Why is it ok for atheists to be like fundamentalists? (priest, ghosts)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Idk its strange, you always hear about people talking about people pushing their religious belifs onto others but honestly in my experience i deal with more atheist pushing their non beliefs onto others and attacking those simply just because they believe in God.
Idk its strange, you always hear about people talking about people pushing their religious belifs onto others but honestly in my experience i deal with more atheist pushing their non beliefs onto others and attacking those simply just because they believe in God.
Hmmm...maybe it's a Minnesota thing? Or an American thing?
Because I'm 63 years old, have traveled fairly extensively in my youth, lived in cities, towns and wee hamlets, and I've yet to encounter a single pushy atheist. Not a one!
There's another thread going in which people debate on the value in indoctrinating their children to be atheists
Actually on that thread it is you that made that implication, no one else. But the OP is way off the mark suggesting it is "OK" for atheists to be fundamentalists. No one is suggesting any such thing is ok. Every group, religious or otherwise has their fundamentalists and they are an embarrassment, in general, to most of the people in those groups.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
I contend that teaching your child "There is no god" is akin to teaching him there is one.
Not really. One is a judgement call in the face of the existing lack of any evidence whatsoever. The other is outright misleading people into a fantasy based on no evidence at all. I do not see the two as being "akin" whatsoever.
But this is simply how we use language as a species. We make outright judgement claims all the time in how we speak. Because we are a species that chooses to speak concisely and bluntly most of the time. I will sometimes write or say the link "There is no god".
But if asked to unpack at length what I MEAN by that I will happily explain to people that yes, ok, what I mean is that there is not even the tiniest shred of argument, evidence, data, or reasoning to suggest there is a god of any sort and as such as dismiss the assertion entirely and move on without it. And I my world view is therefore entirely devoid of even the remotest notion that there is a god.
But as I saw we speak concisely as a species most of the time. We aim for brevity. And I am happy to use a line like "There is no god" when the context calls for it. I will also, for example, say "The speed of light in a vaccum is.....X" rather than say "Well we have no way to know the the speed of light in a vacuum is fixed in all points of the universe at all times, but every single experiment we have performed to date tells us that the speed of light in a vacuum always results in X but of course we in science are prepared at any moment to re-evaluate that claim the very moment a single experiment comes out with a different result......."
at which point the eyes of the person you are talking to will have essentially glazed over and you will have lost them.
I am happy to tell anyone in the light of available evidence or lack of evidence what I strongly SUSPECT to be true and my current position in the context of that statement is indeed that there is no god. And I do not see the lack of "honesty" in doing so that you are trying to desperately over multiple threads to inject it with. I think your error is in attempting to see every utterance we might make as being a 100% truth claim while ignoring the context entirely that people might be making those statements in. And my children for one will be perfectly aware of the context I operate under when making statements, rather than me having to turn into Captain Caveat every time I dare to speak at them.
Idk its strange, you always hear about people talking about people pushing their religious belifs onto others but honestly in my experience i deal with more atheist pushing their non beliefs onto others and attacking those simply just because they believe in God.
Oh, dear. I suggest you put it to them that you fully accept their right to disbelieve in a god and trust that they will accept your right to believe in it.
That is the view that all the atheists I have encountered tend to push.
Reading through the threads on here, I witness one common theme: atheists giving believers a hard time and mocking their gods and faiths. The same atheists who oppose fundamentalist Christianity in the United States, or Islam as a state religion in many countries. They seem to want every country to embrace atheism as a state "religion" but we all saw how well that worked out for the Soviet Union.
I'm not a religious person, but I find it really obnoxious. You people are no less annoying than the fundamentalist Christians who want to make their religion a part of our laws and use them to rewrite American history. Until these Moderator cut: deleted attitudes go away on both sides, we will never be able to function well as a society.
This is a blanket statement. Plenty of atheists and agnostics don't go around picking fights with the religious. I'd say the majority. When confronted with religion, they may retaliate in a way some consider militant. There are certainly some atheists who are militant, but not that many. Most are just clear. Many are threatened by clarity. Richard Dawkins has been called militant, but really, he's just very clear and to the point. He doesn't sugar coat his views; offending people should never be a concerned as only the truly small get offended and really, offending people is a positive as one must think at least a little in order to get offended.
As for this forum, some go picking fights, but it's an internet forum. One can ignore this and simply not respond. When you see a back and fourth between an atheist and a believer, neither can really be blamed. Both obviously want to discuss, or at least yell there opinion louder. On thread where the religious start, and I'm talking of the ones that involve implying God has to be literally true, the religious are just as much to blame for any backlash they face.
You bring up the Soviet Union, which is a weak point. Pointing out a similarity between something and things like Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia is never a reasonable point. The atrocities that occurred in the USSR had nothing to do with a lack of state religion (or rather, communism being the state religion), it was just the functioning of a totalitarian government. If you can blame atheism for what Stalin did, that means it's fair to say Catholics are at fault for what Hitler was, which is of course unreasonable.
Atheism cannot be state religion. In order to be a state religion, it needs to be a religion. Atheism is not a religion. It's the lack of religion. If atheism in a religion, then 'not skiing' is a hobby. "I've never been skiing; I do it all the time!" See, that sounds ridiculous. The equivalent to atheism being a state religion is secularism, which has been an idea that existed at least a hundred years before communism. America is technically already secular. "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." A law cannot impose a religious belief. The activists pushing for secularism aren't pushing secularism as a replacement, but a reminder of what the constitution actually says.
Full disclosure, I'm not condoning rudeness. We need to tolerate other beliefs, but there are exceptions. Some religious beliefs are extreme. If it's socially acceptable for us to look at Middle Eastern Islam with disgust for their treatment of women, we can look at Western Christians with the same disgust for their harsh view of homosexuals. If people can go door to door asking people if they've found Jesus, people can go around asking if people have rejected God yet. It's fair. And in the case of discussion, no one is required to take part. But if a religious person and a non-religious person get into conversation, both have the right, and in my opinion the responsibility, to say exactly what they are thinking. Having tolerance does not mean honest discussion should not take place; it means knowing when something is ok to say or not.
Actually I think it's the "salvation" part that most don't believe if they've been raised without it and are thinkers. The magical thinking is the hardest thing to accept. It almost takes a brain tic to go from one side to the other on that if you haven't been spoon fed since birth or haven't hit such a wall in your life that you need a new reality. What I usually see is people not really digging that deep but accepting what they have to in order to pass.
There's an absence of magical thinking, and then there's skepticism. One doesn't automatically indicate the other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
Actually on that thread it is you that made that implication, no one else. But the OP is way off the mark suggesting it is "OK" for atheists to be fundamentalists. No one is suggesting any such thing is ok. Every group, religious or otherwise has their fundamentalists and they are an embarrassment, in general, to most of the people in those groups.
You don't feel that telling a kid point blank as if it's a fact "There is no god" is indoctrinating them? You don't think this is an outright attempt to shut the door to alternative views? Because if it isn't, I'd like to know what you think it is...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
Not really. One is a judgement call in the face of the existing lack of any evidence whatsoever. The other is outright misleading people into a fantasy based on no evidence at all. I do not see the two as being "akin" whatsoever.
Thank you, Nozz, for confirming: They are both based on no evidence. They are both just really strong promotions of really strong statements, based on nothing. Oh, rest assured I will always agree that "There is no god" sounds more logical to me, but it is not a promise I can make to my kid.
No, not even to "save time" (and I do mean to suggest here that this is not why a parent would tell their kid "There is no god".)
There's an absence of magical thinking, and then there's skepticism. One doesn't automatically indicate the other.
You don't feel that telling a kid point blank as if it's a fact "There is no god" is indoctrinating them? You don't think this is an outright attempt to shut the door to alternative views? Because if it isn't, I'd like to know what you think it is... Thank you, Nozz, for confirming: They are both based on no evidence. They are both just really strong promotions of really strong statements, based on nothing. Oh, rest assured I will always agree that "There is no god" sounds more logical to me, but it is not a promise I can make to my kid.
No, not even to "save time" (and I do mean to suggest here that this is not why a parent would tell their kid "There is no god".
You are correct, Vic . . . any atheist who says flat out that "there is no God" is a fundamentalist with no more justification than a fundamentalist believer. All such positive assertions require more than the opinion of the one making the assertion. "I don't think" or "I don't believe there is a God" are the only type of scientifically acceptable assertions for an atheist.
You are correct, Vic . . . any atheist who says flat out that "there is no God" is a fundamentalist with no more justification than a fundamentalist believer. All such positive assertions require more than the opinion of the one making the assertion. "I don't think" or "I don't believe there is a God" are the only type of scientifically acceptable assertions for an atheist.
Although I certainly can't speak for atheists, I agree -- flip sides of the same assertion coin.
You bring up the Soviet Union, which is a weak point. Pointing out a similarity between something and things like Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia is never a reasonable point. The atrocities that occurred in the USSR had nothing to do with a lack of state religion (or rather, communism being the state religion), it was just the functioning of a totalitarian government. If you can blame atheism for what Stalin did, that means it's fair to say Catholics are at fault for what Hitler was, which is of course unreasonable.
That's where you are wrong. Stalin had thousands of priests and other religious officials executed in the name of atheism. He destroyed churches, mosques and other religious establishments on the communist belief that religion is the opiate of the masses. The Leage Of Militant Atheists pushed the Soviet Union's views on thousands of children in an act that was "fundamentalist" in every way imaginable.
Your comparison to Hitler doesn't add up. Hitler never executed anyone in the name of Catholicism.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I suggest you put it to them that you fully accept their right to disbelieve in a god and trust that they will accept your right to believe in it.
Thank you, Nozz, for confirming: They are both based on no evidence. They are both just really strong promotions of really strong statements, based on nothing. Oh, rest assured I will always agree that "There is no god" sounds more logical to me, but it is not a promise I can make to my kid.
