Are Atheistic Fundamentalists Any More Desirable Than The Jim Jones University Brand?

[Pegasus_Voyager]

Out-lawing religion, censoring it, or all out persecution of it, are the tactics of a dull-witted lazy brute.

 

Okay PegasusV. - WTF are you talking about here? I have books by Dawkins and Harris and Mills right here beside me. I've read all of them. I don't recall a single sentence in any of them proposing the outlawing or censoring of religion. Unless you consider stopping the teaching of creationism in science classes "censoring".

 

And, another point: do you really think that the evidence for evolution is the same as the evidence for extra-terrestrial life? I'm no science geek, but this statement is pure crap. (to put it politely)

 

Anyone can point to a few morons in the history of the world who behaved like morons. To equate atheists with Pol Pot is like saying all christians have the character of yahweh.

 

MY RESPONSE: The millions who followed Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, and Stalin were not a few isolated "morons". Tyrants can't kill in mass numbers by themselves. I said it before, and I'll say it again, I WAS NOT making an absolutist statement about every single atheist everywhere. But I suggest you listen to the vitriol and venom that spews from freethoughradio if you really believe that there aren't atheist's who don't loathe Christians.

[Dave]

I go along with MLK Jr. in that what matters is content of character. Give me an upstanding, trustworthy atheist to be my senator any day over a lying, cheating theist! Character counts, not beliefs.

Yet you claimed earlier that Atheists were trying to take away religion and that you wouldn't want them ruling?

[Dave]

Okay, Dave, I feel stalked by you again. Please refrain from responding to my posts for a while. Thank you.

This is an open forum. I am replying to postings in an open forum. I am not attacking, or stalking, you in any way.

[Dave]

MY RESPONSE:

we know it is your response so there is no need to label it your response.

I'm not going to get into a"pissing contest" with you dave, because you are not being rational at this point, you're being flat-out beligerent.

You're the one ranting about "fundamentalist" Atheists and Humanists. There is no such thing. Others have pointed that out to you too.

I just think you've got a weed up your ass for anyone that challenges your narrow perspective on reality.

Now ain't that the pot calling the kettle black.

[Mythra]

But I suggest you listen to the vitriol and venom that spews from freethoughradio if you really believe that there aren't atheist's who don't loathe Christians.

 

I'm not saying that you're totally out to lunch. In some ways I agree with you. Extremists of any flavor are capable of doing all kinds of evil things to promote their cause.

 

But, for every extremist christian abortion doctor killer or muslim suicide bomber or bloodthirsty atheist despot, are ten thousand who wouldn't hurt a fly.

[Pegasus_Voyager]

Seems you have many of the same misconceptions about atheism and evolution that christians do. Oh well. I'm tired of debating the subject. I'll let others who have more energy to deal with these old claims again to rebut.

 

MY RESPONSE" (siiiiiiiiigh) No, I don't have the same misconceptions, I'm just saying, for the 500th quintillion time, that being an atheist doesn't necessarily make you "Mr Nice Guy", or that you should have your "finger on the button". I know what evolution teaches, Vigile, I'm not a scientific simpleton. When it meets the standards for establishment as a scientific fact, I'll buy it.

[Lycorth]

Really my big beef is the basic presumption that true peace, equality, happiness, etc. can only be achieved once every human being is subject to a particular creed or anti-creed, that fundamentalists seem to carry.

 

I agree.

 

I second that

 

But I'd like examples of people killing in the name of Atheism. Solely in the name of Atheism, of course, not just a bunch of Commies killing and oppressing because others dissented from Communist doctrine.

 

Atheists have the potential to be oppressive, but it seems that other, worse doctrines need to be adhered to, first. Atheism and the zeal for it hasn't produced a single killing, at least that I'm aware of.

 

I can't help but like this explanation of it.

[Pegasus_Voyager]

MY RESPONSE:

we know it is your response so there is no need to label it your response.

 

MY RESPONSE: Pleae do not tell me how to respond to a a post, dave, I'll do it just because it turns me on.

 

I'm not going to get into a"pissing contest" with you dave, because you are not being rational at this point, you're being flat-out beligerent.

You're the one ranting about "fundamentalist" Atheists and Humanists. There is no such thing. Others have pointed that out to you too.

 

MY RESPONSE: Others may have pointed it out but they are deluded too. Anytime you arrogantly suggest that you have the absolute truth, you are a fundamentalist, plain and simple. I can believe what I want, ultimately, dave, regardless of who "points out my error", just as scientists, atheistic or otherwise, pointed out how "silly" Oppenheimer was to believe in splitting the atom. Majority rule is not the basis for my beliefs, dave.

 

I just think you've got a weed up your ass for anyone that challenges your narrow perspective on reality.

Now ain't that the pot calling the kettle black.

 

MY RESPONSE: Damn, dave, you shouldn't have told me about not saying "MY RESPONSE:" It's like the "forbidden fruit", now. The "pot calling the kettle black"? Jesus,(excuse the irony), now THERE'S an original metaphor. I prefer "the shit calling the skunk stinky" but hey, to each his own. You obviously ignored the fact that I "ranted and raved" about Christian fundamentalists too, or did those objective fairminded 20/20 peepers overlook that? I have no problem with you challenging me, dave, but implying that I'm a liar, especially when I explain to you what I meant in a particular sentence, and you chew on it like a bone tells me you're just picking a fight. You're ultimately not helping your case as far as atheism. I was sincerely going to go on a Christian talk show and defend atheists as generally being people of overall good character, fairmindedness, rational, and caring natured. How in God's , er, well, whoever the Hell's name, can I "sell' that after you "get your panties in wad" like any Baptist "fundie" who gets miffed when his "sacred cow" is attacked? Reading these immature, inaccurate crybaby responses I'm getting to this thread tell me just how close-minded and skewed your thinking is. To accuse "fundies" of being irrational and rigid at this point would be "the pot calling the kettle black"(sorry, couldn't resist that)

[Pegasus_Voyager]

But I suggest you listen to the vitriol and venom that spews from freethoughradio if you really believe that there aren't atheist's who don't loathe Christians.

 

I'm not saying that you're totally out to lunch. In some ways I agree with you. Extremists of any flavor are capable of doing all kinds of evil things to promote their cause.

 

But, for every extremist christian abortion doctor killer or muslim suicide bomber or bloodthirsty atheist despot, are ten thousand who wouldn't hurt a fly.

 

I wholeheartedly agree, Mythra, once again, with feeling, this WAS NOT a generalized attack on all atheists everywhere in the whole, wide, wide, world. Good grief, Mythra, you've seen my other posts. You know how I think. I didn't have a "Damascus Road" experience and turn against you! lol. I'm just trying to be fair and balanced and state that narrow-mindedness and rigid close-minded thinking is not confined to "pew warmers"

[currentchristian]

Let me throw this fine opinion essay into the mix. It was published in the Harvard Crimson in 2003. It points out (rightly, in my view) that there is a strain of intolerance among the proponents of Darwinian orthodoxy on university campuses worldwide.

 

-CC in MA

 

 

Confessions of a Skeptic

 

Published On 4/7/2003 12:00:00 AM

Source: Harvard Crimson

 

By RICHARD T. HALVORSON

 

Does our culture, like many others, have an unpardonable heresy? Every culture constructs an idol unto itself, punishing heresy by excommunication. We can discover the sacred idol of any culture by finding its taboo question.

 

In Medieval Europe, the peasant was forbidden to question the truth of the Church. Under Communism, comrades doubting the Party were thrown in gulag labor camps. Now, citizens must recite principles of Darwinism through compulsory schooling.

 

We are encouraged to learn nuances like punctuated equilibrium and neo-Darwinism, but questioning the universal explanatory power of evolution is met with intellectual excommunication.

 

I make no apology for those who blindly reject scientific evidence due to contrived religious doctrines; I have equally little tolerance for those who ignore scientific evidence to prop up a naturalistic anti-religious dogma.

 

Anti-religious prejudice among scientists significantly impeded 20th century scientific advance. Stephen Hawking wrote in A Brief History of Time that evidence for the Big Bang was ignored for decades because it “smacks of divine intervention.” For fear of theological implications, there were “a number of attempts to avoid the conclusion that there had been a Big Bang.”

 

Intellectual honesty requires rationally examining our fundamental premises—yet expressing hesitation about Darwin is considered irretrievable intellectual suicide, the unthinkable doubt, the unpardonable sin of academia.

 

Although the postmodern era questions everything else—the possibility of knowledge, basic morality and reality itself—critical discussion of Darwin is taboo. While evolutionary biologists test Darwin’s hypothesis in every experiment they conduct, the basic premise of evolution remains an scientific Holy of Holies, despite our absurd skepticism in other areas.

 

Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins writes: “It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who does not believe in evolution, that person is either ignorant, stupid, or insane.”

 

Biologists continue to recite the worn credo, “the central, unifying principle of biology is the theory of evolution.” But where would physics be if Einstein had been forced to chant, “the central, unifying principle of physics is Newtonian theory,” until he could not see beyond its limitations?

 

Scientific innovations originate outside the dominant paradigm—demanding orthodoxy invites stagnation. Scientists who question evolution, like Intelligent Design theorists, do not reject evolution entirely, but argue that evidence supports a limited explanatory role. Faithful Darwinists, however, like Teilhard de Chardin, insist that evolution is “a general postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must henceforth bow.”

 

Luckily, no one needs a doctorate to separate honest skepticism from institutionalized dogma. Skip Evans, of the National Center for Science Education, worried that classroom discussions of evidence against evolution might “cast seeds of doubt in students’ minds.”

 

Professors expressing doubts about evolution are often ostracized, demoted or fired. A Baylor University professor found research funds rescinded because his project would undermine evolutionary presuppositions. Other skeptical professors have resorted to using pseudonyms, fearing for their jobs and careers if they openly publish contrary evidence.

 

Evolution skeptics are almost universally dismissed with an ad hominem charge of “religiously-motivated propaganda.” Yet science students and professors consistently fail to address the merits of critics’ arguments. They cannot answer the relevant evidential questions of: (1) what is the most compelling critique of evolution; (2) and on which points the evidence or arguments fail.

 

Most Darwinists have not read or considered biochemist Michael Behe, geneticist Michael Denton, embryologist Jonathan Wells, or information theorist William Dembski. These dissenting voices are systematically marginalized and silenced by academic McCarthyism.

 

We must refuse to bow to our culture’s false idols. Science will not benefit from canonizing Darwin or making evolution an article of secular faith. We must reject intellectual excommunication as a valid form of dealing with criticism: the most important question for any society to ask is the one that is forbidden.

 

—Richard T. Halvorson is an editorial editor.

[Legion]

My main criticism of many adherants of evolution is the sometimes accompanying notion that a theory of this phenomenon exhausts our understanding of the natural systems we recognize as organisms. In my estimation theory in biology may never be exhausted. The domain of biology is vast in my view. It is a very encompassing and inclusive study. Any theory or even collection of theories of evolution will not even come close to exhausting it's domain.

[Ouroboros]

To some extent I do agree to that CC.

 

Solid science can and should tolerate and welcome criticism, and there's always a danger when theories become dogmas and any contradictory hypothesis is rejected solely on the basis of it's criticism. What's interesting is that Behe and Demski believe in Evolution, yet not fully agree with every detail or how the natural select works in all cases, which many Christians fail to understand. Many Creationsist want to take Behe's and Demski's words as proof of Creationism, while they actually do not support such a thing.

 

I think the excuse (if you so want) the scientific community got for not reacting positive to the critique is that, a whole flora of very strongly fundamentalists have spoke out against Evolution as a whole, and because of this the opposition as a whole has been written off, just because of this group of opponents behavior and agressive attitude. For instance, no scientist want to discuss Flat Earth vs Spherical Earth, just because the whole concept is ridiculous. And since there are groups that believe in young Earth and deny Evolution as a whole, the few that could have a valid argument against some details in Evolution unfortunately will also be grouped with them.

 

(edit: tried to change it slightly to be easier to read. Not even I could understand exactly what I meant. I blame it on the Evil Oops, but The Almight Duh came to help.)

[Legion]

That does seem to be the case Hans. Even the normal workings of science, which includes internal criticism of existing theories, can often be construed as being somehow on par with the outright denial that occurs in Creationist camps.

[Guest Unbeliever]

Are Atheistic Fundamentalists Any More Desirable Than The Jim Jones University Brand?

 

Uh...yeah. I'll take the atheist position any day of the week, and twice on Sundays.

 

 

BTW, hi y'all!

[Legion]

BTW, hi y'all!

Hey there Unbeliever. Welcome to the forums.

[Dave]

But, for every extremist christian abortion doctor killer or muslim suicide bomber or bloodthirsty atheist despot, are ten thousand who wouldn't hurt a fly.

But a fundamentalist anti-atheist would not be able to see that.

[Dave]

MY RESPONSE"

We know it's your response so you don't have to tell us every time.

(siiiiiiiiigh) No, I don't have the same misconceptions, I'm just saying, for the 500th quintillion time, that being an atheist doesn't necessarily make you "Mr Nice Guy",

Not one Atheist has ever claimed it did.

or that you should have your "finger on the button".

Yet you posted a whole diatribe against Atheists?

I know what evolution teaches, Vigile, I'm not a scientific simpleton. When it meets the standards for establishment as a scientific fact, I'll buy it.

Evolution does meet the standards for establishment as a scientific fact. If you knew what evolution "teaches" you would have known that. There is nothing about evolution that one has to "buy." Simple knowledge of the subject will supply all the proof one needs.

 

Seriously, what do you not "believe" about evolution. I'm a biologist and maybe I can help you to understand better.

[Dave]

MY RESPONSE:.....

Please stop that, we know it's your response.

 

Others may have pointed it out but they are deluded too. Anytime you arrogantly suggest that you have the absolute truth,.....

Then you, as a fundamentalist anti-Atheist claim to have the absolute truth. It's obvious you don't.

[Dave]

Let me throw this fine opinion essay into the mix. It was published in the Harvard Crimson in 2003. It points out (rightly, in my view) that there is a strain of intolerance among the proponents of Darwinian orthodoxy on university campuses worldwide. ....

There is no such thing as "Darwinian orthodoxy." It was not a fine essay, but an army of straw men and logical fallacies.

 

The term is "evolution" not "Darwinism." Darwinism is just a key word used by creationists with RELIGIOUS objections to evolution. The author presented not ONE scientific reason to question evolution.

[Jubilant]

MY RESPONSE: You are mixing "apples and oranges". I said "supreme being", implying a being of higher intelligence and creative ability.

 

Please define your definition of "supreme being".

 

Can you conclusively prove that 3 ghosts weren't playing poker in your bedroom last night? No, you cannot.

Using your "logic and reason" you can't prove that your toys don't talk when you leave the room. Therefore, you cannot say 100% that your toys don't talk. Quit being asinine.

 

The fact is, there are atheists running around who do want to see religion outlawed and Christians put in gulags.

 

I have yet to personally run across any and I'm not one of them.

I cant help but think you and a lot of other atheists are taking this thread personally.

Gee, do ya think? Perhaps reread what you wrote and maybe, just maybe you'll see how people can take it personally. You came off attacking, what did you expect?

 

I'm only saying that just because you are an atheist does not make you "Mr Nice Guy" and an open-minded free thinker who should be permitted to have your "finger on the button".

 

Where on this site specifically or any atheist site has an atheist made the claim that to be an atheist makes one Mr. Nice Guy? And I FAIL to see where you "meant" that in your initial post. Why did you feel the need to post what you posted? I agree that just because one claims to be an atheist doesn't make them open-minded.

 

That fact should have been evident to anyone who thinks rationally and reads my article with an open-mind, and it concerns me that you missed the obvious.

 

I'm a very rational thinker, it concerns me that you think that you can post an attack on atheists like that and even think for a moment that we'd give you an "atta boy".

[Dave]

My main criticism of many adherants of evolution is the sometimes accompanying notion that a theory of this phenomenon exhausts our understanding of the natural systems we recognize as organisms. In my estimation theory in biology may never be exhausted. The domain of biology is vast in my view. It is a very encompassing and inclusive study. Any theory or even collection of theories of evolution will not even come close to exhausting it's domain.

We still have much to learn in the field of biology. One thing we are just finding out is that the amount of extremophile bacteria and archaea that live in solid rock miles beneath the surface may outweigh all of the life that lives on the surface.

 

All that we are learning in the field of biology supports the fact that evolution happened. There might be some more to learn about HOW it happened and the different theories of how evolution happened makes things exciting, but there is no debate within biology that evolution happened. Even open minded Christians have figured out how to reconcile their god beliefs with the fact of evolution.

[currentchristian]

Let me throw this fine opinion essay into the mix. It was published in the Harvard Crimson in 2003. It points out (rightly, in my view) that there is a strain of intolerance among the proponents of Darwinian orthodoxy on university campuses worldwide. ....

There is no such thing as "Darwinian orthodoxy." It was not a fine essay, but an army of straw men and logical fallacies.

 

The term is "evolution" not "Darwinism." Darwinism is just a key word used by creationists with RELIGIOUS objections to evolution. The author presented not ONE scientific reason to question evolution.

 

I have asked that you not respond to my posts, Dave, at least for a little while. Please honor my request. No harm meant, just asking for a reprieve.

 

Thanks.

 

-CC in MA

[qadeshet]

Then your beef is with religions, not with Atheism. There is no such thing as a "fundamentalist atheist." That's just some pejorative term made up by those wishing to dismiss Atheism.

 

Dave is certainly correct. There is no such thing as a fundamentalist atheist. This is a typical strawman argument.

[Legion]

We still have much to learn in the field of biology.

I agree. I also believe that to think otherwise would be foolish.

 

One thing we are just finding out is that the amount of extremophile bacteria and archaea that live in solid rock miles beneath the surface may outweigh all of the life that lives on the surface.

I had heard of this not too long ago and I find it interesting. It is my suspicion at the moment that life did not get its start on Earth in some warm little pond. Rather I think that life may have had subterranean origins and was originally a thermophile. If what you say is true then most of the biomass of Earth remains in the form of bacteria and archaea living as subterranean thermophiles. Life in the underworld.

 

All that we are learning in the field of biology supports the fact that evolution happened. There might be some more to learn about HOW it happened and the different theories of how evolution happened makes things exciting, but there is no debate within biology that evolution happened. Even open minded Christians have figured out how to reconcile their god beliefs with the fact of evolution.

There is no doubt in my mind that evolution has occurred. Apparently such certainty unsettles some though. My only point is that there are many disciplines of biology in which a theory of evolution may have relatively little bearing. Medicine, which might be looked on as applied biology, is but one of those disciplines in my view. Those who study physiology are not terribly concerned with how organisms evolved. They are more interested in how and why organisms work right now. Psychology, to my mind, is another sub discipline of biology that has little need for a theory of evolution. I only point to these few examples to illustrate that biology, the study of living systems, requires theories that add themselves to and exist alongside our various theories of evolution.

 

Also on the comment about Christians who have also embraced evolution, I used to be one. I became a Christian when I was about 6 or 7. I began to grasp and accept evolution around the age of 12 or so, but I didn’t really come to the realization that I was no longer a Christian until about the age of 17. So roughly half the time I was a Christian I was also an adherent of evolution. I do remember though that once I accepted evolution I knew Biblical tales as the myths that they are. Being myth did not and still does not imply to me that these tales are without value however. But for those who adhere to a literal interpretation of the Bible the acceptance of evolution is anathema.

[Dave]

I have asked that you not respond to my posts, Dave, at least for a little while. Please honor my request. No harm meant, just asking for a reprieve.

It's a two way street.