D
- Status
H
Heteroclite
Guest
:clapping: :tiphat: 
(Only thing I might change would be, instead of the Principia, use Darwin’s Origin.)
(Only thing I might change would be, instead of the Principia, use Darwin’s Origin.)
A
AntiTheist
Guest
The cartoon is amusing, but I do not agree that the comparison of atheists to fundamentalists works logically.
The reason is simple: the acceptance of science, reason, and empiricism isn’t something that defines atheists alone – the vast majority of people who believe in gods also employ the scientific method, reason, and empiricism (at least when it comes to 99% of subjects in their lives).
In fact, I’d be quite willing to say that anyone who isn’t a complete and total idiot accepts the validity of the scientific method.
It wouldn’t work the other way around: Fundamentalists push the acceptance of the specific religious texts that no other groups accept.
The reason is simple: the acceptance of science, reason, and empiricism isn’t something that defines atheists alone – the vast majority of people who believe in gods also employ the scientific method, reason, and empiricism (at least when it comes to 99% of subjects in their lives).
In fact, I’d be quite willing to say that anyone who isn’t a complete and total idiot accepts the validity of the scientific method.
It wouldn’t work the other way around: Fundamentalists push the acceptance of the specific religious texts that no other groups accept.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
It does. There are plenty of Fundamentalist Atheists around. Not all atheists are fundamentalists, but there are a number who are. And no, it isn’t logical, but since when is human behavior?
No one abides by science, reason and empiricism even 99% of the time, and it’s not that it is what defines them, it’s what they preach. Much as a belief in diety is something which Christians preach but certainly isn’t something that defines them. Of course fundamentalist atheists tend to be less rational than most.
True.
Fundamentalists get in your face pushing specific religious doctrine. Physical texts have nothing to do with it.
H
Heteroclite
Guest
Yo, Anti-theist (post #3):
There’s a difference between using the scientific method and reason merely as tools to understand the empirical domain vs. exalting the s.m. and reason as the ultimate arbiters of all reality (aka scientism), all the while kowtowing to Pope Darwin. When it states the universe is a closed system, and when it claims that matter is eternal, Scientism is making faith statements; it practices Torquemadaism when it blackballs any and all scientists who openly challenge that creed.
There’s a difference between using the scientific method and reason merely as tools to understand the empirical domain vs. exalting the s.m. and reason as the ultimate arbiters of all reality (aka scientism), all the while kowtowing to Pope Darwin. When it states the universe is a closed system, and when it claims that matter is eternal, Scientism is making faith statements; it practices Torquemadaism when it blackballs any and all scientists who openly challenge that creed.
A
AntiTheist
Guest
Nine_Two:
For example, the average person uses inductive reasoning every day to conclude that his car will start when he turns the key or that gravity will continue to work and that he won’t go flying off into space randomly during the day.
If you analyze all of the assumptions and decisions that you make that rely upon reason, it’s going to be a huge number. You even use reason to generate conclusions from irrational premises – which is precisely how people (who are indeed frequently irrational) can use reason to draw out appropriate courses of action from their irrational emotions and feelings.
Atheists – the kind of rational, skeptic atheists that one typically encounters in this culture – simply want to apply the same exact tools that everyone uses to other claims about the universe. That’s not “fundamentalist” in the way that literal belief in a magical book is.
If you can find me one example of an actual scientist treating Darwin as “Pope” – by which I presume you mean an infallible authority – then I’ll take the time to respond to the rest of this nonsense. You’re going to have a hard time doing so, however, since our understanding of evolution has changed from Darwin’s understanding.
After all, science works by using evidence to modify and overturn claims of the past, correcting our knowledge as we learn more. But of course you knew that, didn’t you?
I didn’t mean to imply that all people are completely rational – what I meant is simply that in the vast, vast majority of decisions involving reality, people use reason.
For example, the average person uses inductive reasoning every day to conclude that his car will start when he turns the key or that gravity will continue to work and that he won’t go flying off into space randomly during the day.
If you analyze all of the assumptions and decisions that you make that rely upon reason, it’s going to be a huge number. You even use reason to generate conclusions from irrational premises – which is precisely how people (who are indeed frequently irrational) can use reason to draw out appropriate courses of action from their irrational emotions and feelings.
Atheists – the kind of rational, skeptic atheists that one typically encounters in this culture – simply want to apply the same exact tools that everyone uses to other claims about the universe. That’s not “fundamentalist” in the way that literal belief in a magical book is.
You have a particularly bizarre view of what some atheists actually say.
If you can find me one example of an actual scientist treating Darwin as “Pope” – by which I presume you mean an infallible authority – then I’ll take the time to respond to the rest of this nonsense. You’re going to have a hard time doing so, however, since our understanding of evolution has changed from Darwin’s understanding.
After all, science works by using evidence to modify and overturn claims of the past, correcting our knowledge as we learn more. But of course you knew that, didn’t you?
N
Nine_Two
Guest
It should not be construed as every Atheist being a Fundamentalist. But they do exist. The biggest difference between fundamentalist atheists and fundamentalists Christians, is that fundamentalists atheists leave other atheists alone, so perhaps you just haven’t encountered one in action.
Again, I’ve known Atheists who seemingly worship the writtings of Darwin and Dawkins, and believe that any challenge to what they teach is proof that one wants to wallow in ignorence.
Like Fundamentalist Christians, Fundamentalist Atheists don’t seem to have a clear grasp on the world.
A
AntiTheist
Guest
You appear to have missed the point again, so I’ll state it again: the comparison between some atheists and fundamentalist Christians fails logically because the basis of the comparison is not parallel – that is to say, these atheists you’re talking about want to take a universal tool and apply it to questions that are arguably within its domain; the fundamentalist Christians want magical claims to be accepted on faith.
I mean, you might be better off calling the atheists you’re talking about “vocal atheists” or “vehement atheists,” but I do not think the comparison to fundamentalist Christians works logically.
I think the only purpose of making the comparison is a clumsy attempt to reduce atheism to “another faith,” which it is not. As a lack of a belief – not itself a belief – atheism does not require faith and is not similar to a religion in any respect.
Can you give an example of actual “worship”? Or are you just using “worship” as a hyperbolic way of saying “admire” and “largely agree with”?
L
latin_rite
Guest
Got to love how some atheist get all precious, when ever someone makes light of them.
For example. I post on another forum. That has nothing to do with religion in general. But it pops up every now and again. The latest topic. Is titled. Attacks on atheist ism Where we have half the forums atheist crying because a priest. Called atheists “ostriches”. Things is, if you read their post in other parts of the forum. They are for ever calling Christians stupid. But anyway. I think atheistism is becoming like a religion. Especially when you look at all their responses. Calling God magic. (Which he isn’t) etc. Its like they are repeating ad hoc what all the other atheist are saying. Of course after parroting each other with "their " ideas on Christians. They then have hide to say all Christians are brainwashed.
And i think fundamental atheistism. Is an appropriate label. because they certainly react in a hostile aggressive way, if you don’t agree with them 100% And to me that’s fundamentalism. Doesn;t really matter what they are arguing about or from what position they are basing their views/ argument on. I know it would be hard to find a scientist who looks at Darwin as some sort of pope. But see what happens if you try and question Darwin.
For example. I post on another forum. That has nothing to do with religion in general. But it pops up every now and again. The latest topic. Is titled. Attacks on atheist ism Where we have half the forums atheist crying because a priest. Called atheists “ostriches”. Things is, if you read their post in other parts of the forum. They are for ever calling Christians stupid. But anyway. I think atheistism is becoming like a religion. Especially when you look at all their responses. Calling God magic. (Which he isn’t) etc. Its like they are repeating ad hoc what all the other atheist are saying. Of course after parroting each other with "their " ideas on Christians. They then have hide to say all Christians are brainwashed.
And i think fundamental atheistism. Is an appropriate label. because they certainly react in a hostile aggressive way, if you don’t agree with them 100% And to me that’s fundamentalism. Doesn;t really matter what they are arguing about or from what position they are basing their views/ argument on. I know it would be hard to find a scientist who looks at Darwin as some sort of pope. But see what happens if you try and question Darwin.
C
Contarini
Guest
That’s not true for the most part. Fundamentalist Christians share the Bible with other Christians (and partly with Jews); fundamentalist Muslims share the Qur’an with other Muslims; and so on. So I think the analogy works. Just as fundamentalist Christians interpret and apply in particular ways the sacred texts accepted by all Christians, so fundamentalist “brights” or whatever they want to be called interpret and apply common norms of reason and empiricism in particular ways.
I am not a “fundamentalist” of either camp, but I share Christian faith with fundamentalist Christians, and belief in reason and empirical inquiry with “atheist fundamentalists.”
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
I agree that “atheism” per se is not a religion. However, the particular brand of strident atheists who have been making a splash recently do regard science in a manner that looks a lot like the way religious believers regard their respective religions. The fact that you and other atheists don’t see this similarity does not prove that it doesn’t exist. Interestingly, fundamentalist Christians also have this habit of denying that they are a “religion” and rejecting any comparison between themselves and believers of other religions. In both cases, I think it’s because a certain set of assumptions seem so self-evident to you that the act of faith required to accept them has disappeared from your mental vision. You have such blind faith that you no longer recognize it as faith.
Edwin
L
lynx
Guest
Who does this?
True, you can’t prove a universal negative.
What? Example? Does anyone here think they they’re not in a religion and consider themselves to be Christian?
I disagree. I verify my universe and its inhabitants according to my senses and scientific knowledge peer reviewed. Perhaps you are stating that my senses are assumed to be functioning correctly. That is to say when I small a cinnabon, see a cinnabon and taste a cinnabon, i’m really not deluding myself into eating a turd.
What blind faith does he have? I’m pretty sure he is lacking faith.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
You seem to be a bit of a literalist. They are called “Fundamentalist Atheists” because like “Fundamentalists Christians” or “Fundamentalist Muslims” they are in your face about the correct way to do things. Logically Atheism shouldn’t have an issue with people not agreeing with their principles regarding the non-existence of God since it doesn’t change anything. In practice many Atheists are like this, but the fundamentalist branch likes to take every opportunity to belittle those who disagree with them (point of note you have made several little remarks here and there in your posts in this thread could identify you with this mindset). Look at any news story on the internet that deals vaguely with religion and you see all the comments about how people should abandon religion, religion is stupid and illogical, etc.
Call them “vocal” or “vehement” if you want, they are fundamentalists who like all fundamentalists think the world would be such a swell place if everyone converted to their way of thinking, by the sword if necessary.
Atheism is as much a faith as any. You believe something, you may believe a negative, but something being unproven does not make it untrue. Well before it was discovered people believed there would be a continent right where Australia turned out to be. This was unprovable, and yet turned out to be correct. The fact that the reason why there was a continent there was completely unrelated to why they thought there would be one is irrelevent, the point is Atheists believe there is no god, theists believe there is a god, it is agnostics who take the scientific approach and say it is unknowable.
Finally when I say worship I mean fawning on their every word, getting very indignant when anyone calls what they say into question (even though as you yourself said, modern science holds Darwin to have been incorrect in a number of areas). They may not pray to them but they certainly idolize and venerate them to an unhealthy extent.
L
lynx
Guest
Not the case. Religion asks for your faith. Atheism asks for proof. Now the more outlandish your claim the more proof you require, however there is a floor in that you must meet basic scientific method standards. Now the thing about scientific method, is that it’s hard to prove something. Mostly all you do is support a claim. Now, a claim as extraordinary as God needs some extraordinary amount of proof, and there isn’t any. Scientific method and lack of belief are not faith no matter how hard anyone believes it to be. There is no faith in atheism. If you are atheist and rely on faith for something then you’re doing it wrong. If you think atheism uses faith for something then you’re defining atheism wrong. If you can’t separate faith and scientific logic then you might be defining your own religion wrong.
Are you seriously relating the discovery of a continent to the existence of God? Wanna know if something exists on Earth? You go there. How are you proving God exists? Oh wait, you can’t, it’s a matter of faith. Please see the extreme differences here between the physical and ethereal.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
We disagree. Since the question has nothing to do with the thread we’ll just have to leave it at that.
“You go there” I’m not sure how you figure people who don’t have ships worthy of leaving the coasts are supposed to “go there”. The point was that people believed it existed long before they had any proof, and they were right. Lack of proof is not proof of a negative.
A
AntiTheist
Guest
The question has everything to do with the thread, because it’s the exact place where the comparison fails.
Atheism, as lynx correctly points out, isn’t a “faith.” It’s the lack of a belief. It doesn’t take “faith” to lack belief in the Hindu gods, or in Bigfoot, or in flying saucers (NOTE: I am comparing the lack of belief in each case – I’m not comparing the entities, which are obviously different).
The point is that it doesn’t take faith not to believe in something. This significantly makes atheism not a faith and not comparable to a religion in any way.
The comparison of atheists to Christian fundamentalists only serves the function of trying to put atheism on the same level as religion. It’s not: it’s a position of rejecting a claim until evidence is forthcoming, the exact same position that you take on the question of trolls (NOTE: again, I’m comparing your lack of belief in trolls to my lack of belief in your god – I’m not comparing your god to trolls, as I know that the claims are different).
M
Madaglan
Guest
The problem I see is that the greater number of fundamentalist atheists are driven almost unilaterally by positivist convictions. They reject God because there is no [physical] evidence for God. Yet, these same fundamentalist atheists, when it comes to morality, cannot provide empirical evidence that, say, there exists good and evil besides what is called good and evil by certain societies or individuals. They still speak as if certain actions were de facto evil (e.g. rape, pedophilia, genocide) while all the while stressing human determinism and how we are “wired” to act in certain ways.
Frederick Nietzche in his own day attacked the atheistic humanists who, while dropping God from their worldview, retained the traditional (Christian) moral values that accompany belief in God, in particular the Christian God. For the fundamentalist atheists of today, it is as though the radical consequences of life without God (articulated by Dostoevsky, Nietzche et al.) were of little concern to him who advocates a worldview without God.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
No, a lack of belief would be to say “who cares” and leave it alone. That’s much the way I feel about Bigfoot or flying saucers. Fundamentalist Atheists apparently do care because they insist on trying to convert people to their cause. I personally don’t care if you believe in Bigfoot or not, but when you start trying to convert people to your point of view you’ve made it a religion.
And no, it doesn’t “only” serve to put atheism on the same level as religion, it serves to mock those people who for whatever reason claim to not believe and actually care about bringing others to not believe with them.
R
rick43235
Guest
At the time I am writing this, Antitheist has made 638 posts. I would estimate that I’ve read at least 90% if them, and I don’t recall a single one in which he tried to “convert” anyone to atheism.
A
AntiTheist
Guest
I lack belief in Bigfoot. If a group of Bigfoot believers got together and started to pass laws that said that everyone in the society – whether or not they believe in Bigfoot – has to do certain things by the laws set down by Bigfoot, I would probably vehemently oppose their actions and strongly argue against the existence of Bigfoot by pointing out that there is no evidence to accept the claim.
In that situation, I would obviously still lack belief in Bigfoot.
And my pointing out that there’s no good evidence or reason to believe in Bigfoot could hardly be compared to trying to convince people to accept claims on the basis of faith.
Sheesh.
And thanks, rick. It’s not my goal to “convert” anyone – just to get them to think critically.
- Status