Tricks New Atheist Play (Part 1)

[zippy2006]

The trouble is his definition for "theist" doesn't really work, does it?

It certainly doesn't resolve to the actual definition of theism.

A double-negative doesn't always equal a positive like in math. For instance, if I were to say "God is not impotent" it is not the same as saying "God is omnipotent".

That's right. A double negative only equals a positive if you apply both negations in the same way to the same subject.

• God is not not omnipotent = God is omnipotent
• Michael Jordan is not not black (or not non-black) = Michael Jordan is black
• God does not not exist (or is not non-existent) = God exists

The problem with your example is that "impotent" does not equate to "not omnipotent." (That is to say, if you're impotent then you're not omnipotent, but it doesn't necessarily follow that if you're not omnipotent you're therefore impotent.) Instead "impotent" means "not potent," or "not having power." Thus "God is not impotent" implies that God is potent--that God has some power.

The OP defined theism as "The lack of belief that there is no God." The negations are not applied to the same subject: one is applied to a belief and one is applied to God's existence. Therefore the double negative doesn't actually occur in the way necessary to produce a "positive."

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...

I think this is an accurate portrayal of the New Atheists.

 

[variant]

I think this is an accurate portrayal of the New Atheists.

Depends on what people mean by militant. In my experience the "militant" atheist is just someone willing to have a frank discussion about what they think of religious ideas.

 

[variant]

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

They are not mutually exclusive ideas.

 

[Moral Orel]

Depends on what people mean by militant. In my experience the "militant" atheist is just someone willing to have a frank discussion about what they think of religious ideas.

I think I gave a plenty descriptive description. Sure, some theists want to exaggerate about what constitutes being "militant" but we both know there are atheists a lot more outspoken and impolite than what you just described.

 

[variant]

I think I gave a plenty descriptive description. Sure, some theists want to exaggerate about what constitutes being "militant" but we both know there are atheists a lot more outspoken and impolite than what you just described.

I was putting forward a minimum standard of what gets called "militant".

Militant is a loaded term for outspoken or impolite regardless.

I wouldn't for instance, call the OP a "militant theist" regardless of the rudeness of his argument. For that sort of label I would assume some sort of actual violence on the part of the theist.

Plenty of my opinions on theism aren't welcome here, even though they are just frankly what I think of the idea.

The demand for respect has always been pretty strong in the religious communities I travel in. It is in my opinion, usually, completely unearned.

 

[zippy2006]

Depends on what people mean by militant. In my experience the "militant" atheist is just someone willing to have a frank discussion about what they think of religious ideas.

This is misleading at best. What do people mean by militant? Easy:

Militant -

1. combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause, and typically favoring extreme, violent, or confrontational methods.
​

The motivations for why someone is militant do not mitigate the fact that they are militant. It's like saying, "In my experience a 'terrorist' is just someone willing to go the extra mile for their beliefs." Just because someone is "frank" or "willing to go the extra mile" does not absolve them of their militancy or terrorism.

 

[zippy2006]

Imagine for a moment we wanted to describe a wabzigit.

We start by describing its properties.

We would not describe the properties it lacks!

Why?

Simple the properties are always a fraction of the near infinite negation of said properties.

I think there is something to this. In a different thread I argued that "God is not worthy of belief" is a central positive claim of atheists, and a number of atheists agreed that this does accurately describe them. Although "God does not exist" is the primary definition of atheism, I think "God is not worthy of belief" would be a good replacement for the problematic secondary definition, "Lack of belief in God." This is because it expresses the fact that the atheist is someone who has 1) consciously considered the evidence for God's existence and has 2) concluded that the evidence is insufficient for belief. Not only is this definition more accurate, but it also avoids many of the problems you have pointed out.

 

[variant]

This is misleading at best. What do people mean by militant? Easy:

Militant -

1. combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause, and typically favoring extreme, violent, or confrontational methods.
​

The motivations for why someone is militant do not mitigate the fact that they are militant. It's like saying, "In my experience a 'terrorist' is just someone willing to go the extra mile for their beliefs." Just because someone is "frank" or "willing to go the extra mile" does not absolve them of their militancy or terrorism.

Terrorism is the issue here. Most atheists I know who get called militant are not violent, extremists, or terrorists in the least.

I am complaining about the denotation of an an analogy between militancy, via outspokenness and one using extremism and violence.

It's not the same thing, or even close.

There are relatively few militant atheists by the definition you are using, and it is wrong of you to accuse atheists of today of taking a militant attitude as you did in the post above.

 

[zippy2006]

Why don't you guys see the problem with writing and designing the claim for atheists? I can't imagine any atheist making that specific claim.

Then I'd say you don't have a very good imagination, because TaliatelliMonster and HitchSlap both agreed with that claim. Further, not a single atheist disagreed with it.

An atheist isn't going to phrase their claim with the subject already being implicitly acknowledged as being a thing which exists.

This is just a strawman. Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Toothfairy, and Russell's teapot are all unworthy of belief. To say they are not worthy of belief is not to say that they exist, it is to say that there is no reason to believe that they exist.

You said at one point that a rejection of a claim is a claim unto itself. I agree. I've said more than once in this thread and others that atheists make the claim, "all the evidence for a god I have seen is bad". Why is that not good enough? No one has responded to that yet.

Although that is a subset of the claim that God is not worthy of belief, it tends to be insufficient because New Atheists are not generally inclined to think that there is a good reason to believe in God that they just haven't found yet. Using a kind of induction and relying on their faith in famous atheist heroes, they think that even the arguments that they have not examined fail. They think that all believers are mistaken, even before hearing the particular arguments of each individual believer.

The problem is that you can't show evidence for something not existing, so you can't make claims for something you can't show evidence for. If someone were to ask you about Russell's teapot, would your response naturally be, "Russell's teapot is not worthy of belief"?

Sure, that is a perfectly legitimate reply. As to the claim that you can't show evidence for something not existing, I would point you to my post here or arensb's post here.

 

[zippy2006]

Terrorism is the issue here.

Terrorism isn't the issue at all. I just used an example making use of terrorism to illustrate the invalidity of your argument.

Most atheists I know who get called militant are not violent, extremists, or terrorists in the least.

And if you read the definition I gave you will see that none of these things are required for one to be militant.

I am complaining about the denotation of an an analogy between militancy, via outspokenness and one using extremism and violence.

Then you've missed the point. The point is that identifying a single innocuous motivation does not imply that the act itself is innocent. The terrorism example is a particularly clear illustration of this fact. Every act, whether it is good or bad, includes some uncontroversial motivations.

There are relatively few militant atheists by the definition you are using, and it is wrong of you to accuse atheists of today of taking a militant attitude as you did in the post above.

There are relatively few New Atheists, and they are militant.

 

[variant]

And if you read the definition I gave you will see that none of these things are required for one to be militant.

It's not the issue. You, and others are purposefully using a word that implies extremism and violence to apply to people who simply exit strong disagreement.

It is distasteful.

A bit of highbrow name calling to be more specific.

 

[Moral Orel]

Then I'd say you don't have a very good imagination, because TaliatelliMonster and HitchSlap both agreed with that claim. Further, not a single atheist disagreed with it.

Sure, some folks tacitly agreed with your proposed claim. But that isn't making that specific claim.

This is just a strawman. Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Toothfairy, and Russell's teapot are all unworthy of belief. To say they are not worthy of belief is not to say that they exist, it is to say that there is no reason to believe that they exist.

It's not a straw man because I didn't say it actually acknowledges the existence of a god, it implicitly acknowledges. That's why you get push back on trying to tell atheists that is the claim they make. You're implying that a god does exist, and the atheist is denying it.

Although that is a subset of the claim that God is not worthy of belief, it tends to be insufficient because atheists are not generally inclined to think that there is a good reason to believe in God that they just haven't found yet. Using a kind of induction and relying on their faith in famous atheist heroes, they think that even the arguments that they have not examined fail. They think that all believers are mistaken, even before hearing the particular arguments of each individual believer.

Do all atheists think this? How do you know that what all atheists think? If it isn't all atheists, then you need a watered down version, like the one I posited, to make a claim for atheists in general. Your condescending remarks about atheists trusting other atheists to do their thinking for them is noted though. I'll change my mind if/when I see good evidence. Plenty of people on these boards have said the same thing.

Sure, that is a perfectly legitimate reply. As to the claim that you can't show evidence for something not existing, I would point you to my post here or arensb's post here.

I didn't ask about "legitimate" I asked if that would be your natural response. Very different questions.

As to your elephants, that only works for regular old elephants. Once we start saying the elephants are invisible, and intangible, and smarter than us, and have good reasons to hide from us, it takes away any evidence for their non existence we can muster.

Can you even point me to an argument, made by atheists, that actually attempts to disprove the existence of a god? I haven't seen one. Ever. For example, the problem of evil could only prove that a god isn't good. Arguments about the origins of the universe can only prove that a god isn't necessary. There are arguments that a god can't be omniscient, or that god can't be omnipotent. Sure. But I have never seen an argument that says, "no god(s) exist".

 

[Moral Orel]

It's not the issue. You, and others are purposefully using a word that implies extremism and violence to apply to people simple strong disagreement.

It is distasteful.

I used the word first in this thread, I'm not a believer, and I've never heard it used to describe a physically violent person. We don't call ISIS "militant". I'm sorry it implies that to you, that implication isn't my intention because that isn't required of the definition, but I don't believe that's a common reaction to the word.

 

[variant]

I used the word first in this thread, I'm not a believer, and I've never heard it used to describe a physically violent person. We don't call ISIS "militant". I'm sorry it implies that to you, that implication isn't my intention because that isn't required of the definition, but I don't believe that's a common reaction to the word.

It implies it broadly and the terms, violent and extreme exist within the definition because it is often used in that context.

People often use it with regard to atheists in my opinion as a way to insult them.

If you didn't mean it in this manner then fine. But, I would suggest using a differn't, less loaded word.

 

[Moral Orel]

People often use it with regard to atheists in my opinion as a way to insult them.

I used it to distinguish between atheists who are happy to talk about atheism when prompted, and atheists who make sure you know they're atheist and proselytize about it whenever they get a chance. What word should I have used? Militant works, but if you have a better one, I'll work it into my vocabulary.

 

[variant]

I used it to distinguish between atheists who are happy to talk about atheism when prompted, and atheists who make sure you know they're atheist and proselytize about it whenever they get a chance. What word should I have used? Militant works, but if you have a better one, I'll work it into my vocabulary.

Argumentative, combative, aggressive, quarrelsome, contentious, antagonistic, outspoken.

 

[Moral Orel]

Argumentative, combative, aggressive, quarrelsome, contentious, antagonistic.

Antagonistic is good. I'll try to remember to use that instead in the future.

 

[zippy2006]

It's not the issue. You, and others are purposefully using a word that implies extremism and violence to apply to people who simply exit strong disagreement.

It is distasteful.

A bit of highbrow name calling to be more specific.

If you have a problem with the definition of militant, I would take it up with Merriam-Webster. I just use words according to common usage, I don't invent their meaning.

 

[variant]

If you have a problem with the definition of militant, I would take it up with Merriam-Webster. I just use words according to common usage, I don't invent their meaning.

I have a problem with the language and how it is being used yes. The problem is that I can see how it is being used in a way I don't like and the way you change such things is to point them out.

Dictionary's are descriptive, not prescriptive devices.

 

[zippy2006]

I have a problem with the language and how it is being used yes. The problem is that I can see how it is being used in a way I don't like and the way you change such things is to point them out.

Dictionary's are descriptive, not prescriptive devices.

Language is metaphorical by nature, and draws meaning from intense experiences that are analogically similar to other phenomena. For example, you dislike the connotation of violence in "militant," but three of the words you give as alternatives also connote violence: "combative," "aggressive," and "quarrelsome."