graham Oppy, J.H. Sobel, Quinten Smith, Kai Nielsen, J.L. Mackey, Michael Ruse, and the most prolific of the bunch (before he abandoned atheism), Antony Flew.

People to avoid do to propagandistic approaches Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, Atkins, Krauss, Coyne.

For good programming that engages these issues from a rational standpoint I advise a program called, "Closer to The Truth."

 

[Gene Parmesan]

But recently, the last few decades, the New Atheist says, "Atheism is the lack of belief in Gods," by this redefinition they hope to avoid the burden of proof. But it muddles the meaning of "atheism," quite badly.

Definition of ATHEISM
Definition of atheism
a : a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
b : a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

 

[mark kennedy]

Whether or not you believe is God is a matter of conviction, who says people need to defend their worldview. When people choose to the only requirement is an open and honest assessment of the issues involved. For generations atheists have fielded some interesting philosophies but the modern tendency to disparage religion does a great disservice to the cultural moorings that run throughout human history.

 

[zippy2006]

Okay. Are New Atheists even new?

The phenomenon is certainly new. As the OP alluded to, New Atheists are characterized by propaganda and painting things in black and white. They are the atheistic equivalent of a Christian fundamentalist (and these two creatures seem to be strangely symbiotic). I gave a recent description here.

Are they even around anymore?

More than ever.

Have you ever met an atheist who identified as a "new atheist" unless they were literally new to atheism?

New Atheists think they are just atheists and Fundamentalists think they are just Christians.

Are there any who frequent these fora?

Most who self-identify as atheists and spend a significant amount of time on these forums are New Atheists.

On top of that, tearing into "New Atheism" is hardly a defense of Christianity, it's just attacking someone else.

Attacking an attacker is a form of defense.

not only that, you're opening Christianity open to the same attack as several of the logical fallacies you accuse "New Atheists" of violating are also violated by Christianity,...

If Christians commit fallacies then they should also be corrected. There's no harm done in "opening them to the same attack."

 

[ToddNotTodd]

But recently, the last few decades, the New Atheist says, "Atheism is the lack of belief in Gods," by this redefinition they hope to avoid the burden of proof. But it muddles the meaning of "atheism," quite badly.

When I say that I have a lack of belief in gods, I'm not avoiding the burden of proof, because I don't take a position on whether a god exists or not. It may be possible for a god to exist, and by extension it may be that a god actually does exist. Since I have seen no good evidence that a god exists, I don't believe one does. Similarly, I've seen no evidence that a god can't exist.

Your saying that atheists are avoiding the burden of proof seems to be an attempt at unjustified mind reading. It could also be the case that you're saying this, along with your continued use of the phrase "new atheist", in an attempt to antagonize atheists.

In any event, I and others simply call ourselves "atheist" because we lack a belief in gods.

Focus on the definition and not the label...

 

[Khalliqa]

Was going to respond but..

realized none of this describes me or applies to me..

 

[zippy2006]

I can't help but notice that your definition of "New Atheist" is significantly different from the OP's.

How so? I explicitly agreed with the OP that propaganda is characteristic of their approach and that they stand behind their "lack of belief in God."

What did I add? That they paint in black and white, that they have no positive content like older atheists, and that they lack any meaningful understanding of theism. None of these additions contradict the points in which I am in explicit agreement with the OP, and the OP himself affirmed the post where I described them thusly.

I'm sure the OP would point out that you're "moving the goalposts", a type of fallacy.

Definitions are not exhaustive, and nothing like a formal definition was even attempted in the OP.

Can you answer my questions again, but with the OP's definition in mind?

Even if we restrict the "definition" to the two points in which the OP and myself are in explicit agreement, everything I said continues to hold true.

 

[zippy2006]

What "approach" is that? Which atheists does a lack of belief in God not appk to?

Aren't you the one going on about remaining faithful to the OP? Here's what it says:

Definitions are a good place to start. Dictionaries used to be a good resource but slang and Wikipedia have led to equivocation in favor of definitions that are not either historical or very descriptive.

You get to define the terms of an argument but when making truth claims make them clear by defining terms.

"God exists," is a truth-claim.

"God does not exist," is a truth-claim.

In both cases a truth-claim is being made.

In both cases the truth-claim must be defended.

Now historically they were defended. But recently, the last few decades, the New Atheist says, "Atheism is the lack of belief in Gods," by this redefinition they hope to avoid the burden of proof. But it muddles the meaning of "atheism," quite badly.

...Apparently the self-described "lack of belief in God" does not apply to those atheists who historically preceded the New Atheists and were explicit in their belief in God's non-existence. That is, the older atheists described themselves as believing that God does not exist rather than merely abstaining from belief on the matter.

Although I believe New Atheists are being dishonest when they cling to agnosticism, I don't see it as a particularly large problem. I believe (most) New Atheists take this position not because it accurately reflects their beliefs, but rather because they think the alternative position is fallacious.

 

[JGG]

Aren't you the one going on about remaining faithful to the OP? Here's what it says:



...Apparently the self-described "lack of belief in God" does not apply to those atheists who historically preceded the New Atheists and were explicit in their belief in God's non-existence. That is, the older atheists described themselves as believing that God does not exist rather than merely abstaining from belief on the matter.

Although I believe New Atheists are being dishonest when they cling to agnosticism, I don't see it as a particularly large problem. I believe (most) New Atheists take this position not because it accurately reflects their beliefs, but rather because they think the alternative position is fallacious.

Isn't that just projecting beliefs upon them? What existing atheists are not New Atheists?

And what's wrong with agnostics? I'm agnostic.

 

[zippy2006]

Isn't that just projecting beliefs upon them?

No, it's called taking them at their word.

What existing atheists are not New Atheists?

According to the OP:

For atheists, I recommend Graham Oppy, J.H. Sobel, Quinten Smith, Kai Nielsen, J.L. Mackey, Michael Ruse, and the most prolific of the bunch (before he abandoned atheism), Antony Flew.

I am only familiar with Mackey, Ruse, and Flew, and I don't think any of them see any problem in believing in God's non-existence.

And what's wrong with agnostics? I'm agnostic.

I said I believe New Atheists are being dishonest when they cling to agnosticism, and I gave a link supporting that belief. I didn't say anything is wrong with agnosticism.

If you spend your days on internet forums debating believers on matters of belief, chances are you're someone who believes God does not exist. But if you want to continue in this vein you would do well to take up the post I linked to.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

...Apparently the self-described "lack of belief in God" does not apply to those atheists who historically preceded the New Atheists and were explicit in their belief in God's non-existence. That is, the older atheists described themselves as believing that God does not exist rather than merely abstaining from belief on the matter.

Hume didn't say that he believed a god didn't exist. Are you thinking older than that?

 

[zippy2006]

Hume didn't say that he believed a god didn't exist. Are you thinking older than that?

According to Wikipedia, Hume wasn't an atheist at all:

Philosopher Paul Russell writes that it is likely that Hume was sceptical about religious belief, but not to the extent of complete atheism. He suggests that perhaps Hume's position is best characterised by the term "irreligion", while philosopher David O'Connor argues that Hume's final position was "weakly deistic". For O'Connor, Hume's "position is deeply ironic. This is because, while inclining towards a weak form of deism, he seriously doubts that we can ever find a sufficiently favourable balance of evidence to justify accepting any religious position." He adds that Hume "did not believe in the God of standard theism ... but he did not rule out all concepts of deity", and that "ambiguity suited his purposes, and this creates difficulty in definitively pinning down his final position on religion".

 

[Khalliqa]

This thread is a bit weird to me not sure why the term matters so much...

If the term atheist really meant "believers in god" years ago by some famous atheists it wouldn't change the reason many reject the claim that god exists...

Maybe you need to call it something else to accept the claim is rejected

If you need to call us "rejectors"
Call us "nope nope"

The reason behind the rejection of the claim is still the same

 

[ToddNotTodd]

According to Wikipedia, Hume wasn't an atheist at all:

And that's why we don't use Wikipedia as a first source:

"Ironically, contemporaries who described him as an atheist used to include his worst enemies, while those who are now keenest to apply the label claim him as a best friend. In both cases, however, the reasoning is the same: Hume is so critical of religion that his refusal to simply come out as an atheist must have been the result of a simple fear of the troubles such a professed disbelief would have caused him. "The great infidel" as James Boswell called him, stopped short of embracing atheism for purely pragmatic reasons."

Julian Baggini

"David Hume (1711-1776) was a Scottish empiricist philosopher who was an atheist in all but name. Why he did not call himself an ‘atheist’ is debatable (as is where he got his coat in this famous portrait from), one theory is that it simply sounds a bit aggressive, but this presentation will present another perspective."

"For Hume the concept of God is nonsensical and beyond what can be conceived of –there is no usable conception of deity. Thus he would not like to say there was a definite topic to answer “yes” or “no” to when it comes to the existence of God –he did not call himself an atheist because the word God has no real meaning."

Simon Blackburn

And lets talk about Bertrand Russell, who's usually lumped into lists of atheist philosophers:

"As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God."

"On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods."

Bertrand Russell

So it seems like there's a tradition of philosophers who wouldn't say a god does not exist. And it's further clear to me that a better definition of "new atheist" is "Regular atheists that won't back down from theistic bullies."

 

[Moral Orel]

You get to define the terms of an argument but when making truth claims make them clear by defining terms.

"God exists," is a truth-claim.

"God does not exist," is a truth-claim.

In both cases a truth-claim is being made.

In both cases the truth-claim must be defended.

Now historically they were defended. But recently, the last few decades, the New Atheist says, "Atheism is the lack of belief in Gods," by this redefinition they hope to avoid the burden of proof. But it muddles the meaning of "atheism," quite badly.

On this view, my cat and dog are "Atheists."

I'm sitting on an "Atheist," chair as I write this thread on my "Atheist," ipad.

I honestly don't see the problem that so many Christians have with the concept that atheists lack belief. It seems like a much more polite way to explain it than bringing up flying spaghetti monsters and the like.

But okay, lets try the old approach. If I claim that there are flying spaghetti monsters on the dark side of the moon, should you have to show evidence that there are no such things, or should I have to show evidence that there is such a thing? You seem to be saying "both".

Atheists make plenty of claims that are worth discussing, I don't see why people need to be hung up on this one. For instance, "your evidence is bad" or "God can't be like you think He is". Why is this insufficient?

Your dog, cat, chair and iPad can't be an atheist because the definition of an atheist requires them to be "a person who lacks belief".

People to avoid do to propagandistic approaches Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, Atkins, Krauss, Coyne.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. I don't follow a lot of atheist "activists" or whatever you might call them, but the fact that Dawkins knows squat about the Bible doesn't mean he isn't a good source to look to if someone wants to talk about intelligent design. I think you called it "design inference for life from DNA". And if someone wants to talk about fine tuning, then Krauss is a great source for information on that. Saying we should avoid these people because they're "propagandists" is a bit like poisoning the well, isn't it?

Lastly, I've always considered the "New Atheists" to be those atheists who take a much more militant attitude towards their atheism. Not as far as The Church of Satan, but more than people who only argue on internet forums anyways. The kind of folk who think that ridicule is an appropriate response to theism which is exactly what I think of when I read comments like this:

The author described Richard Dawkins arguments as "logical," demonstrating that journalism schools don't require one to have even a basic understanding of logic.

These tricks have leached into intellectually-challenged minds for decades and have achieved a certain acceptance by tweeting millennials and their ilk.

A blanket statement advising a philosophy 101 course at their nearest jr. college when they are finally motivated to get up off their couch should suffice as an exit strategy.

Remember that you engaged the conversation in good-faith and have been manipulated by propaganda. Propaganda is a shortcut for the intellectual lazy or intellectually challenged. You don't (I hope) use propaganda to manipulate the seeker, you deserve the same respect. Don't be bullied by ignorant fools.

I recommend reading "How to win friends and influence people" by Dale Carnegie.

 

[Uber Genius]

Definition of ATHEISM
Definition of atheism
a : a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
b : a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

So now my friends that are agnostic have just become "atheists."

As have my pets, and furniture, and babies.

This recent modification of the definition is thanks to Richard Dawkins, Atheist pop icon but also the pope of fundamentalist, intolerant, anti-intellectual atheism.

The reason the definition was changed I believe is so atheists of a similar ilk could claim they had no burden of proof for their claims do to the phrase "lack the belief."

Yep the thinking is that remedial!

So now Theists can respond, "I lack the belief that there are no gods," and the burden of proof certainly won't be on them, right?

This is why one semester of philosophy is more than enough to mature past these foolish rhetorical tricks.

Atheism is the claim that there are no such things as gods or God.

Now look what just happened (my pets, babies everywhere, furniture/inanimate objects and agnostics, pantheists, all stopped being misrepresented as atheists!

This is a perfect example of why Michael Ruse is completely embarrassed by The foolish things that come out of the mouths of new atheists.

Hope this helps.

 

[Uber Genius]

Was going to respond but..

realized none of this describes me or applies to me..

bravo.

Rare breed anymore. Who are your favorite atheists and how did you come to reject the four horseman of New Atheism that have been such pop icons for the last two decades?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Atheism is the claim that there are no such things as gods or God.

It isn't to me, and (I think) all the atheists on this website. And all the atheists that I know. And all the atheists that write blogs that I read. And all the atheists that post to YouTube that I watch.

But you can define atheism as anything you want. Just be aware that when I refer to myself as an atheist, it means that I lack a belief in a god, not that I believe that a god does not exist.

So do you want to continue on, or are you going to be hung up on semantic games designed to provide you with straw men you can knock down?

 

[Uber Genius]

Whether or not you believe is God is a matter of conviction, who says people need to defend their worldview.

1 Peter 3:15

"Always be prepared to give a defense of the hope that is n you!"

So Peter says so.

Secondly, this is a Chistian Apologetics Forum on a Chitian site. Apologetic means giving a defense.

Now I grant that most people can't give a justification for things like:

The reality of the past;

Existence of other minds;

Uniformity of nature over time;

The reality of the external world.

And yet we all live every day as if these views are justifiable.

Here on this forum, this group, this thread, we will learn how to defend claims and spot fallacies and propaganda.

 

[Khalliqa]

bravo.

Rare breed anymore. Who are your favorite atheists and how did you come to reject the four horseman of New Atheism that have been such pop icons for the last two decades?

I don't have any favorite atheists.. I mean they are just people with a platform that will likely be short lived.. like most people in the spotlight..

That said.. I have at varying times had a mad ridiculous crush on NDT because he brought civility to many discussions but I'm also irritated with his reasoning behind why he's agnostic or whatever he is at the time.. I have developed a crush on Sam Harris after listening to his perfect elocution and communication style (his ability to communicate is impressive to me) in a debate/discussion with NDT and found NDT's reasoning to be lacking.. but I can't relate to Harris' drug fascination and his blind illogic regarding some aspects of his Islamic criticism..

If you HAD to give me a category I'd say I'm closer to an apatheist but that's because I don't get hung up on people's paths.. but not getting hung up on a person's path (meaning I don't take it personally and have no emotional vested interest in it enough to try to sway a person either way most times) and being civil does not equate to agreeing with their path or that I even have an iota of respect for the reasons buttressing their position.. that goes for atheist, apatheist, theist.. etc..

I do believe many theists I encounter seem to NEED to put people in boxes.. so they can control what they don't understand.. or fear..

Hence why even a basic query becomes fear that I'm doing some trick ..

Here's something to consider: someone can only trick you if you are naïve.. Just don't be naïve.. become curious and naivete goes away most times.. that way you won't have to fear someone tricking you. Become knowledgeable about the world and learn to receive challenging information, assess it and reach a conclusion that makes sense to you.. then whatever someone MAY be trying to do or NOT do is irrelevant..