Fundamentalism and Atheism

[PEPCIS]

This is totally incorrect.

That is your opinion. But your opinion is based on erroneous logic.

Albert:

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.

LOL This has NOTHING to do with “one line dictionary definitions” and everything to do with intellectual BS.

The Princeton online dictionary defines an atheist as:

1. • someone who denies the existence of god
   • related to or characterized by or given to atheism; “atheist leanings”
   Some of the newer/more contemporary dictionaries have adopted the new-age concepts which are based upon these intellectual gymnastics that people like you perform. For example, wikipedia takes the PRIMARY definition (the denial of the existence of gods) and makes it the SECONDARY definition!!! Incredible. To wit:
   
   1. • A person without a belief in, or one who lacks belief in the existence of a god or gods.
      • 2006, Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, page 51: “Atheists do not have faith; and reason alone could not propel one to total conviction that anything definitely does not exist.”
      • A person who believes that no gods or deities exist.
      
      Albert:
      

      In simple terms an atheist includes EVERYONE that does not have a theistic belief.

      As I have shown, this is a fairly new development in our contemporary world. It is nothing more than intellectual posturing that atheists do in order to semantically control the debate. To put it simply, they HATE it when others take them on a logical argument showing that it is impossible to have complete knowledge that there is no gods/God. This is why Dawkins has relented over the years, and now says that he is a 99% atheist. ROFLMBO
      
      
      Albert:
      

      However even if i did “deny” the existence of a god i could STILL BE agnostic.

      No, you’d be lying to yourself and others.
      
      
      Albert:
      

      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.

      Everything you stated is incorrect. You cannot “further deny the existence of a god” and remain an agnostic, because an agnostic cannot KNOW, and despite your gerrymandering, knowledge is based upon belief. You cannot know something as true, unless you accept it based upon belief. Your belief comes primarily from your knowledge.

 

[PEPCIS]

A few points:

1. 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.

I’m glad to see someone else who sees right through all the clutter. Good call, Elijah.

 

[bridgeforsale]

In regards to the religion-disparaging comments made by “bridge” and others:
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.

Talk about speculation and false cause fallacy (to the umpteenth degree). How do you know if in the absence of the church the west would have floundered and disintegrated into meaninglessness (as you imply). Arguably the Romans brought on their own collapse, by constant mistreatment of the German tribes (who they themselves trained, and who eventually were the only ones doing the fighting on behalf of Rome). We might even think early Christianity served to weaken the Romans (which is plausible, notwithstanding speculative and contentious).

You live under the same I think misperception common among Christians. The fact is virtually every enlightenment thinker rejected Christianity, and this includes almost every single prominent founding father of this country. Even Abraham Lincoln rejected Christianity. Thomas Edison, Adam Smith, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, heck Bill Gates (the list is endless really). Atheists, agnostics, and deists built the western civilization we enjoy today (with perhaps a few exceptions)! You can try to deny it if you like … but the facts are on my side!

 

[CWBetts]

Talk about speculation and false cause fallacy (to the umpteenth degree). How do you know if in the absence of the church the west would have floundered and disintegrated into meaninglessness (as you imply). Arguably the Romans brought on their own collapse, by constant mistreatment of the German tribes (who they themselves trained, and who eventually were the only ones doing the fighting on behalf of Rome). We might even think early Christianity served to weaken the Romans (which is plausible, notwithstanding speculative and contentious).

You live under the same I think misperception common among Christians. The fact is virtually every enlightenment thinker rejected Christianity, and this includes almost every single prominent founding father of this country. Even Abraham Lincoln rejected Christianity. Thomas Edison, Adam Smith, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, heck Bill Gates (the list is endless really). Atheists, agnostics, and deists built the western civilization we enjoy today (with perhaps a few exceptions)! You can try to deny it if you like … but the facts are on my side!

What facts? Western Civilization was essentially built by the Catholic Church.

 

[bridgeforsale]

What facts? Western Civilization was essentially built by the Catholic Church.

What part of it did the CC build exactly?

 

[StrawberryJam]

What facts? Western Civilization was essentially built by the Catholic Church.

I wouldn’t minimize her contributions. Neither should you minimize the ones made by others that had not a thing to do with her.

 

[bridgeforsale]

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.

Indeed, indeed!

 

[CWBetts]

What part of it did the CC build exactly?

The University System
Genetic Theory
Discovery of the New World
Scientific Method
Hospitals

Need I go on?

 

[StrawberryJam]

The University System
Genetic Theory
Discovery of the New World
Scientific Method
Hospitals

Need I go on?

I’ve seen the Catholics Come Home commercials.

All good things.

 

[bridgeforsale]

The University System

Really, the whole university system? Please elaborate.

Genetic Theory

Hmmm, so how exactly did Mendel (one guy who noticed inherent family traits) help build western civilization?

Discovery of the New World

So you’re taking credit for the work of the Spanish crown (I bet you change your mind when it comes to the Spanish inquisition).

Scientific Method

and I’m santa claus

Hospitals

Need I go on?

No please, that’s enough historical revisionism and wishful thinking for one night

But you know even if the CC had a hand in helping build our civilization (and of course everything that came before us, whether good or bad, did help build our civilization) it really doesn’t mean anything does it? It doesn’t make the whole god-man rising out of the grave bit any less of a fairy tale does it?

I think it was you whom I mentioned Jefferson, Franklin, Hamilton, Paine, Madison, Adam Smith, David Hume, Thomas Edison, Winston Churchill, Abraham Lincoln, Albert Einstein, Bill Gates, etc. to … and I notice no response on that one?

It doesn’t even matter that most really smart people these days are atheist or agnostics; in fairness that doesn’t prove anything. You’ll bring up a bunch of really smart people who have been dead for generally a century or longer (usually far longer) who were Christian, and of course that matters even less (in fact it shows that smart people have, over time, become exceedingly less religious, which means new information has persuaded us that religion is probably stupid). What really matters is whether or not religion really make sense. It might even help some people behave themselves, but so what. That might give it some redeeming social value, but I’m not going to believe in far fetched ancient myths because a bunch of yahoos can’t control their behavior without a good bed time story, much less believe in a book that’s already had it’s entire beginning (and foundation) debunked, and a book that makes god look like a mass murderer.

 

[CWBetts]

Really, the whole university system? Please elaborate.

Hmmm, so how exactly did Mendel (one guy who noticed inherent family traits) help build western civilization?

So you’re taking credit for the work of the Spanish crown (I bet you change your mind when it comes to the Spanish inquisition).

and I’m santa claus

No please, that’s enough historical revisionism and wishful thinking for one night

But you know even if the CC had a hand in helping build our civilization (and of course everything that came before us, whether good or bad, did help build our civilization) it really doesn’t mean anything does it? It doesn’t make the whole god-man rising out of the grave bit any less of a fairy tale does it?

I think it was you whom I mentioned Jefferson, Franklin, Hamilton, Paine, Madison, Adam Smith, David Hume, Thomas Edison, Winston Churchill, Abraham Lincoln, Albert Einstein, Bill Gates, etc. to … and I notice no response on that one?

It doesn’t even matter that most really smart people these days are atheist or agnostics; in fairness that doesn’t prove anything. You’ll bring up a bunch of really smart people who have been dead for generally a century or longer (usually far longer) who were Christian, and of course that matters even less (in fact it shows that smart people have, over time, become exceedingly less religious, which means new information has persuaded us that religion is probably stupid). What really matters is whether or not religion really make sense. It might even help some people behave themselves, but so what. That might give it some redeeming social value, but I’m not going to believe in far fetched ancient myths because a bunch of yahoos can’t control their behavior without a good bed time story, much less believe in a book that’s already had it’s entire beginning (and foundation) debunked, and a book that makes god look like a mass murderer.

As for your list of “great men” Adam Smith saw the working class simply as a resource to be exploited and Hume was an idiot.

 

[StrawberryJam]

As for your list of “great men” Adam Smith saw the working class simply as a resource to be exploited and Hume was an idiot.

Hume was an “idiot”?

Disagreement with philosophy is one thing. Calling Hume an idiot is another.

Your “great men” were NO PICNIC either!

 

[CWBetts]

Hume was an “idiot”?

Disagreement with philosophy is one thing. Calling Hume an idiot is another.

Your “great men” were NO PICNIC either!

Hume most decidedly was a grade A moron. Descartes, Augustine, Aquinas, Wojtyla…now those were sound philosophers. The heroes of the faith were great men.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Hume most decidedly was a grade A moron. Descartes, Augustine, Aquinas, Wojtyla…now those were sound philosophers. The heroes of the faith were great men.

Okay.

Nice meeting you, have a great day!

 

[AlbertBall]

That is your opinion. But your opinion is based on erroneous logic.

LOL This has NOTHING to do with “one line dictionary definitions” and everything to do with intellectual BS.

The Princeton on line dictionary defines an atheist as:

1. 
   *]someone who denies the existence of god
   *]related to or characterized by or given to atheism; “atheist leanings”
   
   .

1. 
   LMAO "This has NOTHING to do with “online dictionary definitions”" followed by "The Princeton online dictionary defines an atheist as:"
   
   CLASSIC, i love it!!!
   
   You then proceed to add MORE one line dictionary definitions.
   

   As I have shown, this is a fairly new development in our contemporary world. It is nothing more than intellectual posturing that atheists do in order to semantically control the debate. To put it simply, they HATE it when others take them on a logical argument showing that it is impossible to have complete knowledge that there is no gods/God. This is why Dawkins has relented over the years, and now says that he is a 99% atheist. ROFLMBO

   No, this is when people actually have an understanding of **word formation. **
   

   No, you’d be lying to yourself and others.

   Sure i would. Please break down the word. A-Theist.
   

   Everything you stated is incorrect. You cannot “further deny the existence of a god” and remain an agnostic, because an agnostic cannot KNOW, and despite your gerrymandering, knowledge is based upon belief. You cannot know something as true, unless you accept it based upon belief. Your belief comes primarily from your knowledge.

   Here we see another fundamental mistake, knowledge IS NOT based on belief. Here you go, learn something today… youtube.com/watch?v=80nhqGfN6t8
   
   “knowledge is based upon belief”…“Your belief comes primarily from your knowledge” Hehe

 

[PEPCIS]

LMAO "This has NOTHING to do with “online dictionary definitions”" followed by "The Princeton online dictionary defines an atheist as:"

CLASSIC, i love it!!! You then proceed to add MORE one line dictionary definitions.

The difficulty in discussing these matters with you is that you want to belittle your opponent with your “CLASSIC” one-liners, and then to do it by claiming that they cannot have access to “CLASSIC” one-liners! I love it, but it doesn’t mean diddly.

Your premise that an atheist can also be an agnostic is based upon a MANIPULATION of (get ready for it) CLASSIC, and traditional meanings. I suppose by “word formation” you allude to the evolution of word meanings by cultural acquisition and such. Well, I don’t deny that the words in question have taken on newer meanings, and that those meanings clearly align with your understandings.

However, that is NOT the argument as I have stated it, and (I repeat) has nothing to do with “one line dictionary definitions,” and has everything to do with how the words in question have evolved in their meanings, and the contemporary MOTIVATIONS behind that evolution in meanings.

As I said in my last response regarding this evolution in meaning, “this is a fairly new development in our contemporary world. It is nothing more than intellectual posturing that atheists do in order to semantically control the debate. To put it simply, they HATE it when others take them on a logical argument showing that it is impossible to have complete knowledge that there is no gods/God. This is why Dawkins has relented over the years, and now says that he is a 99% atheist. ROFLMBO”

I repeat that because it is the main point of my remarks which you totallly ignored, and instead chose to focus on a means of belittling my use of dictionary definitions to illustrate a totally different point regarding YOUR position. In other words, you’re not engaging me, but simply seeking to belittle my ideas as a means of “winning” the debate.

However even if i did “deny” the existence of a god i could STILL BE agnostic.

PEPCIS:

No, you’d be lying to yourself and others.

Albert:

Sure i would. Please break down the word. A-Theist.

Hmmmmm. Is the argument degrading from “one-liners” to “one-worders”?

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

Your belief comes primarily from your knowledge.

Here we see another fundamental mistake, knowledge IS NOT based on belief. Here you go, learn something today… youtube.com/watch?v=80nhqGfN6t8

Ok, so I click on the youtube link, and it begins like this:

“The Fourth Foundational Falsehood of Creationism” I suppose their argument would be applicable to me, being a good 'ol Fundamentalist and all.

Next, the narrator states:

“The next in our series of foundational falsehoods of creationism is a logical fallacy illustrative of the fundamental sophistry behind the creationism movement: the idea that really, really believing something is the same thing as knowing it.”

On the screen the words, “belief = knowledge” pop up as the erroneous “fundamental mistake” that Albert is referring to.

But I NEVER stated that “belief = knowledge.” I stated that your beliefs come primarily from your knowledge. Which means that as your knowledge base increases, you develop a view of the world. This world-view is constantly evolving, but once the BASIC FORMAT is developed, it rarely changes. In other words, the BASIC FORMAT remains the same throughout a person’s life, but how to express that BASIC FORMAT is what changes.

To state that “knowledge = belief” is not the same as my statement that belief comes primarily from knowledge, for two reasons:

1. 
   *]knowledge must precede belief
   *]my statement was not a formula which can be stated in reverse
   
   My statement was that belief is predicated on a set of knowledge. Knowledge is not predicated on a set of beliefs (although beliefs can alter how we process data to arrive at knowledge).

 

[bridgeforsale]

As for your list of “great men” Adam Smith saw the working class simply as a resource to be exploited and Hume was an idiot.

Really, so are you a socialist? Moreover, prove to me Adam Smith endorsed an immoral exploitation of the working class. Have you ever read Wealth of Nations (or his works on ethics), are you an expert in economic philosophy, and oh yeah what precisely about David Hume makes him such an idiot (I venture to guess you’ve never read any of his work either). Sounds like the type of hyperbole that a group like ACORN would vomit out. Adam Smith is the father of free market capitalism. David Hume, while certainly not perfect, was one of the pillars of the enlightenment.

If you’re going to say stuff like this, at least explain your specific objections to the ideas of these men. After all the foundation for the enlightenment concept of empiricism (which is not only indicative of Hume, but also John Locke) was the realism of Aristotle (which is exactly the same well philosophers like Aquinas drew from). Indeed the basis of Aristotlian concepts like the necessity of an omnipotent “first cause” was the underlying assumptions, which drove his metaphyics (namely, the assumptions inferred by his “four causes”). Those assumptions were taken from inductive reasoning (in other words inferences he drew from his observations and the patterns suggested by those observations). This is the same sort of reasoning we see in the work of Hume, John Locke, etc. We can get into this if you like, but I’d first like to know on what basis you make your characterizations

 

[CWBetts]

Really, so are you a socialist? Moreover, prove to me Adam Smith endorsed an immoral exploitation of the working class. Have you ever read Wealth of Nations (or his works on ethics), are you an expert in economic philosophy, and oh yeah what precisely about David Hume makes him such an idiot (I venture to guess you’ve never read any of his work either). Sounds like the type of hyperbole that a group like ACORN would vomit out. Adam Smith is the father of free market capitalism. David Hume, while certainly not perfect, was one of the pillars of the enlightenment.

If you’re going to say stuff like this, at least explain your specific objections to the ideas of these men. After all the foundation for the enlightenment concept of empiricism (which is not only indicative of Hume, but also John Locke) was the realism of Aristotle (which is exactly the same well philosophers like Aquinas drew from). Indeed the basis of Aristotlian concepts like the necessity of an omnipotent “first cause” was the underlying assumptions, which drove his metaphyics (namely, the assumptions inferred by his “four causes”). Those assumptions were taken from inductive reasoning (in other words inferences he drew from his observations and the patterns suggested by those observations). This is the same sort of reasoning we see in the work of Hume, John Locke, etc. We can get into this if you like, but I’d first like to know on what basis you make your characterizations

Hume is the father of hedonism. Though not a hedonist himself, hedonism is dependent on his utterly ludicrous idea that no action has consequences. Of course, for an atheist, accepting such claptrap is almost required. Me, a socialist? No. The market should not be driven by the state. To do so makes the working class slaves of the state. Neither should it be free of regulation, otherwise the working class are seen as merely a means of production. Do not ally me with ACORN. You do not know me. THis is twice now that on forums here i have been called a raving liberal, when in actuality, people tha actually know me know that i am right-center.

 

[bridgeforsale]

Hume is the father of hedonism. Though not a hedonist himself, hedonism is dependent on his utterly ludicrous idea that no action has consequences. Of course, for an atheist, accepting such claptrap is almost required. Me, a socialist? No. The market should not be driven by the state. To do so makes the working class slaves of the state. Neither should it be free of regulation, otherwise the working class are seen as merely a means of production. Do not ally me with ACORN. You do not know me. THis is twice now that on forums here i have been called a raving liberal, when in actuality, people tha actually know me know that i am right-center.

The father of hedonism eh? Without explaining anything (and providing zero basis for your earlier comments) you’re now making yet another bare assertion, which although finds some correlation with the facts (perhaps coincidently); I’m sure (at least judging from your tone) you have no idea in what context the term hedonism is attributed to Hume.

In simple form Hume believed humans are motivated by the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. However, you should realize Hume didn’t invent this stuff (in fact hedonism began with ancient Greek philosophers like Democritus and of course Epicurus). But you also have to understand what these men meant by pleasure. For instance, Epicurus said the highest form of pleasure was tranquility and freedom from fear (which in his view was only obtainable by knowledge, friendship, and leading a virtuous and temperate life). Indeed he even acknowledged the fact that sex, whatever immediate gratification it might offer, could lead to discontentment under certain conditions. He would actually point out that (for instance) over indulging in food was a bad idea because it reduces our future abiltiy to satiate our appetites.

At least try to understand this stuff before you put it out there. I don’t say this to belittle, but seriously, had you simply Googled the word hedonism you could have learned these facts in five minutes. In philosophy it doesn’t mean the same thing it means to the Hedonism resort chain