Internet atheism: one of secularism's biggest enemies (marriage, evolution, service)
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.
in a nutshell: fundamental atheists are the ones on these boards who constantly tell believers in God that they are wrong and have stupid beliefs. they are the ones who regularly engage in offensive toxic behavior that includes name calling, condescension, insults, belittling, mocking, sarcasm, berating, deriding, hostility.
they are the ones who exhibit and express an excruciating lack of tolerance for those who have different religious views than they do; they show an appalling lack of respect for others, and a marked unwillingness for self-improvement or introspection, and refuse to take responsibility for their own toxic behavior, or even see it as offensive, because they are so convinced they are right and others are wrong. as an adjunct they also often scoff at, ridicule, and reject therapy, counseling, and self-reflection.
I agree with most of what you said with one exception:
In all fairness, "fundamentalist atheism" is a bit of an oxymoron. All atheism means is lack of belief in God. Most atheists on Earth just don't want to be bothered with and are too busy living their lives to care what others believe, so long as it doesn't bother them.
What we are seeing are instead "anti-theists". An anth-theist has a belief: a belief that religion is bad. And there is concrete evidence against that belief (theists are happier in general, less likely to commit suicide, are healthier in general etc)
In short, an anti-theist is an atheist who opposes all religion, even when it isn't bothering them, while an atheist usually just shrugs and says something along the lines of "whatever floats your boat."
if you consider the behaviors of name-calling, insults, condescension, ridicule, mocking, belittling, sarcasm, and berating to be "robust, intellectual, and diligent" then you have a ways to go in learning and practicing effective tools of communication.
And yet you have not found or shown any examples of my doing things like name calling or insults and the like. So you are attacking a straw man while ignoring the vast majority of the content of the post I did actually write. So you are really not in a position to admonish others on effective communication really. Quite the opposite in fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
I've said a half dozen times that the problem is fundamentalism, not atheism. You don't seem to be paying much attention to what's being posted in the discussion.
Says the person who has ignored the dodged the majority of what I have written. And when that has failed, merely changed what I wrote into something entirely different. Pot. Meet Kettle. You will get on well.
But no the problem is not fundamentalism. Or at least not just fundamentalism. The problem is that there are people who represent themselves poorly punctuated all over the place. You are an example of it yourself. And the best we can do is confront it in other groups, while also trying to clean it up in our own. But leaping on it to make a narrative out of it to attack a group you have a beef with, like you do with atheism, is not helpful, honest or wise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
Yes, because it is based on faith. I have no scientific evidence, data or proof that would hold up in a lab. And yet I still believe because I chose to.
Then, as I said before, you simply have an ability that I do not. Because I simply can not "choose" to believe or not believe something. I am either compelled by the evidence to believe, or I am not compelled by a lack of evidence. There is no "choice" in it for me.
I genuinely wonder how labile the credulity of some people can get. For example if I present to you a clearly empty box can you simply "choose" to believe it is full of money? I certainly can not.
The simple fact is that no one, least of all on this forum, has presented a shred of argument, evidence, data or reasoning that there is a sentient god being or an after life where our consciousness continues on after the death of the brain.
So it is not that I choose not to believe those things. I simply am unable to given the lack of any substantiation for the claims.
Then, as I said before, you simply have an ability that I do not. Because I simply can not "choose" to believe or not believe something. I am either compelled by the evidence to believe, or I am not compelled by a lack of evidence. There is no "choice" in it for me.
Okay. Sorry to hear that.
Quote:
I genuinely wonder how labile the credulity of some people can get. For example if I present to you a clearly empty box can you simply "choose" to believe it is full of money? I certainly can not.
Again, that is a strawman: you can open the box and see if the money is not there or is there. You cannot prove a God does or does not exist.
Quote:
The simple fact is that no one, least of all on this forum, has presented a shred of argument, evidence, data or reasoning that there is a sentient god being or an after life where our consciousness continues on after the death of the brain.
Those things are both impossible to prove or disprove. Hence, faith comes in.
Quote:
So it is not that I choose not to believe those things. I simply am unable to given the lack of any substantiation for the claims.
So the old "if it can't be counted, it doesn't count," routine. Well:
No need to be. I am not. Quite the opposite in fact. Given the nonsense some people subscribe to as true in this world, I am quite positively happy that belief for me is 100% contingent on there being substantiation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
Again, that is a strawman
Again it is not. Wondering something is not a strawman. You would do well to learn what the phrase actually means before you continue to misuse it so readily.
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
You cannot prove a God does or does not exist.
I rarely, if ever, even use the word "prove". It suggests a conclusive result that I would not hold theists to. It is too lofty and difficult a target. Instead I go with a less strident approach of asking if they have any substantiation at all that lends any credibility to their claims.
Alas, even that they appear unable to offer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
Those things are both impossible to prove or disprove. Hence, faith comes in. So the old "if it can't be counted, it doesn't count," routine.
If you say so. I sure didn't. All I am saying is that I personally can not choose to believe things. Substantiation compels me to believe them. And given you appear to have none to offer, I am therefore unable to believe your claims. I do not "choose" to disbelieve them. I am simply not capable of it. Your claims, to me, are indistinguishable for every other unsubstantiated claim on the planet. The idea there is a god or an after life is exactly on a par to me with the claim that the elected elite of our planet have been replaced by lizard aliens wearing human suits. These claims and yours have EXACTLY the same amount of substantiation on offer for them. Exactly none.
Tzaph is right.
We are the ones that are messed up.
You know she is telling it like it is. Just cop to it.
That it isn't applied equally is not true. She has flamed me to a crisp before. Personally, no less. But, it had merit...so...
You probably did deserve it Gldn.
But the point I'm trying to make is that I don't prefer a lot of things people say, and how they might say it. But to insist that others are abusive and dogmatic by being abusive and dogmatic....is wrong in my view. I don't have to engage with anyone on this forum that I can't tolerate their communication style, whether healthy or not.
I don't even need to open that video. Your point is wrong in that it merely posits the old canard: "Science claims to know everything". It doesn't claim to but what it does claim to have verified is reliable and is remarkably consistently shown to be valid.
Faith based speculation about the unknown, on the other hand, are without any validity at all.
So, whatever truisms that video was announcing, posting it did you no good at all.
... observed that dynamic for over 20 years, from coming to the strong suspicion and realization that the most likely explanation on offer for this egregious behavior is that they know as well as I do.... that they are making it all up ....
..... In your analogy if someone comes to me and can not count to 10..... I teach them to. When someone comes to you and cant count to 10 you send them on their way rejected....
And I would be interested, should you ever get around to it, in any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning you may be aware of that there even IS a "word of spirit" or how you define what is a "world of spirit" in the first place. ...For example let us look at the claim that there is an after life.... that is to say that human consciousness, subjectivity and awareness survives the death of the brain...
OK let's talk about obstacles to learning
and flawed logic
let's use the calculus / not knowing how to count to 10 example /
there is a classroom with people discussing various calculus problems.
a person wanders in and does not know what they are talking about, and he tells them it is nonsense. he demands they tell him what they're talking about. they start to explain it and he says it is nonsense and doesn't make sense so they are making it up. they wave him away and tell him to go to the classroom down the hall where people are learning how to count to 10.
what needs to be in place for the person to learn how to count to 10? here are some that come to mind, what else would you put on this list? desire to learn, willingness to learn, willingness to admit they don't know how to count to 10, someone for them to learn from, ability to ask questions, ability to listen, willingness to do homework problems, make mistakes, study, practice.
obstacles to learning how to count to 10: numbers don't exist; people who claim there are numbers are not being honest, they are making it up; i've been hearing about numbers for 20 years and nobody will show me how to count to ten, therefore they are making it up; i've looked at the calculus book and it is nonsense; it must be explained to me using only letters, not numbers, otherwise it is made up nonsense; i don't like the teachers; i don't need numbers because i have letters.
the language of calculus will never make sense if a person insists that numbers don't exist and numbers are made up nonsense and if you claim numbers exist then you are dishonest because they are not listed in the alphabet book and something can only be substantiated by using letters therefore numbers don't exist and you are being dishonest and talking nonsense.
Learning goes better when there are statements along the lines of "i don't understand, this does not make sense to me, how does it work, i have a problem with this part here." Rather than being told you are making it up, this is nonsense, you are dishonest.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 05-25-2016 at 10:05 PM..
also, again, the problem is not that a person has different views on religion. your views on religion can be whatever they are. i have no interest in changing anyone's views on religion.
the problem is the glaringly flawed logic of making the leap from "i don't understand" to "therefore you are making it up and you know you are making it up and you are dishonest"
it's the glaring problem of equating "i have different views" with "therefore you are a liar" and "you lack critical thinking skills" and "you have a brain if you would only pick it up and use it"
the classroom scenario/ obstacles to learning example / is not trying to get you to change your views on religion, is not trying to get a person to learn how to count to 10 or admit that numbers exist. it is trying to get you to see how other people can be fluent in something that you don't understand (whether that is numbers or spirit). a person can continue to hold the view "letters are fine, don't need numbers for anything, anything you can do with numbers i can do with letters." however those who are fluent in both letters and numbers, know that is not so.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 05-26-2016 at 08:08 AM..
let's use the calculus / not knowing how to count to 10 example
Eh, let's not, Tz. Mathematical principles are demonstrably sound even if they ultimately derive from a few unproven axiomatic principles. Math has great descriptive and predictive power, is a foundation of science itself, and so is reasonable to believe that numbers exist or can be added and the like. Once you are taught that 1+1=2, it proves to invariably be the case.
The descriptions / explanations / predictions of theists on the other hand bear little relationship to actual outcomes in experienced shared reality with others and so it is reasonable to doubt the premise on which they are based.
Or put another way, if I come upon some people talking to thin air and claiming that thin air answers this kind of talking which they call "prayer" and that it "changes things", I have far, far, FAR less basis to suspect that to be true than if I come upon some people doing mathematical calculations to determine if a proposed bridge will hold up or not. Particularly if they are trained engineers.
Everything in this realm comes down to reasonable belief or reasonable doubt and the likelihood of a thing being so or not, and what sorts of things deserve us to lend our credulity to them.
Mathematical principles are demonstrably sound even if they ultimately derive from a few unproven axiomatic principles. ....
Everything in this realm comes down to reasonable belief or reasonable doubt and the likelihood of a thing being so or not, and what sorts of things deserve us to lend our credulity to them.
it's not about changing what you believe, that's not the point
it's about realizing that people are fluent in areas that you are not
if a person chooses to use only letters (or be fluent only in the physical), that is their choice
others choose to use letters and numbers (or be fluent in both the physical and the spirit)
for those fluent in spirit, spiritual principles are demonstrably sound.
my observation is that the conclusion put forth as "spirit is not credible," is from trying to do math using letters instead of numbers. due to the obstacles described in previous classroom example.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 05-26-2016 at 01:02 PM..
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.
