Fundamentalist Atheists

[Quagmire]

That having a flawed self-image or self-description is in and of itself a problem worth addressing and correcting.

Thing is: if someone has a false image of themselves, especially if it's an overly-flattering one, just try talking them out of it.

We could make more of an effort to correct ourselves and each other in that.

I think that's what everybody already thinks they're doing.

Sorry, but I don't think I did. Are you saying that because I mentioned religious practice?

This conversation began with this post:

Come to think of it, we could probably use more specific terminology for theists as well. We have it to some degree already. It is too bad that such terminology is often avoided when it would make the most difference.

I was still talking about theists in general (and I thought both of us still were), so in this post,. . .

In general terms, though, interaction and even social life are important parts of religious belief and practice - to say nothing of how necessary they are to the attainment of basic respect and decency. Effective communication is worth pursuing. There will of course be exceptions, but not so many as to make the effort unappealing.

. . . it appeared to me that you weren't making any distinction between religious belief and a personal theistic belief.

That amounts to saying that such a variety of theism is inconsequential beyond the strictly individual sphere,

It's consequential in proportion to the effect it has on the theists actions outside of his personal sphere.

and might even fail to be recognized as theism at least at first.

Whether it's recognized or not is, IMO, completely unimportant. If someone believes in any kind of God, they're a theist just by definition.

I don't think that happens particularly often. It does sound like a bit of a waste to me.

A waste of what?

Despite all the dangers and challenges, effective communication of our most sublime perceptions is a rare and precious activity.

In my experience, that is usually a waste.

edit: I screwed up on one of the quotes above but I fixed it.

 

[LuisDantas]

Thing is: if someone has a false image of themselves, especially if it's an overly-flattering one, just try talking them out of it.

It is something of a specialty of mine. I have no shame, and no sense whatsoever. But you knew that.

I think that's what everybody already thinks they're doing.

To the extent that we are allowed? Probably.

This conversation began with this post:

I was still talking about theists in general (and I thought both of us still were), so in this post,. . .

. . . it appeared to me that you weren't making any distinction between religious belief and a personal theistic belief.

I do make such a distinction. But I also take as a premise that everyone has a religious practice, even if underdeveloped or unconscious.

It's consequential in proportion to the effect it has on the theists actions outside of his personal sphere.

I agree, but you seem to give that a lot less weight than I do.

Whether it's recognized or not is, IMO, completely unimportant.

I disagree, but I guess that is my problem to deal with.

If someone believes in any kind of God, they're a theist just by definition.

Sure.

A waste of what?

Inspiration. Opportunity for communion and expression of one's deeper, most meaningful contents.

In my experience, that is usually a waste.

Seeking it often is. Attaining it is almost a blessing, though. Scratch that, it is a blessing outright.

 

[Willamena]

I have to say, I am really liking your "non-theist" suggestion, as distinct from "atheist". It's pretty perfect.

In point, we have the word "non-theism" in our collective vocabulary just for the purpose of making a distinction between having no belief/opinion about god/gods and atheism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In point, we have the word "non-theism" in our collective vocabulary just for the purpose of making a distinction between having no belief/opinion about god/gods and atheism.

We have the word "non-theism" in our collective vocabulary as a euphemism for atheist because some people don't like the baggage that sometimes accompanies the word "atheist".

 

[Quagmire]

It is something of a specialty of mine. I have no shame, and no sense whatsoever. But you knew that.

Now I'm completely lost.

To the extent that we are allowed? Probably.




I do make such a distinction. But I also take as a premise that everyone has a religious practice, even if underdeveloped or unconscious.

I thought you were talking specifically about religious practice as it pertains to established, more or less organized religion. That would, of course, be dependent in large part on interactions between members and therefore a social aspect would be indispensable/unavoidable.

I don't think raw theism is in any way dependent on any prescribed social elements.

I agree, but you seem to give that a lot less weight than I do.

It's the only thing I actually do give weight to, or take seriously when it comes to any of this. What a person calls themselves is completely beside the point in light of the way they conduct themselves.

For example: IMO, a hell of a lot of the Christians we get in here are anything but. again, IMO, the term itself is only meaningful as an adjective attached to an action. As a label, it can mean anything or nothing at all.

I disagree, but I guess that is my problem to deal with.

Not sure why that would be a problem for you.

Sure.




Inspiration. Opportunity for communion and expression of one's deeper, most meaningful contents.

There are a lot of worthwhile things you can do with inspiration and IMO, most don't involve words.

Seeking it often is. Attaining it is almost a blessing, though. Scratch that, it is a blessing outright.

Are we talking about achieving (as you called them) our most sublime perceptions, or communicating them?

If it's the former, I agree. If it's the latter, I stand by my earlier comments. If we're talking about theological perceptions, I don't think it's always necessary to communicate them and I would go as far as to say that many of them can't be communicated.

 

[LuisDantas]

We have the word "non-theism" in our collective vocabulary as a euphemism for atheist because some people don't like the baggage that sometimes accompanies the word "atheist".

My thoughts exactly. If there is an actual difference, I'm quite unaware of it.

 

[LuisDantas]

Now I'm completely lost.

I make mine those words. I'm having a hard time following this last post of yours. We seem to have clashing, or at least very alien conceptions about what religion and belief are and what they are supposed to do.

 

[Quagmire]

I make mine those words. I'm having a hard time following this last post of yours. We seem to have clashing, or at least very alien conceptions about what religion and belief are and what they are supposed to do.

Apparently so. :yes:

 

[ruffen]

I think "fundamental" or "militant" atheism is important. It's been four hundred years since the scientific revolution. It's been a hundred years since the discovery of the Theory of Relativity, particle physics, and the fact that our Universe is vast and ancient and contains billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars. We have nuclear weapons, we've been to the Moon, we've developed computers and technology that would make the supposed Tower of Babel seem like a child's Lego creation in comparison.

Then there is a complete mismatch where large portions of this planet's inhabitants still believe in folklore and myth from the dawn of civilization. There are Young-Earth-Creationists using GPS receivers and fossil fuels and power from nuclear power plants, without ever giving thought to what that says about their idea of the true nature of the Universe in which they live.

Religion is no longer a cute philosophical set of beliefs and attempted explanations where science has no answers - *edit*. And it's a way for the few unelected ones to have political, ethical and economical power over others. And it is a powerful way of making large masses of people behave in a way they otherwise would not.

*edit*

 

[Rick O'Shez]

We have the word "non-theism" in our collective vocabulary as a euphemism for atheist because some people don't like the baggage that sometimes accompanies the word "atheist".

As I understand it "non-theism" includes agnosticism - though opinions vary on the definition.

 

[IHaveTheGift]

I just started this online debating thing against atheists after watching "Dr Craig vrs Hitchens" about a year ago and pretty much got hooked on it and stayed in Dr Craigs forum because everywhere else I looked was full of horrible and disrespectful atheists.

I was also under the huge impression that atheist meant "the firm belief that deities do not exist" that is what wiki and most dictionaries say.
Once I got involved with Dr Craigs forum, I realized that atheists downplayed the definition to just mean a lack of belief.
Yet most of them showed they believed the later, but "dumbed" it back down to a lack of belief, when ever the burden of proof fell on them.
I even recently created a topic on "atheists take on faith beliefs" and not a one of them would own up to their jumping from just a disbelief to an assertion of belief in all sorts of areas.
What a huge nightmare.

Now that I found this place and read all the replies in this thread, I am beginning to feel more at home and a huge burden has been taken from me.
I like to debate and discuss things but it is hard to, when dealing with intellectual dishonesty.

My apologizes to my behaviors in the thread I created the other day.
I requested its deletion yesterday and am hoping that happens.

I have a huge misunderstanding on atheists but its not my fault, so many of them have such a huge double standard and a superior sense of morality about them.
You can blame people like dawkins when he tells people to "Mock religious people with content"

Seriously though, look at the American Atheists, what a load of crap they hide behind.
To me it seems they could care less about anything but using the notion of "separation of church and state" to try to sue everyone and anything they can, for their own gains and attention.

Again, my apologizes if I have said anything to anyone in the manor of generalizing atheists as I did.
I like this board, well, so far anyway

 

[LuisDantas]

As I understand it "non-theism" includes agnosticism - though opinions vary on the definition.

That is correct. In practice, agnosticism might as well be atheism. I suspect lots of people who present themselves as agnostics do so mainly out of worry for the backlash of using the word "atheist".

I just started this online debating thing against atheists after watching "Dr Craig vrs Hitchens" about a year ago and pretty much got hooked on it and stayed in Dr Craigs forum because everywhere else I looked was full of horrible and disrespectful atheists.

I was also under the huge impression that atheist meant "the firm belief that deities do not exist" that is what wiki and most dictionaries say.
Once I got involved with Dr Craigs forum, I realized that atheists downplayed the definition to just mean a lack of belief.

Why do you consider that downplaying?

Yet most of them showed they believed the later, but "dumbed" it back down to a lack of belief, when ever the burden of proof fell on them.

Which is to say, never?

In all fairness, it is hardly possible to give atheists the burden of proof. That is one of the consequences of it being the stance that makes no positive assertions.

I even recently created a topic on "atheists take on faith beliefs" and not a one of them would own up to their jumping from just a disbelief to an assertion of belief in all sorts of areas.
What a huge nightmare.

Well, it is surprising that you expected us to.

Now that I found this place and read all the replies in this thread, I am beginning to feel more at home and a huge burden has been taken from me.
I like to debate and discuss things but it is hard to, when dealing with intellectual dishonesty.

My apologizes to my behaviors in the thread I created the other day.
I requested its deletion yesterday and am hoping that happens.

I have a huge misunderstanding on atheists but its not my fault, so many of them have such a huge double standard and a superior sense of morality about them.

I really have no idea of how that can possibly be. Then again, you do admit to have trouble understanding us, so let's see how things go on.

You can blame people like dawkins when he tells people to "Mock religious people with content"

I don't think so. Maybe you want to tell me why (and what that expression means? It is not really clear).

Seriously though, look at the American Atheists, what a load of crap they hide behind.
To me it seems they could care less about anything but using the notion of "separation of church and state" to try to sue everyone and anything they can, for their own gains and attention.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Mainly because I fear you have no good reason to.

Again, my apologizes if I have said anything to anyone in the manor of generalizing atheists as I did.
I like this board, well, so far anyway

Maybe you can answer the question I made a while ago in this thread: how can one tell a fundamentalist or otherwise excessive atheist from one who one simply dislikes?

 

[LuisDantas]

I think "fundamental" or "militant" atheism is important. It's been four hundred years since the scientific revolution. It's been a hundred years since the discovery of the Theory of Relativity, particle physics, and the fact that our Universe is vast and ancient and contains billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars. We have nuclear weapons, we've been to the Moon, we've developed computers and technology that would make the supposed Tower of Babel seem like a child's Lego creation in comparison.

Then there is a complete mismatch where large portions of this planet's inhabitants still believe in folklore and myth from the dawn of civilization. There are Young-Earth-Creationists using GPS receivers and fossil fuels and power from nuclear power plants, without ever giving thought to what that says about their idea of the true nature of the Universe in which they live.

Religion is no longer a cute philosophical set of beliefs and attempted explanations where science has no answers - *edit*. And it's a way for the few unelected ones to have political, ethical and economical power over others. And it is a powerful way of making large masses of people behave in a way they otherwise would not.

*edit*

The diagnosis I agree with, but the generalization is unsettling. Besides, atheists ("fundamentalists", whatever that kind of being could be in real life, or otherwise) are hardly empowered to heal religion, particularly when the main disease is in fact excessive reliance on belief in God.

Ultimately, it falls upon the believers themselves to decide to heal their faiths.

 

[Looncall]

I think "fundamental" or "militant" atheism is important. It's been four hundred years since the scientific revolution. It's been a hundred years since the discovery of the Theory of Relativity, particle physics, and the fact that our Universe is vast and ancient and contains billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars. We have nuclear weapons, we've been to the Moon, we've developed computers and technology that would make the supposed Tower of Babel seem like a child's Lego creation in comparison.

Then there is a complete mismatch where large portions of this planet's inhabitants still believe in folklore and myth from the dawn of civilization. There are Young-Earth-Creationists using GPS receivers and fossil fuels and power from nuclear power plants, without ever giving thought to what that says about their idea of the true nature of the Universe in which they live.

Religion is no longer a cute philosophical set of beliefs and attempted explanations where science has no answers - *edit*. And it's a way for the few unelected ones to have political, ethical and economical power over others. And it is a powerful way of making large masses of people behave in a way they otherwise would not.

*edit*

Applause!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As I understand it "non-theism" includes agnosticism - though opinions vary on the definition.

Same with atheism.

 

[IHaveTheGift]

Why do you consider that downplaying?

because the default term of atheist used to be "belief that there are no deities.
and now its just a lack of belief.
I blame that on being asked "prove their is no God"
(many atheists have agreed with me)

Which is to say, never?

In all fairness, it is hardly possible to give atheists the burden of proof. That is one of the consequences of it being the stance that makes no positive assertions.

No, many atheists make many claims of belief.
In my experiences with them.
Such as, there is no God, your faith is imaginary, religion is the cause of the worlds problems, religious people are all delusional.
Jesus never existed and was made up.

I could give tons and tons of beliefs they assert as facts.
Then when asked for evidence to support those things, they tend to play victim and revert back to just having a non belief.

Well, it is surprising that you expected us to.

see above answers

I really have no idea of how that can possibly be. Then again, you do admit to have trouble understanding us, so let's see how things go on.

I have had discussions with a shyt ton of atheists, that is why I am shocked with the replies in this thread, this is stuff I never heard before.

I don't think so. Maybe you want to tell me why (and what that expression means? It is not really clear).

ask Dawkins, he said it, and I have been victim of huge amounts of unwarranted mockery, and have visited many atheists sites but do not wish to get involved, all they do is mock every theist that posts
same on YT

I'm sorry you feel that way. Mainly because I fear you have no good reason to.

I have read a shyt ton of articles on the AA, but not going to debate them.
Its not that important to me

Maybe you can answer the question I made a while ago in this thread: how can one tell a fundamentalist or otherwise excessive atheist from one who one simply dislikes?

I don't know, as I said, the stuff I read in this thread is a huge eye opener.

If you get to know me you will find that my biggest motto is "talk is cheap"
I don't waste huge chucks of time posting nonsense, I try my best to keep it real.
If an atheist tells me my magic man in the sky who likes little boys is imaginary and I am delusional, they better come with evidence and not revert and play victim and claim just a lack of belief.

I wouldn't say this next part and don't believe it either, just making a point,
I don't go around telling people they are too stupid to know up from down or left from right because they cant find God...
Or compare them to terrorists and such....

Respect in, respect out :yes:

 

[Thief]

Do you have some clear warning to give me? Something beyond simply claiming that I would be better off or safer in some sense if I "made myself" believe in God?

Because, rest assured, that is not going to happen, and therefore not worth worrying about.

Or maybe you have some innovative explanation about how or why a non-believer should worry? All the explanations I saw so far are... less than convincing.

It's not an emotional concern.
It is cause and effect.
The body is designed to put ideas into your head.
That will cease for sure.
What happens to YOU is something else.

I don't believe 7billion copies are going to die without someone surviving the last breath.
Not a chance?....not one in billions?

I suspect Man IS created to become a spiritual life.
This form ensures each on will be unique.

Of course, there will be consequence for what goes on in your mind and heart.

I suspect you will end up with all the others that have made denial.
And no One in charge.

Chaos.

Leaning to Authority as I do.....I suspect judgment will be dealt.
I will end up with others such as myself.

And a bit more content about it.

 

[LuisDantas]

Why do you consider that downplaying?

because the default term of atheist used to be "belief that there are no deities.
and now its just a lack of belief.
I blame that on being asked "prove their is no God"
(many atheists have agreed with me)

I guess I just disagree. Going back at least thirty years, as I recall it atheism has always been lack of belief. We sometimes differentiate between strong and weak atheism, though.

Which is to say, never?

In all fairness, it is hardly possible to give atheists the burden of proof. That is one of the consequences of it being the stance that makes no positive assertions.

No, many atheists make many claims of belief.
In my experiences with them.
Such as, there is no God, your faith is imaginary, religion is the cause of the worlds problems, religious people are all delusional.
Jesus never existed and was made up.

Many do. It still does not give us the burden of proof, though.

Let me also point out that there is nothing particularly noteworthy about challenging articles of faith. It is natural. It is to be expected. It is outright necessary. And it is even done by other theists with competing beliefs, naturally enough.

I could give tons and tons of beliefs they assert as facts.
Then when asked for evidence to support those things, they tend to play victim and revert back to just having a non belief.

By all means, do that.

Do you have some clear warning to give me? Something beyond simply claiming that I would be better off or safer in some sense if I "made myself" believe in God?

Because, rest assured, that is not going to happen, and therefore not worth worrying about.

Or maybe you have some innovative explanation about how or why a non-believer should worry? All the explanations I saw so far are... less than convincing.

It's not an emotional concern.
It is cause and effect.
The body is designed to put ideas into your head.
That will cease for sure.
What happens to YOU is something else.

I don't believe 7billion copies are going to die without someone surviving the last breath.
Not a chance?....not one in billions?

I suspect Man IS created to becomes a spiritual life.
This form ensures each on will be unique.

Of course, there will be consequence for what goes on in your mind and heart.

I suspect you will end up with all the others that have made denial.
And no One in charge.

Chaos.

Leaning to Authority as I do.....I suspect judgment will be dealt.
I will end up with others such as myself.

And a bit more content about it.

Uh... I must say that I have no idea of what you mean. I hope you meant to be mysterious or something.

 

[Thief]

Uh... I must say that I have no idea of what you mean. I hope you meant to be mysterious or something.

Not at all.
But really?.....you did not understand?

 

[LuisDantas]

Not at all.
But really?.....you did not understand?

No, I did not. On a second reading, you seem to be appealing to a hope for an afterlife. But I do not share the need for a belief in an afterlife.