4 of 26
4
What is an atheist fundamentalist?
Posted: 01 December 2008 12:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 46 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1646
Joined  2008-04-02
teuchter - 01 December 2008 05:17 PM
Beam_Me_Up - 01 December 2008 05:11 PM

Exactly! Btw, I did not believe that pigs could fly either until I saw this picture.

It’s actually a project I’ve been working on privately, but I didn’t want to discuss it until the patents are approved.

T, Please don’t show it to the GOP. They already have a flying sow with an expensive couture.

Immediate,
SC’s statement is obviously a rhetorical device. I doubt that anyone other than you actually believes that was a real, physical threat. SC is a master at using language that evokes emotional responses in the audience in order to make his point. Apparently, his rhetoric worked.

 Signature 

Real honesty is accepting the theories that best explain the actual data even if those explanations contradict our cherished beliefs.-Scotty

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 December 2008 01:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 47 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1221
Joined  2008-07-20
Immediate Suppression - 01 December 2008 05:34 PM

There is a difference between having “strong views” about something and absolute certainty in it.  There is also a difference between being “quite confident” in something and being absolutely certain in it.  It is a fine line,  but it is a line neverthless.

It sounds like a distinction without a difference; there is a difference between minus 270 degrees C and absolute zero, but it has no practical significance in my life, and I don’t worry about it.

Immediate Suppression - 01 December 2008 05:34 PM

You wanting to rid this forum of Christians in another thread you started, however, does appear to express some sentiments of intolerance: 

teuchter - 29 November 2008 04:42 PM

CHRISTIANS—GO LOOK AT YOUR PORN SITES; THE ADULTS ARE TRYING TO TALK.

WE HAVE A PROBLEM:

This site is infested with christians, gnawing at the bandwidth and leaving sick little droppings across the server.

I propose we rid ourselves of these pests

Wouldn’t you agree?


I would agree that it is forceful, perhaps even belligerent, and that I have lost all patience with people trying to use a site to proselytize Xchun “salvation.”  On the other hand, I am not intolerant of people believing in jeezuz or going to church.  I’m intolerant of people trying to take over my government so that our constitution can conform to what they perceive as god’s will, and I am fairly direct when someone suggests that I should lead my life differently in order to get into heaven.

And yet, I have not suggested anyone ignore you or drive you from this forum.  Far from it, I have attempted to engage you on the issue of “fundamental atheism.”  So on that score, I am pretty tolerant.

Wouldn’t you agree?

Immediate Suppression - 01 December 2008 05:34 PM

And Salt Creek’s proposed physical threat against me also constitutes intolerance:

Salt Creek - 19 November 2008 11:14 PM

Let’s throw Immediate Suppression against the wall and see if his brain behaves rheologically like mud does.

Since I don’t know what country you live in, nor do I know what country SC lives in, I am hard pressed to see this as a physical threat against you.

And recall:

Immediate Suppression - 19 November 2008 08:55 PM

Immediate Suppression response’s in bold

Carstonio - 14 November 2008 08:53 AM
Immediate Suppression - 13 November 2008 08:11 PM

Like I said on another thread, sometimes scientists need to throw some mud on the wall, just to see what sticks.

No, one needs to analyze the mud for sticky qualities before throwing it, and it may be that none of the mud is sticky at all. Otherwise, one could be throwing mud for years without results. That’s what I mean by separating good ideas from bad.  To carry your analogy further, with many unexplained events we don’t even know if there is phenomenon called stickiness and we don’t know if there is a wall.

I think my mud might have a little stickiness to it, but I realize the chance is very, very, slim

So SC’s statement was simply an emphatic rejection of your characterization of the scientific method as “throwing mud on the wall, just to see what sticks.”

And, it seems you started the mud slinging.

Beam_Me_Up - 01 December 2008 05:53 PM
teuchter - 01 December 2008 05:17 PM
Beam_Me_Up - 01 December 2008 05:11 PM

Exactly! Btw, I did not believe that pigs could fly either until I saw this picture.

It’s actually a project I’ve been working on privately, but I didn’t want to discuss it until the patents are approved.

T, Please don’t show it to the GOP. They already have a flying sow with an expensive couture.

Oh, if there is one group of people I am intolerant of, it’s Republicans;  don’t worry, BMU, I wouldn’t show a Republican the fire exit during a conflagration. (Is that a “proposed physical threat?”  If it is, I take it back.)

[ Edited: 01 December 2008 01:55 PM by sam harris is a neocon idiot]
 Signature 

“I am one of the few people I know who has argued in print that torture may be an ethical necessity in our war on terror.”  Sam Harris October 17, 2005

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 December 2008 02:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 48 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2492
Joined  2008-04-05

Fundamentalist atheist, fundamentalist theist=semantical bullshit. Lets move on people, no matter how many times IS posts it.

 Signature 

‘Every reflecting mind must acknowledge that there is no proof of the existence of a Deity’

‘If ignorance of nature gave birth to gods, knowledge of nature destroys them’

Percy Bysshe Shelley

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 December 2008 03:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 49 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1646
Joined  2008-04-02

McC, you must be one of those damned atheist fundies.

 Signature 

Real honesty is accepting the theories that best explain the actual data even if those explanations contradict our cherished beliefs.-Scotty

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 December 2008 03:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 50 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  6
Joined  2008-11-09

GAD,
You say:
“that because of the popular view/chant that atheism is “lack of belief”.  Per this view children, the mentally challenged and people who have never heard of god are atheists. That’s convenient but I disagree with that view, atheism is the positive denial of gods, fairyism, hobbitism etc. not “lack of belief”, knowledge or understanding of them. “
A definition using lack of belief works better if it incorporates a prerequisite capacity to believe. Children and the mentally challenged are without the capacity and are thus not atheists. Otherwise why not also include dogs, cats and goldfish? Able-minded people that have denied the existence of gods are atheists. People with the capacity but fortunate enough to have never heard of god are between. I understand you wouldn’t call them atheists. I would but only for simplicity. What else would you call them? If I ever meet one I’ll ask.

“....yet, when I state this probability as a certainty I am intolerant, irrational or a fundamentalist. “
Not so. On the above statement you can’t be accused of intolerance or fundamentalism. I like teuchter’s statement.
“ Declining to engage in what appears to be baseless and idle speculation is neither a form of fundamentalism, nor intolerance. Intolerant fundamentalists would not only insist you stop wasting their time with your speculation, but would insist you stop considering the matter yourself, because it violated some dogma. “

If you say the existence of god is impossible then you’re open to being called irrational on that point (for it cannot be disproven) and maybe the infinitesimal chance of being proven wrong. The practical significance is diddly-squat and the only reason to discuss the possibility is to avoid this label of irrationality which gives believers ammunition. It would be tedious to expect us to qualify every statement, for the sake of absolute correctness, when expressing an opinion that we believe is so close to certainty that we do express it as a certainty. We use short speak without confusion when talking with reasonable people. The problem is that not all are reasonable.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 December 2008 05:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 51 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1044
Joined  2008-02-15
Aussie Allan - 01 December 2008 08:34 PM

If you say the existence of god is impossible then you’re open to being called irrational on that point (for it cannot be disproven) and maybe the infinitesimal chance of being proven wrong.

Neither can the idea that we are in an alien matrix, that we are the dream not the dreamer etc. etc. Why is god(s) a special case?

BTW did you read the link I posted.

See “You Can Prove a Negative” at

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-12-05.html 

The practical significance is diddly-squat and the only reason to discuss the possibility is to avoid this label of irrationality which gives believers ammunition. It would be tedious to expect us to qualify every statement, for the sake of absolute correctness, when expressing an opinion that we believe is so close to certainty that we do express it as a certainty. We use short speak without confusion when talking with reasonable people. The problem is that not all are reasonable.

Well put. Thanks for the excellent discussion!

 Signature 

Why is there Something instead of Nothing: No reason or ever knowable reason.

Kissing Hank’s Ass
Pope Song (rated NC17).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 December 2008 12:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 52 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  224
Joined  2008-10-19
Beam - 01 December 2008 05:53 PM

Immediate,
SC’s statement is obviously a rhetorical device. I doubt that anyone other than you actually believes that was a real, physical threat. SC is a master at using language that evokes emotional responses in the audience in order to make his point. Apparently, his rhetoric worked.

Whether it is an actual physical threat or not, it is still is threatening language to use; representative of atheist fundamentalist intolerance, and I’m curious as to how you think it “worked?”

You used the word master.  I’m just curious, do you consider yourself to be his apprentice?

 Signature 

Please call me Immediate

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 December 2008 12:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 53 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  224
Joined  2008-10-19
teuchter - 01 December 2008 06:47 PM
Immediate Suppression - 01 December 2008 05:34 PM

There is a difference between having “strong views” about something and absolute certainty in it.  There is also a difference between being “quite confident” in something and being absolutely certain in it.  It is a fine line,  but it is a line neverthless.

It sounds like a distinction without a difference; there is a difference between minus 270 degrees C and absolute zero, but it has no practical significance in my life, and I don’t worry about it.

There is a difference, and I just pointed it out.  It is quite easy to measure one’s statements, without sounding certain in areas where science does not support certainty.

teuchter - 01 December 2008 06:47 PM
Immediate Suppression - 01 December 2008 05:34 PM

You wanting to rid this forum of Christians in another thread you started, however, does appear to express some sentiments of intolerance: 

teuchter - 29 November 2008 04:42 PM

CHRISTIANS—GO LOOK AT YOUR PORN SITES; THE ADULTS ARE TRYING TO TALK.

WE HAVE A PROBLEM:

This site is infested with christians, gnawing at the bandwidth and leaving sick little droppings across the server.

I propose we rid ourselves of these pests

Wouldn’t you agree?


I would agree that it is forceful, perhaps even belligerent, and that I have lost all patience with people trying to use a site to proselytize Xchun “salvation.”

And that description right there defines part of the fundamentalist mindset, whether it be Christians or atheists who engage in it.

teuchter - 01 December 2008 06:47 PM

On the other hand, I am not intolerant of people believing in jeezuz or going to church.  I’m intolerant of people trying to take over my government so that our constitution can conform to what they perceive as god’s will, and I am fairly direct when someone suggests that I should lead my life differently in order to get into heaven.

And yet, I have not suggested anyone ignore you or drive you from this forum.  Far from it, I have attempted to engage you on the issue of “fundamental atheism.”  So on that score, I am pretty tolerant.

Wouldn’t you agree?

You are tolerant in some respects, but the above post which you describe as belligerent nevertheless clearly constitutes expressions of intolerance on your part.

teuchter - 01 December 2008 06:47 PM
Immediate Suppression - 01 December 2008 05:34 PM

And Salt Creek’s proposed physical threat against me also constitutes intolerance:

Salt Creek - 19 November 2008 11:14 PM

Let’s throw Immediate Suppression against the wall and see if his brain behaves rheologically like mud does.

Since I don’t know what country you live in, nor do I know what country SC lives in, I am hard pressed to see this as a physical threat against you.

Whether it is a actual threat or not, it is inappropriate language to use.  It is an expression of atheist fundamentalist intolerance, and it is obviously not the first time.

[ Edited: 16 December 2008 06:00 PM by Immediate Suppression]
 Signature 

Please call me Immediate

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 December 2008 01:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 54 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1646
Joined  2008-04-02
Immediate Suppression - 02 December 2008 05:20 PM
Beam - 01 December 2008 05:53 PM

Immediate,
SC’s statement is obviously a rhetorical device. I doubt that anyone other than you actually believes that was a real, physical threat. SC is a master at using language that evokes emotional responses in the audience in order to make his point. Apparently, his rhetoric worked.

Whether it is an actual physical threat or not, it is still is threatening language to use; representative of atheist fundamentalist intolerance, and I’m curious as to how you think it “worked?”

You used the word master.  I’m just curious, do you consider yourself to be his apprentice?

The evidence that it had an emotional impact on you is that you are still complaining about it. I doubt that Salty is taking any students. Whether you like Mr. Creek or not is irrelevant. Historians say that Newton was a real ass. It seems that his personality did not win him a large cache of friends. Isaac’s ability to interpret data and postulate relationships in a way that had not been done by other scientists insures his legacy despite his personality. My only legacy will be the dept I leave for my kids.

We can learn a lot of things from a lot of people if we pay attention. You have a choice to ignore me or anyone else. You will not learn anything by ignoring someone; but you may avoid the uncomfortable feeling that you experience when someone criticizes one of your ideas. Writing style is important in fiction. Many of us here prefer content to fluff.

I should have learned that if I respond to ridiculous posts, I will generate more ridiculous posts.

 Signature 

Real honesty is accepting the theories that best explain the actual data even if those explanations contradict our cherished beliefs.-Scotty

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 December 2008 02:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 55 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  224
Joined  2008-10-19
Beam - 02 December 2008 06:57 PM
Immediate Suppression - 02 December 2008 05:20 PM
Beam - 01 December 2008 05:53 PM

Immediate,
SC’s statement is obviously a rhetorical device. I doubt that anyone other than you actually believes that was a real, physical threat. SC is a master at using language that evokes emotional responses in the audience in order to make his point. Apparently, his rhetoric worked.

Whether it is an actual physical threat or not, it is still is threatening language to use; representative of atheist fundamentalist intolerance, and I’m curious as to how you think it “worked?”

You used the word master.  I’m just curious, do you consider yourself to be his apprentice?

The evidence that it had an emotional impact on you is that you are still complaining about it.

I have never complained about it.  I simply have used it as an example of intolerance.  It didn’t have any “emotional impact” on me, your hopes seem to be delusional on that one.

Beam - 02 December 2008 06:57 PM

I doubt that Salty is taking any students. Whether you like Mr. Creek or not is irrelevant.

I never said I didn’t like him.

Beam - 02 December 2008 06:57 PM

Historians say that Newton was a real ass. It seems that his personality did not win him a large cache of friends. Isaac’s ability to interpret data and postulate relationships in a way that had not been done by other scientists insures his legacy despite his personality.


And what exactly does that have to do with Salt Creek?  What is the prize at the bottom of that Cracker Jack box you are waving in front of my face?

Beam - 02 December 2008 06:57 PM

My only legacy will be the dept I leave for my kids.

You are forgetting about your legacy of leaving posts on my threads that seem to lack meaning.  But feel free to continue to do so, I’m a very tolerant person.

Beam - 02 December 2008 06:57 PM

We can learn a lot of things from a lot of people if we pay attention. You have a choice to ignore me or anyone else. You will not learn anything by ignoring someone; but you may avoid the uncomfortable feeling that you experience when someone criticizes one of your ideas. Writing style is important in fiction. Many of us here prefer content to fluff.

So where is the content?  Correct me if I’m wrong, but was what you wrote not just a bunch of fluff?

[ Edited: 04 December 2008 11:31 PM by Immediate Suppression]
 Signature 

Please call me Immediate

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 December 2008 01:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 56 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  224
Joined  2008-10-19
goodgraydrab - 01 December 2008 05:18 PM
Immediate Suppression - 01 December 2008 04:34 PM

Clearly, we still have a lot to learn about consciousness, so statements made with complete disregard to this are essentially a statement of faith.

It is totally scientific and rational that the study of consciousness occurs within the universe of the brain and its functions. While it is true that we have a lot to learn about consciousness, it is irrational to think it can be studied or exist in a non-entity, this is “sure as the most certain sure ...”. Guess that makes me a fundie.

Actually, goodgraydrab, I haven’t seen any fundamentalist statements expressed in your writings so far.  If you think you have made some, you are welcome to import them into this thread and we can examine them to see if they constitute fundamnetalist statements.

[ Edited: 05 December 2008 01:48 AM by Immediate Suppression]
 Signature 

Please call me Immediate

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 December 2008 02:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 57 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1646
Joined  2008-04-02

You really got me good. I just cannot think of anything to say after receiving such a deserved slapping. All I can do is wish you well. Go ahead and send your manuscript to the publisher IS. It should be a runaway best seller.

 Signature 

Real honesty is accepting the theories that best explain the actual data even if those explanations contradict our cherished beliefs.-Scotty

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 December 2008 02:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 58 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1891
Joined  2007-12-19
Immediate Suppression - 04 December 2008 06:46 PM

Actually, goodgraydrab, I haven’t seen any fundamentalist statements expressed in your writings so far.  If you think you have made some, you are welcome to import them into this thread and we can examine them to see if they constitute fundamnetalist statements.

I’ll be the judge of that!

 Signature 

“This is it. You are it.”


- Jos. Campbell

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 December 2008 04:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 59 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27
Immediate Suppression - 02 December 2008 05:43 PM
teuchter - 01 December 2008 06:47 PM
Immediate Suppression - 01 December 2008 05:34 PM

And Salt Creek’s proposed physical threat against me also constitutes intolerance:

Salt Creek - 19 November 2008 11:14 PM

Let’s throw Immediate Suppression against the wall and see if his brain behaves rheologically like mud does.

Since I don’t know what country you live in, nor do I know what country SC lives in, I am hard pressed to see this as a physical threat against you.

Whether it is a actual threat or not, it is inappropriate language to use.  It is an expression of atheist fundamentalist intolerance, and it is obviously not the first time.

Are we still talking about this?

My, what a stir I’ve caused.

I will attempt to explain to Immediate Suppression how discourse on internet chat forums differs from discourse that takes place face to face.

Let’s take IS’s opinions that “something may be intervening”. True intolerance of IS’s opinions here would consist of blocking any traffic coming from the IP address of IS’s computer, so that IS would be unable to post any opinions at all here. Since we do not do that, IS may continue to post these opinions here and to see them rejected.

This milder form of intolerance is to respond that such opinions are bullshit, and that one won’t waste a minute of one’s life discussing the specifics of them with IS. In fact, this is exactly what has happened. IS’s opinions that “something may be intervening” have been so forcefully dismissed that IS is now cast upon the rocks of discussing the nature of intolerance itself. Of course, IS’s complaint about intolerance, plus a shiny coin, will purchase a brightly-colored gumball which IS is free to use to blow little thought bubbles. As always, I warn IS not to get it in his/her hair upon blowing too much hot air into them.

Consider how different the “intolerance” of IS’s ideas might be in person, in face to face conversation. If a person walked up to me and suggested “something may be intervening”, I would simply back away carefully, probably under the assumption that a person who started a conversation with that abrupt an opening is undoubtedly suffering from some sort of psychological ailment. Not being a psychiatric professional, I know that I could not do such a person any good, and that the likelihood that I could do harm to such a person by attempting therapeutic conversation is not insignificant.

The kindest thing a person who is not a professional in the field of psychiatry can do for a person like Immediate Suppression is not to engage in any interaction at all. Thus, my argument is that Immediate Suppression should be complaining about the cruelty that has been inflicted upon him/her here, rather than on issues of intolerance.

Tolerance of philosophical and religious ideas is not, of course, obligatory, since such characteristics are not the result of biological conditions over which the individual has no control. Complaints of mental cruelty are typically only used as a cause of action in celebrity divorces. On the internets, people with unsubstantiated ideas can always find an audience. That should be sufficient. Expecting tolerance of unsubstantiated ideas is probably asking too much.

If IS wishes to make the admission that he/she is mentally ill due to biological conditions over which she/he has no control, and that we should be tolerant of that, I am open to such a consideration. So far, I am operating under the assumption that the residues of IS’s thinking that we see here have been placed here voluntarily, and that no tolerance of them is hitherto required. No one stops IS from expressing such thoughts, which would actually be in the nature of religious intolerance.

Merely making sport of people’s religious or philosophical ideas does not actually constitute religious or philosophical intolerance. This is the (dare I say it?) fundamental error being made by IS in this and other threads.

[ Edited: 04 December 2008 04:31 PM by Traces Elk]
 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 December 2008 04:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 60 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  250
Joined  2008-09-02
Salt Creek - 04 December 2008 09:22 PM

Are we still talking about this?

My, what a stir I’ve caused.

Where I come from, you would be known as a shit stirrer - a compliment btw.

Profile
 
 
   
4 of 26
4
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed