Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
socrates.junior

Atheists and Fundamentalists

294 posts in this topic

I have never understood why some Atheists are so vocal about their disbelief. It's as if they are trying to convince believers to just drop GOD. I know some Athiests that really don't care what me or anybody else thinks about GOD just don't try and preach to them. I am a Christian but I don't try and convince anybody their is a GOD unless they ask questions. The fundamentalists say we are supposed to spread the Gospel. It says in the Bible to teach those who want to be taught and the ones that don't want to listen "dust off your shoes, turn and walk away.

Some people just need to get over it, live and let live (both sides).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are so many fundies vocal about their beleifs.

Simple everybody feels the need to be right. The stromger that urge the stronger the protest when opposition appears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are so many fundies vocal about their beleifs.

Simple everybody feels the need to be right. The stromger that urge the stronger the protest when opposition appears.

Well, the point of the article is that atheists are doing the exact same thing. Read it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

This is an American article! On the issue of Atheism and religions USA is minimum one century behind any European country and even many Asian countries, as these problems were existing in Europe some 100 years ago. Hence the local importance of this Dawkins dude, who makes money and popularity on himself being an Atheist - in some China or Poland no one would simply notice him, he is nothing in the sense that he cannot show any wisdom but only his useless disbelief in God. But certainly, the situation in USA places the Atheists on a front line, so, being surrounded by the religious loonies, they have to be aggressive in defending themselves - hence their vocalism. And I agree, that some American Atheists are no less ridiculous and archaic than the American Fundamentalists; it takes long time to settle such social contradictions as they have now, as the generations have to pass for the dust to settle.

Edited by MARAB0D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It's not about trying to convince religious people, it's about being assertive and the pen being mightier than the sword.

ChristianPieChart.jpg

10 IF Pen > Sword THEN GOTO 20

20 Pen < Keyboard

30 END

edit

(quoted from that page)

I wish these atheists would venture, say, into a seminary library. They'd find tens of thousands of volumes written by thinkers great and obscure across two millennia.

They'd find works by scholars who take every word of the Bible literally and works by others who argue that most of the Scripture is made up and that Jesus said almost nothing attributed to him. They'd find every gradation between those extremes.

They'd find the musings of Christians who are pompous, exclusionary and delusional. They'd find Christians who are tolerant and humble and pillars of common sense.

They'd learn that Christians were the driving force behind the establishment of public schools and the abolition of slavery, just as, regrettably, other Christians launched the Crusades.

It was the secular North that abolished slavery in the USA and the world. I'm not going to quote scripture, but the Bible deals with the relation of slave and master and how the slave is to serve his master. Things such as the master will cut off the ear of a slave who is not subservient is what the Bible suggests should be done about slavery; not it's abolition. Either most of the religious people are ignorant of the Bible or they are assuming athiests are ignorant of the Bible and want to make false statements to prove invalid points. There are atheists and agnostics that know more about the Bible than a Christian or a Jew, and in my case that is the reason I am agnostic. Because I fully understand what it says, I know it's not something I should follow.

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/800-what-about-the-bible-and-slavery

The South used as the foundation to uphold slavery, the Bible. The North also had Christians, but was secular.

They'd find Christians who are tolerant and humble and pillars of common sense.
I could go on and on as to why Creationism is nonsensical. I will only mention one obvious thing: every human on Earth has Neanderthal DNA mixed with the DNA of modern man. Is God a Neanderthal? We cannot be in the image of two beings that are a singular God. Edited by Fernand0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It was the secular North that abolished slavery in the USA and the world. I'm not going to quote scripture, but the Bible deals with the relation of slave and master and how the slave is to serve his master. Things such as the master will cut off the ear of a slave who is not subservient is what the Bible suggests should be done about slavery; not it's abolition. Either most of the religious people are ignorant of the Bible or they are assuming athiests are ignorant of the Bible and want to make false statements to prove invalid points. There are atheists and agnostics that know more about the Bible than a Christian or a Jew, and in my case that is the reason I am agnostic. Because I fully understand what it says, I know it's not something I should follow.

Edited by freeman88

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Note that I posted a link to a second opinion from a Christian. If I was trying to force my beliefs on others I would not have done so. He claims that we are in God's image at the very beginning of his article. That's where he is wrong according to DNA. If the Christians do not uphold Hebrew law, they would not have included the Old Testament in the Bible. It's as simple as that and no amount of apologetics changes that.

Edited by Fernand0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i was merely agreeing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

i was merely agreeing

Hebrew laws declaring slavery to be acceptable, along with their captivity in Babylon changing the practices of the criminals amongst them that broke Mosaic law, are the reason why any consideration for the humane treatment of slaves is one idea in theory and it's a totally different thing in practice.

whipped_slave.png

edit

"But the Torah says slaves should be treated humanely.", as Jews say. Slavery should not be tolerated to begin with and is inhumane by it's very nature. So, Jews who accepted slavery and the Christians that accepted slavery after them did not cut off ears and noses, whip, hobble and rape slaves?

And the Babylonians didn't show the criminal element amongst Jews an example of what to do if they decide to break Mosaic law, right.

Edited by Fernand0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an American article! On the issue of Atheism and religions USA is minimum one century behind any European country and even many Asian countries, as these problems were existing in Europe some 100 years ago. Hence the local importance of this Dawkins dude, who makes money and popularity on himself being an Atheist - in some China or Poland no one would simply notice him, he is nothing in the sense that he cannot show any wisdom but only his useless disbelief in God. But certainly, the situation in USA places the Atheists on a front line, so, being surrounded by the religious loonies, they have to be aggressive in defending themselves - hence their vocalism. And I agree, that some American Atheists are no less ridiculous and archaic than the American Fundamentalists; it takes long time to settle such social contradictions as they have now, as the generations have to pass for the dust to settle.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I have never understood why some Atheists are so vocal about their disbelief.

Because some people believe that religion does more harm than good, and recognise that a society based on faith and superstition doesn't work (with historical precedent*).

These people see that organised faith is inherently anti-progress and anti-science and has a nasty habit of being anti-humanist and anti-enlightenment.

It is also postulated that tolerance of moderate religion creates taboos around criticising faith's negative effects on society, which directly allows fundamentalism to flourish as it becomes protected by these taboos.

That's why.

*see things like Jews being burnt in 17th century Europe for spreading the plague, or children tortured for harbouring demons in modern Nigeria. Note that this is nothing to do with different faiths disagreeing with each other - this is what happens when society uses faith rather than reason as its bedrock.

Edited by Emma_Acid
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, slavery is not an exclusively Christian issue, people. And besides, what the writer of the article is referring to were the abolitionists, some of whom were definitely religiously motivated. Of course, some slaveholders admittedly did use their religion to justify their actions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because some people believe that religion does more harm than good, and recognise that a society based on faith and superstition doesn't work (with historical precedent*).

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

These people see that organised faith is inherently anti-progress and anti-science and has a nasty habit of being anti-humanist and anti-enlightenment.

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

It is also postulated that tolerance of moderate religion creates taboos around criticising faith's negative effects on society, which directly allows fundamentalism to flourish as it becomes protected by these taboos.

That's why.

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.

*see things like Jews being burnt in 17th century Europe for spreading the plague, or children tortured for harbouring demons in modern Nigeria. Note that this is nothing to do with different faiths disagreeing with each other - this is what happens when society uses faith rather than reason as its bedrock.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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.

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".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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.

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?

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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." ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/4938541/Tony-Blair-warns-that-Christians-must-speak-out-in-aggressively-secularist-age.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

post-66579-12765409604_thumb.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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

post-66579-12765409604_thumb.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.

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

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/4938541/Tony-Blair-warns-that-Christians-must-speak-out-in-aggressively-secularist-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.

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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.