Internet atheism: one of secularism's biggest enemies (bible, Jews, sunday)

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Mircea

That would be the long and short of it.



How should we treat people who believe in invisible supernatural non-existent beings?

Should we elevate such people above all others?



The movement is all-inclusive. It's not the fault of Atheists that Negroes are castigated and ostracized by their own Race for even questioning the existence of a god. It's akin to Conservative Blacks who are labeled as "Race-traitors" by their own and by Liberals.



All definitions of god are pure fantasy and wishful thinking, as are all definitions of an after-life.

Thank you. The methods being used to bash atheism here are very revealing. Making wrong and unfair arguments or indeed nasty accusations about race and any refutation made is taken as evidence that it is true!

I don't want to get onto finger -pointing at the beliefs of religion (apart from explaining why we don't buy them) but, no; no special privileges to religious believers as wiser, more moral or more entitled to tell us how to live just because of what they believe. I like your 'race -traitors' point. I can remember the furore when Bob Dylan bought an electric guitar. He had betrayed the integrity of the Folk thing and gone over to the pop -commercialists.

Anyway, there it is; 'Atheist Fundy' is nothing to do with literalist dogma, but is about the looser application of religious extremism. We are "Fundies" because we are very vocal. We use the terms correctly (Genesis -literalism and denial of science; adherence to passages about sex and denial of human rights for women or gays). Applied to us, it is wrongly used and is merely a propaganda method to bash us.

The effort to discredit us by accusing us of some sort of whites -only policy is no different from the picking on Nozz and his blunt (though quite justified) talk to try to win some cheap points by playing the persecuted martyr.

The arguments are old hat, and the mendacious pose as friends of humanism advising us to tone it down a bit because we are harming the secularist cause by being so strident ain't so new, either. But it is handy to have the chance to explain to the browsers and lurkers (potential welcome posters once they get the urge) the grubby polemics employed against atheists when the poverty of any case for theism is exposed. And the methods and mindset of theist apologists is more interesting than their arguments. Which is why I am going on a bit.

It only remains to wonder why these sortagod -"agnostics" Such as BUu Tzaph, Bulma, Gldnrule (oh yes) and VP get so annoyed with atheists who don't buy any kind of god -claim but are only campaigning against organized religion and its influence. Why are 'agnostics' so angry with us?

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Mircea

...All definitions of god are pure fantasy and wishful thinking, as are all definitions of an after-life.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Interesting. How on earth did you come to this definitive position??? It would seem to require more knowledge than we currently have of our reality.

I think you know very well, old mate. You have heard the 'Santa doesn't exist - so far as we know' argument before and you are wise enough to know that is what was meant. I choose my words a bit more carefully to avoid technical cheap -point -scoring on the 100% certainty gambit (note your forcing of a 'definitive position' on our pal) . But I concur with what Mircea said.

P.s Damn! You are so crafty. I missed another one! You reversed the burden of proof by playing the 'You must know everything' card when in fact all that is needed to dismiss god and afterlife -claims as fantasy is for there to be no valid evidence for (that is, supporting) them.

P.p s. And I just noted the subtle touch of re -using 'definition' (dictionary meaning of "God" and "afterlife") to subtly suggest that he was claiming a 'definitive' position. I am truly in awe of your cunning. I have often wondered whether you weren't Lane -Craig in mufti.

[bUU]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

Despite your brave attempt at denial, the thread has produced no decent evidence for an afterlife

What I see, in your throwaway reply to a rather lengthy and thoughtful challenge to you, is your unwillingness to even allow yourself to consider the words you might read. Thanks for demonstrating so convincingly that which I was referring to. Why don't you review how mordant replied to the same comments? You may get something out of it.

Originally Posted by mordant

Or maybe you're engaging in speculation about what I'm thinking or feeling or what my motives are rather than asking me to elucidate them or believing me when I do.

Which would be fair, given that you wrote that in response to me calling you out for doing the that very thing, stooping to discussing the discussion as a means of deflecting attention away from comments you don't like but don't have a legitimate way of wiping away.

Originally Posted by mordant

You know exactly what I mean in context.

What were you just saying about "engaging in speculation about what I'm thinking or feeling or what my motives"? Sorry, mordant. Your comments are getting far too hypocritical. And off-topic, since the topic is about atheism, not me, personally.


So I'm going to focus y'all back onto the topic, and the challenge I posted. Stop all the puerile games, stop the personal attacks - and respond to the challenge I posed regarding the after life.

Originally Posted by mordant

Let's test my theory:

Even though it was my theory to start with, testing whether you could bring yourself to express some recognition of the legitimacy of people making meaning that you personally don't understand or care to. No matter... if it gets you to move away from fundamentalism a little bit, that's great.

Originally Posted by mordant

I completely agree that it's fine to view oneself as living on after death in the impact people have had on the children they raise. People have the right to take that view for themselves, and deem it valid for themselves, and indeed, I at least in a sense believe that to be true of myself with respect to my own children. Various loved ones I have lost to death live on in my memories of them; why wouldn't I live on in the same way in the memories of those who valued me in life?

Now let us see if, once again, you manage to find fault with someone entirely agreeing with you, or if you manage to parse some offense or deficiency out of this statement that you feel the need to deconstruct and use as evidence of dogmatism or some other disingenuousness on my part.

Why would I? You've posted a justification for believe in a form of after life, one of the building blocks of a legitimate theist perspective.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Interesting. How on earth did you come to this definitive position??? It would seem to require more knowledge than we currently have of our reality.

That's indeed the point: Fundamentalist atheism is as fanciful as fundamentalist theism. It's insistence on the objective truth of matters for which there either is no objective truth, or objective truth is beyond human grasp.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by bUU

What I see, in your throwaway reply to a rather lengthy and thoughtful challenge to you, is your unwillingness to even allow yourself to consider the words you might read. Thanks for demonstrating so convincingly that which I was referring to. Why don't you review how mordant replied to the same comments? You may get something out of it.

....

I read your response old son, but I gave a concise reply because it deserved no better. So you want to sic. me onto Mordant, and fight your battles for you?

Mordant (along with NonCapo - whom I haven't seen around for a while) is one of the soundest and most thoughtful posters on the forum. He and I have disagreed on occasions and he took it in good part. He is very patient and it takes someone who is becoming a bit of an asshat to irritate him. And asshats deserve no more than throwaway answers. Now run to the Mods with your hand up "Please sir! Arq called me an asshat!"

[bUU]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

There are no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning on offer that supports EITHER of these propositions.

Yet those aren't the only definitions of God or the after life.

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

If anyone is not understanding paragraphs therefore, it is not the atheists here.

Nor the UUs, I assure you. So this part of your argument is with others, not me.

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

Not agreeing with you is not the same as not understanding you.

I could say the same thing to you. Regardless, not agreeing requires, according to what atheists claim to believe, actual disagreement - saying premise X is objectively incorrect, or saying that implication Y fails to follow the generally-accepted rules of inference. You haven't done that. You've just said, "Nuh-uh!" And as we've seen above, two atheists reading the same comment I posted internalized it in diametrically opposed ways: One (perhaps intentionally) failed to understand it, and the other expressed it back as their own personal testimony. So it isn't a matter of compatibility with atheistic perspective, but rather is a matter of the willingness to acknowledge the legitimacy of theist perspectives that have no supernatural foundations - in other words, the degree of fundamentalism in the brand of atheism practiced.

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

And you make it clearer with every refusal to engage on those topics, substantiate them, or discuss them with anyone who does not wholesale accept them as truth.

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

Not agreeing with you is not the same as not understanding you.

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

The methods being used to bash atheism here are very revealing.

They might be if you would let them, in that the methods being used aren't being used to "bash atheism" but rather to "bash fundamentalist atheism", and by extension to "bash fundamentalism of all stripes". That's rather the point, to draw the parallel between the intolerance practiced by both extremes of the theism spectrum.

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

We are "Fundies" because we are very vocal.

False. It is because of the intransigent people have with regard to others, not about how vocal people are.

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

The arguments are old hat, and the mendacious pose as friends of humanism advising us to tone it down a bit because we are harming the secularist cause by being so strident ain't so new, either.

That much is true. Fundamentalist atheists have been fomenting counter-productive conflict since the 1950s, at least.

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

It only remains to wonder why these sortagod -"agnostics" Such as BUu Tzaph, Bulma, Gldnrule (oh yes) and VP get so annoyed with atheists who don't buy any kind of god -claim but are only campaigning against organized religion and its influence. Why are 'agnostics' so angry with us?

You're not paying attention. I belong to an organized religion. Organized religion is good - that's part of what I'm trying to explain to you. It is fundamentalism that is bad. All the nasty things that you are saying about the negative influence of religion stems from fundamentalism within religion, and explicitly does not stem from religion devoid of fundamentalism.

[TRANSPONDER]

I am willing to accept correction - you are a religious believer, not a theistic 'agnostic' (1). So at least your hostility to militant atheism makes sense. The rest of your comments don't. At least you admit that your use of the term "Fundamentalist" atheism is not correct in relating to dogma, (2) but to our tone of voice. 'Intransigence' is merely weasel -words. If we think you have not made a good case, what do you expect us to say? (3) No, it is how we say it...or rather that we dare to say it at all, that gets up your nose.

I do regard organized religion as bad and harmful. But, even if it only handed out free soup and not social divisiveness, I would want to see its social influence removed because it is not true. That is if we can trust evidence and reason.

And that is the agenda of militant (a term I happily embrace) atheism. Against organized religion. And I am happy to say that we are getting the point over, though not as fast as I would like. A vanishment of Christianity from the UK is ballpark -estimated at 2027. The USA may take a little longer.

(1) I didn't get any defence of organized religion from your posts, but more a holding up of spiritual values. Especially i.v.o your ref to a post on an Einstein quote relating to atheists rejecting mysteries rather than organized religion - which he did himself.

(2) which is an improvement on your post:-

"Atheism does not have some 'Fundamentalist' - type dogma about mysteries and the unknown or even gods."
"Yet fundamentalist atheism does have fundamentalist dogma."

(3)Incidentally, I already demolished the point you are making here:-
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
This isn't about being outspoken. It is about projecting intractably dogmatic perspectives regarding spirituality, refusing to grant the value others derive from that which they value,

(me) "I agree. But our objections to intractably dogmatic claims and refusal (on the part of some Christians, at least) to grant others the freedom to live according to their own values is what we are outspoken about. And it is right that we should be and wrong that we are accused of being "Fundamentalists" because we do."

again, here post 43.:-
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
The implicit quandary is illusory: Consistent rejection and condemnation of intolerance is not, itself, intolerance. Similarly, consistent rejection and condemnation of dogmatism is not dogmatism.

(me) "Again, I agree, but it is the religious who are at fault here in Faith -based insistence that they are right. Atheism simply does not accept those claims."

And I also explained your circular argument which explanation you omitted, rather dishonestly (4) and simply insisted it was not without giving any explanation. You are not doing too well, so far. Though you are keeping me occupied. Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Your Fundamentalist atheists argument is circular.

Buu "It isn't, but I respect your need to say it is, to safeguard your dogmatic view."

(4) "Your Fundamentalist atheists argument is circular. I would say that, since atheists -or atheism as a rationale, at least - does not make irrational statements of the kind you wished on them, therefore there is no 'Fundamentalist' atheism. There may be a few who think like that, But I can't recall any."

[bUU]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

So at least your hostility to militant atheism makes sense.

So you're okay with your perspective being called "militant atheism" but not with it being called "fundamentalist atheism"?



That doesn't make sense. Let's see if I can demonstrate that in a manner younger folks might understand:

fundamentalist : militant :: Thomas Road Baptist : Westboro Baptist

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

but to our tone of voice. 'Intransigence' is merely weasel -words.

Discussing the discussion again instead of keeping to the topic? Really? Why not stop trying to evade internalizing what others are saying by distracting yourself with fabricated concerns about the words being used?

There is nothing about the word "intransigence" that is weasel wording. The more you work to avoid understanding the words to which you're replying, the more you make clear that you're not even trying to understand the thoughts those words express.

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

If we think you have not made a good case, what do you expect us to say?

I could ask you the same thing.

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

I do regard organized religion as bad and harmful.

I regard categorical thinking as bad and harmful. At least that's supported by my professed beliefs. Your opposition to organized religion appears to be wholly due to guilt by association, as detailed below.

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

And that is the agenda of militant (a term I happily embrace) atheism. Against organized religion.

The problem is that the tenets of atheism don't justify opposition to organized religion. They justify opposition to the supernatural. That's why I'm making the points I'm making - fundamentalist atheists are attacking "everything over there" when what they can prove only justifies attacking some portion thereof.

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

I didn't get any defence of organized religion from your posts

Why would it need to be defended? The question is why should it be attacked? No one has given a good reason for that. Y'all have only provided good reasons to oppose supernatural basis for religion, and to oppose fundamentalism similar to that which you, yourself, express (which is what I'm speaking out against).

Regardless, the benefits of organized religion are myriad, but you have to be ready to hear that before detailing the benefits will be of any use. The first step in understanding the benefits of organized religion is setting aside the knee-jerk antipathy for it, and recognizing the difference between what you really oppose (supernatural basis for religion, and for fundamentalism similar to that which you, yourself, express) and organized religion, itself. Then you can begin to look at organized religion differently than your current, preconceived notions dictate.

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

Especially i.v.o your ref to a post on an Einstein quote relating to atheists rejecting mysteries rather than organized religion - which he did himself.

He was a busy guy. Regardless, the scientist whose quote on religion resonates best is Carl Sagan, "A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, ... Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge."

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

"Atheism does not have some 'Fundamentalist' - type dogma about mysteries and the unknown or even gods. Yet fundamentalist atheism does have fundamentalist dogma."

Of course. Judaism doesn't have fundamentalist-type dogma about saints or transubstantiation, yet there is still fundamentalist Judaism.

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

Incidentally, I already demolished the point you are making here:

Your use of the word "demolished" is more grandstanding in the fallacy of appeal to self-declared authority. Regardless, you first need to actually address the points I've made, instead trying to deflect away from them. Then we can see. The rest of your comment is a bunch of ridiculously poor attempts at distraction, trying to repost comments and replies as if my replies to your replies didn't occur. Let's try to take a higher road than such silliness, eh?

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by bUU

Yet those aren't the only definitions of God or the after life.

Did I anywhere say they were? No. So why you bring it up other than to reply to me without actually replying to what I actually said, I do not know.

Originally Posted by bUU

Nor the UUs, I assure you. So this part of your argument is with others, not me.

Did I anywhere say it was? No. So why you bring it up other than to reply to me without actually replying to what I actually said, I do not know.

Originally Posted by bUU

I could say the same thing to you.

You could. You could also tell me many apples are green. Neither would be relevant to anything I was saying however. Much like above actually.

Originally Posted by bUU

Regardless, not agreeing requires, according to what atheists claim to believe, actual disagreement

Then try it sometime. You have not actually disagreed with, or rebutted or.... lets be honest.... in any way directly addressed anything I said in my previous post. The one saying "nu-uh" here is you, not me, and you are even doing it to points I did not make and things I did not actually say.

Originally Posted by bUU

One........the other

Then take it up with One. Or The Other. Their words and your issue with them have nothing to do with me. If you want to actually reply to ME and what I actually wrote next time however, I am all ears.

Originally Posted by bUU

the willingness to acknowledge the legitimacy of theist perspectives that have no supernatural foundations - in other words, the degree of fundamentalism in the brand of atheism practiced.

If you want to present a perspective on something you feel is legitimate then by all means do. You have not done so yet. Just this vague hand waving reference to it without saying what IT is. I have listed two theistic perspectives in my previous post that do not appear to be legitimate or in ANY way substantiated. If there are any others you wish to bring up, I am again all ears.

Originally Posted by bUU

Ah I see, for whatever reason, you have switched from not really saying anything in response to what I actually wrote, to now literally no saying ANYTHING. With pretty much the same result in terms of utility and relevance as it happens. But.... whatever this image is or was meant to mean..... you might want to elaborate somewhat rather than saying nothing at all.

[TroutDude]

A multi-syllabic bitc*-slap fest between pedants.

Cool.

[bUU]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

Did I anywhere say they were? No. So why you bring it up other than to reply to me without actually replying to what I actually said, I do not know.

It was indeed replying to what you actually said, and explaining what was erroneous about it. You were trying to make claims about theism in general based on inadequacies of certain types of theism. My words made clear that there are other types of theism.

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

Did I anywhere say it was? No. So why you bring it up other than to reply to me without actually replying to what I actually said, I do not know.

Because you were replying to me, so therefore it is reasonable to expect that you were addressing your comment to me. I pointed out that your comment, yet again, was trying to say something about all theists based on attributes of some, but in doing so you were trying to apply what you were saying, which only applied to some, to all, including those that I would be talking about. You can dodge all you want, but I will instead engage you in discussion with integrity. You should do so, as well.

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

Then try it sometime.

Again, I did. That's what I actually have done. I put forward counter arguments to the categorical statements you made, showing that the categorical thinking, itself, was flawed.

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

You have not actually disagreed with, or rebutted or.... lets be honest.... in any way directly addressed anything I said in my previous post.

If we're being honest, then we would have to say that I have. You may not want to acknowledge my comments as such, because you feel you would have no legitimate response, but that doesn't obviate the fact that I've responded directly to your attempts to refute what I've written.

And you continue on with such nonsensical discussing the discussion as a means of trying to deflect attention away from comments you don't like but for which you have no legitimate response. I have already dignified more of them with responses than is justified.

Originally Posted by bUU

Regardless, the benefits of organized religion are myriad, but you have to be ready to hear that before detailing the benefits will be of any use. The first step in understanding the benefits of organized religion is setting aside the knee-jerk antipathy for it, and recognizing the difference between what you really oppose (supernatural basis for religion, and for fundamentalism similar to that which you, yourself, express) and organized religion, itself. Then you can begin to look at organized religion differently than your current, preconceived notions dictate.

For those who have no antipathy for organized religion that they need to shake off, and are interested in coming to understand the benefits thereof, there's another discussion where it has come up...

//www.city-data.com/forum/relig...l#post44139141