Ok. Care to define what consitutes a hysterical atheist? To me the whole fundamentalist, arrogant, bigoted, yet another religion, and now hysterical, atheist line is no more than a ad hominem attack used by religious people to undermine otherwise very valid arguments against their religious beliefs.

Unfortunately this article does nothing to undermine this line of attack.

@beef - "I'm sorry, I forgot to mention the unicorn is invisible. You need to consider the metaphysical context of the unicorn before you dismiss it."

As we are learning greek here, I might as well do this. Metaphysics is from the Greek "meta" (beyond) physics. You have just mentioned that the unicorn is invisible, which has nothing at all to do with metaphysics. In fact this is very much in the domain of natural science as visibility and invisibility are physical properties. Take common air for example, that invisible thing you are interacting with right now. Liquid nitrogen is visible, gaseous nitrogen is not. Gases are invisible because the atoms of chemicals in their gaseous states are too far apart for light to properly interact with those atoms, thus they are invisible to the human eye. Even when invisible such things are detectible though, because they still have physical properties. Anything with physical properties is a part of physics.

There is no "metaphysical context" to this, invisible or not, much like there is no "scientific context" for god, no "moral context" for mathematics, no "sociological context" for the Oort cloud, and no "historical context" for the boiling point of water.

All you are now doing is demonstrating that you don't understand metaphysics at its most basic level (and have only a rudimentary grasp of the physical sciences too), so are rather clumsily trying to apply science where it simply doesn't work and shouldn't be. This is the equivalent of a man trying to disassemble a great machine, but having no spanners to do so is instead attempting to use a sandwich. And in failing to accomplish much with the sandwich is loudly asserting that the machine works by magic.

That is a road very much travelled in human history, I am sure you know by which particular demographic, and is further evidence that *this* form of faith based and crude atheism is very much a religion in every sense of the world.

@Peter - Example, killing people for fun is immoral. Can you prove it empirically? No. There is absolutely no scientific basis for morality and ethics at all. Not one single thing. You can prove this statement wrong by giving just a single example of any moral issue you believe has a scientific basis for being called "moral".

The book by Harris I didn't cite for a good reason, it's complete crap.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/may/12/science-right-and-w...

Laboriously begging the question and citing neuroscience as a basis for morality is a practice in not understanding what science or morality is. You can not derive an ought from an is. You can't say that because humans have evolved the ability to be kind they ought to be.

"But we haven't heard from you specifically who these experts are."

Really? It must have been some completely different Sir Michael who said "His commentary on Islam and terrorism coincided with the data collected in the study made by Pape on suicide terrorism.", then proceeded to link the study. No, it was me. See, read up there, you've been empirically pantsed right there. I'll also refer you to the link Jankaas shared.

One expert said that religion is a "negative indicator" of terrorist activity, and the other said that "Islamist fundamentalism may actually reduce the number of suicide terrorists by discouraging certain categories of individuals". These are people who are experts in this field and have spent time studing this very thing. Listening to Dawkins and ignoring them (which is exactly what you've done, because they've been linked in this blog) is rather like believing the Popes claims over Dawkins when it comes to evolutionary biology. To do that would be inherently stupid, I am sure you'll agree. But you've just done it.

"accepters of the truth of atheism in the scientific sense and its value, and the poverty of the truth claims of the opposite, as articulated most clearly by Dawkins"

Gee, no wonder you have no faith in religion, you've saved it all up for atheism. Respect those who seek the truth, but beware those who find it.

"1. That this review essentially says "The book by Harris ...(is)... complete crap."

2. "There is absolutely no scientific basis for morality and ethics at all. Not one single thing."

3. "Morality. There is absolute zero scientific or empirical validity to it"

4. "You can not derive an ought from an is" (See the end of Orr's 2nd paragraph above.) "

No no no no. My claim it is complete crap is based on the fact it tries to say there is any scientific validity to morality. There isn't. I just referenced Orrs review because it contained the information you needed to see that for yourself - that Harris was indeed talking crap because he is begging the question. I didn't say anything about Orr being the exclusive source of any of that.

The book by Harris goes on about how different areas of the brain light up when different types of thoughts shoot through your head, and says that they are similar when facts and morality are discussed. That, in itself, is absurd. Different areas of the brain lighting up has NO bearing on the nature of what is being discussed. We can't say that because this part of an MRI scan is brigher when someone says they want their car to be red, that all cars should be red. All you can tell is how the brain percieves and understands it - in other words it is subjective.

Not once does he say *why* there is any objective reason for what he considers to be "moral" behaviour. His entire basis for it seems to be "I think this is the right way to live." Do you not see the contradiction?

I am frankly amazed the scientific community is letting that book stand.

The link from Jankaas does indeed talk about suicide bombings. I also rather like how you completely ignored the article from Pape.

Tell me something, if a creationist was here quoting the Bible as proof of no evolution, then he completely ignored articles and citing evidence on it, would you be all over him?

As others have said, you are waffling in the manner of a politiician, getting very wordy but not actually saying anything at all.

Rational Libertarian......

So we just imagined the hundreds of millions who died in Russia, China, Vietnam....... or are those lives simply not worth remembering because they don't support your supposition

(And the whole Pagan thing is just....odd, what definition of Pagan are you using by the way?)

Religion and/or atheism are not the problem, extremism is, and that can be extremism about anything, a religious idea, a political cause, a scientific theory .

Some people simply like to kill, harm and hurt others. It is no more complicated or simple than that. And those people will always find a way to justify their actions.

Ellie

First: All those people were not killed in the name of atheism, they were killed in the quest for power. I'm actually one of the few atheists who would argue that the Crusades and the Inquisition were not religious, but power based. However, there have been plenty of religious massacres based solely on religion. I can't think of any atheist massacre of religionists based solely on religion.

Second: Pagan in the sense of his interest in ancient Germanic religions and the Occult.

Thirdly: Couldn't agree more with you about extremism, although I believe extremism is just a by-product of the lust for power.

"Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a deity. "

i think we've moved beyond that, which is most unfortunate. the word has been taken over i fear.

and the theists who care greatly about mere earthly battles with non-theists, have contributed as much to the "loading" of the term, as anti-theists have when they inflate the numbers of people who share their agenda.

i now dislike the word itself, both sides share the blame imho

@peter

poor you feeling all isolated and vulnerable...

"It would be a shame for this to end in an orgy of backsidekissing by a Mutual Admiration Society"

odd that you find such a tiny number of posters, who merely agree on something, so threatening that you have to parcel them up and stick on a label. poor love.

and your neediness, as ever, knows no bounds;

"I prefer the written word to youtube"

tough nuts peter, i prefer musicals to the way you write, so until you present your drivel with a chorus line and full orchestra i can't be arsed with you.

Okay, lol. I know when I'm being trolled ;)

Sir Michael,

Thanks for the rant (why does the NS attract so many trolls?)

"...the propaganda of atheism on solid ground."

How can something which is simply a lack of belief in a deity spread propaganda? You are confusing atheism and the rule of an evil dictatorship which is more reminiscent of religion than anything else. Strawmanning is an instant indication of a weak argument.

"The fanaticism of such people is religious in all but the idea of a diety. The rest is identical, and there are plenty of religions out there which are atheistic already. Scientology for example, is made up of atheists just like ourselves."

Yes, but we're talking about specific groups here, not atheism as a whole. Of course if you pick out certain idiots, putting them in some category you can draw links with religion, so what?

I think the author is saying he wants to encourage a society of philosophical discussion, not one which dogmatically claims all religion to be false without reasoned argument or one which doesn't allow religion.

@Sir, with a mention of jankaas

Firstly I assume you know what the phrase "weasel words" means: It either does not imply what most take the words to, or it implies several things including that; but in each case the speaker or writer secretly does not really accept what people take it to imply. But these famous atheists have given several particular examples, often exactly what the god-botherers claim will happen, as sufficient evidence for them, to fundamentally change their beliefs, and become theists. So I'm sure you are wrong there; but perhaps you 'know', just as the less obscure atheists do, that any evidence of god's or gods' existence will not arise (just as we know, in the scientific sense, a piece of lead will drop to the ground, to refer to earlier discussion)

Secondly, the assertion "New atheism is very much a cultish religion, where its adherents do not think about the message its evangelicals preach" would only be true if you changed "its adherents" to "many of its adherents". And I would assert that many other its adherents do in fact work hard at thinking things out, and disagree with Dawkins etc. and with each other about various details. This is rather like me with respect to your views, (the earlier slavishness is perhaps like jankaas, with respect to your views again).

Actually you could almost regard belief in the efficacy of electricity as a "cultish religion" in the way you described the latter, since I'm quite sure much less than 1%, of persons who use it automatically, have the slightest clue about why it works. And, with that definition of yours, it would be hard to find a religion which was not cultish.

@ Beef.
"If you present some compelling evidence for God I might start believing in him."
A.Earlier in the discussion you referred to him/her. Have a look around you and then tell me that all that you see is a coincidence.

@ Keir.
"The problem is that atheism does not exist."
A. The same can be argued of the deity.
" That's not rhetoric -"
A. It is and it's a theory of under-determination. Which came first the chicken or the egg?
A."- it's simple fact."
A. As above.
" No-one can look at a sky and say that they made it-"
A. No they can't, but they can look at the sky and say that they contributed to the hole that has developed just as Jankaas has stated.
" or that they know a man (or a woman) who did."
A. Strongly agree.
A. Nobody can witness existence and determine its source."
A. Strongly agree.
" In terms of what can be proved formall we are all agnostics."
A. Diagree.
" We don't know that this is all there is."
A. Is this a reference to climate change or a Deity?

@Sir M.

"The absolute fact that science isn't the be all and end all of how to view the world. This is a point you've failed to gasp even after example after example after example has been provided....push the right coloured little cube to get that banana of information..."

If any actual examples have been provided (you of course do not say what they are), they will very likely either be a false way to view the world, or sometimes be rather accidentally containing a bit if truth not yet verified by 'science'.

That last word must be viewed in a general sense.
For example science includes the use of logic. And I as well as other individuals from several species know that a banana is much tastier and more nutritious than a yellowish stick of wood. That is scientific, a truth known to your average monkey, with whom I would sooner be identified than with purveyors of half-baked philosophy (sorry for that, Huxley fans). But perhaps your banana is just a slippery one which leads the naive down, on the garden path. So we still await your actual examples of truths impervious to scientific thinking. And not simply examples of "how to view the world".

"Criticism of the atheist movement, its bigotry, lack of scientific validity, low-brow and insulting arguing techniques, and the cult-like devotion to its leaders by their pseudo-religious followers such as yourself can't be a valid criticism. Indeed one may not make a criticism of Dawkins, because as an atheist pope he is clearly infallible.
The notion that anyone at all simply disagrees with him, and in particular that the actual studies demonstrate he is wrong in his assertions about the "dangerous" nature of theism are provably false, is too mind-blowing to contemplate."

And yet your wooly criticisms amount only to vague claims about it being wrong to stick with scientific truths in the sense previous. You have demonstrated woeful ignorance of real matters in logic, physics and mathematics. It would be interesting to know how little or much you know of biology. You have falsely asserted that I am among people who believe that Dawkins has never made a mistake. Do you really think that the existence of such people is a criticism of his general views on atheism?

To summarize:
You claim without anything at all convincing that there are truths impervious to science.
(Probably false, but we are among the few who would never dismiss completely anything, including the existence of god(s), for which evidence could conceivably arise in future.)
You claim that some people believe everything that the so-called new atheists say. (Undoubtedly true, not at all original to you, and completely irrelevant to whether some specific claim by them, such as the very, very likely non-existence of god(s), and certainly their non-existence as in the generally accepted beliefs of prominent organized religions.)

You are quite welcome to your own wooly-headed reasons for being an atheist,. But you have no leg to stand on if you really believe that you have a valid criticism of the recently invigorated atheist movement, other than the fact you can out-argue, in your opinion, some of its intellectually less sophisticated members.

Of course there is a religion for atheists. It's called Climate Change and disbelievers are ritually stoned.

"With the exclusion of actual religion, and some slight modification where one does not ascribe these things entirely or even largely to the "irrational and illogical", you will find that Richard Dawkins has asserted the same thing in nearly the same words."

Wrong:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/3255972/Harry-Potter-fails-to-cast-spell...

The telling thing is that when the right-wing Christians moan about Harry Potter people are all over of them point out how utterly dumb that idea is. When Dawkins does the same thing it's perfectly reasonable isn't it?

And Fergus Pickering...
If "ritually stoned" is being offered well-tested facts which amount to a scientific consensus, then you're absolutely right!

@Jamie, you said that atheism "goes hand in hand" with common sense. That implies that religion is at odds with common sense, which is wrong.

My statement was backed with historical fact, which I provided evidence of. Evidence you simply ignored (are you a creationist by any chance?) Atheism isn't "simply a lack of belief", to assert so is either a dishonest or naive. To say that actual atheist states are "more reminiscent of religion than anything else" beggars belief (if beggaring belief is still allowed here, please don't gulag me).

Atheism as a whole is pretty damn awesome. It has given people who don't go for the whole religion thing an identity, it has challenged religion as a whole. The problem is it can become every bit as dogmatic, oppressive, and vicious as any religion - the USSR and Maoist China proved it (atheism is very much at the core of dialectical materialism however much one might try to deny it).

While this isn't happening today what is happening is a general back ground bigotry of a minority of internet atheists rally around characters such as Harris and Dawkins, screaming that religion is bad because atheism is true. Not only is this false but it is making actual rational atheists look bad.

And I hate looking bad.

I ascribe this behaviour to simple theophobia and to arrogance. I can admit my atheism is an act of faith, just belief. I can't produce any proof of it, I have the opinion there is no deity based upon feelings and thoughts. I am not afraid to call it a belief, some atheists are afraid to say that they hold beliefs in anything that hasn't been proven totally. It's a considered opinion, but then so is the opinion of a lot of religious people. To think that anyone who considered a question would have to come to the same conclusion as myself would make me the perfect narcissist.

The very arrogance, narcissism, and fear of admitting to oneself that ones position is not inherently better than opposing ideas. Sound familiar? My contention is not that atheism is bad, it is that the hypocrisy of religion is mirrored perfectly in atheism.

aren't we all busy bees? another excellent post Sir M. many good points well made.

still won't revert to calling myself atheist though, as explained, i feel it is too loaded a term. i'll stick to non-theist, fits more comfortably for now.

Sir Michael,

Fine. This is a semantics thing, I'm using my definition of atheist, you are using (what I consider and people have noted here) the loaded term for atheism.

My definition of atheism is simply a lack of belief in a deity (which I believe is logical given that theism means belief in a god and the way a- works in the English language).

I think our differences in opinion are simply down to you putting some of the bad things you mention onto atheism ("The problem is it can become every bit as dogmatic, oppressive, and vicious as any religion - the USSR and Maoist China proved it") whereas I put those things down to failings of humans, not to atheism.

Because of our differences in opinions, you write things which simply don't parse to me: "Harris and Dawkins, screaming that religion is bad because atheism is true." Under my definition, "atheism is true" is a totally nonsensical statement.

Given that, I agree with you in that atheism has been hijacked and misused. And that is the very reason I worry about trying to institutionalise atheism, one of its strengths should be that is of no institution.

Mairi, you mean Alain de Botton ? If you do I agree, the monument might as well have a target painted on it.

@Jankaas - I don't put any bad thing onto atheism in actuality, my point is basically a challenge to the antitheist proposal that it is the religion, not the people, that are at fault for the various attrocities which go on in the name of religion.

The point is that any idea at all can be used to justify acts of violence and hatred - materialism, biologism, evolution, Christianity, atheism, Islam, even what football team you support.

There is no doubt at all that had Stalin been a devout Christian he would have still been a nasty piece of work. My contention isn't that atheism made him what he was. My contention is that if Osama Bin Laden were an atheist he wouldn't be getting the Nobel Peace Prize either.

""Harris and Dawkins, screaming that religion is bad because atheism is true." Under my definition, "atheism is true" is a totally nonsensical statement." - What I am getting at is the messiahnic rhetoric of such people. In some ways the new-atheist movement is very much like the war on terror. They set up religion as this dark and wicked entity, then present their own beliefs and ideas as the panacea to that. In other words, they are our saviours. This has lead to an almost cultish devotion to those individuals across much of the atheist community, ironically enough, which as an atheist really irks me. As such I come off as more hostile towards such people than I in fact am.

@Peter - you are waffling about nothing. Attempting to both move the goalposts and counfound the arguments, you are accomplishing neither. Let me just spell it out in basic.

"Sir apparently has ignored this, despite attempting to be humorous when he says "I don't believe that 2+9 = 11 because yogurt tastes funny.""

No, I wasn't attempting to be humorous. I was explaining that when you apply the wrong sort of analytical method to a question you can come up with the wrong answer. That's all. Infact you just did this. In assuming that humor was the intent you went and completely misunderstood the statement.

"But here we can ask him again to explain himself, or at least quote a reputable physicist"

The contention - "Every time science tries to create the ultimate origin theory, its proponents come up with something that seems to point to a “magical” solution. This is because science is inherently limited to the rules which define it".

The reputable physicist, Neil deGrasse Tyson...

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-18-2011/neil-degrasse-tyson

"I eagerly await enlightenment."

you do no such thing peter, the word "enlightenment" is a dead give-away. you are either a WUM, or, you're on the wrong threads for some-one as brilliant as you. which is it?

btw good luck with Sir M, looks like you'll need it.

One of the Religion oldest tricks is to claim ownership of morals, and often also claiming that ‘not religion’ is therefore immoral.

We’ve got someone in this thread demanding scientific evidence for the existence of morals outside of religion. Looks like a god of the gaps argument, the only time that you’ll here religionists demanding scientific evidence.

Of course there are plenty of examples and theories for the existence of morals outside of the church. How one is supposed to separate the existence of a particular behaviour and assign it to evolution or the ‘sky fairy’ isn’t clear. Are we to expect an MRI scan that shows one of those ‘Jesus on burnt toast’ type images when someone is thinking morally?

Behaviour that supports the group rather than just ones self is useful for the survival of that group and common within all life, within and between species. Religion codifies these behaviours fixing them in time. 1500 years later it’s immoral to save a dying child with a blood transfusion because of rules regarding the preparation of meat in a hot country.