J
Jon_Hus
Guest
First, eat your cookies, then drink your milk, then take a nap.
- Status
C
CWBetts
Guest
Are you ever going to contribute? Or are you content to spout one-liners?
J
Jon_Hus
Guest
The title of this thread *Fundamentalism and Atheism *is the definition of absurd but the question on your mind is when am I going to contribute.
B
bridgeforsale
Guest
The only relationship between fundamentalism of any kind (regardless of religious persuasion) and skeptics/rational thinkers is we recognize fundamentalism as representative of the most dangerous propencity of religiosity. It’s inherent in all religious faiths (that is it’s possible to use any religion to justify that sort of fanatical outlook). All religions have a version of we’re right and everyone else is wrong – whether it’s called infallibility, sola scriptura (which usually means MY reading of scriptura), or the pull no punches convert or die in the 7th century minds of Islamic fundamentalists (the result of unchecked religion).
Heck, even communism, fascism, etc. were sort of religious in nature (and were created in a religious environment). The common thread is compelled conformity with a particular mindset and behavioral system. Religion also can have a good side; but it has a certain propensity that if unchecked can be hostile to liberty.
Heck, even communism, fascism, etc. were sort of religious in nature (and were created in a religious environment). The common thread is compelled conformity with a particular mindset and behavioral system. Religion also can have a good side; but it has a certain propensity that if unchecked can be hostile to liberty.
C
CWBetts
Guest
Before you get too smug, let us remember that Communism was atheist-- and deadly. It is the Christian west that has been the bastion of liberty.
B
bridgeforsale
Guest
So all the great enlightenment thinkers whose ideas form the foundation of democracy and the modern idea of liberity and human rights were a bunch of bible pounders eh? Here’s a homework assignment, tell me what the religious preference of the following individuals were: Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Adam Smith, David Hume, and Voltaire? There were one or two enlightenment thinkers (you know those inventors of liberty you think were a bunch of Christians) who did actually remain Christian (but I’m not telling).Liberty was won despite religion, not because of it. With regard to communism, of course I realize Karl Marx and his progeny were atheists. But for them (particularly for the implimenters of communism like Stalin) communism was like a religion. Funny story Stalin was studying to be a priest (in the Orthodox Church) when he tossed religion out the window and became a communist. I think he replaced one religion for another. The state replaced the church as the oppressor of liberty. Demogogues and tyrants replaced princes and popes.
Additionally, take a guy like Hitler, you can see the religious influence. Where in those days did Europeans get the idea that Jews were so terrible (certainly wasn’t David Hume or Adam Smith, it was more like John Chrysostom and Martin Luther)? Hitler didn’t even invent Jewish ghetto’s or come up with the wonderful idea of forcing Jews to wear identifying armbands, the Catholic Church did. It gets even better, a papal bull in 1452 endorsed slavery (legitimizing the practice). Nonetheless, I’m not one to necessarily blame the modern church for these things (although looking at things like the church involvement with the genocide in Rwanda, I’m not so sure I want to let it off the hook either, although the circumstances are cloudy). The men who did these acts are long dead, as are their victims. But liberty was not founded by a bunch of bible thumpers, or Catholics, or anything close. Sorry
The men responsible for our freedom were far more like me then they were like any member of the Christian right in this country. More irony … the guy who many credit with stopping Hitler and alerting the world to the threat of Nazism (Winston Churchill) was probably agnostic
P
PEPCIS
Guest
- Accept that there are no contradictions. Adhere to an interpretation of the Bible that is neither exclusively literal, nor exclusively allegorical - which is intellectually honest.
T
Teneas
Guest
Elaborate please? Never heard of this.
B
bridgeforsale
Guest
Basically (to summarize) church officials joined up with the militia and participated in the fight (and apparently were directly responsible for, or facilitated, quite a bit of blood shed). I’m not sure if it can be argued it was in self-defense, but I think they were on the aggressors side, although I could be wrong. If you’re interested, there’s plenty of good news reporting on this issue (that can provide far better information than I can, just do a quick Google search).
A
AlbertBall
Guest
I don’t believe in a soul.
P
PEPCIS
Guest
I think all of that intellectual posturing is just nonsense. If someone is agnostic, by definition he can’t be an atheist. Agnosticism is defined (as CWBetts noted) as one who cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. If he can’t prove or disprove, then he can’t claim to be an atheist, (who by definition denies the existence of God or gods).
C
CWBetts
Guest
May God have mercy on yours.
A
AndrewJaffery
Guest
Well…It makes sense to me that they can. You don’t need to have full knowledge that something exists or not to say it doesn’t. Think of it this way…analogy time! No one has found life elsewhere in the universe…so we don’t know if there is life out there or not. There can be people who say that they don’t know if there is life out there, but thinks there isn’t…They’d be Agnostic (Well…the alien version of it) Aextraterestialism. There also could be people that haven’t seen evidence of other life, but think it would be out there…Agnostic Extraterestialism. So, even if you don’t know if something exists or not, doesn’t mean you can’t have a position on it.
Well, for research for what happens with souls…or if there are souls in the first place, is kind of one of those unprovable things. Like some other things that are great at de-railing threads, it’s kind of hard to find conclusive proof on it…It’s not like one can put a little tracker chip on one’s soul to find out where it goes.
C
CWBetts
Guest
I was being somewhat facetious. My point is not even that it is unreasonable not to believe in something like a soul. My point is that if you are going to adhere to scientific dogmatism, the soul can be neither confirmed nor denied. You really cant say that there isn’t one, because there is no way to measure it. It is literally impossible for science to say anything about souls, the afterlife, God. etc. The best they can do is say that there is no empirical evidence. I guess what i really mean is that science is not the appropriate discipline for everything.
P
PEPCIS
Guest
No, they’d be atheistic. You said that they would “thinks there isn’t” life out there, then they could not be agnostic, because their BELIEF would contradict any sense of agnositicism. If you openly proclaim that you don’t BELIEVE that life exists elsewhere in the universe, then you’d clearly be someone who was “atheistic” in that regard. I would be agnostic, because I don’t personally have knowledge pro or con, so I could not say. But in order to be “atheistic” I would have to have clear evidence that they did not/could not exist.
Exactly. If you don’t have evidence, and you’re keeping an open mind, then you could only be agnostic in that regard.
But once you declare your position, then you can’t declare a position that is antithetical to another and hold true to both. That’s completely illogical.
B
buffalo
Guest
When did i say something had to be material to be real? I am taking about standards of evidence for knowledge. When it come to knowledge NOTHING comes close to science, that is a fact plane and simple, we can compare results if you like. My world view is simple, i will not believe that for which there is ZERO supporting evidence. Its really quite simple, if you make a claim you must support it with empirical evidence, so that if i want to i can verify the said claim.
As for “God exists whether you believe or not.” I am afraid to be the one to break this to you, but all the evidence suggests otherwise. I am afraid to say it pretty much looks like when we die, we are dead. Look on the bright side though, the ONLY thing worse than death would be eternal life. Living FOREVER, now that is one of the scariest thoughts i could imagine. Wouldn’t mind a few thousand years though.
A Brain in a Vat
A
AlbertBall
Guest
This is totally incorrect.
Firstly an atheist is not one that “denies” the existence of a god, this is what happens when ones understanding of the word extends to a one line dictionary definition. In simple terms an atheist includes EVERYONE that does not have a theistic belief. However even if i did “deny” the existence of a god i could STILL BE agnostic.
Agnostic deals with KNOWLEDGE, atheist deals with BELIEF. The two are NOT the same thing. If i accept the the existence of a god is unknowable i AM an agnostic, if i further “deny” the existence of a god i am ALSO AN agnostic.
The terms are not mutually exclusive.
A
AlbertBall
Guest
It is common to offer up such “proofs” when there is no real evidence to present. I am not overly impressed.
C
CWBetts
Guest
Where was the author wrong?
E
Elijah_Baley
Guest
It seems this argument — not discussion, not discourse, but argument — has stumbled, drunkenly, into Fides et Ratio territory.
It’s a long, enlightening read, but you needn’t go further than the first graf for the gist:
John Paul II:
A few points:
3. The Christian West has, unlike any other culture in the world, accomplished three things: first, the common religion kept fractious factions bound together under a common banner after the fall of the Roman Empire, keeping Europe from falling into outright barbarism; second, by virtue of its consistent moral teachings and religious structures, undone its great evils not simply in the name of its morality but out of genuine belief in the necessity of moral progress and in the individual value of human beings; third, Christianity specifically instituted the necessary doctrines which directly created modern academic discourse. Christianity, in turn, saved Europe from a collapsing civilization, saved Europe from collapsing mores and provided a foundation for open and excited scientific progress. (I’ll drag out the Aquinas if you disagree, but that third point is indisputable.)
As such, by direct virtue of its religion — a structure which provides consistent moral teaching across generations — the West has enjoyed the most creative, dynamic, world-changing culture the world had to offer. By contrast, the Mid-East merely managed its trade routes, even that spurred on specifically by the invention of the West; the Far East, however magnificent, stayed stymied in isolation for centuries with a few, fleeting exceptions; Africa, Oceania and the Americas kept up tribal warfare up until the moment the West boldly landed on their shores. Not only does religion act as an inevitable safety net for a society in physical disrepair, to look at the fall of the Roman Empire, but as an inevitable safety net in moral manners, to look at slavery, eugenics and, arguably, abortion.
The flaws of today will be hammered out in the fulness of time, but only because of the tools provided by Christian civilization. I find it difficult to believe, after studying the matter myself, that atheism would provide similar sweeping motivation and progress.
Please respond if it suits you, but let’s not get too far away from the topic at hand.
It’s a long, enlightening read, but you needn’t go further than the first graf for the gist:
John Paul II:
“Unto Ceasar what is Ceasar’s” and all that.
A few points:
- Agnostic atheism versus agnostic theism is little more than intellectual posturing over in that realm we call reality, however impressive it looks in the academic journal.
- Men kill in the name of God just as they resign from public office to spend more time with their family. Keeping the men in power is not as simple as preemptively killing families left and right. Keeping men from killing is not as simple as ignoring God.
3. The Christian West has, unlike any other culture in the world, accomplished three things: first, the common religion kept fractious factions bound together under a common banner after the fall of the Roman Empire, keeping Europe from falling into outright barbarism; second, by virtue of its consistent moral teachings and religious structures, undone its great evils not simply in the name of its morality but out of genuine belief in the necessity of moral progress and in the individual value of human beings; third, Christianity specifically instituted the necessary doctrines which directly created modern academic discourse. Christianity, in turn, saved Europe from a collapsing civilization, saved Europe from collapsing mores and provided a foundation for open and excited scientific progress. (I’ll drag out the Aquinas if you disagree, but that third point is indisputable.)
As such, by direct virtue of its religion — a structure which provides consistent moral teaching across generations — the West has enjoyed the most creative, dynamic, world-changing culture the world had to offer. By contrast, the Mid-East merely managed its trade routes, even that spurred on specifically by the invention of the West; the Far East, however magnificent, stayed stymied in isolation for centuries with a few, fleeting exceptions; Africa, Oceania and the Americas kept up tribal warfare up until the moment the West boldly landed on their shores. Not only does religion act as an inevitable safety net for a society in physical disrepair, to look at the fall of the Roman Empire, but as an inevitable safety net in moral manners, to look at slavery, eugenics and, arguably, abortion.
The flaws of today will be hammered out in the fulness of time, but only because of the tools provided by Christian civilization. I find it difficult to believe, after studying the matter myself, that atheism would provide similar sweeping motivation and progress.
Please respond if it suits you, but let’s not get too far away from the topic at hand.
- Status