"The New Atheists are back — and dumber than ever"

[Bob Kelso]

Atheism, for the vast majority of atheists, is not an assertion. It is a response to a claim. 

Theists claim that a god exists. Atheists simply are unconvinced by theist's arguments.

So, did you ever stop to consider you are arguing against a straw man of your own construction? Nah, you're way too intelligent to do that...

If you construe it as a response, my question is, what justifies the response?

The answer I've gotten so far is: Nothing.

I don't see any answers! Why don't I see any answers?!

[robvalue]

Delicate quite clearly applies his own definitions of words to our posts, despite us being clear that we use definitions different to his.

What Delicate actually seems to mean by "atheist" is "someone who dogmatically agrees with prominent atheists". Sadly for him, that describes no one here that I'm aware of. So he's argueing against an empty set as far as this audience is concerned.

If there actually were such people, who did dogmatically follow Dawkins et al, then I'd join him in calling them stupid, just for being in that category in the first place.

Will he ever realize that we do not do this?

If he ventured into the rest of the forum, he would find that atheists disagree quite drastically on any number of subjects. But of course they agree on lacking a belief in God, by definition. Otherwise they wouldn't be atheists...

Lacking belief. Not also having a belief to the contrary, at least not by default. This is a subtle distinction, and I'm not convinced delicate has understood it yet.

I lack the belief that this reality is a computer simulation. I also lack the belief that it is not a computer simulation. I simply don't know what it is and have no belief either way. This is the default position.

[Cyberman]

Delicate quite clearly applies his own definitions of words to our posts, despite us being clear that we use definitions different to his.

What Delicate actually seems to mean by "atheist" is "someone who dogmatically agrees with prominent atheists". Sadly for him, that describes no one here that I'm aware of. So he's argueing against an empty set as far as this audience is concerned.

If there actually were such people, who did dogmatically follow Dawkins et al, then I'd join him in calling them stupid, just for being in that category in the first place.

Will he ever realize that we do not do this?

Which is the very thing that I try to make a point of avoiding when I ask for the other person's meaning of whatever it is. Anytime we make an argument against a particular model of a god, that person can simply object and say "that's not the god I believe in", and rightly so. By nailing their trousers to the mast right at the outset, we prevent them from playing that card.

[robvalue]

That's right.

Personally, I try not to generalise anyone. I am careful to say "some theists" or "a lot of theists", which is simply a summary of my own observations. I would never say "all theists" do anything more than believe in God. If I ever seem like I'm making such broad generalisations, I don't mean to and I apologize. I try to assume nothing about a particular theist, which is why I'm always asking specific questions such as what "God" means to them. The fact that I rarely get answers to such questions makes conversation difficult. I'm sometimes even encouraged, by the theist, to just stereotype what they mean by God.

Delicate, however, has done little besides trying to generalise atheists. It's a misguided mission from the start, and what it's supposed to achieve, I have no idea. It is certainly not a way of satisfying curiosity, especially as he disregards all our attempts to put him straight on what we actually believe, or don't believe. If the message is to stop dogmatically following prominent atheists, then it's a message we don't need. None of us do that as far as I'm aware.

[houseofcantor]

Delicate's back and troll-y-er than ever. Equally, who gives a fuck? 

[robvalue]

When called on the generalisation, I get the reflexive tu quoque fallacy. You do it too!

I don't care what he thinks, I'm writing thoughts for the benefits of other readers

[Thumpalumpacus]

He is not hear to provide evidence or even debate, he is only here to provoke.

He doesn't know why he's here.  You grant him too much credit.

I think he's here because he has secret doubts which terrify him, and he's come here with his dog-and-pony show in order to quell those doubts. Not that he knows all that, of course.

[Edwardo Piet]

I have always thought that theists who feel the need to come to atheist forums just to tell them that they are wrong, likely have a lot of doubts about their god.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Mazactly.

[Edwardo Piet]

Wha??? Maz-actly? Whaaa?



I confuz