I think that Steve @sfmatheson and @beaglelady have given good answers to your original question, but I would like to add another point. I have thought for some time that many of the new atheists (Dennett being a notable exception) have a problem with the idea of philosophy as much as they do with theology. And they tend to be equally ignorant of both. Stenger, Coyne, etc dismissed philosophy in their epistemology, as much as they dismiss God. In fact one way to look at their argument is to turn it around. In truth the hypothesis under discussion is not whether God exists, but whether scientism is true. They treat scientism as an axiom, and hate the word. I think that the scientism hypothesis can easily be proven false, which undermines a great deal of the anti-philosophical, anti-theological, anti-humanities, anti-art (and anti any form of knowledge or scholarship that does not fit under philosophical materialism) writing and thinking of these people.
Of course they do.
Vic was a philosopher (at least thatās what Wikipedia says), but, as I said before, he was a really bad one.
Oh, man, I cannot stand those. Most atheists Iāve debunked on YT are like āWe atheists believe in science! Go study some science and then we talk! You believe in your imaginary friend because you missed science class!ā. But when you ask them something about physics (I like to troll them asking about quantum physics) or anything else, they never answer. Most of them are kids who donāt even know what Bayesā theorem is.
āThe truth that sets you free is the truth you donāt like to listenā
Thatās what I always try to do. By dismantling scientism, you expose their anti-everything-that-is-not-science bias.
There are thoughtful atheists here who have been corresponding with you and do not fit the caricature you offer. So choose your words with care, knowing that many (most?) atheists may not be like that at all. I only offer this because I recognize my own dogmatic expression in your words ā since I have written similar kinds of things.
It is always fun to wax triumphant over some enemy we like to imagine we have vanquished. Then flesh-and-blood reality settles in eventually and we realize --āOh! They are still here, and we probably ought to learn to get on without feeling so threatened by each other.ā Philosophies we can have fun embracing, dickering about, or repudiating. The people attached to them should always have our respect, though.
Treating God as a subject for science reveals a lack of knowledge of the limits of science. Of course God will fail scientific inquiry, as will scientific study of what makes music by Beethoven or Mozart more beloved by more people than music by lesser composers. Science canāt explain why some people canāt stand music by Mozart or Beethoven, but we all have met someone in that category.
Some people would like to apply scientific analysis to every area of human life, so that we could make wise decisions quickly, and have no conflict. The societies that came closest to this were Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. I donāt think very many of us would enjoy those worlds.
I have debated atheists who are respectful and have a really big brain. Itās really good to talk with them and exchange ideas. Sometimes they even thanked me for sharing my views. Those are the atheists I like debating.
As you may know, Iām Hispanic. Most Hispanic atheists Iāve found (eapecially on YT) donāt even know what respect is. Sure, eventually, I come across some who are respectful and can put up quite a challenge with their arguments, and I like that.
However, after channels like DrossRotzank (who is basically the Venezuelan version of TJ Kirk) and Dalas Review and his 50 āproofsā that God does not exist (which were just taken from the GII website) came into existence, it is difficult to find someone who doesnāt believe and does not need to use silly analogies like the FSM, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, God=Imaginary friend for grown ups, etc.
I try, but then they come up with things like this:
And this:
Oh good heavens yes, and itās reason enough not to read them. Coyneās mockery of philosophy makes him look stupid, IMO. I donāt read Dawkins enough to know whether he disses philosophy but I would hope Dennett would keep him honest. Stenger is right to judge various gods based on their various ludicrous claims, but he does look careless when he subtitles a book āHow Science Shows That God Does Not Exist.ā If he disclaims philosophy, then maybe heās dumber than I thought.[quote=āSy_Garte, post:21, topic:37310ā]
I think that the scientism hypothesis can easily be proven false
[/quote]
Iām tempted to ask how that is done, but then Iād have to publicly admit that I think āscientismā is a silly made-up word. 
Well, it sounds like youāve been in contact with a lot more open atheists recently than I have; I wonāt doubt your own account. I have a conjecture, though, that those in the blogosphere or on chatrooms will probably skew towards the more militantly outspoken young ones prone to say rash things (which was true of a lot of us in our own rash seasons of life, whatever traditions we do or donāt hearken from).
Maybe we tend to get more contemplative people to stop in here. Who knows!
Most atheists in the Hispanic community are kids who have not even read The God Delusion or God Is Not Great. They watched a couple of videos with already refuted arguments, say āGod is not matter or energy, so He does not existā, use the problem of evil card a couple of times, repeat what they learned from the Zeitgeist movie, say they are more intelligent than theists, say science disproves God and insult you for giving your opinion.
Why do I say they are kids? I watch their videos and, by listening to their voice, you know that they are not older than 12.
A real scientist would not say that he believes in science. Rather, heād say that he accepts science. Besides,
science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Look at Ken Miller and John Polkinghorne.
Of course not, but you know that these atheists are not very smart.
True, but atheists who watched AronRa too much or read Jerry Coyne and Victor Stenger without critical eyes wonāt say the same.
He is just fantastic. I have his book Finding Darwinās God and the videos where he talks about evolution are excellent food for my brain.
Another brilliant man. My friend also gave me some of his books to counter Stengerās arguments.
There is a Catholic priest (I donāt remember his name) who is another example. He is both a priest and an astrophysicist. Another friend of mine showed me a video where he was interviewed.
Juan,
Welcome. It is good that you are looking for answers, because as you have found out many are more interested in justifying their biases.
It is my understanding that there are three basic disciplines required to understand Reality or Life, they are Philosophy, Theology, and Science, not necessarily in that order. Science deals with facts and nature, Philosophy about the mind and how we know, and Theology about purpose and meaning.
Most atheists believe that nature is purely physical, when it is obvious that nature is also rational. As Einstein said, āThe most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.ā Matter/energy cannot think.
God is not a failed hypothesis, but God is not a supernatural answer Person. God is the Source of all that is. God is the Source of the Big Bang. God created the universe, matter/energy, time and space, purpose and meaning where and when there was nothing, ex nihilo.
While this cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt for the professional doubters, the Big Bang is the smoking gun and God does indeed exist, because God and God alone could have created the universe out of nothing. What this means is not that we are right, but we are all in this together and we need to work together lest the universe collapse under the weight of our arrogance and indifference to the needs of others.
I would be happy to see the word go away, but we need something to express the belief that all valid knowledge can only come from the use of the scientific method. Logical positivism, long ago debunked probably wouldnt work. Suggestions welcome.
I had the āpleasureā of doing an online debate with Aron Ra about a month ago. His followers are difficult people as you suggest, but Aron and I sort of got along. His main beef is with creationists (which of course, I am not), and I actually told him I thought he was a spiritual guy. Anyway I prefer him to Coyne or Myers (with whom I have also had some exchanges recently).
Totally.
Of course it canāt.
Youāre right, but try telling that to atheists like Sean Carroll.
You hit the jackpot.
How did everything end?
Just like the followers of most atheists nowadays.
Thatās great.
I know, and you can particularly see that in most of his videos. BTW, I shared one of his videos about evolution here on the forum the other day.
He can be pretty scary for his size and his look, but I bet that he has a good heart. I never thought of him as spiritual, but who knows.
Definitely. I have not much to say about Myers, but I canāt stand Coyne and his crusade against God and Christianity. He attacks anyone who disagrees with him and his atheism. Any scientist who believes in God is āpoisoning science with religionā, and this is not an invention of mine, he actually said that.
Wouldnāt it just be ānaturalismā? I guess if āscientismā refers to some air-headed sterile outlook in which there is no such thing as beauty (for example), then itās a useful word. I smell a strawman, but find it hard to believe that anyone could sneak a strawman by you.
I think Aron Ra is indeed a decent fellow, and offline before and after the hour and half chat (you can find it on his channel) we had some pleasant talk. For a non-scientist, some of his videos on evolution are very well done. I tried to steer him to this site, it would be cool if he dropped in some time.
Do you mean Jesuit Brother Guy J. Consolmagno, the research astronomer at the Vatican Observatory?
btw, there is an excellent introductory course on genetics and evolution on coursera.org. Let me know if you are interested.
Bingo!
Iām definitely interested. Itās always good to learn more. Plus, it can come in handy for next year.
Well, Iām glad it didnāt end up in something rude, especially since Aron is a gnostic atheist (the āthere is no god and I can prove itā type).
Plus, reading the comments is just disgusting. Just take a look at these:
āItās all mind control for the gullible, and mindless invented by human kind.ļ»æā
āBecause all delusional humans who believe in God, and creation always default to a āsupreme beingā figure in arguments, as to justify for the ultimate, and definitive answer for everything to try and trump all other logic without any substantiated proof to provide!ļ»æā
āWhat a waste of an interview. A scientist was converted by revealed truth? He is getting old and got scared. Good of the gaps convert even tho he says it isnāt. Cant explain certain scientific principles therefore Christianity? Why not buddhism or some other less flawed religion. This is just a platform for his witness.ļ»æā
See? Internet atheism is just as toxic as YEC.
I may not always agree with Aron, but he definitely nails it when it comes to evolution.
Well, if he can be respectful, then I see no problem.
Well, I also got two other books by Stenger: God and the Folly of Faith and The Fallacy of Fine Tuning.
After reading all of these, Iāll proceed with the next author: my dear āfriendā Jerry Coyne and his books Why Evolution Is True*, which I couldnāt finish reading because of time, and Faith vs Fact.
*A Baptist minister lost his faith after reading this one and some books by Bart Ehrman. Coyne talked about this on his blog.