3 of 26
3
What is an atheist fundamentalist?
Posted: 29 November 2008 06:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1044
Joined  2008-02-15
Aussie Allan - 29 November 2008 10:27 PM
GAD - 29 November 2008 09:50 PM

Good grief! So every atheist that doesn’t except that “everything” is possible, is intolerant! If everything is possible then so is god and we wouldn’t be atheists, we’d be something else, and we might as well be talking about souls and afterlives.

Your intolerance is not defined by your beliefs but your acceptance of the right of others to their beliefs. Your non-acceptance of the possibility of supernatural things better described as irrational.

I accept the possibility of the existence of the supernatural but that possibility is so small that it isn’t worth my time in serious consideration. I’ll wait for any evidence to surface and then I’ll consider it. Until then there are more important things to do and think about.

Am I intolerant to others beliefs? No, they can waste their lives however they choose as long as they don’t get in my way.

Seeing as how I have never (nor do I have the power to) denied anyone the right to their beliefs, I don’t meet your definition of intolerance, at least at this point in time.

 Signature 

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

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 November 2008 10:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  6
Joined  2008-11-09
Aussie Allan - 29 November 2008 10:27 PM


Your intolerance is not defined by your beliefs but your acceptance of the right of others to their beliefs.


Sorry GAD, I should have written “one’s intolerance is not defined by one’s beliefs but by their nonacceptance of the right of others to their beliefs.’

I didn’t intend to call you intolerant, only irrational.

My mistake.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 November 2008 11:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1044
Joined  2008-02-15
Aussie Allan - 30 November 2008 03:51 AM
Aussie Allan - 29 November 2008 10:27 PM


Your intolerance is not defined by your beliefs but your acceptance of the right of others to their beliefs.


Sorry GAD, I should have written “one’s intolerance is not defined by one’s beliefs but by their nonacceptance of the right of others to their beliefs.’

I didn’t intend to call you intolerant, only irrational.

My mistake.

“Irrational”! No, I’d rather be intolerant.  wink

In any case show where I’ve been irrational.

 Signature 

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

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 November 2008 11:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  6
Joined  2008-11-09
GAD - 29 November 2008 09:50 PM

Good grief! So every atheist that doesn’t except that “everything” is possible, is intolerant! If everything is possible then so is god and we wouldn’t be atheists, we’d be something else, and we might as well be talking about souls and afterlives.

GAD, I assume you do think we are in fact atheists. If so, the above statement implies you don’t accept even the possibility of the existence of god.  This thinking is irrational although of no practical difference to my acceptance of an infinitesimal possibility.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 November 2008 03:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1646
Joined  2008-04-02

IS

It seems to me that you want to apply the label of fundamentalist to an atheist who requires data in order to make a decision as to the reality or probability of a claim. If that is what you want to do, then knock yourself out. There is already an adjective for those who believe without evidence. A person who believes in supernatural phenomena is called superstitious.

Anything could be possible in Neverland, but without objective, reproducible supporting data, you may as well be speculating about whether or not Peter Pan exists. One who is critical of phenomena that lack credible evidence is not intolerant; they are intellectually honest. Succumbing to confirmation bias is not a virtue-it is lazy. It is easy to believe in the possibility of things that you want to believe.

You have a right to make fanciful speculation about mystical possibilities. If you do not want people like me to point out the fact that your “something may be intervening” is unsubstantiated nonsense, then post it on a forum for mystics. Without data, speculation belongs in the FICTION section.  If teuchter were to ask a jury to believe that his client committed a crime because some unknown possible power made the crime happen, then that defendant would be found guilty. Even the average jury sees this as improbable enough to convict.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 November 2008 05:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  305
Joined  2008-10-08
Immediate Suppression - 29 November 2008 04:41 PM

Examine the word atheist, and it becomes hard to deny it also applies to those who are opposed to theistic ideas

A subset of those who do not believe in a god

; or who are atheistic.

That’s just redundant. It’s like an aromatic aroma.

 Signature 

“There is undoubtedly an important secular debate to be had about the ethics of the death penalty…” -Sam Harris
“There is undoubtedly an important secular debate to be had about the ethics of embryonic stem cell research and abortion…” -Me

Jump through the Blackmun Hole!

Salt Creek has discovered the meaning of the first half of “Nulono”. Now, what language uses “nul” for zero?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 November 2008 05:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  305
Joined  2008-10-08
GAD - 29 November 2008 09:50 PM
Aussie Allan - 29 November 2008 09:38 PM

Greetings All,

Is not the meaning of the word ‘fundamentalist’ in fundamentalist christian clearly different to the term fundamentalist atheist? In the first instance it describes the type of belief held.  As teuchter writes:

If someone says, “I am a fundamentalist christian,” then I know several things that person positively believes:
jesus is the son of god
jesus was lifted up to heaven after he was crucified
mary was a virgin
the bible is the inerrant word of god

In the second instance it merely describes a personality trait of the atheist (i.e. intolerance) but does not add to the meaning of the word ‘atheist’. It adds nothing but potential confusion. If ever the need arises I don’t see why you can’t use the term intolerant atheist or arrogant atheist or even nice atheist. I acknowledge that fundamentalist christians are intolerant but I think the distinction is made.

Good grief! So every atheist that doesn’t except that “everything” is possible, is intolerant! If everything is possible then so is god and we wouldn’t be atheists, we’d be something else, and we might as well be talking about souls and afterlives.

PLEASE tell me you aren’t using quotation marks for emphasis!

 Signature 

“There is undoubtedly an important secular debate to be had about the ethics of the death penalty…” -Sam Harris
“There is undoubtedly an important secular debate to be had about the ethics of embryonic stem cell research and abortion…” -Me

Jump through the Blackmun Hole!

Salt Creek has discovered the meaning of the first half of “Nulono”. Now, what language uses “nul” for zero?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 November 2008 08:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1044
Joined  2008-02-15
Aussie Allan - 30 November 2008 04:45 AM
GAD - 29 November 2008 09:50 PM

Good grief! So every atheist that doesn’t except that “everything” is possible, is intolerant! If everything is possible then so is god and we wouldn’t be atheists, we’d be something else, and we might as well be talking about souls and afterlives.

GAD, I assume you do think we are in fact atheists. If so, the above statement implies you don’t accept even the possibility of the existence of god.  This thinking is irrational although of no practical difference to my acceptance of an infinitesimal possibility.

Look back at my post where I said

I define myself as a hard atheist, which is to say that I am as certain that there are no gods or magic as I am the the Sun will rise tomorrow (which is a probability not a certainty).

http://www.samharris.org/forum/viewreply/136656/

Which is analogous to your post where you said

I accept the possibility of the existence of the supernatural but that possibility is so small that it isn’t worth my time in serious consideration. I’ll wait for any evidence to surface and then I’ll consider it. Until then there are more important things to do and think about.

Am I intolerant to others beliefs? No, they can waste their lives however they choose as long as they don’t get in my way.

http://www.samharris.org/forum/viewreply/136700/

 Signature 

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

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 November 2008 02:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  6
Joined  2008-11-09

GAD, noted. Yet you make the following statement.

GAD - 30 November 2008 01:25 PM

If everything is possible then so is god and we wouldn’t be atheists, we’d be something else, and we might as well be talking about souls and afterlives.

I’m merely pointing out that not everthing is possible; god’s existence is; we are atheists for good reasons and I agree it’s a waste of time talking about souls and afterlife - except for entertainment value in situations of terminal boredom at which time I’d choose to see if there really is an afterlife.

Anyway this is off topic and I think I’m sounding like a pedantic arsehole when I really couldn’t give a toss. Cheers.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 December 2008 10:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1044
Joined  2008-02-15
Aussie Allan - 30 November 2008 07:04 PM

GAD, noted. Yet you make the following statement.

GAD - 30 November 2008 01:25 PM

If everything is possible then so is god and we wouldn’t be atheists, we’d be something else, and we might as well be talking about souls and afterlives.

I’m merely pointing out that not everthing is possible; god’s existence is; we are atheists for good reasons and I agree it’s a waste of time talking about souls and afterlife - except for entertainment value in situations of terminal boredom at which time I’d choose to see if there really is an afterlife.

Anyway this is off topic and I think I’m sounding like a pedantic arsehole when I really couldn’t give a toss. Cheers.

I 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.

If I say I am certain that the Sun will raise tomorrow, no one bats an eye, even though that is a probability not a certainty. In my view gods, souls and afterlife’s have an even lower probability then then the Sun not raising tomorrow, yet, when I state this probability as a certainty I am intolerant, irrational or a fundamentalist.

I see such thinking as magical, but a seemingly large number of people calling them selfs atheists argue that it is not magical thinking but that which science hasn’t discovered yet. I say they should call them selfs something else.

 Signature 

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

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 December 2008 11:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  224
Joined  2008-10-19
Jefe - 29 November 2008 05:46 PM
Immediate Suppression - 29 November 2008 05:03 PM


It is not arbitrary, it is not based upon my discretion; atheist fundamentalism is based upon certainty in one’s beliefs and intolerance for opposing views.


Well given that any such figurative segregation on your part would be based solely on your subjective judgment of who does and does not fall inside the categorical segregation you are setting up, I would conclude that this is arbitrary based on the subjective nature of this categorization.  Since this would appear to be largely based on your opinion, and would (at the moment) seem to have no experiential basis, I would stand on the posit that this is an arbitrary segregation based on your personal, subjective opinions.  Opinions, I might add, that are probably based on incomplete or sparse knowledge of the actual positions of posters you may attempt to “figuratively” segregate.

Feel free to try to clarify.

It isn’t subjective.  It is based upon a certainty in one’s beliefs in areas where science does not support certainty, it is based upon intolerance of opposing views, and as you yourself have admitted, a dogmatic viewpoint.

I’ve given you a list of examples of these fundamentalist statements I have examined on the other thread I started.  That is the objective evidence of atheist fundamentalism.

 Signature 

Please call me Immediate

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 December 2008 11:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1221
Joined  2008-07-20
GAD - 01 December 2008 03:26 PM

I say that because of the popular view/chant that atheism is “lack of belief”.

Call it the absence of a belief in god[s], or the belief in the absence of god[s].

It is still not a comprehensive world view, and knowing that a person is an atheist tells you nothing about what moral or political structures the person supports.

Immediate Suppression - 01 December 2008 04:06 PM

It is based upon a certainty in one’s beliefs in areas where science does not support certainty, it is based upon intolerance of opposing views, and as you yourself have admitted, a dogmatic viewpoint.

I’ve given you a list of examples of these fundamentalist statements I have examined on the other thread I started.  That is the objective evidence of atheist fundamentalism.

Strong views about scientific, or pseudoscientic, speculation has nothing to do with atheism.  A person could believe in god and regularly attend a methodist church, and a second person could be quite confident that no gods exist, and they could agree that there is insufficient reason to entertain the speculation “What if pigs can fly?”

My guess is that your proposed speculation that when we die our brain energy might pool with other brain energy to form some sort of energy pool, if I’m recalling it correctly, is so far contrary to what is known about the brain, not to mention thermodynamics, as to warrant rejection out of hand.

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.

Nobody is telling you not to pursue, on your own time, such speculation, and if you succeed, come back with the evidence (and a probable nobel prizes) and say, “I told you so.”

In fact, I’m not sure anyone has said you shouldn’t pursue these speculations here.  They have largely confined themselves to saying they find them ridiculous.

So, it appears that it is you who is intolerant of the rejection of your ideas.

[ Edited: 01 December 2008 11:37 AM 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 12:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1646
Joined  2008-04-02
teuchter - 01 December 2008 04:35 PM

So, it appears that it is you (Immodium) who is intolerant of the rejection of your ideas.

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

 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 12:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1221
Joined  2008-07-20
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.

 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 12:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  224
Joined  2008-10-19
teuchter - 01 December 2008 04:35 PM
Immediate Suppression - 01 December 2008 04:06 PM

It is based upon a certainty in one’s beliefs in areas where science does not support certainty, it is based upon intolerance of opposing views, and as you yourself have admitted, a dogmatic viewpoint.

I’ve given you a list of examples of these fundamentalist statements I have examined on the other thread I started.  That is the objective evidence of atheist fundamentalism.

Strong views about scientific, or pseudoscientic, speculation has nothing to do with atheism.  A person could believe in god and regularly attend a methodist church, and a second person could be quite confident that no gods exist, and they could agree that there is insufficient reason to entertain the speculation “What if pigs can fly?”

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.  And when you cross it, you end up expressing fundamentalist sentiments. 

teuchter - 01 December 2008 04:35 PM

My guess is that your proposed speculation that when we die our brain energy might pool with other brain energy to form some sort of energy pool, if I’m recalling it correctly, is so far contrary to what is known about the brain, not to mention thermodynamics, as to warrant rejection out of hand.


Perhaps it is, but that is not what I am referring to.  I am referring to people who are certain in where there is not scientific certainty.

teuchter - 01 December 2008 04:35 PM

Declining to engage in what appears to be baseless and idle speculation is neither a form of fundamentalism, nor intolerance.

I never said it was.

teuchter - 01 December 2008 04:35 PM

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.

Nobody is telling you not to pursue, on your own time, such speculation, and if you succeed, come back with the evidence (and a probable nobel prizes) and say, “I told you so.”

So far nobody has, but if they did it would be a sign of intolerant fundamentalism.  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?  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.

 Signature 

Please call me Immediate

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 26
3
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed