Rise in atheistic fundamentalism

[Bazzlad]

"Some take the position that if science doesn't give us reason to believe in something, then no good reason exists. That's simply the false assumption of scientism."

Have to say, I stopped reading right after that bold word there and posted this. Any book that creates words like that is clearly looking to equivocate science as a religion (as so many religious people love to do) and is clearly biased. So as far as I am concerned your quote and that book is worthless.

Scientism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As far as I'm concerned your post is useless.

# The term is often used as a pejorative[1][2] to indicate the improper usage of science or scientific claims.[3] In this sense, the charge of scientism often is used as a counter-argument to appeals to scientific authority in contexts where science might not apply,[4] such as when the topic is perceived to be beyond the scope of scientific inquiry.

[Bazzlad]

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 8 (8 members and 0 guests)
Bazzlad, malfunction, iranu, pauldarkside, shadowmaster, G4Z, usxhe190,

My word, I'm in for it now, aren't I?
Both barrels me thinks!

[G4Z]

Do you understand how much of a idiot you appear trying to belittle somebody on an internet forum?
Probably not.

Jeez man, get over yourself. Fuddam is a big boy and he has taken part in every single discussion about this that I can remember for at least the last year. I am sure that he will not take personal offence at Iranus comments and I am sure he will be back on later to spout more ( from my point of view anyway) nonsense. Just because somebody attacks your ideas does not make it ad hominem , if your ideas can't withstand that kind of criticism I would say they are pretty worthless, so I don't understand why you are attempting to insulate that this is happening here. Is it because your beliefs are so flimsy?

I have to say I find these threads very very interesting, and if anything talking to Fuddam here helps me sharpen up my own debating skills for the rare occasions this subject crops up in real life so I am grateful for his input ( despite what I might think about it) as I am sure others are.

Nothing would please me more than if he would see sense and change his mind, but then who would come on here and argue about it with us?

edit - I am gonna thank you for that last comment, because it made me laugh!

[iranu]

You do understand why it's impossible to disprove a negative don't you? Probably not.

Do you understand how much of a idiot you appear trying to belittle somebody on an internet forum?
Probably not.

Well if you understood the reason then you would have realised that the article you quoted and linked to does just that. My comment still stands.

[G4Z]

Scientism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As far as I'm concerned your post is useless.

# The term is often used as a pejorative[1][2] to indicate the improper usage of science or scientific claims.[3] In this sense, the charge of scientism often is used as a counter-argument to appeals to scientific authority in contexts where science might not apply,[4] such as when the topic is perceived to be beyond the scope of scientific inquiry.

Ok, I will have to retract that. Scientism is a new one on me though, and it does not come up in my spell checker. Fortunately one of the Key features of 'Scientism' is to be able to take new data and adjust your understanding accordingly

Still, the rest of it is rubbish as pointed out by others.

[pollaxe]

Just to add I've really enjoyed the foiling back and forth between the pro and anti camps (I'm more in the latter) here and enjoy these debates and the way everyone argues their corner.

[Bazzlad]

That's the whole point - I see swarms of frothing mad scientists, champing at the bit to prove that Fuddam is mentally unstable, but the whole point is Science CANNOT answer this question - Science can never prove God doesn't exist - God is outside nature and a proper scientific theory is based on testable assumptions.

But I feel this thread is going wrong in one big circle (probably due to my late entry).

[malfunction]

That's the whole point - I see swarms of frothing mad scientists, champing at the bit to prove that Fuddam is mentally unstable, but the whole point is Science CANNOT answer this question - Science can never prove God doesn't exist - God is outside nature and a proper scientific theory is based on testable assumptions.

But I feel this thread is going wrong in one big circle (probably due to my late entry).

Whereas my whole point is that science does not need to answer the question - science is not in competition with religion - for me it's more common sense vs religion - religions offer the least plausible explanations of why we're here

[G4Z]

That's the whole point - I see swarms of frothing mad scientists, champing at the bit to prove that Fuddam is mentally unstable, but the whole point is Science CANNOT answer this question - Science can never prove God doesn't exist - God is outside nature and a proper scientific theory is based on testable assumptions.

But I feel this thread is going wrong in one big circle (probably due to my late entry).

You know I think it is interesting you say that yet again when it has been pointed out you cannot disprove a negative. Can you prove that Unicorns don't exist?

[Bazzlad]

Nope, nor would I be arrogant enough to attempt, given the size of the universe

[pollaxe]

Well the original post:

"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."

I think we've had plenty of debate and discussion here - when people are arguing from two diametrical points it's bound to get a bit furious. Each side gets a little infuriated by the view of the other.

I, for one, am full of doubt. I have no idea if God exists or not. I don't seek proof either way, I'm content to pootle on in life. If I were to get a faith it'd be Buddhism, I think. I was baptised and confirmed but my faith lapsed because although I like many teachings of the Christian Church I am unable to believe a lot of it and most of that comes from the study of history rather than science (of which I cannot claim any great expertise.)

I am, however, very disturbed by fundamentalism but especially religious fundamentalism. Fuddam's view of the bible as the word of God worries me (which I intend to address later.) A lot of people (like myself) who had no real problem with religious types are now getting squirty because of the creationist movement which is seeking to infiltrate schools and influence educational policy. Much of the thrust here is against that kind of mindset.

[MadduckUK]

You know I think it is interesting you say that yet again when it has been pointed out you cannot disprove a negative. Can you prove that Unicorns don't exist?

i know they do exist. they were mentioned in an old book

[iranu]

Well I've never said that Fuddam is mentally unstable although I think one or two others may have hinted at it. The thing is that atheists are well aware of what science can and cannot do. On the other hand (certainly in the USA and I've seen some argument for it in the UK too) people of religious persuasion are wanting to teach ID/creationsim as a science which it plainly isn't. This is why we have the clash between science and religion. For some christian scientists evolution isn't a problem as we've seen but to some christians evolution goes against everything they believe. Fuddam is of this persuasion.

The problem for me is that reason and logic are thrown out of the window when it come to people questioning their own faith. The creation story is taken at face value as are many other stories within the bible. I do not see how this is compatible with scientific enquiry unless you interpret scripture in a different way.

It's the lack of reason and logic that concerns me because if one can just throw the evidence for evolution out the window because the bible says otherwise then there really is no reason why we shouldn't throw any other tried and tested theory out the window too. Why just stop at evolution? I'm with Dawkins on this one. I think that once you suspend your logic and reasoning for one area then it's easy to do it for another. Once that happens then anything becomes possible. It's the road back to the dark ages. I'll also add that just because we cannot understand something then this is no reason to invoke a god - that's a god of the gaps argument and is false reasoning

By all means people can believe what they want but as soon as they start to argue their beliefs or try to teach those beliefs within a scientific discipline then expect them to be examined critically and rigorously. If that's too much for people then they should keep their beliefs to themselves.

[Bazzlad]

I am, however, very disturbed by fundamentalism but especially religious fundamentalism. Fuddam's view of the bible as the word of God worries me (which I intend to address later.) A lot of people (like myself) who had no real problem with religious types are now getting squirty because of the creationist movement which is seeking to infiltrate schools and influence educational policy. Much of the thrust here is against that kind of mindset.

Agreed.

I believe a lot of bible stories are metaphors, and the bible is there to be read and digested as the reader, and he/she alone sees fit - after all people slanting religion to their address their own needs has caused wars, terrorist attacks amongst other things.

Having a personal realtionship with Him requires no other man to tell you how - God exists everywhere not just inside a man-made building of brick and mortar.

That's what I believe anyway.

Now, to help lighten up the thread, if only for a few minutes watch and enjoy:

YouTube - Sunday Heroes - "Matthew"

[Bazzlad]

iranu, I couldn't agree more, but I, and many others believe that science and religion can sit side by side, without infringing into each other's domains. Until I see a unified field theory there's still room for God in the Universe

[G4Z]

Ok let's play - define love TheAnimus.

No probs.

Attachment theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sexual attraction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia