Arguing Against Fundamentalism: Why It Matters. (Buddhist, churches, abortion, Baptist)

[Rafius]

Superstition has held back humanity for too long. Eradication is long overdue. Humanity has nothing to loose and everything to gain from the eradication of superstition.

[Wingfoot]

Originally Posted by Mercury Cougar

Oh please. Unless the laws of physics (and other scientific disciplines) have changed, then science can accurately predict causes and effects from both the past and the future.

Yes they have changed and radically ,from Einstein to to string theory and much in between.
Many leading theorists now think it quite possible. that you were born before your grandfather, that the human mind simply cannot comprehend the space-time relationships.

[Wingfoot]

Originally Posted by Rafius

Superstition has held back humanity for too long. Eradication is long overdue. Humanity has nothing to loose and everything to gain from the eradication of superstition.

True, but the cure is worse than the disease, who decides what superstition is?
And who enforces the eradication?

Ghandi might have one view, Hitler another.

[deepcynic]

I, for one, am not for eradication. I just want religious views/superstition kept out my my laws and government.

[Gplex]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Truth must be established by corroborating evidence. No such evidence can ever be produced about the non-existence of God . . . only about specific beliefs about and attributes of God. Those "fundamentalist atheists" who believe in science and take the "A" position are as dismissive, exclusionary and "pig-headed" as those "fundamentalist theists" who believe in scripture and take the "literalist" position . . . North and South-going Zax.

Thats not what "A" said. A said...

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

A) "God does not exist and is just a fairy tale! You might as well believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster as believe in that book. There is no empirical evidence for God period!"

So again, using the name "God", I have to assume you are talking about the christian or the islamic god. Just saying "God", and expecting me to read your mind on your definition of god is unreasonable, and you know it.
The part I would say is the truth at the moment is "There is no empirical evidence for God period!"

We have every right to dismiss a belief that has no imperial evidence to back it up.
No, you can not compare blind faith with knowledge.

Again "fundamentalist atheists" is an oxymoron.

[Rafius]

Originally Posted by Wingfoot

........... who decides what superstition is?
And who enforces the eradication?

Me!

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Gplex

Thats not what "A" said. A said...
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
A) "God does not exist and is just a fairy tale! You might as well believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster as believe in that book. There is no empirical evidence for God period!"

But it does say God does not exist and that it is a fairy tale.

So again, using the name "God", I have to assume you are talking about the christian or the islamic god. Just saying "God", and expecting me to read your mind on your definition of god is unreasonable, and you know it.

You know what ASSume does don't you? There are far too many descriptions of God (including yours) to ASSume anything! So "God does not exist and is just a fairy tale" is NOT corroborated by evidence and cannot be.

The part I would say is the truth at the moment is "There is no empirical evidence for God period!"

I would prefer to believe that all the scientific evidence for your God refutes that.

We have every right to dismiss a belief that has no empirical evidence to back it up.
No, you can not compare blind faith with knowledge.

Again "fundamentalist atheists" is an oxymoron.

Sorry . . . but they DO exist. QED!

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by Wingfoot

Yes they have changed and radically ,from Einstein to to string theory and much in between.

Not changed. Just re-evaluated and added to. I mean, 150 years go we believed in phlogiston, right? (Google it...) Now we now better. Our knowledge is better, not just "changed", but also improved. Based on better work and more rational studies. Better.

Many leading theorists now think ... that the human mind simply cannot comprehend the space-time relationships.

I agree. I've mentioned time and again that my cat cannot understand how a DVD player works. I mean it's technical basics. Does that mean it doesn't exist, or that it's therefore "mystical"? I doubt it.

We may not be able to understand, for example, infinity, but I'm still believing that there's some logical explanation for how it works. And you? do you just want to give up, stop asking questions (as NIKK proposes) and give Gawd all the credit?

Originally Posted by Wingfoot

True, but the cure is worse than the disease, who decides what superstition is? And who enforces the eradication?

Ghandi might have one view, Hitler another.

Well, if it's unbased, illogical and dependant on magical interpretation, and grants endless powers to non-existant figures, we're most of the way to defining it as superstitious, right?

We're not talking about killing people, just stopping their endless rapacious preying on innocent folks. What's the harm in that?

At the least, hows'bout we stop people from personally benefitting (financially and egotistically) from superstitious stories? Benny Hinn? That charlotan is outa here. Pat Robertson? All donations to him now go to the Feed the Children Fund, with unpaid volunteer administrators. Swaggert? That bum goes to jail, IMHO. Or else becomes a New Orleans street bum.

Nobody makes any more extravagant livings off of innocent but illiterate folks' fears and donations. Not even the Catholic Church. (...ever see how the pope lives? Wow. No cheap wine in that household!)

[rifleman]

First, I'm going to categorically state that religious fundamentalism is mostly and primarily responsible for the world's over-population problems. The Christian prevention of birth control, political support by the Catholic Church for child subsidies in many countries (the Canadian Baby Bonus "subsidy", for example, originally initiated in Catholic Quebec, with their massive families; and their insistence on feeding the starving children and mothers in Africa so they can get up and back into their huts to make more babies. Then the missionaries arrive and give out medical help but with a cultural cost: "Join the Church that saved you and your babies!"

Big contributors to the local church simultaneously participate in corruption and illegal business practices, while hiding under the skirts of religion? The Church turns a very blind eye to, for example, toxic waste dumping and slave labor in outsourcing companies?

Then, we have endless massive historical battles between various religious cultures: Romans, Jews, Arabs, Huns, Asians, North and South American Indians, The Meti's in western Canada, Russian pograms, Iranian threats to exterminate Isreal, Isreali persecution of the Palestinians whose land they stole in 1948 with the help of the stupid Brits; when does it stop?

Next, we have concentrated efforts by religious dogmatists to suppress all curiosity and knowledge , starting, most appropriately, with our children in Sunday Schools, and with utterly ridiculous videos and books.

We allowed a standing US President to start up a Faith-Based Initiatives funding program? With my tax dollars, all while he stepped on the neck of valid stem cell research? Huh?

Finally, we have moronic small-town folk trying to enforce nutball curriculum changes to hide critical thinking skills from our children, and to conflate science and it's valid discoveries with mysticism and fear-mongering superstition. WHAT?

All this openly conducted by adults we regularly find to be purposefully lying. (Hovind, Ham, Comfort, etc.)

We allow this? We shouldn't fight this with all our hearts and minds?

[Roxolan]

Originally Posted by Thomas R.

So, with that in mind, I guess one could be an atheist fundamentalist. Although the core principle in mind would be more limited to one thing "Do not believe in God." Still I would say most of the atheists we see of late have more "fundamental" principles than just that one. The most popular kind I see online of late would support all or most of the following

• Science is the only valid way to judge truth from falsehood.
• Beliefs should be limited to what can be supported from empirical evidence and reason.
• Non-verifiable beliefs must never influence, or even be mentioned, in politics or education.
• Liberating others from non-verifiable notions is noble and should be encouraged.
• Monotheism must be treated with particular ridicule and distrust.

If any atheist here rejects any of those five then I'm wrong about them. I just doubt many or any do.

For myself, I mostly agree. I wouldn't state the first three as strongly but I share the general idea.

I disagree with the last one: all irrational beliefs should be ridiculed as much as they deserve, and there are much more ridiculous beliefs than monotheism out there. Abrahamic religions take more heat because they have a bigger influence on atheists' lives, but the same heat isn't applied to all monotheistic religions. And, although you don't see it that much here, other irrational beliefs (like "alternate medicines") get quite a bashing from many militant atheists.

But remember: there are atheists outside of the US, and most of them are nowhere near as militant as US atheists. And there are people who are atheists simply because they were not educated in religion (and it's harder to pick up late, especially in secular Europe) - not because they are enlightened free-thinkers. I know atheists who believe in astrology, or in homeopathy. And Raëlism is an atheistic religion.