Do new atheists exist? how do they differ from old/classical atheists?

i think the entire picture in general is cringey tbf. "They're right, you're wrong" like please fucking kill me

None of the rest are scientists, that's not what they set out to do.
Well lawrence krauss is, and he did.

Harris - Failed neuroscientist turned author. BTFO'd on this view on morality
Dennett - Philosopher, nobody takes his cog sci i'lmao consciousness don't real' philosophy seriously
>Lawrence
>changing shit
kek

>Hitchens

Statist shill. Didn't break any significant story.

>Maher

Just lol

>>Maher
>comedian and talk show host
>hugely successful
I dunno what more you could expect
>hitchens
>Widely acknowledged as one of the greatest debaters of all time
>successful author

Agnostic/Pantheist speaking.

Atheists aren't ideologically bound any dogma other than "God doesn't exist," and even regarding these three words pages and pages could be written dedicated to how different Atheists see each term.

Some theists claim I am an Atheist, and some Atheists claim I can't be, this is how sensitive the subject apparently is.

And so, yes, I do think there is an ideological class of vocal Atheists who pick these media pundit role models. But I don't think it's very useful to dwell on them if you're trying to combat the notion of Atheism in general.

Just like it's not useful to focus on Bolsheviks alone if you want to critique Marxist ideas.

> another thread where people trying to oppose the truth that is atheism without any logical arguments

can you definitively prove that a god doesn't exist with 100% certainty?

Does your brand of Atheism merely posit the nonexistence of anthropomorphic deities? Platonic deities? Ontological deities? What about wishy-washy, but arguably more ancient definitions of God, where God is defined as the very material procedure of nature itself, taken as an unascertainable whole?

Many Atheists get very impatient with any idea of God that isn't a ridiculous anthropomorphic spook barely disguising the political ideology underneath. Anything Spinozoan is dismissed readily as irrelevant nonsense, despite being a potential bridge for humanity from dogmatic theism to secularism.

Sincerely, not a religious person.

It's all probability nowadays user, atheists have it good in the probability game

So you're saying that atheists CAN'T prove that a god doesn't exist?

Not him, but to be fair, the burden of proof is on the positive claim.

That is, due to sheer infinity of things that could be versus things that are known to be, things must, for practical purposes, be considered irrelevant until they are proven relevant.

God is one of these things. But is difficult to know where to start since humanity has neither agreed on an operational definition of God, nor even a categorical imperative for for believing. It is difficult to know where to proceed with "disproving" God if the conceptual goal posts can be moved by any person claiming belief.

I think it was a tribute to Camus.

It might be cringey or whatever but it's one of the better pics of Hitchens anyway, who didn't look that great even before the cancer.

Isn't the burden of proof on the person who makes the initial claim?

That is agnosticism, which is not mutually exclusive to atheism
So some atheists say they can't, others say they can

That's really avoiding my question. If atheists can't back up their point that a god doesn't exist then
>the truth that is atheism
isn't correct

The person who says that they can is extremely rare, I've never met one. Atheism is just lacking belief, it's usually Christians who attack a strawmen of atheism that insists they know positively that god isn't real.

but you can't know anything with absolute certainty when you get down to it. like the other user said it's about probability

>not anti-semenitic, but I don't trust Jews nonetheless

top kek

I'm definitely not giving my opinion because I just want to relay some information to you, not my opinion

Yes, and historically, the initial claim is "There are supernatural entities and you should believe on them for [insert theoretical incentive]."

The claim "God doesn't exist." is meaningless unless someone first posits the existence of a thing called a God, and properties for that thing.

They can do it relatively easy from contradiction in God's definitions and properties for example. Most Gods can be easily proven to be non-existent from that. Some very non-trivial one can survive that but this is only because definition is too broad. It isn't like anyone cares about such Gods anyway. Like who seriously believes in pantheism for example?

>Like who seriously believes in pantheism for example?
well the universe does indeed exist, so technically I believe in that God. only thing is that I think it's retarded to call the universe God and I will refuse to do so because of the baggage the word carries and the wishy washy spirituality such a thing implies

that's my point, i was only disputing
>the truth that is atheism
for what it's worth, i'm apatheistic, so i don't really care whether god exists or not

no, his claim was that atheism is a truth i.e. god doesn't exist. therefore, unless he proves his claim to be true with evidence, atheism is not a 'truth'

sixty-four cups sit on a table, three are fine, one contains poison. sixty-four people stand by the table, each telling you that a different cup is the poisoned one. you taste three and none of them are poisoned. can you logically conclude that none of them contain poison based on your findings?

sixty-three are fine**

hence the "I realize the one that made the picture was probably autistic"

>no, his claim was that atheism is a truth i.e. god doesn't exist

>i.e. i dont know what atheism means

>the whole cup thing

in your example poison doesnt exist in reality and you only suffer when you die of your own causes if you drink the wrong cup

>that's my point, i was only disputing
>the truth that is atheism
so you don't think someone can say they don't believe in God because you cant no nuffin? that's rather silly. since we can't know nuffin we can't even positively claim germ theory is correct or general relativity by this logic

Kek'd at the pantheon of le New Atheism

>sophistry is something to be proud of

Plato would be rolling in his grave

>no his claim was that atheism is a truth.

This is correct, but this can be considered a sub-argument of the larger issue that's been discussed for thousands of years.

Again, the claim that Atheism is true is meaningless unless we first have claims deities, supernatural entities, a God or Gods, etc.

The whole argument starts with Theists because ideologically-speaking, Theists brought the concept of the divine to this earth (though they would have us believe that God brought it)

In order to disbelieve in the divine, the notion of the divine must first be presented.

This can only come one of two ways:

1) Direct, inarguable experience with the divine (this is problematic for reasons that I hope are already apparent to you).

2) Someone presents you with the notion of the divine.

Most people receive number 2), with number 1) usually appearing in highly ambitious, political people, oddly enough.

So since the very notion that the definition of Atheism rests upon has its origins in the notion of the divine being presented, in order for Atheism to *prove* its negative claim (God doesn't exist) we need *at least* the following things.

1) An operational definition of what God is, that can be consistently disputed without changing mid-argument (this is difficult).
2) A measurable way to prove or disprove God. Since God is often given attributes that are unfalsifiable (he exists outside of any measurable material reality, for instance, or can only be ascertained through faith, for instance) this is even more difficult.
3) Consensus among theists as to what God is (this is the most difficult of all).

"Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods"
>atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism

that sentence alone doesn't make sense
>Atheism is not a disbelief in gods
>it is a lack of belief in gods
they're the same thing, what the actual fuck

no, i'm saying that atheism isn't a 'truth' because you can't definitively prove god doesn't exist

>there's only one type of atheism
>all atheists believe that removing religion from the face of the earth will bring about a utopia
>no atheist has ever or will ever believe that studying religion and religious history, while not necessarily agreeing with any of it, is important

Wait, these memes still exist? I thought those died out around 2010.

>no, i'm saying that atheism isn't a 'truth' because you can't definitively prove god doesn't exist
yes, it isn't truth in a logical positivist sense. but I think it is likely to be true from the evidence we have

>"Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods"
>atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism

Other categorical semantic models instead choose to distinguish between "weak Atheism" (your definition, difficult to distinguish from Agnosticism), and "strong Atheism" (the actual dogmatic disbelief in divine claims, under any circumstances).

If the latter is not Atheism, what should we call it?

>they're the same thing, what the actual fuck

i dont believe in a god

i belive god doesnt exist

those are 2 different statements, if you say thta you dont believe a god exists then you go around the retarded "fucking prove it then faggit " nonsense and hammer down the fact that you dont have the burden of proof. 1 is a negation of a claim and the other is a claim itself

youtube.com/watch?v=FGYaR4s52v4

>yes, it isn't truth in a logical positivist sense
there we have it, that was my point.

see above

> what should we call it
Autheism, like atheism but more autistic

congradulations, you disproved the meme version of atheism that almost no one follows

you mean apart from the guys OP's image?

>there we have it, that was my point.

yup, you realized that we dont assert that god definitely doesnt exist

care to prove he actaully exists now?

these are mostly a bunch of colonialist smug motherfuckers
t. an atheist

but we already have a term for what you're describing, it's called agnosticism. why not just call yourself that?

>care to prove he actaully exists now?
why? i don't care if he exists or not, and it isn't provable whether he does exist, it'd be ludicrous of me to make such a bold claim

but they are a meme. also I've never heard Dawkins positively claim that God does not exists

>but we already have a term for what you're describing, it's called agnosticism.

agnosticism means you dont know, literally no one knows, its like saying youre a human when someone asks whats your name, you can know what you belive in though. you could also say that youre an agnostic atheist or agnostic whatever the fuck else but that takes up more time and no one really gives a shit unless you want to play the semantics games

>it'd be ludicrous of me to make such a bold claim

so whats the point on doing this shit if you dont even believe in god?

>so whats the point on doing this shit if you dont even believe in god?
I said that I don't care whether he exists, not that i don't believe in him, i just don't like seeing claims of absolute truth when it comes to god bc it's fuckin dumb

for god's sake we've already been over this. we in this thread aren't making a claim of absolute truth

>we in this thread aren't making a claim of absolute truth

but how can his strawman be true then? explain yourself gaythiest

but the guy i first replied to was, jesus christ i've said this already.

>I don't hate an entire group of people based on /pol/ memes
>I don't trust kikes

You can't formally prove he exists either user. So really there is no point in believing in god if he's unprovable, just as there is no point in being 100% certain he doesn't.

>usury
>slave trade
>communism
>libertarianism
>hollywood
>the mossad
>the state of Israel and its war crimes

I guess truth is one giant meme after all, isn't it Daniel?

no he didnt you fucking idiot, he said atheism is the truth, and since we dont have dick for evidence of god that makes atheism the correct possition aka TRUTH

well I didn't see that comment. besides that for quite awhile you've been arguing with people who haven't made such a claim and yet you still in response one of us said we were making a claim of absolute truth

>communism
>libertarianism
Pick one, McMemester.

i never said i could you fucking muppet, read the thread

>thread about new atheism
>new atheism actively disputes religion
>"hey wait atheism can't prove god doesn't exist"
>"hurr durr you're a fucking retard atheism is the truth"
fuck off

I tried to make it clear that i've only been arguing with that guys point when responding, but it mustn't have been clear. that's why i tried to stop when i made that post. my bad, I guess we're done here then

Only two of those are surely bad, I think two more are subjective, and the rest are alright. What kinda bullshit list of "bad" stuff is this?

>I am not anti-semenitic, but I don't trust Jews nonetheless

>new atheism actively disputes religion
>"hey wait atheism can't prove god doesn't exist"
>"hurr durr you're a fucking retard atheism is the truth"

so it cant despute religion inless it claims that it knows that god definitely doesnt exist?

it's not sophistry, it's logically reasoned arguments.
unless you mean maher. Maher is a joke

None of them do, not even Ben Stiller or Hitchens.

>Maher
A less funny version of George Carlin.
>Krauss
Probably smarter than he makes himself look.
>Hitchens
He's a good speaker, but that's pretty much it.
>Harris
Thinks that everyone on the planet wants to debate him & gets upset when they don't. Has an extreme case of unwarranted self-importance.
>Dennett
Same thing with Krauss.
>Dawkins
Pretty good evolutionary biologist. His problem came when he stepped a single foot into the shallowest region of philosophy and proceeded to declare the entire field bunk.

>logically reasoned arguments

Top kek, you actually believe this don't you? Is that why he got shit on by William Lane Craig?

>William Lane Craig
>muh Kalam
>muh causality

Jesus, are you still in high school or something?

More like neo-cons.

Question

Why do a tv show host, a physicist, a journalist, a neuroscientist,a cognitive scientist and an evolutionary biologist think that they're in any way qualified to talk about religious philosophy

Because they all fucked yer mom and that makes you both reconsider your life choices and puke so hard you start praying for it to stop.

replacing religion with nationalism, selfishness etc etc sucks even more.

>Yes, and historically, the initial claim is "There are supernatural entities and you should believe on them for [insert theoretical incentive]."
Historically, it's not even a claim. It is self-evident.

Because God pales in comparison to the power of money

>been atheist most my life
>my mom and granma raised me catholic, the east euro kind where guilt is just a word, my dad didnt realy go to church, doesnt realy believe
>mom was(still is technicaly, if in pension) a biologist, never any problem there
>god was never a vulgar thing to us, the way americans make it out to be, creation never mentioned, realy it was all about personal relation an things like sin and saints
>regardless, by the time i was 11 the whole story made no sense, i just sort of took it as a joke
>so since i was about 12 im technicaly completely atheist
>no problem
>about the time i get into college the god delusion comes out
>well hello captain obvious - pay it no mind
>the whole creationism vs evolution fight happens
>more newatheist crap comes out, more and more obnoxious, more and more antireligious
>start being about crap like ''religion is the source of all evil and the cause of 99.99% of all wars evar''
>harris comes out with his ''objective morality'' bullshit
>wtf are they even on about
>suddenly evolution is the basis for atheism
>as in life experience and knowledge of reality arent enough, you need science to back it up
>as in if we lived some few hundred years ago surely they would all believe in god cause muh proofs
>all the sudden from being just a generaly accepted wiev of things it becomes this stance that you back up with like science and shit
>all the sudden muh proofs this muh proofs that
>shit we learned about in grade school argued about like were in some fucking islamic state
>all the ''horsemen' becoming more and more daft as they fight one retarded creacionist after another autist id-ot

somewhere around 2011 i started being ashamed to tell people im atheist

in my country atheism used to be just a standard thing

mostly based mine on a fucking sense of humor and some sane logic, my mom was a catholic biologist for fuck sake, and she read sartre and everithing

shit like that is why people dont like newatheists

why can they not?

The only thing they are right about are being wrong.

Friendly reminder that BCE and CE are Jewish terms and if you use them, you're a good goy.

>he thinks causality is bunk
what made you think that?

Nice evidence to back up your statement that you got there

'New Atheism' is what old atheism would be if it was designed to be fed to morons in the form of memes that get repeated ad nauseum in non-scholarly arguments. 'The God Delusion' is an example of this; the book is just a big fat pile of New Atheist memes that fedora'd neckbeards spam on message boards because they're too lazy to read real philosophy yet still want to feel smart.

Not him, but Hume.

Does subjective experience count?

Anecdotal, but share anyway

Fuck off and read the bible, dumb atheist scum.

>he got shit on by William Lane Craig?
You must be the first person to think that ever.

God spoke to me. I have a very close relationship with Jesus. I saw cancer being vomited out. also, theres a vid of a guy breaking his neck twice, demonic possession, ill show it to you all when i get home in minutes.

Speaking hypothetically.

> bible
> badly collected set of semitic folklore
> even being relevant in modern theology

>modern theology
>being more relevant than iron age semetic folklore

Sam Harris can be a bit of an arse.

I like Dawkins, and Maher is funny.

They're mostly arrogant cretins about something that most sensible people just quietly accept and move on with their lives.

To be fair, they have fairly good reasons for being arrogant and obnoxious, but that doesn't make them not assholes.

both came from Jews. Educate yourself.

>Only two of those are surely bad
wew lad

>logically reasoned arguments
All of his arguments are "person in history did something bad, therefore God cannot possibly exist" and also a general series of historical half truths that are twisted around always to make religion the bad guy (i.e WWI was a war of religion is something he unironically thought)