fundy atheists
- Thread starter Amie
- Start date
"I dont think anyone can actually "know" either way, it all comes down to believing/not believing"
No, not quite. It comes down to "believing". If there is any logical proof of reason to believe then I could understand someone believing, and would encourage it. If there is no proof of something what so ever, there is no reason to even consider it a matter of believe/not believe. This is called logic. And this is not semantics.
No, not quite. It comes down to "believing". If there is any logical proof of reason to believe then I could understand someone believing, and would encourage it. If there is no proof of something what so ever, there is no reason to even consider it a matter of believe/not believe. This is called logic. And this is not semantics.
Thanks Cris 
And if one does not believe they are *not believing* which was my original statement of "it all comes down to believing and not believing" as opposed to "knowing"
Hi Tyler
And if one does not believe they are *not believing* which was my original statement of "it all comes down to believing and not believing" as opposed to "knowing"
Yes I understand your stance and this is where faith would come in to play for many...
Amie
I agree with Cris about Xev, and would even go so far as to say, "Don't take her seriously. Nobody else does."
I honestly have a serious problem when it comes to "Christians" stooping. I mean, this list, sure, is immature, but it can be matched up to any number of lists, such as the "liberal" topic going on elsewhere, or any number of jokes about stupid white people that Jeff Foxworthy used to tell.
I admit it's a fine list. But that's beside the point. Honestly? Christians are supposed to behave better. They have God on their side, so to speak, and we would hope for better than the vulgar savagery.
But calling the composer of the list fucking bitter isn't quite a proper response, so I hope to illustrate my point with the following examples:
- You became an atheist when you were 10 years old, based on ideas of God that you learned in Sunday School. Your ideas about God haven't changed since.
What I find funny about this is that it also fits a number of Christians I know. Listening to the faithful debate issues of salvation and condemnation, of God's love and His righteous anger, and comparing the childish evangelizations of Christianity to the substantial basis of faith, one comes to the conclusion that most Christians believe what their parents taught them when they were children. I do believe you've made the same point about people in general.
And here is a general point about fundamentalism: Everyone is fundamentalist about something. Now, I am here putting aside academic definitions of religious fundamentalism, best explored by Martin Reisbrödt, and inconclusive at best, in favor of an aspect of the very word fundamentalist.
For instance, I insist on fundamental presumptions of Justice. I insist on viewing life according to fundamental determinations, and constantly seek further simplification of the fundamental core.
So we're all fundamentalist. One of the problems we encounter with a list like this is that the arguments presented don't necessarily end at their classification. I even wrote recently that "liberals remember their roots, or at least their contributors". It's a cute line at best, since the idea I'm comparing it to is represented by the Republican party, where one's qualifications as a diplomat are derivative of how much money you give the party, whether you speak the language or not. So you see, it goes both ways.
- You think questions like, "Can God create a rock so big that He cannot lift it?" and, "Can God will Himself out of existence?" are perfect examples of how to disprove God's omnipotence and ultimately how to disprove God. When someone proves to you the false logic behind the questions (i.e. pitting God's omnipotence against itself), you desperately try to defend the questions, but then give up and go to a different Christian site to ask them.
I would go so far as to assert that the questions are never properly addressed. The idea of a rock so big that God cannot lift it is in fact a Christian idea, and one which was poorly addressed by the philosopher (Augustine, I believe). That someone looks at an early proof and says, "It doesn't add up," does not mean that the next person to say, "Yes, it does," has proven squat. A repetition of what does not add up does not equal a proper sum, and this is what the composer overlooks in this case. Never stake that important a point on something so a priori as one's own presumption.
- When a Christian offers you his own "experience" as evidence for God, you consider it stupid and subjective. But when he offers you historical, philosophical and scientifical evidence, you consider it too inconclusive and claim that you need to see God to believe in Him.
The quality of the evidence is part of what's in question when "experience" is the issue. The quality of the conclusion is what's at stake when history is the question.
I once asked a Christian at Sciforums to show me primary source evidence of Jesus' tomb. What he gave me was a writer some two centuries after Christ.
Frequently when you ask Christians for a primary historical source confirming the existence of Jesus, they give you Josephus; admittedly, this is as close as there seems to be for now, but it ain't a primary source.
The historical evidence is largely absent, and what exists must be misconstrued in order to foster the general Christian assertion, moreso the specifics of individual faith. The philosophical is at least as a priori as anything else, and more often than not more extreme than the normal human fare. The "scientific" evidence is thoroughly absent.
The basis of Christian-oriented "science", such as Creationism, is a mass of presumption and a bludgeoning of the scientific process. Creationism is based on a simple enough theory, that something like God designed and executed the Universe. However, it relies solely on what is absent from the scientific record to make its case. The simplest way to prove Creationism is impossible. There is no way to scientifically test for the Creator or Designer itself. Period. When someone wants to put one forward, I'm sure the scientific community would be happy to discuss the viability of the hypothesis. Until then, what "scientifical evidence"?
When it comes to experience ... you know, a ghost has picked my pocket. A spirit-entity in the belfry of a church in Oregon assaulted a friend of mine and gave him a heart attack. I've met Jesus Christ. I've met Satan. Neither one of them knows why anyone's fighting.
When it comes to experience ... I am skeptical about my own experiences because I am skeptical about similar reports in others. When it comes to experience, it has been demonstrated that people can be compelled to remember events and circumstances that are not real. The notion was proved philosophically before the scientific method was documented: Very simply--if six gentlemen (presumed to be above deliberate deception) witness an event, they will give you six different accounts of what occurred. Does this mean that six different events have occurred? Philosophically, in the face of paradigm-shaking conundrum, the obvious answer emerges--someone must necessarily be mistaken in their account.
Experience is useful reflectively, but not as "evidence" in this case.
- You call a view held by less than ten percent of the American public "common sense".
The essence of common sense exists whether common sense is sensible or not. It's like "conventional wisdom".
Think for a moment of the United States, where Britney Spears and N'Sync sell huge quantities of records, where the people reduced the 2000 election to Bush and Gore, where 90% of the people (according to polls; take that for what it's worth) thought that it should be Constitutional to force children to acknowledge God in public schools despite the Constitution itself.
Common sense is alleged to be proper. It is not alleged to be merely a reflection of superstition. Otherwise, common sense would not be held as virtuous.
However, it seems that the virtue of common sense is often invested in the minority.
- Issac Newton does not count as an example of a great scientist who believed in the Bible since he died before the Origin of Species was published.
Look up the words "Newtonian God" sometime. Newton's work changed human perceptions of God. And the God that ruled over a mechanical universe proved challenging. Whereas atheism had been charged of other religions before--even Christians were accused of atheism for the absurdity of their godhead--the rise of the Newtonian God in the Christian conscience actually contributed to the rise of atheism in the nineteenth century. The "Newtonian God" is the God that Diderot referred to when he wrote, Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.
As Cris noted earlier, these lists would require long essays as responses. I hope these few examples are helpful.
Because what strikes me is that, while these things sound cute and suffice as propaganda, they are still fundamentally dishonest in that they overlook the history involved with each idea, and even demand a priori presumptions before they even make sense, like the bit about "scientifical evidence". So what it comes down to is a good chuckle around the water cooler at church, but only if the Christians chuckling take satisfaction from dishonesty.
In the end, it can be fairly said that these lists are most useful for the hateful.
And you know, the kind of spite people fling about Democrats and Republicans, about liberals and conservatives--that's kind of expected. It comes with the territory in politics. But Christians ...?
Come on--what more do we need to exemplify the failure of Christianity?
The point is that Christians are supposed to be above that. I realize that they're human, but if their way worked, it would work more often.
And no, I'm not actually that disgusted with the list. But I figured I ought to at least justify my use of the term, "one bitter fucking Christian".
:m:,
Tiassa
I agree with Cris about Xev, and would even go so far as to say, "Don't take her seriously. Nobody else does."
I honestly have a serious problem when it comes to "Christians" stooping. I mean, this list, sure, is immature, but it can be matched up to any number of lists, such as the "liberal" topic going on elsewhere, or any number of jokes about stupid white people that Jeff Foxworthy used to tell.
I admit it's a fine list. But that's beside the point. Honestly? Christians are supposed to behave better. They have God on their side, so to speak, and we would hope for better than the vulgar savagery.
But calling the composer of the list fucking bitter isn't quite a proper response, so I hope to illustrate my point with the following examples:
- You became an atheist when you were 10 years old, based on ideas of God that you learned in Sunday School. Your ideas about God haven't changed since.
What I find funny about this is that it also fits a number of Christians I know. Listening to the faithful debate issues of salvation and condemnation, of God's love and His righteous anger, and comparing the childish evangelizations of Christianity to the substantial basis of faith, one comes to the conclusion that most Christians believe what their parents taught them when they were children. I do believe you've made the same point about people in general.
And here is a general point about fundamentalism: Everyone is fundamentalist about something. Now, I am here putting aside academic definitions of religious fundamentalism, best explored by Martin Reisbrödt, and inconclusive at best, in favor of an aspect of the very word fundamentalist.
For instance, I insist on fundamental presumptions of Justice. I insist on viewing life according to fundamental determinations, and constantly seek further simplification of the fundamental core.
So we're all fundamentalist. One of the problems we encounter with a list like this is that the arguments presented don't necessarily end at their classification. I even wrote recently that "liberals remember their roots, or at least their contributors". It's a cute line at best, since the idea I'm comparing it to is represented by the Republican party, where one's qualifications as a diplomat are derivative of how much money you give the party, whether you speak the language or not. So you see, it goes both ways.
- You think questions like, "Can God create a rock so big that He cannot lift it?" and, "Can God will Himself out of existence?" are perfect examples of how to disprove God's omnipotence and ultimately how to disprove God. When someone proves to you the false logic behind the questions (i.e. pitting God's omnipotence against itself), you desperately try to defend the questions, but then give up and go to a different Christian site to ask them.
I would go so far as to assert that the questions are never properly addressed. The idea of a rock so big that God cannot lift it is in fact a Christian idea, and one which was poorly addressed by the philosopher (Augustine, I believe). That someone looks at an early proof and says, "It doesn't add up," does not mean that the next person to say, "Yes, it does," has proven squat. A repetition of what does not add up does not equal a proper sum, and this is what the composer overlooks in this case. Never stake that important a point on something so a priori as one's own presumption.
- When a Christian offers you his own "experience" as evidence for God, you consider it stupid and subjective. But when he offers you historical, philosophical and scientifical evidence, you consider it too inconclusive and claim that you need to see God to believe in Him.
The quality of the evidence is part of what's in question when "experience" is the issue. The quality of the conclusion is what's at stake when history is the question.
I once asked a Christian at Sciforums to show me primary source evidence of Jesus' tomb. What he gave me was a writer some two centuries after Christ.
Frequently when you ask Christians for a primary historical source confirming the existence of Jesus, they give you Josephus; admittedly, this is as close as there seems to be for now, but it ain't a primary source.
The historical evidence is largely absent, and what exists must be misconstrued in order to foster the general Christian assertion, moreso the specifics of individual faith. The philosophical is at least as a priori as anything else, and more often than not more extreme than the normal human fare. The "scientific" evidence is thoroughly absent.
The basis of Christian-oriented "science", such as Creationism, is a mass of presumption and a bludgeoning of the scientific process. Creationism is based on a simple enough theory, that something like God designed and executed the Universe. However, it relies solely on what is absent from the scientific record to make its case. The simplest way to prove Creationism is impossible. There is no way to scientifically test for the Creator or Designer itself. Period. When someone wants to put one forward, I'm sure the scientific community would be happy to discuss the viability of the hypothesis. Until then, what "scientifical evidence"?
When it comes to experience ... you know, a ghost has picked my pocket. A spirit-entity in the belfry of a church in Oregon assaulted a friend of mine and gave him a heart attack. I've met Jesus Christ. I've met Satan. Neither one of them knows why anyone's fighting.
When it comes to experience ... I am skeptical about my own experiences because I am skeptical about similar reports in others. When it comes to experience, it has been demonstrated that people can be compelled to remember events and circumstances that are not real. The notion was proved philosophically before the scientific method was documented: Very simply--if six gentlemen (presumed to be above deliberate deception) witness an event, they will give you six different accounts of what occurred. Does this mean that six different events have occurred? Philosophically, in the face of paradigm-shaking conundrum, the obvious answer emerges--someone must necessarily be mistaken in their account.
Experience is useful reflectively, but not as "evidence" in this case.
- You call a view held by less than ten percent of the American public "common sense".
The essence of common sense exists whether common sense is sensible or not. It's like "conventional wisdom".
Think for a moment of the United States, where Britney Spears and N'Sync sell huge quantities of records, where the people reduced the 2000 election to Bush and Gore, where 90% of the people (according to polls; take that for what it's worth) thought that it should be Constitutional to force children to acknowledge God in public schools despite the Constitution itself.
Common sense is alleged to be proper. It is not alleged to be merely a reflection of superstition. Otherwise, common sense would not be held as virtuous.
However, it seems that the virtue of common sense is often invested in the minority.
- Issac Newton does not count as an example of a great scientist who believed in the Bible since he died before the Origin of Species was published.
Look up the words "Newtonian God" sometime. Newton's work changed human perceptions of God. And the God that ruled over a mechanical universe proved challenging. Whereas atheism had been charged of other religions before--even Christians were accused of atheism for the absurdity of their godhead--the rise of the Newtonian God in the Christian conscience actually contributed to the rise of atheism in the nineteenth century. The "Newtonian God" is the God that Diderot referred to when he wrote, Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.
As Cris noted earlier, these lists would require long essays as responses. I hope these few examples are helpful.
Because what strikes me is that, while these things sound cute and suffice as propaganda, they are still fundamentally dishonest in that they overlook the history involved with each idea, and even demand a priori presumptions before they even make sense, like the bit about "scientifical evidence". So what it comes down to is a good chuckle around the water cooler at church, but only if the Christians chuckling take satisfaction from dishonesty.
In the end, it can be fairly said that these lists are most useful for the hateful.
And you know, the kind of spite people fling about Democrats and Republicans, about liberals and conservatives--that's kind of expected. It comes with the territory in politics. But Christians ...?
Come on--what more do we need to exemplify the failure of Christianity?
The point is that Christians are supposed to be above that. I realize that they're human, but if their way worked, it would work more often.
And no, I'm not actually that disgusted with the list. But I figured I ought to at least justify my use of the term, "one bitter fucking Christian".
:m:,
Tiassa
Hi tiassa
Thanks for the feedback. I wish I could write more right now but I am just so exhausted and I am going to bed, still sore from getting my tonsils out a few days ago...
I would have added to the list of fundy atheists
*defaces money by scribbling out God on the dollar bills*
no offense to any defacers on board
Thanks for the feedback. I wish I could write more right now but I am just so exhausted and I am going to bed, still sore from getting my tonsils out a few days ago...
I would have added to the list of fundy atheists
*defaces money by scribbling out God on the dollar bills*
no offense to any defacers on board
Perhaps one other addition to the list should be: "you go and get all serious about debating the points raised in this list".
I don't know about you all, but if I don't find a joke funny, I just don't laugh at it... I don't go and friggin' disect it. (I did find many points in the list pretty humerous).
One thing I've always found rather ironic, is how many atheists complain about the (to them) frustrating degree of impact religion has on their environment... but (here's the ironic thing) do they subsequently visit bullitinboards to "get away from it all"? Nope! Here are people, who alledgedly don't wish to have religion play any part in their lives, deliberately spending substential portions of their time discussing religion ad nausium!
Or they'll engage the same strongheaded theists in debates over and over, (probably bitching and moaning how they're still 'not getting their point across'). Now here's people, who one moment will go on about the importance of rationality, skepticism, and regarding empirical evidence, but then engage in one overly appearant pointless act of wasting their time after another. Hello? Have we still not learned what doesn't accomplish anything? How many fruitless bickeringsessions does it take? And you're concerned about the theist overlooking the bloody obvious???
I think many atheists, through discussing religion, have found a topic where they can wallow in their 'supposedly' superior wisdom... and I mean 'supposedly', because it often becomes some twisted justification for behaving like a dumbass in a zilion-and-one other respects.
I am an atheist by the way.
I don't know about you all, but if I don't find a joke funny, I just don't laugh at it... I don't go and friggin' disect it. (I did find many points in the list pretty humerous).
One thing I've always found rather ironic, is how many atheists complain about the (to them) frustrating degree of impact religion has on their environment... but (here's the ironic thing) do they subsequently visit bullitinboards to "get away from it all"? Nope! Here are people, who alledgedly don't wish to have religion play any part in their lives, deliberately spending substential portions of their time discussing religion ad nausium!
Or they'll engage the same strongheaded theists in debates over and over, (probably bitching and moaning how they're still 'not getting their point across'). Now here's people, who one moment will go on about the importance of rationality, skepticism, and regarding empirical evidence, but then engage in one overly appearant pointless act of wasting their time after another. Hello? Have we still not learned what doesn't accomplish anything? How many fruitless bickeringsessions does it take? And you're concerned about the theist overlooking the bloody obvious???
I think many atheists, through discussing religion, have found a topic where they can wallow in their 'supposedly' superior wisdom... and I mean 'supposedly', because it often becomes some twisted justification for behaving like a dumbass in a zilion-and-one other respects.
I am an atheist by the way.
"One thing I've always found rather ironic, is how many atheists complain about the (to them) frustrating degree of impact religion has on their environment"
I can honestly say I've never heard this complaint. To say that religion has a huge impact on politics is detrimental?? Yes, that would be true in my opinion. But to discuss on a Religion board there is the hope that perhaps I can persuade someone to understand how their religious doctrine should not determine their political beliefs. I doubt highly I will ever convert someone - but to perhaps make them have a change of heart in politics?? Possible.
I can honestly say I've never heard this complaint. To say that religion has a huge impact on politics is detrimental?? Yes, that would be true in my opinion. But to discuss on a Religion board there is the hope that perhaps I can persuade someone to understand how their religious doctrine should not determine their political beliefs. I doubt highly I will ever convert someone - but to perhaps make them have a change of heart in politics?? Possible.
Re: There's no doubt
Well don't get me wrong (assuming it is a hint of sarcasm I'm detecting here); I by no means wish to spew overexagerated generalizations here, many isn't all or even most, but my observation is based on my experiences on several boards (Graveyard of the Gods, the Atheist Network, Internet Infidels and Christian Forums).
If I say there are people.... who actually deliberately spend their time taking theists on in threads, asking for help from others, or complimenting 'fellow crusaders-of-secular-enlightenment' for 'kicking ass', seeking out new religious boards to crash and mentioning the URL's of these new 'battlegrounds' to said 'fellow crusaders', while complaining how religion is everywhere they go, and that they keep on 'having to deal with the same bullshit' (which is bullshit because nobody's forcing them) from certain theist posters.... I'm not making that up. That shit is so happening for real.
The overly fanatic, and the thickheaded, come in all flavours; religious as well as non-religious. (It would be naive to assume differently I think) And the atheist ones can be every bit as anally retented, obnoxious, and self-righteous as the theist ones, in my opinion.
Originally posted by tiassa
Well, after that exceptionally educated, unemotional, perfectly reasonable post, there's no doubt about that.
:m:,
Tiassa
Well don't get me wrong (assuming it is a hint of sarcasm I'm detecting here); I by no means wish to spew overexagerated generalizations here, many isn't all or even most, but my observation is based on my experiences on several boards (Graveyard of the Gods, the Atheist Network, Internet Infidels and Christian Forums).
If I say there are people.... who actually deliberately spend their time taking theists on in threads, asking for help from others, or complimenting 'fellow crusaders-of-secular-enlightenment' for 'kicking ass', seeking out new religious boards to crash and mentioning the URL's of these new 'battlegrounds' to said 'fellow crusaders', while complaining how religion is everywhere they go, and that they keep on 'having to deal with the same bullshit' (which is bullshit because nobody's forcing them) from certain theist posters.... I'm not making that up. That shit is so happening for real.
The overly fanatic, and the thickheaded, come in all flavours; religious as well as non-religious. (It would be naive to assume differently I think) And the atheist ones can be every bit as anally retented, obnoxious, and self-righteous as the theist ones, in my opinion.
And people say I have no sense of humor ....
Remember where you are, Jutter.
We spend much time discussing useless things here. You make a very good point about how obsessive some of our atheits are. But in the same breath, I must mention that friggin' dissecting things is part of what we do here.
Come on--don't tell me you don't appreciate the irony of a vengeful Christian ....
:m:,
Tiassa
Remember where you are, Jutter.
We spend much time discussing useless things here. You make a very good point about how obsessive some of our atheits are. But in the same breath, I must mention that friggin' dissecting things is part of what we do here.
Come on--don't tell me you don't appreciate the irony of a vengeful Christian ....
:m:,
Tiassa
