Rise in atheistic fundamentalism

[fuddam]

BBC NEWS | UK | Tony Blair joins Catholic church

pretty spot on, I'd say.
The greatest sin is intolerance, except where it pertains to Christianity - seen that on hexus for one. scorn, derision, etc

"Dr Morgan said: "All of this is what I would call the new "fundamentalism" of our age. It allows no room for disagreement, for doubt, for debate, for discussion."

ironic then that I should have a very civil discussion on facebook this week, with someone completely on the Richard Dawkins / Atheist bent. He posted a lengthy dismissal of Christianity, and I replied. He came with great politeness, thanked me for my contribution, and asked me for further clarification. I clarified as best I could, upon which he again thanked me for taking the time to respond etc, and for giving him some new insight into the faith. VERY impressive. Such a contrast to posting Christian opinion on hexus.

oh well, c'est la vie

Happy Christmas!!!!

[Saracen]

It isn't just Christian opinion that sometimes generates an intolerant response, or scorn or derision. All too often, I've seen what I would categorize as a "nasty" response, when it simply isn't needed. Furthermore, it destroys intelligent debate and discussion, and ends up with a slanging match. That slanging, again fairly often, is couched in guarded terms specifically because we have rules about insults, and some people couch things specifically to make it hard to do anything about it.

In my view, all too often, such responses are sheer provocation. They show all the signs of being deliberately couched in language designed to irritate, annoy or anger, and are often little more than put-downs that are barely within the rules.


But the question is .... what can be done about it?

We could impose a much tighter moderation on posting style, but then, where's the line between moderating designed to keep posts polite, and moderating that amounts to limiting freedom of expression. Not that there is freedom of expression anyway - there are already limits, some of which are imposed by our internal rules, and some of which are imposed by the laws of the land.

It's not really about freedom of expression - it's about quite how far we go, as Mods, in imposing OUR view of what's acceptable on members.

It would be easy to stamp out imperious, scornful, nasty posts. We simply initiate a system where the first time someone does it, they get a warning, the second time they get a suspension and the third time they get a life ban. The trouble is, you'd risk ending up with a forum where nobody would dare risk expressing much of an opinion on anything, and where mods would be called nazis (because, after all, trying to enforce civilised and moderate language on a debate is so much like trying to conquer the world, and gassing anybody that doesn't fit your preconceived notions of genetic purity).


Look at it this way, fuddam. If someone can't have a rational discussion, even if they very much disagree with you, and ends up resorting to disdain and scorn, it says far more about their ability to discuss rationally than it does about your perspective on the subject in hand, and they've indulged in their penchant for nasty little (but inside the rules, just) snipes at you where everyone else reading those comments can see them for what they are. Obviously, if they have to resort to scorn, they either have a weak case or the inability to express it rationally with resorting to the scorn or disdain they used.

[Lucio]

Have you considered that the people who resort to scorn and derision are doing so because they have an inability to express their views clearly?

In much the same way not all of us can understand particle physics, many people out there IMO, don't understand quite how they came to arrive at their beliefs. Not everyone out there can be a self-enlightended individual who 100% gets what they believe and thus, when you challenge their views, do what humans have been doing from the dawn of time, lash out in anger to mask their fear that they might just be wrong.

No one wants to feel that they're wrong.

[Saracen]

......

In much the same way not all of us can understand particle physics, .....

Can anyone understand it? Fully understand it, I mean? A friend of mine is a physicist working on experiments on the world's largest operational particle accelerator, and he'll tell you they don't fully understand it - that's why they're experimenting .... and (elsewhere) building the LHC.

And it seems to me that arguments about near-Big-Bang and the particles involved are simple compared to religious arguments, many of which, almost by definition, are incapable of evidence-based rational argument, but are about belief and faith. And I'm sure some people would argue that they're about belief and faith precisely because they're not subject to evidence-based argument. After all, certain Churches maintained that they knew that the notion that the earth revolved around the Sun was heresy until they were dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 17th Century.

And if that remark doesn't provoke a religious debate, I don't know what will.

[JPreston]

fuddam, while I'm sure you are besides yourself with joy at the revelation that Tony Blair has joined the blank-faced ranks of the preachily religious alongside such other humanitarian luminaries and leading intellectuals as George Bush and Jerry Falwell, I think you meant to link to this page instead:

BBC NEWS | Wales | 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

....and what a load of guff that is anyway. Quite apart from the biased tone - that atheists are somehow unusual and undesirable - as a point of fact, 'fundamentalism' refers specifically to the christian kind of babbling-in-tongues, creationist, rapture-ready tent-show revivalism of 1930's america that holds the bible to be the literally correct, perfect word of god. It's more recently been applied to muslims who similarly believe in the infallibility of particular texts, based on dogma, permitting no discussion.

Since the good Dr is completely incapable of providing any examples, maybe you would like to furnish us with an example of scripture that athiests universally hold to be absolutely true? What you seem consistently incapable of grasping is that atheism is not the belief that there is not god, taken on blind faith - it is not a religion. It is the absence of religion. In the same way that you are not a hindu, or muslim, or cargo cult member, I am none of those and not a christian either. I have absolutely no beliefs that I expect to be above challenge and am not ready to reassess. 'Atheist fundamentalism' is a ridiculous oxymoron.

Pretending that you are interested in discussing things rationally may be a good way to win sympathy as a member of a poor despised minority (Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!), but before you can talk to anyone about being rational, you need to accept that at their core your beliefs are completely irrational. They consist entirely of received dogma with no evidence at all, they are impossible for you to set out rationally. To paraphrase Dennett, talking to you is like playing tennis without the net - you expect the evil unreasoning atheists to serve you with technically perfect arguments but for your own part will regard any limping, cack-handed return roll as entirely sufficient. And that is why you, and all other fans of Great Floods and other Just So stories, always lose these debates.

Why not try answering some of the questions asked of you in creation musuem thread, instead of just ducking them and starting a new thread about how injurious the existence of atheism is? And BTW - happy winterval.

[Moby-Dick]

Jpreston , its about respecting someone else's point of view , even if you don't agree with it. Something you clearly dont do.

[JPreston]

Jpreston , its about respecting someone else's point of view , even if you don't agree with it. Something you clearly dont do.

Do you have a point to make? Blindly respecting whatever half-baked 'point of view' is coughed up in front of you is in no way desirable. People all deserve respect, but all ideas don't.

Do you respect the Nazi point of view, even though you don't agree with it? How about the point of view of wahabbi islamists? The american christians that murder abortionists? The pastafarians? Creationists? Branch Davidians?

EDIT: and you aren't actually asking for respect for ideas at all - you seem to expect acceptance. That certainly does not come free.

[Moby-Dick]

You are making assumptions on what my views are , without actually taking time to ask. I'm not religious at all , but I don;t take the obvious 'us and them' attitude you would appear to bask in. I'm just broad minded enough to realise that people have a spectrum of beliefs, some of which I strongly disagree with and would not personally hold but unless they try to force said view upon me or those around me, I don't take an issue with it.

[TeePee]

I enjoy a good debate or intelligent discussion on faith. The chrisitans who generate scorn and derision are those who don't bring a rational argument, but resort to biblical and 'if you believed you'd understand' responses, which frankly deserve nothing but scorn and derision!

The concept of 'Atheistic fundamentalism' as suggested in BBC NEWS | Wales | 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears misses the concept that removing christianity is more about removing intolerance. 'Winterval' is a far better term for the winter solstice celebration, rather than labelling it as 'only for christians'. The name 'Christmas' stems only from the christianization of the Yule festival. If you demand tolerance for christians, then you must surely demand tolerance for all religions.

It's sad that removing intolerance has become the 'evil of atheism'.

[TooNice]

I believe that even if one is right, it does not hurt to be humble about it without resorting 'nasty' response. It seems to be a more sensible approach if the objective is to persuade rather than instigate anger or seek an opportunity to ridicule.

[Saracen]

I enjoy a good debate or intelligent discussion on faith. The chrisitans who generate scorn and derision are those who don't bring a rational argument, but resort to biblical and 'if you believed you'd understand' responses, which frankly deserve nothing but scorn and derision!

Do they?

Surely, unless you can demonstrate that they're wrong, scorn and derision about their perspective just means that you're dismissively certain of your own beliefs?

Suppose, for argument's sake, that the Christian God exists, and for reasons best known to Him, has set things up so that his presence is unprovable, at least using any tools or techniques currently available to mankind. Suppose, for argument's sake, that those who maintain it's all about faith, and that the "if you had faith, you'd know" argument is actually correct. Then, because the system is loaded so that you need faith to get the "proof", it's about the only argument they can make.

So now turn it on it's head. Prove that they AREN'T correct. Prove that God doesn't exist, and doesn't operate in exactly in unprovable manner described. Can you?

It's one thing, in my opinion, maintaining the view that you believe (as JPreston appears to be saying) that proof, or even sufficient evidence, of God doesn't exist and that in the absence of that proof or evidence you decline to accept that the notion that he does exist is proven, but it's entirely another thing to maintain that you know he doesn't exist, and to ridicule or scorn the belief that he does.

Unless you can prove that the Christians are wrong and that their God doesn't exist, then surely using scorn and derision is merely proving yourself guilty of exactly the offence you accuse them of - accepting your own beliefs as correct.

Of course, it's kinda hard to prove that something that doesn't exist doesn't exist. But the absence of evidence that it does exist doesn't mean it doesn't. It may just mean we haven't found the evidence or don't have the means of finding it, or the tools to perceive it or the wisdom to recognise what we're seeing. What chance did stone age man have of proving that electricity exists, or that sub-atomic particles do, or that the Earth revolves around the Sun?

[Saracen]

I believe that even if one is right, it does not hurt to be humble about it without resorting 'nasty' response. It seems to be a more sensible approach if the objective is to persuade rather than instigate anger or seek an opportunity to ridicule.

Yes. Precisely the point I was trying to make earlier.

[JPreston]

I believe that even if one is right, it does not hurt to be humble about it without resorting 'nasty' response. It seems to be a more sensible approach if the objective is to persuade rather than instigate anger or seek an opportunity to ridicule.

But the purpose isn't to persuade anyone, it's only the 'faithful' who are required to minister - hence this nonsensical guff about 'atheist fundamentalism'. I don't need to convince people how primitive and wrong their beliefs are, any more than I feel obliged to teach them higher mathematics.

Where the clear misrepresentations and failings in reason of this article are presented as valid opinion, I'm just exercising right to reply. In fact it would be nice if some believers would exercise a bit of independent thought from time and call shenannigans on this inappropriate kind of prejudiced sermonizing, instead of leaving it to the atheists all the time. What a waste of licence fees and all that.

[TeePee]

There is a big difference between something existing that we don't understand and that we don't have an explanation for, and something which cannot be understood and which has no explanation.

If gods were defined as an alien beings who used special 'creation ray' that we don't understand, that would be a rational argument. We could look for evidence and proof, and your position would make sense. The problem with religion is the supernatural nature of gods, making them not just unproven but unprovable.

The stoneage man could look at the effects of lightning, develop a theory as to how it works, build some experiments (and update his wardrobe) and call himself Tesla. Just because he doesn't understand electricity doesn't mean it has no explanation, and our modern lives are a product of that stoneage man's desire to learn more about the world around him. Gods represent 'no explanation', and had stoneage man been happy with that we'd still be throwing rocks. I'm not. I want to look for the aliens!

[JPreston]

There is a big difference between something existing that we don't understand and that we don't have an explanation for, and something which cannot be understood and which has no explanation.

If gods were defined as an alien beings who used special 'creation ray' that we don't understand, that would be a rational argument. We could look for evidence and proof, and your position would make sense. The problem with religion is the supernatural nature of gods, making them not just unproven but unprovable.

That's what it is right there

[menthel]

I have seen this more frequently, especially from those Richard Dawkins followers. There is often a great joy in ripping apart someones beliefs.

It makes no sense to me, to tear apart beliefs that are not even being foisted on you, some people need their beliefs.

As an atheist myself this kind of behavior makes me sad. I don't need a religion to tell me that there is a right way to behave towards other human beings!