Fundamentalist Atheists

[technomage]

What on Earth are you talking about?

I'm using "kicked your sacred cow" as a metaphor for causing offense. When I asked you if causing offense was OK, you said "Depends how you're doing it and who you're offending."

So tell me, 9-10ths, why are you offended when I kick your sacred cow, but not offended when an anti-theist kicks a theist's sacred cow?

 

[ChristineES]

Anyone else bothered by the existence of what I call either fundamentalist or mainstream atheists? To be honest, these guys and gals annoy me more than almost any other group. I'm talking about these outspoken atheist who'll literally result to fideism in their hate for religion or fallacy to attack religion. Pretty much 99% of r/atheism.

Anyone else see these folks?

In any group of people, there are always going to be those "gung-ho" types who believe that their way is "the" correct way. Since they are the ones who are correct, then they feel as thought they must "educate" those who are wrong. That kind of thing has always bothered me but I don't waste my time worrying about them anymore (or at least I try not to). It isn't limited to any one group, one faith, one lack-of-faith, etc.

Most atheists I have known and was friends with never said anything disparaging about my faith or that I had faith.

 

[icehorse]

Anyone else bothered by the existence of what I call either fundamentalist or mainstream atheists? To be honest, these guys and gals annoy me more than almost any other group. I'm talking about these outspoken atheist who'll literally result to fideism in their hate for religion or fallacy to attack religion. Pretty much 99% of r/atheism.

Anyone else see these folks?

Perhaps I am one of those folks? I don't care what religious folks believe in private. I care a lot about religious folks who want to bring those beliefs into public policy. For example, "intelligent design" is NOT science. So, when a religious person attempts to undermine the teaching of science, that's the moment they should be prepared to experience an attack.

If you want to have "faith" - great, have faith. But don't pretend it's logical or scientific. It's faith. By definition it means "to believe without evidence". Nothing wrong with that, but it ain't science.

 

[Quagmire]

They are more what I would term anti-theists, although they may also be atheist. These people use science in the same way as a theistic zealot would use God - to beat other people around the head. They crave certainty and superiority, which can happen in any number of ways - it also manifests among theists, satanists, political idealogues and intellectuals, astrologers, artists, even among environmentalists. It is a very general and ubiquitous psychological problem in homo sapiens.

Basically, it is an expression of insecurity of identity.

Hear Hear. :yes:

People can turn just about anything into an excuse to feel superior to someone else.

The fact that someone would need to in the first place is the real problem.

 

[Quagmire]

My favorite term for people in the more advanced stages of emotion based anti-theism is "Religiophobe".

And for anyone who appreciates irony, those people are a lot of fun to watch.

In the same way that some religious people make a mockery of the very precepts their respective religions are supposed to be based on---compassion, humility, truth --- all you have to do is read a few threads in here and you'll see a never-ending parade of religiophobes making just as big a mockery of their favorite slogans: logic, reason, honesty, . . .

They're wearing different jerseys but they're all playing the same game.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm using "kicked your sacred cow" as a metaphor for causing offense. When I asked you if causing offense was OK, you said "Depends how you're doing it and who you're offending."

So tell me, 9-10ths, why are you offended when I kick your sacred cow, but not offended when an anti-theist kicks a theist's sacred cow?

Let's back up a few steps. What do you think my "sacred cow" is, and how have you "kicked" it?

 

[technomage]

Let's back up a few steps. What do you think my "sacred cow" is, and how have you "kicked" it?

You seem offended that I have given insult to anti-theists, specifically naming Dawkins and Hutchins. You've cited that you "agree with most of the positions of both of them." You seem to take especial umbrage at the use of the term "fideist."

If I have not yet kicked your sacred cow, it's not for a lack of trying.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You seem offended that I have given insult to anti-theists, specifically naming Dawkins and Hutchins. You've cited that you "agree with most of the positions of both of them." You seem to take especial umbrage at the use of the term "fideist."

If I have not yet kicked your sacred cow, it's not for a lack of trying.

I'm not sure what to say except that you've read my level of offense extraordinarily badly.

BTW: it's Hitchens, not Hutchins. And just to prevent any future misunderstandings, I'm pointing it out only because it's wrong, not because it offends me to see it spelled incorrectly.

Anyhow, now that we've established that the premises behind your loaded question were wrong, maybe we can get back to what we were talking about earlier: you proving support for your position.

 

[technomage]

I'm not sure what to say except that you've read my level of offense extraordinarily badly.

Tone is difficult to ascertain in a text-only medium.

BTW: it's Hitchens, not Hutchins.

Thanks, though I have to warn you that you may need to correct me on that again in the future. For some reason, my memory of names is horrible.

you proving support for your position.

I do take it that you know the definition of "fideism"?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Anyhow, now that we've established that the premises behind your loaded question were wrong, maybe we can get back to what we were talking about earlier: you proving support for your position.

You may have a prolonged wait. I've asked him twice now for relevant quotes to support his characterizations of Dawkins and Hutchins/Hitchens, but not yet.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I do take it that you know the definition of "fideism"?

I know it just fine, but I was talking about this position:

there is no arguing with them, their minds are made up, and they do not allow themselves to be confused with such picayune concerns like facts or logic.

You gave Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens as two examples of this sort of person. Are you going to back up what you've said or not?

(BTW: that's twice that you've made shoddy assumptions about me. Again: this doesn't imply that I'm offended, just that you probably ought to stop, since you don't seem to be very good at it)

 

[technomage]

I know it just fine...

Would you state that my assessment ("their minds are made up, and they do not allow themselves to be confused with such picayune concerns like facts or logic") is a workable, if somewhat disparaging, assessment of fideism?

You gave Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens as two examples of this sort of person. Are you going to back up what you've said or not?

All in its proper time and place.

(BTW: that's twice that you've made shoddy assumptions about me. Again: this doesn't imply that I'm offended, just that you probably ought to stop, since you don't seem to be very good at it)

Just as an FYI, I've made no actual assumptions about you as a person. I'm reacting to the content of your posts, and to that solely. I do not know your beliefs.

 

[Nimos]

Anyone else bothered by the existence of what I call either fundamentalist or mainstream atheists? To be honest, these guys and gals annoy me more than almost any other group. I'm talking about these outspoken atheist who'll literally result to fideism in their hate for religion or fallacy to attack religion. Pretty much 99% of r/atheism.

I love the debate between the two groups, very interesting I think. And I can fully understand that its annoying for both sides, I see my self as an agnostic, leaning more towards the atheist stand point. However I don't really like the atheist part, because I find it somewhat unnecessary and yet necessary at the same time. Which might sound like a contradiction, but following along the debates between evolution and intelligent design, the atheist are needed if we want to keep religion out of science, which I find to be most important, not that I have anything against religion it self, but to teach something based on a believe which in my opinion might never be proven to be true or false, doesn't belong in science.

And in my opinion this debate wouldn't be necessary if they focused more on finding the truth based on evidence rather than a discussion based on beliefs. And that's why I don't really like the atheist part, because whether I believe one or the other doesn't really matter if you cant proof either.
Also I find it kind of funny that atheist seem to "attack" religious peoples view points, yet they cant defend there own any better, it seems that its always religious people that have to proof the existents of a god rather than the other way around.
On the other hand I also find it funny when listen to these debates, that the people arguing for evolution even bother debating against intelligent design as an alternative as long as there are no proof of it being true. Think it would be a lot better if they spend there time finding evidence, instead of discredit each other. If those believing in intelligent design think there are something to it, they could end the debate with a single proof.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Would you state that my assessment ("their minds are made up, and they do not allow themselves to be confused with such picayune concerns like facts or logic") is a workable, if somewhat disparaging, assessment of fideism?

If I was going to state anything, it's that you're deflecting the question that's being asked of you.

All in its proper time and place.

If it's not "here and now", I'm going to get bored of this exchange very quickly and assume that you just don't want to answer.

 

[Bunyip]

I love the debate between the two groups, very interesting I think. And I can fully understand that its annoying for both sides, I see my self as an agnostic, leaning more towards the atheist stand point. However I don't really like the atheist part, because I find it somewhat unnecessary and yet necessary at the same time. Which might sound like a contradiction, but following along the debates between evolution and intelligent design, the atheist are needed if we want to keep religion out of science, which I find to be most important, not that I have anything against religion it self, but to teach something based on a believe which in my opinion might never be proven to be true or false, doesn't belong in science.

And in my opinion this debate wouldn't be necessary if they focused more on finding the truth based on evidence rather than a discussion based on beliefs. And that's why I don't really like the atheist part, because whether I believe one or the other doesn't really matter if you cant proof either.
Also I find it kind of funny that atheist seem to "attack" religious peoples view points, yet they cant defend there own any better, it seems that its always religious people that have to proof the existents of a god rather than the other way around.
On the other hand I also find it funny when listen to these debates, that the people arguing for evolution even bother debating against intelligent design as an alternative as long as there are no proof of it being true. Think it would be a lot better if they spend there time finding evidence, instead of discredit each other. If those believing in intelligent design think there are something to it, they could end the debate with a single proof.

The burden of proof is upon theism. There is no such thing as a burden of disproof.

Defending the soundness of atheism as a viewpoint is simple - there is not enough evidence to merit belief in God - which is why such belief is referred to as 'faith'.

As to your comment about ID, I agree. ID proponants have not done the science yet, at the very least formulate a testable hypothesis BEFORE imagining that there is a scientific case for ID, let alone a competing theory to ToE.

 

[Thief]

The burden of proof is upon theism. There is no such thing as a burden of disproof.

Defending the soundness of atheism as a viewpoint is simple - there is not enough evidence to merit belief in God - which is why such belief is referred to as 'faith'.

As to your comment about ID, I agree. ID proponants have not done the science yet, at the very least formulate a testable hypothesis BEFORE imagining that there is a scientific case for ID, let alone a competing theory to ToE.

Haven't been watching recent science documentaries...have you?

Several high end scientists (sorry I'm not with names)are displaying their viewpoints.....
with logic, reason, and experiment.

They do believe in God.
They realize the 'proof' will be elusive.

They see the 'design'....they study the form.
It's not just biology.
It's theoretical physics.
It's mechanical physics.
It's every discipline.

More and more the indicators point to ...'Something'.....in control.

 

[technomage]

If I was going to state anything, it's that you're deflecting the question that's being asked of you.

Sequence and order, time and stress. Each is important in the unraveling of this mystery.

Would you say my statement is a workable, if somewhat disparaging, assessment?

If it's not "here and now", I'm going to get bored of this exchange very quickly and assume that you just don't want to answer.

Each within its sequence. Yes, I will offer support for my statement ... when the stage is set, and all the actors on their marks.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sequence and order, time and stress. Each is important in the unraveling of this mystery.

Would you say my statement is a workable, if somewhat disparaging, assessment?


Each within its sequence. Yes, I will offer support for my statement ... when the stage is set, and all the actors on their marks.

Fine - don't answer. My mistake for hoping you were taking a position based on reason and evidence.

 

[technomage]

Fine - don't answer. My mistake for hoping you were taking a position based on reason and evidence.

I do take my position based on reason and evidence. But I make my arguments as I choose.

And you ... are free to participate, or not participate, as you choose.

 

[Denny Crane!]

Haven't been watching recent science documentaries...have you?

Several high end scientists (sorry I'm not with names)are displaying their viewpoints.....
with logic, reason, and experiment.

They do believe in God.
They realize the 'proof' will be elusive.

They see the 'design'....they study the form.
It's not just biology.
It's theoretical physics.
It's mechanical physics.
It's every discipline.

More and more the indicators point to ...'Something'.....in control.

Several...well certainly less than there used to be historically. A lot less and shrinking.

But an argument from authority really isn't convincing no matter which side it leans upon (but if you were interested firmly on the atheist side, still proves nothing).

To be honest I'd be more reliant on the growing body of provable facts and empirical evidence consistently failing to back up anything that we previously understood to be God like or God inspired.