What is an atheist fundamentalist?

 
Immediate Suppression
 
Avatar
 
 
Immediate Suppression
Total Posts:  205
Joined  19-10-2008
 
 
 
02 December 2008 12:20
 
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?

 
 
Immediate Suppression
 
Avatar
 
 
Immediate Suppression
Total Posts:  205
Joined  19-10-2008
 
 
 
02 December 2008 12:43
 
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 18:00 by Immediate Suppression]
 
 
 
Avatar
 
 
Beam
Total Posts:  1619
Joined  02-04-2008
 
 
 
02 December 2008 13:57
 
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.

 
 
Immediate Suppression
 
Avatar
 
 
Immediate Suppression
Total Posts:  205
Joined  19-10-2008
 
 
 
02 December 2008 14:55
 
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 23:31 by Immediate Suppression]
 
 
Immediate Suppression
 
Avatar
 
 
Immediate Suppression
Total Posts:  205
Joined  19-10-2008
 
 
 
04 December 2008 13:46
 
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 by Immediate Suppression]
 
 
 
Avatar
 
 
Beam
Total Posts:  1619
Joined  02-04-2008
 
 
 
04 December 2008 14:11
 

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.

 
 
goodgraydrab
 
Avatar
 
 
goodgraydrab
Total Posts:  7845
Joined  19-12-2007
 
 
 
04 December 2008 14:46
 
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!

 
 
 
Avatar
 
 
Traces Elk
Total Posts:  5591
Joined  27-09-2006
 
 
 
04 December 2008 16:22
 
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 16:31 by Traces Elk]
 
 
 
Avatar
 
 
ooo
Total Posts:  240
Joined  02-09-2008
 
 
 
04 December 2008 16:34
 
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.

 
 
Avatar
 
 
Traces Elk
Total Posts:  5591
Joined  27-09-2006
 
 
 
04 December 2008 16:41
 
little baby cheeses - 04 December 2008 09:34 PM
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.

Along with mangling the definition of “atheist” so that 20% of atheists apparently believe in some sort of cosmic intentional entity, IS has also mangled use of words “intolerance” and “impoliteness” so that they mean the same thing as “apostasy”.

 
 
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  13960
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
04 December 2008 19:50
 
Jefe - 04 December 2008 08:03 PM
Beam - 04 December 2008 07:11 PM

Go ahead and send your manuscript to the publisher IS. It should be a runaway best seller.

For the record, IS, you do not have my permission to use any of my material here on this form - in quoted, or paraphrased form, for your manuscript.

A worthy sentiment, unfortunately paraphrase can’t be copyrighted—ideas are not protected, only your exact words.  Nevertheless you can claim theft of ideas and make that stick in popular opinion.

 
Immediate Suppression
 
Avatar
 
 
Immediate Suppression
Total Posts:  205
Joined  19-10-2008
 
 
 
04 December 2008 23:47
 
goodgraydrab - 04 December 2008 07:46 PM
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!

We can all be the judge!  Dennis Campbell, Skeptic X, eucaryote, teuchter, and I have been examining statements on this thread which might be fundamentalist in nature.  It’s been pretty interesting so far, it has led to some definitive conclusions about the motives for atheist fundamentalism.  Atheists need to be honest not only when examining the behavior of religious people, they also need to be honest when looking in the mirror.

 
 
Immediate Suppression
 
Avatar
 
 
Immediate Suppression
Total Posts:  205
Joined  19-10-2008
 
 
 
05 December 2008 01:24
 
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.

And it doesn’t matter whether a person knows where the other person lives, a physical threat is a physical threat, and will be treated as such:

IBLS Editorial Department
Friday, May 30, 2008

Electronic communications, in particular e-mails, have become a valuable working and social tool in the XXI century.  Unfortunately, given its immediate delivery and disguised anonymity, some conflicted souls are increasingly using e-mails to transmit hateful messages.  Transmitting threatening messages via e-mail is a federal crime in the United States and carries a penalty of imprisonment of up to five years or a fine, or both.  Following, there is information on the federal statute that criminalizes threatening e-mails and a recent case of a man accused of sending racially hateful e-mails.

18 U.S.C. § 875(c) states: “Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any   communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”  From the wording of § 875(c) it is clear that the legislator did not require the element of ‘intent.’  Thus, it is irrelevant if the accused claims he/she did not have the intent to produce any injury on the victim; the mere act of sending the e-mail with threatening messages typifies the criminal conduct.


Therefore, according to 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) sending e-mails(or other types of electronic communications) with words threatening injury is a federal crime and can be easily proven by showing that it was sent to a person in other state, showing the e-mail, and the wording the e-mail contains.  Thus, individuals prompt to explosive reactions should be cautions when wording their e-mail messages.  A simple ‘mistake’ in wording e-mails threatening its recipient with an injury, even if not intended, may typify a federal crime with a harsh imprisonment sentence.

Salt Creek - 04 December 2008 09:22 PM

Are we still talking about this?

Yes, and I’d suggest you get used to it.  The Treason Project is on full go status.

Salt Creek - 04 December 2008 09:22 PM

My, what a stir I’ve caused.

Don’t give yourself so much credit, it was actually my conversations with teutcher which brought me to the conclusion that atheist fundamentalism really does exist.  You were simply the obvious belligerent source to consider when looking for examples of atheist fundamentalist intolerance.  But I suppose you have caused a bit of a stir with your comments, and this is only a handful of examples:

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.

You still have yet to deny there was any ill-intent when you made that statement.  I look forward to your clarification soon. 

Salt Creek - 19 November 2008 09:13 PM
Immediate Suppression - 19 November 2008 09:05 PM

Neither, because I like to keep an honest, open mind when it comes to areas where humans still have a lot to learn.

You kept your mind so open that your brains fell out. Too bad, IS. Now everybody can see you have shit for brains.

My brain is still intact, yours seems only to be capable of repeating the same jokes over and over and over and over again.  Is there a wad of gum stuck in between your ears which may be causing a short-circuit or something, making it impossible for you to generate any new material?

Here is another typical example of the way you personally deride people:

Salt Creek - 20 October 2008 09:03 AM
telner - 18 October 2008 11:33 PM

A few years ago my (devoutly Christian) Silat teacher allowed as how every serious martial artist needed to get through “Zen 101 to keep your head screwed on straight.”

telner sees himself as a serious martial artist, but outside the competition ring, the evidence shows that he’s a bombastic, blustering nitwit.

You sure show a lot of patience and civility towards your fellow atheist MHunter:

Salt Creek - 20 October 2008 05:42 PM
MHunter - 20 October 2008 04:13 PM

Wow, lots of intolerance around here… And I thought, being an atheist, I was among the enlightened ones.

And your complaint is what, more precisely, Mr. Fuckball?

You sure do seem to have a penchant for dealing out personal insults towards roger:

Salt Creek - 05 November 2008 10:04 AM
roger_pearse - 05 November 2008 08:22 AM
Jefe - 04 November 2008 02:54 PM

Is the anti-homosexuality sentiment of many christians based on it being referenced as an abomination in the bible?

Is the pro-homosexuality sentiment of many atheists based on it being fashionable?

Atheists like me don’t care if it’s “fashionable” or not…. Only ignorant peasants make idiotic statements like yours suggesting that the emotional appeal of respect for individual liberty is a “fashion”.....fuckwits like you need to be more patient and avoid abuse of the language. It doesn’‘t really assist your case.

Here is another one directed towards a Christian who was engaging in a polite discourse:

Salt Creek - 27 August 2008 12:17 PM

You are, for the umpty-hundredth time, rendering your “testimony”. It’s just advertising, proselytizing, and part of the grand diplomacy of woo, Mr. Ambassador. After the umpty-hundredth time, it’s also a fuckwitudinous waste of brain cells. Zombie droid fuckwitude. Go ahead and tell everyone that God loves them. You are Pavlov’s dog, barking into an empty lab.

Look at the words you called him, it is pretty excessive.  This next one is from an exchange between Salt Creek and Clay:

Salt Creek - 27 August 2008 07:18 PM
clayforHim648 - 27 August 2008 06:24 PM

If the biblical teaching and proclamation of the Gospel does not itself radically transform you and convince you of a critical, desperate need for Christ and your vast separation from Him, then what else can I say?

What else can you say? You can say that you’re a fuckwit, because you’re lying about any claims that the Gospel has radically transformed you. It’s transformed you from an ordinary fuckwit into a fuckwit zombie droid who cannot stop talking about the Gospel.

Again, don’t you think that is excessive?  Clay may not be able to stop talking about the Bible, but Salt Creek can’t keep a lid on his filthy mouth.  Here is a response to Tad, who was also being civil:

Salt Creek - 28 August 2008 06:57 PM
Tad Trenton’s Ghost - 28 August 2008 06:33 PM

The prevailing view among most posters on this forum seems to be: if it cannot be tested in a laboratory, then it cannot exist: thus the “natural” world is all that there is or can be. But this is not the case.

Don’t be a consummate fuckwit. If you cannot produce evidence for it, keep it to yourself. Who else can know about it? Do you think stories you tell about the supernatural are educational, or merely titillating? Are they titillating to anyone but you?

they would be subject to the actions and interactions dictated by logic

Really? Stuff exists because it is logically possible? Who knew?

Do you think the more people you can convince of the supernatural through your ridiculous stories, the more likely it is to exist? Or are you simply a consummate fuckwit?

He tells him not to talk about it anymore, that is absolutely an intolerant expression.  Also look at the way he derides him while asking questions; completely unnecessary, and it almost seems like an attempt to intimidate or bully.

Salt Creek - 04 December 2008 09:22 PM

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

No, you will not, Salt Creek.  Sorry, but I don’t view you as any type of an authority on that subject, to say the least.  And I intend to keep this thread on track.  But I, however, will explain to you that the type of behavior you engage in above is indicative of intolerant behavior, it is bullying, it is excessively belligerent, and it does nothing but give atheists a bad name.  And it is the reason you are an atheist fundamentalist.

[ Edited: 16 December 2008 18:07 by Immediate Suppression]
 
 
goodgraydrab
 
Avatar
 
 
goodgraydrab
Total Posts:  7845
Joined  19-12-2007
 
 
 
05 December 2008 07:13
 
Immediate Suppression - 05 December 2008 04:47 AM

Atheists need to be honest not only when examining the behavior of religious people, they also need to be honest when looking in the mirror.

Like I said, I’ll be the judge of that!

 
 
 
Avatar
 
 
Traces Elk
Total Posts:  5591
Joined  27-09-2006
 
 
 
05 December 2008 07:46
 
Immediate Suppression - 05 December 2008 06:24 AM

The Treason Project is on full go status.

Crikey! It’s been a dog’s age since I ran into someone so committed to his personal bullshit that he was willing to set up a paramilitary tribunal if someone like me made a mockery of his idea of an afterlife.