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

[neverclear5]

Many evolutionists are just as pig-headed and dogmatic as creationists, proclaiming that evolution is a PROVEN FACT! Uhh, no it isn't. There is no "smoking gun" conclusively proving evolution. Many of the arguments creationists pose against evolution are very valid, just as evolutionists arguments against creationism are valid.

 

Actually, I have yet to see a valid arguement against evolution. Present one if you have one, but proclaiming that "I just don't understand......." isn't a valid point. And by the way, evolution is proven beyond reasonable doubt. There is always some discussion about precise details, but the illusion that its still 50/50 is ludicrous. What you discussed was abiogenisis. The idea that life reproducing with heritable traits and variation is evolution and is almost certain. what you discuss is a very different kettle of fish. There is discussion that the first basic life may have come from another planet via accumulated debris, which would mean it could have developed on a far more hospitable planet. There is also the random chance thing, and we have made some of the building blocks of life in simulations of the earths early conditions. Do please check your facts before the ranting begins. Also, if a pupil can't grasp these concepts then it doesn't hold them back, it simply indicates a lack of scientific thinking which may hold them back. Its a sign not a cause.

 

Ultimately, I am not an atheist. Why? Simply put, in Data-like style, I do not have sufficient information to draw a valid conclusion as to whether or not a supreme being(s) exists. It can't be proven or disproven conclusively either way.

 

Very true, it is not proveable. Disproving a specific description of god is possible but the idea of a thing with undiffined charicturistics is always un proveable one way or the other. Don't besmearch the fine name of Data by implying that god is a logical conclusion.

 

 

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

 

Would you say the same of racism. It's just as stupid an idea, but would you support it's teaching to children?? Impressionable minds can be easily taught complete rot, and often have trouble letting it go, in fact many would consider this childhood indoctrination as child abuse.

 

In short, the Red Chinese communists who crucified Christians upside down are no less Bastards than the puritan Nazi's who hung witches.

 

There is a difference between not allowing churches special treatment ,like exemption from taxes or the law, and crucifying people!

 

 

P.S. a statement of fact can never be pig headed

[neverclear5]

And by the way, I do get annoyed at militant atheists who often know as little about science as militant christians do about the bible

[Jubilant]

I feel bad too as I did not know that PV had a mental disorder...now I feel like a shitass.

 

 

There is no need to feel like a "shit-ass" Jubilant. I don't need pity. First of all, the disorder no longer exists. I am not symptomatic and I function in society, and I'm not going to tolerate the "whack-job" card being played here.

 

Okay, I won't feel like a shit-ass then. :-) Glad you decided to stay even though I still think you were being a terd.

[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, I have never seen such flat-out delusion in my life. currentchristian never said anything of the sort

He did. Go back and read what he posted. You'll find it.

[Dave]

First of all, I'm going to tell you what I told Jubilant. I do not require pity, nor do I wish to be treated like one of "Jerry's Kids".

Then don't act like one.

[Dave]

You're delusional, dave, and I'm sick of your duplicity. Read my stuff, dave!

Since your main form of argument is the personal attack, I have no desire to read your "stuff." Drop the attacks and maybe, just maybe, people will start to take you seriously. Attack the topic, not the person.

[NotBlinded]

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.

I would have to disagree. The term fundamentalist covers pretty nicely the mind-set of anyone that acts in accordance to that black and white thinking.

 

I used to be a fundamental atheist. I went from one extreme to the other while still holding the attitude of fundamentalist.

 

There are fundamentalists in every walk of life regardless of what they believe. It's their attitudes regarding what they believe that warrant that label, IMO.

 

Here is something from Wiki:

 

Non-religious fundamentalism

Some refer to any literal-minded or intolerant philosophy with pretense of being the sole source of objective truth, as fundamentalist, regardless of whether it is usually called a religion. For example, when Albania under Enver Hoxha declared itself an "atheist state", it was deemed by some to be a kind of "Fundamentalist Atheism". There are people who in their attempt to live according to the writings of Ayn Rand seem to detractors to transgress respect for other perspectives in propagating their views, so that they are deemed to be a kind of "Objectivist Fundamentalist", and they are spoken of derogatorily as, "Randroids." In France, the imposition of restrictions on public display of religion has been labelled by some as "Secular Fundamentalism." The idea of non-religious Fundamentalism almost always expands the definition of "Fundamentalism" along the lines of criticisms.

[NotBlinded]

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.

I have seen number 1...from myself and a very few others.

 

I don't see you at all as a fundamentalist Vigile. Of course you can argue rationally against any claims made by people that put forth an understanding of what God is.

[NotBlinded]

Have you checked his website and read his testimony? He's more critical against religion and brings up Biblical contradictions, and not saying anything against Atheists on his site. My understanding is that PV's standpoint was against radical atheism and not atheism in general.

That is what I got from it also.

[Jubilant]

Beans and cornbread.

[Legion]

Have you checked his website and read his testimony? He's more critical against religion and brings up Biblical contradictions, and not saying anything against Atheists on his site. My understanding is that PV's standpoint was against radical atheism and not atheism in general.

That is what I got from it also.

This is also what I thought the core of PV's position was. I still think he could argue his points, but I'm not sure if that is going to happen now.

[Dave]

I would have to disagree. The term fundamentalist covers pretty nicely the mind-set of anyone that acts in accordance to that black and white thinking.

The term "fundamental Atheist" is pejorative and applied to anyone that does not fit with the black and white thinking of the person applying the term. It's subjective, not objective. One may look at one group that says you cannot know if a god exists or not as having the same "black and white" thinking that they complain about. Aren't those saying that one cannot say that there are no gods because you can't prove it also engaging in "black and white" thinking and therefore could be labeled "fundamentalists"?

 

A fundamentalist could also be one that goes along with the fundamentals, or basics, of something. What is the fundamental core, the basics, of Atheism? Lack of belief in a god or gods. So, anyone that lacks a belief in gods is FUNDAMENTALLY a fundamental Atheist.

[NotBlinded]

Beans and cornbread.

...with ketchup.

[currentchristian]

I used to be a fundamental atheist. I went from one extreme to the other while still holding the attitude of fundamentalist.

 

I have encountered all kinds of "fundamentalists": heterosexual ones, homosexual ones, theist ones, atheist ones, Democratic ones, Republican ones, European ones, American ones, etc., etc., etc...

 

Keeping our minds open and not being so godawful sure we are right and that's all there is to it and those who don't see it our way are wrong and that's all there is to it, will help dispel any tendency toward fundamentalism.

 

Seems to me.

 

-CC in MA

[NotBlinded]

I would have to disagree. The term fundamentalist covers pretty nicely the mind-set of anyone that acts in accordance to that black and white thinking.

The term "fundamental Atheist" is pejorative and applied to anyone that does not fit with the black and white thinking of the person applying the term. It's subjective, not objective. One may look at one group that says you cannot know if a god exists or not as having the same "black and white" thinking that they complain about. Aren't those saying that one cannot say that there are no gods because you can't prove it also engaging in "black and white" thinking and therefore could be labeled "fundamentalists"?

 

A fundamentalist could also be one that goes along with the fundamentals, or basics, of something. What is the fundamental core, the basics, of Atheism? Lack of belief in a god or gods. So, anyone that lacks a belief in gods is FUNDAMENTALLY a fundamental Atheist.

Ohhh, I think I know what you're saying...

 

I was thinking more in the terms of scientifically proving whether or not God exists. I find proof in the conicience of opposites or Coincidentia Oppositorum of life in general. Just like we cannot have the concave without the convex, we cannot have form without the formless. The formless cannot be proven, but must exist, IMO.

 

I think it has more to do with the attitude of the person making the claim. I don't see someone that makes no claims about the existence of God as having black and white thinking. I see it when it is stated as a matter of fact from one side or the other. I just think that a little disclaimer should be made when stating an opinion. I am still guilty of not doing this, but when I came back to this forum I was reminded how I sounded and that little "IMO" changed this.

 

I don't believe that science can ever prove the existence of God/s because it is so subjective. I could be wrong though...

 

The second part of your post deals with another definition of the word (original meaning) so yes, I agree.

[Legion]

Keeping our minds open and not being so godawful sure we are right and that's all there is to it and those who don't see it our way are wrong and that's all there is to it, will help dispel any tendency toward fundamentalism.

Is this the heart of fundamentalism? I don't know. There are some things that I'm sure I'm right about. They are relatively few in number however. Does that make me a fundy? I thought fundyism was more along the lines of insisting that others think, and interpret things, the same way you do.

[Jella]

I'm fundamentally sure I wasted two days following this....

[currentchristian]

... I thought fundyism was more along the lines of insisting that others think, and interpret things, the same way you do.

 

Surely this is part of the popular perception/definition.

 

I think the word is undergoing evolution, adapting to new circumstances.

 

Here's how m-w.com defines "fundamentalism" today:

 

1 a often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b : the beliefs of this movement c : adherence to such beliefs

2 : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles <Islamic fundamentalism> <political fundamentalism>

 

-CC in MA

[Ouroboros]

'Twas fun, but I'm going mental, fun-duh!-mental.

[Vigile]

I don't see you at all as a fundamentalist Vigile. Of course you can argue rationally against any claims made by people that put forth an understanding of what God is.

 

Thanks NBBTB, I love you to

[NotBlinded]

I don't see you at all as a fundamentalist Vigile. Of course you can argue rationally against any claims made by people that put forth an understanding of what God is.

 

Thanks NBBTB, I love you to

[The Sage Nabooru]

Why not go into it Sage?

 

Okay. Even though many of you'll still insist on being offended and pissed and over-sensitive.

 

Yes, Dave is a fundamentalist of the highest order, and it is funny how he exhibits all the symptoms practically word-for-word, yet cannot see the fundamentalism in himself. In person, it is probably a pathetic situation, but online where there is endless space between us it's good for a laugh.

 

Hell, it even seems that when I wrote a post describing fundamentalists and their warped thinking, he seemed to think that I was on his side (as if I'm on anybody's, or rather, no-one's), and wrote the post about PV. Classic, I love it!

 

Let's compare Dave with an Islamic fundamentalist.

 

1. Holds his own viewpoint as flawless.

 

Dave: "Well, there might be one or two atheists who killed others......but I'm sure it's not because of their atheist zeal."

Osama: "I'm sure when a Muslim kills the innocent, they're fighting for the better whole and God understands."

 

2. Oversensitivity and gross misunderstanding.

 

Dave: "How dare you say that it's possible for atheists to be fundamentalists! Obviously you're trying to denounce atheism and all who practice it! You're an asshole who's obviously out to personally hurt every atheist out there!"

Osama: "Drawings of the Prophet? Prepare to die, you disrespectful scum!"

 

3. Mental transference of own qualities towards others; that is, accusing others of behaving as they do.

 

Dave: "Since you've obviously posted a topic accusing all atheists of hate and harsh fundamentalism - even though such a thing is more or less impossible since atheism itself cannot possibly be tied to such sentiments - you are of course an anti-atheist fundamentalist whose mind is closed and fixed against atheists. and you are also hurtful and mean to others who do not share your exact viewpoint."

Osama: "Damn the Western cross-worshipping infidels who force their rock music and blue jeans upon us, the suffering true Muslims who only wish to practice our faith."

 

4. False accusations made in desperation.

Dave: "You're a Christian in disguise who's just setting up straw-man arguments!"

Osama: "Well, YOU support the worldwide Jewish secret oligarchy!"

 

5. Failure to understand idea of equality.

Dave: "My atheism fits my criteria for my personal beliefs and non-beliefs. It is innately obvious that my criteria is superior to that of others. Those who disagree with me on any level concerning this are simply living in denial."

Osama: "When we mercifully allow others to live as dhimmis, we do so because, after all, God has granted us the greater faith, and they refuse to follow it. Killing others who defect from our religion isn't hate, it's doing Allah's will. We have the Koran to know that this is the correct way to live by."

 

6. Failure to realize own fundamentalism.

Dave: "Sage, you're delirious if you think he wasn't out to hurt me, and to suggest that I'm being oversensitive and pushy in general is a lie and you know it. I only present the bare-assed truth."

Osama: "We are not cruel sadists, we show others how to properly live in accordance with God's will."

[currentchristian]

You are a sage. This is a masterpiece...

 

-CC in MA

[Poonis]

Anyone want to join in and keep beating this dead horse? I can go get us some sticks.

 

[Dave]

Why not go into it Sage?

Yes, Dave is a fundamentalist of the highest order....

Which clashes with your fundamentalist views. Why are your fundamentalist views any better than any one else's?

 

That was also a great list of strawman arguments.