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

[Dave]

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.

Ain't life grand. The field of biology is so amazing. Life is so amazing, it's so complex, yet so simple. It's as if life wants to be.

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.

All those branches of biology fit together like bricks in a wall. The mortar that holds it all together is 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.

Too bad the more liberal kind of Christian is not the majority. At least they have enough sense to acknowledge evolution. They can just say it was guided, or started, by their god. Even the pope accepts that evolution is a fact.

[KT45]

And for the record, people, and plenty of them, have killed in the name of atheism.

 

That's news to me. Examples please.

 

EXAMPLES: North Korea, USSR, Red China, Yugolslavia, Communism was atheistic,

Let me get this straight. If these people were killing in the name of atheism, then they were killing so that there wouldn't be anymore theist. But how could that be. Hitler joined up with the catholic pope showing that they weren't against religion. They weren't killing to progress atheism. I believe only the french killed in the name of athesim (destroying religion)

[Lycorth]

I believe only the french killed in the name of athesim (destroying religion)

 

Good point - there were the atrocities of the French Revolution. And even those atrocities were done as a part of a larger ideological movement. The French Revolution was more about political power, economics, and the aristocracy than about religion - even then, religion wasn't the main focus of the atrocities.

 

Most Atheists who killed religious folks did so to advance an ideology of which Atheism was but a part. Atheism was never the sole cause of any such murders, unlike resistance to Xianity (or Is-lame) in times past.

 

However, Hitler wasn't a Communist. He was a National Socialist, and part of a political party not entirely unfriendly to either Atheism or religion in general (per Point 24 of the 25-Point Programme of the NSDAP).

[Vigile]

And for the record, people, and plenty of them, have killed in the name of atheism.

 

That's news to me. Examples please.

 

Stalin's USSR. Mao's China. The first official atheist state on the planet, Albania.

 

The point is that one cannot judge another's character based upon his/her belief in a god. A theist can be a free-thinker and an atheist can be a dogmatic fundamentalist. And vice versa, of course!

 

-CC in MA

 

I figured this is where you guys would go.

 

People were killed in these examples because 1) they were considered threats to a totalitarian regime, and 2) because the theory of Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism profered the idea that in order to create an equal society the "haves" must be killed leaving only the "have nots."

 

This had nothing to do with the fact that they also taught atheism in schools.

 

All this talk of fundemental atheism is just so silly. How in the hell can you be fundemental about taking a rational position of disbelief until proof is offered? That's all atheism is. The only way you could possibly be fundemental is to 1) believe there is no god (as opposed to simply rejecting the god claim) and 2) try to force others through threat or coersion to adopt your position. I don't see atheists on this forum doing either of these things.

 

On the other hand, those of you who believe in some god seem to be telling us that do not believe that we cannot argue rationally because if we do, we are somehow guilty of some obscure definition of fundementalism. I'm sure I'll be labeled as such just for this little rant.

[Vigile]

Many good points were made in this post.

No good points were made. Many strawman arguments were made, but then you make the same ones in your desperate need to bash Atheists.

 

Dave, you are so intolerant of my views (likely because I'm a theist) that I could say snow is white and you'd disagree. That's how I see you behaving. But that's certainly your right and privilege.

 

-CC in MA

 

 

Here's a good example. I don't see Dave being intolerant of your right to hold your views. Because Dave disagrees with your views, he argues what he perceives to be invalid points that you are making. Hell, this is a public forum that supports and even encourages debate. I think the only way you would be happy is if Dave were to shrink back and hold his tongue every time you offered up a straw man of his own views.

 

DISAGREEMENT WITH ANOTHER ONE'S VIEWS DOES NOT MAKE THEM INTOLERANT OF THE OTHER PERSON'S RIGHT TO HOLD THOSE VIEWS.

 

You are granted equal time to show why we are wrong to disagree with your views. Where's the problem?

[Vigile]

Tyrants can't kill in mass numbers by themselves. I said it before, and I'll say it again,

 

No, braindead, brainwashed soldiers do just like the soldiers we send over to Iraq to do the President's bidding without question.

 

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.

 

I've been on this forum for almost 2 years now. I've met a lot of people who hate the Christian religion and its teachings for what it has done to them and the ones they love not to mention what it does to the nations in which they live. I have only met one or two that actually hate Christians themselves. Most, like me, have Christian family and friends whom they adore.

[Vigile]

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.

 

Who the hell said that atheism makes anyone anything? But you seem to be saying that someone who doesn't believe in God cannot in fact be elected president. That's intolerant of one's "right" to be an atheist.

 

I happen to think you are wrong about evolution, but since it is not important for me what position you choose to take on this issue and since I don't see myself as defender of all things biological in nature, I see no reason to address this issue that you seem so caught up in.

[currentchristian]

Let me get this straight. If these people were killing in the name of atheism, then they were killing so that there wouldn't be anymore theist. But how could that be. Hitler joined up with the catholic pope showing that they weren't against religion. They weren't killing to progress atheism. I believe only the french killed in the name of athesim (destroying religion)

 

I think that the point is that theists are not all sinners and atheists are not all saints. Saints and sinners, so called of course, are equally sprinkled throughout the human race. We are one. Quite equal and quite the same in our propensities.

 

-CC in MA

[Jubilant]

I think that the point is that theists are not all sinners and atheists are not all saints. Saints and sinners, so called of course, are equally sprinkled throughout the human race. We are one. Quite equal and quite the same in our propensities.

 

No one here asked for a lesson, or claimed to be saints. That is why PV's post was offensive.

[currentchristian]

I figured this is where you guys would go.

 

People were killed in these examples because 1) they were considered threats to a totalitarian regime, and 2) because the theory of Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism profered the idea that in order to create an equal society the "haves" must be killed leaving only the "have nots."

 

This had nothing to do with the fact that they also taught atheism in schools.

 

All this talk of fundemental atheism is just so silly. How in the hell can you be fundemental about taking a rational position of disbelief until proof is offered? That's all atheism is. The only way you could possibly be fundemental is to 1) believe there is no god (as opposed to simply rejecting the god claim) and 2) try to force others through threat or coersion to adopt your position. I don't see atheists on this forum doing either of these things.

 

On the other hand, those of you who believe in some god seem to be telling us that do not believe that we cannot argue rationally because if we do, we are somehow guilty of some obscure definition of fundementalism. I'm sure I'll be labeled as such just for this little rant.

 

No, not at all. To me, at least.

 

The term "fundamentalist" is thrown about willy-nilly. I am a "fundamentalist" if measured against its original definition: One who believes in the fundamentals of the Christian religion (e.g., Jesus is historical, Jesus was a miracle worker, Jesus died, Jesus was resurrected, Jesus will re-enter human history).

 

The term has evolved to mean, popularly, those who take a strident hard-line, always literalistic, seemingly intolerant and closed-minded view of the Bible, and have little patience or respect for the right of others to make different choices without being demonized as a result. By this defintion, I pray, I am not a "fundamentalist."

 

I suppose a fundamentalist evolutionist or a fundamentalist atheist would be one who has her/his viewpoint firmly entrenched in mind, is strident it evangelizing it, and comes across as intolerant of anyone taking exception or seeing things at all differently. Along with that would come a demeaning of the intellectual capacity of dissenters, accusing them of every fallacy under the sun, as well as lacking reason and logic. I confess I have encountered this form of "fundamentalism" among some atheists.

 

We are all potentially capable of assuming a fundamentalist position on our pet cause.

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

Here's a good example. I don't see Dave being intolerant of your right to hold your views. Because Dave disagrees with your views, he argues what he perceives to be invalid points that you are making. Hell, this is a public forum that supports and even encourages debate. I think the only way you would be happy is if Dave were to shrink back and hold his tongue every time you offered up a straw man of his own views.

 

DISAGREEMENT WITH ANOTHER ONE'S VIEWS DOES NOT MAKE THEM INTOLERANT OF THE OTHER PERSON'S RIGHT TO HOLD THOSE VIEWS.

 

You are granted equal time to show why we are wrong to disagree with your views. Where's the problem?

 

I support, stridently so, the right to strident debate. I do not, however, support the right of one individual to stalk or harass another. I feel, from time to time, that Dave is stalking those with whom he disagrees. I am simply asking that Dave refrain from replying specifically to my posts for a few days in the topics currently under discussion so that I no longer feel harassed/stalked by him. That's it. Once another topic beings, I welcome him to oppose any and all views I offer. No harm meant, at all.

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

I've been on this forum for almost 2 years now. I've met a lot of people who hate the Christian religion and its teachings for what it has done to them and the ones they love not to mention what it does to the nations in which they live. I have only met one or two that actually hate Christians themselves. Most, like me, have Christian family and friends whom they adore.

 

This seems to mimic "hate the sin, love the sinner" Falwellian rhetoric. How is this different?

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

No one here asked for a lesson, or claimed to be saints. That is why PV's post was offensive.

 

Aren't we here to learn from each other -- to grow by hearing each other's views? I have learned much on this website from many. I love most of the lessons here.

 

-CC in MA

[Jubilant]

It was a slam on atheists. You can pose a view without coming off in attack mode. He came off like many hardcore Christians on this site...telling us what is wrong with us. Learning implies that he presented something that we didn't already know...how is that teaching anything?

[Vigile]

I've been on this forum for almost 2 years now. I've met a lot of people who hate the Christian religion and its teachings for what it has done to them and the ones they love not to mention what it does to the nations in which they live. I have only met one or two that actually hate Christians themselves. Most, like me, have Christian family and friends whom they adore.

 

This seems to mimic "hate the sin, love the sinner" Falwellian rhetoric. How is this different?

 

-CC in MA

 

False analogy. Homosexuals do not merely have homosexual beliefs, they are in fact homosexuals through and through. You can't hate thier actions without hating them; at least in part.

 

Are you trying to tell me that you don't have some beliefs that you hate? What about racism? Do you hate that? Do you also hate all racists? What if your father were a racist?

[currentchristian]

False analogy. Homosexuals do not merely have homosexual beliefs, they are in fact homosexuals through and through. You can't hate thier actions without hating them; at least in part.

 

Are you trying to tell me that you don't have some beliefs that you hate? What about racism? Do you hate that? Do you also hate all racists? What if your father were a racist?

 

I don't know that this is a false analogy.

 

In terms of your questions, I definitely do not hate racists or sexists or homophobic individuals. Definitely not. That's for sure. What good would that do? It would solve nothing, nor would it aid in the elimination of racism, sexism or homophobia.

 

Do I hate racism, sexism and homophobia?

 

Hate is a very strong word, so it should be used rarely. (In my view.)

 

I just looked up m-w.com's definition of "hate," as follows: intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury b : extreme dislike or antipathy.

 

I oppose racism, and the other "isms" above. Of course. But my opposion does not stem from "fear, anger, or sense of injury," so I don't know that my opposition is "hate."

 

Can one hate a concept?

 

-CC in MA

[Vigile]

I suppose a fundamentalist evolutionist or a fundamentalist atheist would be one who has her/his viewpoint firmly entrenched in mind, is strident it evangelizing it, and comes across as intolerant of anyone taking exception or seeing things at all differently.

 

I agree, the label fundementalist gets thrown around rather freely here. I can also see how it appears that atheists have their viewpoints firmly entrenched. The truth is, at least for me, that my viewpoint that can be summed up in my rejection of the god belief is always open to change if good evidence or a good argument can be provided that makes it rational for me to change my position. I love truth and while I don't suppose I've found it, I've found that a lot of things that I used to believe and a lot of things that others may believe are not in fact it. I will always be a student of life and continue to ask the hard questions; even to myself.

 

It is this trait that I think a lot of atheists have that causes them to be viewed as hard asses. We've been there, done that with a lot of claims yet the wild claims keep on coming without the equal level of evidence to support those claims. I don't generally go on the offensive on those who believe wild claims but if wild claims are made to me, I will challenge them.

 

Hell, I'm not the thought police. I don't care what others believe. But, like I said, it's my nature to challenge claims when they are made. I don't shout down those who make the claims, but allow them to give me their rebuttal. If I can shoot holes in their rebuttal and they can't defend them, then the claim is probably either argued badly by them, invalid, or not supported by evidence yet.

 

Moreover, in the public relm, I tend to let murky thinking go. Why do I need to go through my life shooting down every crazy claim people tend to make? But, here on this message board, a forum that has helped me clarify my own thinking a great deal, a forum that is set up to encourage discussion on these matters, I take the Emerison approach and try wild claims hard.

 

Anyone who is interested in truth and who loves the idea of truth will not be offended by this approach. Truth, I believe can withstand scrutiny. It is the unsupported claims that like to shrink back and have their cake and eat it too.

 

To sum it up, I am not, nor will I ever be an evangelist for atheism. I am tolerant of other's RIGHTS to believe as they wish. I don't go around challenging silly claims in my day to day life outside this forum. On this forum, a forum that has many people dedicated to sifting the wheat from the chaff when it comes to unclear thinking, I think it would be intellectually dishonest to just say to someone who claims that evolution is just an unsubstantiated idea, or that the bible and its claims are true, that oh well, cosi' e' la vita, you have your beliefs, I have mine.

 

If that was the case, then how are any of us ever going to weed out the unclear thinking that we are all guilty of?

[Vigile]

Hate is a very strong word, so it should be used rarely. (In my view.)

 

Perhaps that's true. I don't use this strong word lightly. I spent more than 20 years being indoctrinated by Christianity, letting it fill me with sexual repression and utter terror, not fear, but terror due to the hell doctrine. Yes, I hate the teachings of Christianity.

 

Those who hold the beliefs of Christianity find no hate from me. I pitty many of them as victims of a bad meme, but I do not hate them for their beliefs.

 

 

Can one hate a concept?

 

Christianity is not a concept, but a set of teachings. I hate those teachings. I find very little in Christian teachings that is not worthy of my hatred and those things that do not earn that exalted level of esteem can be found in other philosophies, literature and other forms of teachings with much greater clarity and better format.

[currentchristian]

...

 

Excellent essay, clearly articulating your views! Thanks.

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

Hate is a very strong word, so it should be used rarely. (In my view.)

 

Perhaps that's true. I don't use this strong word lightly. I spent more than 20 years being indoctrinated by Christianity, letting it fill me with sexual repression and utter terror, not fear, but terror due to the hell doctrine. Yes, I hate the teachings of Christianity.

 

Those who hold the beliefs of Christianity find no hate from me. I pitty many of them as victims of a bad meme, but I do not hate them for their beliefs.

 

Can one hate a concept?

 

Christianity is not a concept, but a set of teachings. I hate those teachings. I find very little in Christian teachings that is not worthy of my hatred and those things that do not earn that exalted level of esteem can be found in other philosophies, literature and other forms of teachings with much greater clarity and better format.

 

It is interesting how we experience things so differently, one from another.

 

I harbor no animosity toward even the "strict, strident, inflexible" form of Christianity that I was surrounded by when growing up (culturally, as my parents were not religious). Nor do I feel any regret at all for the years spent in fundamentalist Christianity. I learned a lot. I appreciate it. I don't bemoan a thing from my past nor am I filled with regrets about alleged mistakes and missteps. I guess that's just my natural inclination.

 

Of course, I remain Christian, and truly find the religion's core inspirational, pleasing, positive, hopeful and helpful. But that's just me.

 

Some like escargot. Some don't. We're all just very different. If we are to honor diversity, then we must accept that some will "hate" Christianity and some will "love" it. Same with everything else under the sun.

 

-CC in MA

[Vigile]

Nor do I feel any regret at all for the years spent in fundamentalist Christianity.

 

Perhaps it didn't effect you as deeply on an emotional level? Dunno.

[currentchristian]

Nor do I feel any regret at all for the years spent in fundamentalist Christianity.

 

Perhaps it didn't effect you as deeply on an emotional level? Dunno.

 

That might be. We have different temperaments. Some are easily bruised. Some are not. Who knows why we react so differently to the same stimuli.

 

-CC in MA

[Vigile]

I don't know if I'm bruised so easily, but I do tend to take things on a deeper level than a lot. For example, when others who grew up with the same teachings on hell as I were easily able to shrug them off and not think about them too much, I literally laid awake in bed contemplating the meaning. This was not an occasional event for me, but something that pretty much describes my childhood.

[currentchristian]

That's very sad. Religion must move beyond this idea of hellfire and bloody damnation.

 

-CC in MA

[Antlerman]

MY RESPONSE: Evolution may be a fact, dave, but it is not a PROVEN fact just as life in outer space may be a fact. Is there strong evidence for it? Yes, but there is also strong evidence for spontaneous creation.

What the hell??? I've only read of few posts and I'm already scatching my head in disbelif here. Such misinformation! Lumping all atheists into the same category? Stating that evolution is equal in evidence to spontaneous creation? Honestly, how is this possible?

 

I just want to take on one thing here: Evolution. When Dave, or I, or anyone else says evolution is a fact, they mean it is a process of nature. It is like wind, erosion, and gravity. The "Theory of Evolution" is what you seem to not be convinced of. The Theory of Evolution talks about how the FACT of evolution has impacted the origin of the species. But evolution is like gravity. You can see it happen in real time. We can measure it, we can observe it.

 

I really am so stunned to see this much misunderstanding being displayed here. Frankly, it's offensive. You sound like those who you are accusing of being fundamentalist. BTW, I am an atheist and I don't sound one damned thing like what you're painting me with. You need to reconsider your words.

 

BTW, I have to agree with others on the definition of being an atheist. Do you believe gods exist? No? You are an atheist. Are you not sure if they do? Then you currently do not believe gods exist. That also makes you without-gods in your belifs, a-theist - no-god. You are an a-theist yourself. Add to this that Theravada Budhists are also a-theist. Are they evil bastards also? Are they out to push their views on others? Man... chill the hell out.