Atheist Fundamentalism and the Limits of Science

Umm because I believe in one God and in Mohammed?

That is the only requirement.
Click to expand...

I thought you also had to pray a certain number of times per day, make a pilgrimage to Mecca, fast during Ramadan, etc. etc.

Oh, and by the way, Thor never required any of those things. Nor did the Christian God.
 
I don't believe God has to fit a preset mould.
Click to expand...

So you don't believe in "allah", a god that fits a preset mould?

If you can only define your atheism by creating another manifestation of God and this makes you happy, so be it
Click to expand...

There is the problem. An atheist does not create gods, (would you believe it?). It is the theist that creates gods and demands the atheist believe in them. From yhwh to jesus to allah to abellio to apollo to marduk... While, as stated, we some of us will be strong atheist to many of those theist designed and determined gods, we do not generally ultimately say it is impossible that there exists no such being that created the cosmos, thus weak atheism. I find the idea quite unecessary, but I accept the possibility. The theist however has absolute strong atheism for every version of a god except for the preset moulded version he has bought into.

Don't blame the atheist, we just shrug at your moulds.

Now can you answer my question?? Do you believe the spaghetti monster exists? Well?
 
James R said:
I thought you also had to pray a certain number of times per day, make a pilgrimage to Mecca, fast during Ramadan, etc. etc.
Click to expand...

That would make me a practising Muslim, yes.

James R said:
Oh, and by the way, Thor never required any of those things. Nor did the Christian God.
Click to expand...

No doubt those people did/do other things which in some way equal prayer, charity and recognition of their faith. Not all Muslims pray the same way, fast for same number of days or even on the same days, or even have the same rules of madhab. And its still okay, though some people did grumble when the Saudis insisted Eid was a day earlier this year.
 
Last edited:
SnakeLord said:
Don't blame the atheist, we just shrug at your moulds.
Click to expand...

Tell me again about <insert your representation of a god>:p

If you want to learn about real atheism, the kind that does not feel challenged by theists, look up atheism in India. :)

Now those guys, they had real arguments. Who knows, you may even learn something.:)
 
If I believed in god I would say his most prominent attribute would be his ( distorted ) sense of humour. He creates this mess and then laughs himself sick at all his creatures arguing about who knows him best.

Since they must not have too much fun he sends a few plagues, famines. earthquakes and so on to skow them who's boss. A bit like pulling the wings off celestial flies
 
Myles said:
If I believed in god I would say his most prominent attribute would be his ( distorted ) sense of humour. He creates this mess and then laughs himself sick at all his creatures arguing about who knows him best.

Since they must not have too much fun he sends a few plagues, famines. earthquakes and so on to skow them who's boss. A bit like pulling the wings off celestial flies
Click to expand...

Its always interesting to me that even atheists have notions of how God should behave.:p
 
Myles said:
[/COLOR]

A concept is an entity but there is no requirement that it should physically exist. We can have a concept of a unicorn, talk about its properties and so on but it does not have to exist. If I am told that someone has a pet unicorn, I can reasonably expect to be shown the creature, touch it, measure it , feed it and so on. If none of these things is possible, I have no grounds for believing that unicorns exist. But I can retain the concept of one.

In the same way, we can have a concept of god but it does not necessarily follow that god exists outside our heads, so to speak.
Click to expand...

but how does this carry through to other concepts like justice
Does justice exist or is it a non-entity?
and how about the mechanism that is formulating all these concepts, the mind
Does the mind exist or is it a non-entity?
 
Tell me again about <insert your representation of a god>
Click to expand...

Oh, my representation of a god. I see... it's my fault, nothing whatsoever to do with the billions of theists that have created gods and expect us to believe in them?

If you want to learn about real atheism
Click to expand...

To be honest with you, I rarely trust something that deserves a "trademark" on the end, especially in this instance where "real atheism" is being espoused to me by a "real theist".

Now those guys, they had real arguments. Who knows, you may even learn something.
Click to expand...

You know, I've been through this game on and off for the best part of two decades and I love it. If nothing else it's plain funny. However, there is one trend I have noticed and that is when someone can't answer a question they attempt insult to the person that asked that question. They attempt to belittle and thus get the reader to actually forget what questions were even asked.

However, I will accept your argument. My arguments suck arse. There is so much I could learn from you real muslim atheists, (bwahahahaha). In saying I don't see the problem with answering my suck arse question.

Do you believe in the spaghetti monster?

Yes or no Sam, don't be a pussy.
 
S.A.M. said:
Tell me again about <insert your representation of a god>:p

If you want to learn about real atheism, the kind that does not feel challenged by theists, look up atheism in India. :)

Now those guys, they had real arguments. Who knows, you may even learn something.:)
Click to expand...

Buddhists don't feel threatened by theists because the Buddha taught self- reliance. There may have been a few gods of the Indian pantheon hovering in the background but he paid them scant regard
 
S.A.M. said:
For the same reason you give charity. It is a spiritual exercise, you do it for your self improvement, to be a better human.

If you read much of the Prophets prayers, you'll realise none of them are prayers that ask for anything, but are supplications that give confidence, sort of like affirmations that therapists provide in therapy. Its a daily form of therapy if you will.
Click to expand...
You included charity as a religous tenant. Many non-theists are charitable. I certainly wouldn't want to be given the impression that charity is tied to a carrot? It is ONLY for helping humanity right? No rewards in heaven right? It doesn't affect the God-head right?

So you agree that the God-head is not affected by the Prayer? It's simply Muslim Catharsis?
 
Michael said:
You included charity as a religous tenant. Many non-theists are charitable. I certainly wouldn't want to be given the impression that charity is tied to a carrot? It is ONLY for helping humanity right? No rewards in heaven right? It doesn't affect the God-head right?

So you agree that the God-head is no affected by the Prayer? It's simply Muslim Catharsis?
Click to expand...

When you say God is affected, what do you mean? When you say heaven, what do you mean?

And like I said, every one is born with a natural inclination to do the right thing, one does not have to be a practising theist to follow Gods way.
 
Snakelord
“
and once again, this doesn't strike you as fundamentalism?
”
Someone not having a belief in something that cannot be shown to exist is an example of fundamentalism?
Click to expand...
the issue is more about what a person agrees to be shown
“
for instance how do you react when you hear that a religious person is dissuaded from a belief in something because it stands outside of their direct perception and understandings of scripture?
”
Can those things be shown to exist?
Click to expand...
yes
“
...(like say a claim that can be verified outside of traditional empirical methodologies)
”
Such as?
Click to expand...
like claims that fall within the discipline of rationalism and theism
“
the question is whether this standard is the most authoritative and not whether it is the most accessible
”
I would say it is, of course feel free to provide a better one.
Click to expand...
really?
suppose you are walking towards a house - your sense of sight is telling you that the house is getting bigger with each step you take towards it - do you seriously think that the house is growing?
“
this still doesn't explain why being trained in empiricism would make one adverse to claims outside of empircism
”
I don't think anyone is really adverse to claims, you can make any claims you want. Of what value are those claims to anyone else if they cannot be shown to exist? That's a question, not a statement.
Click to expand...
thats the point you haven't really addressed
why would an empiricist advocate that nothing exists outside of empiricism?

If a religious person advocates that nothing exists outside of scripture, it is termed fundamentalism.
If an empiricist advocates that nothing exists outside empiricism that is also fundamentalism.
The thing is, we are all ultimately the same. If I was to ask you what would be required for you to "believe in", (I prefer the word 'know'), that leprechauns exist you would eventually come down to empiricism - and that is the way you work for everything except the one thing you believe in so much but know you can never show exists and therefore think for some bizarre reason that it alone is different to everything else. That of course is typical behaviour for anyone with fundamentalist beliefs. (It's "belief" instead of "knowledge" for a reason).
Click to expand...
I'm not sure but I think this is an argument to the effect "the words empiricism and reality are synonymous"
let's unpack it

1st premise - we are all ultimately the same
( as far as I know, there is no empirical test that can measure anything that we all give a uniform result in, so what are you talking about here exactly, if not some phenomena that stands outside of empiricism?)

2nd premise - belief is ultimately confirmed by direct perception
(can you point out a "justice" or a "mind" for me?)

3rd premise - If someone is referring to something that cannot be indicated to a second person, it is an issue of belief
(guess that means we have to throw out over 90% of what we have in the way of science, philosophy and art and simply stick to animal propensities that we can all agree on, like sleeping, eating, mating and defending)

needless to say, your conclusion is out to lunch .....
 
SnakeLord said:
However, I will accept your argument. My arguments suck arse. There is so much I could learn from you real muslim atheists, (bwahahahaha). In saying I don't see the problem with answering my suck arse question.


Try being an atheist in Saudi Arabia and you'll lose your head. I had the misfortune to spend three months there on a work-related assignment some years ago.

Try being a shi'ite in Saudi and you can expect a rough time. I believe the Saudis are a particularly strict sect of Sunnis known as the Wahabis (?) So it's business as usual. Even those who claim to believe in Allah squabble amongst themselves. The Shi'ites don't accept Mohammed as their prophet.

Muslim children are brainwashed into learning the Quran by heart. It is a foreign language to them because it is written in a form of Arabic no longer spoken or written outside a religious context.

Af far as Teddy Bears are concerned, what we saw on our tv screens was a bunch of brainwashed illiterates baying for blood .

All this nonsense we hear about Islaam being a religion of peace is nonsense. Just look at what goes on in any Muslim country you care to choose .
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
spidergoat said:
Science doesn't work with absolutes like "proof". You probably only find that in math. Science works with probabilities. That is how my atheism is based on a scientific model of rationality. Despite the obvious fact that without omniscience I cannot search the entire universe and claim there is no God, but I can say that the existence of such a thing is so unlikely as to be unreasonable to believe.

Click to expand...

so how do you propose to determine probabilities without knowing the complete variables

for instance suppose I had a 6 sided die and 3 sides had 1,2 and 3 and the other sides were masked - if you couldn't peel back the tape, how would you determine the probability of what lies underneath (it may have the "12" or a smiley face)?
 
lightgigantic said:
Snakelord

the issue is more about what a person agrees to be shown

yes

like claims that fall within the discipline of rationalism and theism

really?
suppose you are walking towards a house - your sense of sight is telling you that the house is getting bigger with each step you take towards it - do you seriously think that the house is growing?

thats the point you haven't really addressed
why would an empiricist advocate that nothing exists outside of empiricism?

If a religious person advocates that nothing exists outside of scripture, it is termed fundamentalism.
If an empiricist advocates that nothing exists outside empiricism that is also fundamentalism.

I'm not sure but I think this is an argument to the effect "the words empiricism and reality are synonymous"
let's unpack it

1st premise - we are all ultimately the same
( as far as I know, there is no empirical test that can measure anything that we all give a uniform result in, so what are you talking about here exactly, if not some phenomena that stands outside of empiricism?)

2nd premise - belief is ultimately confirmed by direct perception
(can you point out a "justice" or a "mind" for me?)

3rd premise - If someone is referring to something that cannot be indicated to a second person, it is an issue of belief
(guess that means we have to throw out over 90% of what we have in the way of science, philosophy and art and simply stick to animal propensities that we can all agree on, like sleeping, eating, mating and defending)

needless to say, your conclusion is out to lunch ..
...................................................................

I have already explained , in an earlier post to you ,that a concept is an entity that does not have physical properties. But you won't learn.

You are obviously getting desperate because you keep using arguments which any reasonable person would accept as having been refuted.
So once again, just for you.

A CONCEPT HAS NO PHYSICAL PROPERTIES SO YOUR WHOLE LINE OF ARGUMENT IS MEANINGLESS
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top