Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Atheists and Fundamentalists


  • Please log in to reply
293 replies to this topic

#16    Emma_Acid

Emma_Acid

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,687 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

  • Godspeed MID

Posted 14 June 2010 - 03:07 PM

View Postsocrates.junior, on 14 June 2010 - 01:54 PM, said:

Yes, because Communist governments, working without religion, have a great track record.

"Authorities that are anti-religious are bad, therefore religious societies are good."

As non-sequiturs go, that one's got mould on it.


View Postsocrates.junior, on 14 June 2010 - 01:54 PM, said:

Well, sweeping generalizations are the way to go, I guess.

Religion is inherently anti-progress and anti-science. The more we discover about the natural world, the less we need religion, and the faithful know it. Fundamentalists would quite happily throw away the last 500 years of progress, and wouldn't have any trouble admitting it.

As for being anti-humanist - just look at Catholicism's ideas about sin.


View Postsocrates.junior, on 14 June 2010 - 01:54 PM, said:

But isn't tolerance the watchword for "reason" as you put it? Without it, we'd be a bunch of bigoted, religious (oh noes,) mindless robots. Oh wait.


I don't see how being an antitheist makes you bigoted, and we shouldn't just be tolerant for the sake of it. Are you tolerant of general racism, sexism and homophobia as well? Of course not.


View Postsocrates.junior, on 14 June 2010 - 01:54 PM, said:

Hurray, let's pick examples of times when religions causes problems. Then, for 200 points, we'll take Communist atrocities.

I've shown this to be a non-argument. Either way, you're missing the point. I wasn't commenting on any religion, I was commenting on what happens when faith and superstition inform people's outlook and are the basis for a society. Meaningless correlations are made and bad things happen. Just look at the Catholic padeo scandal - their original official line was that "the devil is in the Vatican". When superstition informs your outlook and your world-view, you can pass any nonsense off as "reality".

"Science is the least subjective form of deduction" ~ A. Mulder

#17    socrates.junior

socrates.junior

    Geomathematician

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,458 posts
  • Joined:23 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

  • Not my fault. -Me

Posted 14 June 2010 - 03:18 PM

View PostEmma_Acid, on 14 June 2010 - 03:07 PM, said:

"Authorities that are anti-religious are bad, therefore religious societies are good."

As non-sequiturs go, that one's got mould on it.

Sigh. I never said that. I was saying that the reverse of what you postulated as true, was also true.




Quote

Religion is inherently anti-progress and anti-science. The more we discover about the natural world, the less we need religion, and the faithful know it. Fundamentalists would quite happily throw away the last 500 years of progress, and wouldn't have any trouble admitting it.

As for being anti-humanist - just look at Catholicism's ideas about sin.

I'm not a fundamentalist. I think you're missing the point of the article which this topic was based on. Here, I'll state it again. All religious people are not fundamentalists. Okay, I hope that helps a bit.

What exactly is your problem with Catholicism's ideas about sin?


Quote

I don't see how being an antitheist makes you bigoted, and we shouldn't just be tolerant for the sake of it. Are you tolerant of general racism, sexism and homophobia as well? Of course not.

I was being sarcastic. IMO, "tolerance" is a joke.




Quote

I've shown this to be a non-argument. Either way, you're missing the point. I wasn't commenting on any religion, I was commenting on what happens when faith and superstition inform people's outlook and are the basis for a society. Meaningless correlations are made and bad things happen. Just look at the Catholic padeo scandal - their original official line was that "the devil is in the Vatican". When superstition informs your outlook and your world-view, you can pass any nonsense off as "reality".

No, you haven't shown it to be a non-argument, you merely misidentified my parameters of argument. Okay, you didn't reference religion, you said "faith." Nonetheless, it's like the pot calling the kettle black.

A geophysicist is a person who passes as an exacting expert, on the basis of being able to churn out, with prolific fortitude, infinite amounts of data, gathered to micro-metric precision by persons of questionable I.Q. and mentality with the aid of very expensive "black box" machines of dubious integrity based on incomplete experiments for the avowed purpose of confounding Geologists, who are already on the lunatic fringe of society. -Author Unknown

#18    mklsgl

mklsgl

    just me

  • Member
  • 3,153 posts
  • Joined:25 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Springdale, PA

  • They're selling postcards of the hanging
    They're painting the passports brown
    The beauty parlor's filled with sailors
    The circus is in town

Posted 14 June 2010 - 04:07 PM

View PostJamieSymptom, on 14 June 2010 - 08:20 AM, said:

People like to think they have come to right conclusions. Forthright people will argue their points if they feel challenged or feel that they may change someone's mind. It doesn't matter if you are christian, atheist, buddhist, agnostic, muslim, whatever. Some people will argue the toss.

Does it make an atheistic viewpoint invalid if you share some personality characteristics with some of those whom you theologically oppose? Er, nope.

Besides, it's easy to ignore someone if you think they're talking rubbish.

Oh yeah, I was under the impression that Dawkins is British, not American? Mind you, he probably gets more discussion and controversy around his views in the US than he does here.

Great post, JamieSymptom. Some people (actually, too many people, IMO) have a serious NEED to think they have come to "right conclusions." Their beliefs are inherently intertwined to their personal and societal identity. Challenging their beliefs is the same as attacking their identity.

I would venture that the overwhelming majority of Americans (99.7%) have no idea who Richard Dawkins is; in fact, most would say that he was the host of "Family Feud." ;)

Grateful Dead; July, 31, 1982 @ Manor Downs, Manor, TX
"Yes it's 'T' For Texas"
Be Here Now!


#19    mklsgl

mklsgl

    just me

  • Member
  • 3,153 posts
  • Joined:25 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Springdale, PA

  • They're selling postcards of the hanging
    They're painting the passports brown
    The beauty parlor's filled with sailors
    The circus is in town

Posted 14 June 2010 - 04:46 PM

View Postsocrates.junior, on 14 June 2010 - 03:13 AM, said:

http://www.kentucky....sts-embody.html

I think this guy has an interesting point. What does everyone else think?

What is his point? I read a self-reflexive, unconditionally biased, and completely hypocritical opinion of questionable intellect that only shows his 'Us v. Them' mentality. Interesting? No. Entertaining? No. Pathetic? Yes. That a pastor finds it necessary to speak in condescending terms about atheism being "on the offensive" and preaching advice to that minuscule percentage within the 2% who are actively atheist is certainly not an intelligent or effective idea.

Grateful Dead; July, 31, 1982 @ Manor Downs, Manor, TX
"Yes it's 'T' For Texas"
Be Here Now!


#20    MARAB0D

MARAB0D

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 11,055 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 14 June 2010 - 06:15 PM

View PostPapagiorgio, on 14 June 2010 - 11:58 AM, said:

The United States is not as full of religious loonies as everyone seems to believe. People are vocal because they want their 15 minutes of fame. Atheists are not on the front lines of some "War of Reason" against evil Fundie Christians all across the U.S. The overly religious nature of americans is a stereotype, and is used by the vocal atheists to get their 15 minutes of fame. Just like the anti christian complaints of the Fundies are used to get their 15 minutes of fame.

I'm just saying.

No, but we go by reality! Could you imagine a Chinese leader saying "we are one nation under God"? Or a French President stating that God ordered him to do something? The things are possible in USA, which are impossible elsewhere, except maybe Saudi Arabia or Iran; the same level! And the Saudis or Iranians are nor all religious loonies at all, I know very advanced people among them - same as among the Americans. It is seen only when we go to big numbers, not on an individual, personal level.


#21    churchanddestroy

churchanddestroy

    Secretary of No State

  • Member
  • 3,088 posts
  • Joined:27 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

Posted 14 June 2010 - 06:42 PM

View Postsocrates.junior, on 14 June 2010 - 03:13 AM, said:

http://www.kentucky....sts-embody.html

I think this guy has an interesting point. What does everyone else think?

123.JPG

I think this picture about sums it up.

When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon.

#22    Michelle

Michelle

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 15,823 posts
  • Joined:03 Jan 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tennessee

  • Eleanor Roosevelt: Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.

Posted 14 June 2010 - 07:04 PM

View PostMARAB0D, on 14 June 2010 - 06:15 PM, said:

No, but we go by reality! Could you imagine a Chinese leader saying "we are one nation under God"? Or a French President stating that God ordered him to do something? The things are possible in USA, which are impossible elsewhere, except maybe Saudi Arabia or Iran; the same level! And the Saudis or Iranians are nor all religious loonies at all, I know very advanced people among them - same as among the Americans. It is seen only when we go to big numbers, not on an individual, personal level.

I would rather have them lay all of their cards on the table instead of trying to hide their beliefs.

http://www.telegraph...larist-age.html


#23    Emma_Acid

Emma_Acid

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,687 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

  • Godspeed MID

Posted 14 June 2010 - 07:35 PM

View Postchurchanddestroy, on 14 June 2010 - 06:42 PM, said:

Attachment 123.JPG

I think this picture about sums it up.

I'm not trying to be grandiose, but I don't think anyone considers unicorns a threat to the future of civilisation.

btw Socrates, I'll respond to your post tomorrow, not ignoring ya

Edited by Emma_Acid, 14 June 2010 - 07:58 PM.

"Science is the least subjective form of deduction" ~ A. Mulder

#24    socrates.junior

socrates.junior

    Geomathematician

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,458 posts
  • Joined:23 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

  • Not my fault. -Me

Posted 14 June 2010 - 09:05 PM

View Postmklsgl, on 14 June 2010 - 04:46 PM, said:

What is his point? I read a self-reflexive, unconditionally biased, and completely hypocritical opinion of questionable intellect that only shows his 'Us v. Them' mentality. Interesting? No. Entertaining? No. Pathetic? Yes. That a pastor finds it necessary to speak in condescending terms about atheism being "on the offensive" and preaching advice to that minuscule percentage within the 2% who are actively atheist is certainly not an intelligent or effective idea.

   I'm wondering, in your opinion, was his opinion all that much more self-reflexive and unconditionally biased than your critique of it?

A geophysicist is a person who passes as an exacting expert, on the basis of being able to churn out, with prolific fortitude, infinite amounts of data, gathered to micro-metric precision by persons of questionable I.Q. and mentality with the aid of very expensive "black box" machines of dubious integrity based on incomplete experiments for the avowed purpose of confounding Geologists, who are already on the lunatic fringe of society. -Author Unknown

#25    socrates.junior

socrates.junior

    Geomathematician

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,458 posts
  • Joined:23 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

  • Not my fault. -Me

Posted 14 June 2010 - 09:13 PM

View Postchurchanddestroy, on 14 June 2010 - 06:42 PM, said:

Attachment 123.JPG

I think this picture about sums it up.

   I know, doesn't it? It sums up what the articles said all in one picture and sentence.

View PostMichelle, on 14 June 2010 - 07:04 PM, said:

I would rather have them lay all of their cards on the table instead of trying to hide their beliefs.

http://www.telegraph...larist-age.html

   Doesn't the article explain why someone would try to hide their beliefs? Because they don't want to get labeled "loony" or "crazy." Which is what the eponymous (I know that I stretched the meaning of that word) article was getting at also.

View PostEmma_Acid, on 14 June 2010 - 07:35 PM, said:

I'm not trying to be grandiose, but I don't think anyone considers unicorns a threat to the future of civilisation.

btw Socrates, I'll respond to your post tomorrow, not ignoring ya

    Yep, whenever. And those unicorns....I don't know. They seem a little scary to me. :lol:

A geophysicist is a person who passes as an exacting expert, on the basis of being able to churn out, with prolific fortitude, infinite amounts of data, gathered to micro-metric precision by persons of questionable I.Q. and mentality with the aid of very expensive "black box" machines of dubious integrity based on incomplete experiments for the avowed purpose of confounding Geologists, who are already on the lunatic fringe of society. -Author Unknown

#26    mklsgl

mklsgl

    just me

  • Member
  • 3,153 posts
  • Joined:25 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Springdale, PA

  • They're selling postcards of the hanging
    They're painting the passports brown
    The beauty parlor's filled with sailors
    The circus is in town

Posted 15 June 2010 - 04:33 PM

View Postsocrates.junior, on 14 June 2010 - 09:05 PM, said:

I'm wondering, in your opinion, was his opinion all that much more self-reflexive and unconditionally biased than your critique of it?

No; not at all, in fact. My reply is not self-reflexive (I don't talk about myself) or unconditionally biased (I'm not a Christian or an Atheist; my biases are quite conditional).

You didn't answer my question: what is his point?

Edited by mklsgl, 15 June 2010 - 04:36 PM.

Grateful Dead; July, 31, 1982 @ Manor Downs, Manor, TX
"Yes it's 'T' For Texas"
Be Here Now!


#27    Tiggs

Tiggs

    Relax. It's only me.

  • 9,559 posts
  • Joined:30 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orange County, California

  • Universe Service Pack 2 still needs patching.

Posted 15 June 2010 - 05:18 PM

Interesting. It's an article that criticises broadbrush attacks by broadbrushing a group and accusing them of making them.

No irony there, then.


#28    socrates.junior

socrates.junior

    Geomathematician

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,458 posts
  • Joined:23 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

  • Not my fault. -Me

Posted 15 June 2010 - 05:20 PM

Hmm, his point couldn't be found in the title, could it?

A geophysicist is a person who passes as an exacting expert, on the basis of being able to churn out, with prolific fortitude, infinite amounts of data, gathered to micro-metric precision by persons of questionable I.Q. and mentality with the aid of very expensive "black box" machines of dubious integrity based on incomplete experiments for the avowed purpose of confounding Geologists, who are already on the lunatic fringe of society. -Author Unknown

#29    socrates.junior

socrates.junior

    Geomathematician

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,458 posts
  • Joined:23 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

  • Not my fault. -Me

Posted 15 June 2010 - 05:24 PM

View PostTiggs, on 15 June 2010 - 05:18 PM, said:

Interesting. It's an article that criticises broadbrush attacks by broadbrushing a group and accusing them of making them.

No irony there, then.

   It is a little self-serving, I'll admit. But there is much less difference of opinions and ideas that the group in question has, as opposed to the many differences which religion has as a whole.

A geophysicist is a person who passes as an exacting expert, on the basis of being able to churn out, with prolific fortitude, infinite amounts of data, gathered to micro-metric precision by persons of questionable I.Q. and mentality with the aid of very expensive "black box" machines of dubious integrity based on incomplete experiments for the avowed purpose of confounding Geologists, who are already on the lunatic fringe of society. -Author Unknown

#30    Michelle

Michelle

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 15,823 posts
  • Joined:03 Jan 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tennessee

  • Eleanor Roosevelt: Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.

Posted 15 June 2010 - 05:28 PM

View Postsocrates.junior, on 14 June 2010 - 09:13 PM, said:

  Doesn't the article explain why someone would try to hide their beliefs? Because they don't want to get labeled "loony" or "crazy." Which is what the eponymous (I know that I stretched the meaning of that word) article was getting at also.


So, it's getting to the point that Christians are afraid to let people know who they are. Isn't that something...gays are coming out of the closet and Christians are going in.

What's wrong with letting people be who they are without judgement and ridicule?





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users