Rise in atheistic fundamentalism

[Fraz]

Definitely not believing in god/gods is just as stupid as definitely believing in them. You can't prove it either way so why waste brain power caring?

Hardcore atheists scare me just as much as hardcore subscribers of any religion.

In summary:

Anything to do with god(s) or lack thereof == meh.

[malfunction]

Malfunction, reviewing your post history I've found you stating you come from a white household, that you work as an IT consultant or developer, own a substantial amount of your own house, eat well, agree with the majority of a description of a male, and have not openly expressed any bi leanings (although are supportive of LGB matters). I'm curious, which part of the white, middle class, straight male are you not?

Yes, I'm white. Yes I'm male. Yes I have a half decent job, but I wouldn't class myself as middle class. Even if I were middle class it's a presumption, a stereo type and prejudiced to assume that my life has been easy and trouble free.

The importance of this whole idea is that those who have experienced persecution, those who are a minority, tend to know well the importance of being tolerant towards others.

Again as far as I'm aware an attitude of tolerance has nothing to do with ethnicity, sex or social class and again to presume that this is the case is ignorant and prejudiced.

And those who have had a fairly simple life tend not to need the warming crutches of religious belief - they can in fact afford to not have them at all. The white, middle class and straight demographic tends to believe as a rule that it can define when persecution is and is not occuring. They are typically blind to the feelings of others and how their actions affect them. There is plenty of evidence for this. In many respects, the promotion of the idea of directly challenging the non-harmfull beliefs of others is a clear sign of this. They are comfortable enough to feel free to do this, and as their own selves are not harmed in doing this, they don't see the harm this causes in others.

Again you are the one voicing stereotypes and prejudices here. In fact you appear to be insulting anyone that "need[s] the warming crutches of religious belief".

[Rosaline]

Malfunction, do some reading into minority identity and perception, you'll find my talking about the white middle class is not without extremely strong backing, both in terms of authors and in terms of actual hard evidence.

[malfunction]

Malfunction, do some reading into minority identity and perception, you'll find my talking about the white middle class is not without extremely strong backing, both in terms of authors and in terms of actual hard evidence.

Rosaline, you were (and are) making assumptions about who I am and what has or hasn't ever happened in my life... Yes you've since dug through my post history but I'll be amazed if you did this before making your initial comments. I make no assumptions about you - beyond being somewhat argumentative - because it is offensive to do so. This thread was about a news article in which a member of a Christian church is attempting to claim that 'fundamental' atheists are persecuting Christianity. Christians are not a minority in this country (nor are atheists as far as I'm aware) and again I say that I have never heard of any atheist actively persecuting anyone because they hold religious beliefs!

In a discussion about belief you can only agree or disagree. Disagreeing discredits belief however it's worded - nicely or not - but this does not mean that any views posted here are being pushed onto others however strongly they are worded. If someone's faith cannot withstand criticism then that faith cannot be particularly strong or worthy! Also as in real life no-one should enter into a discussion on religion or politics and expect it to be nice, polite and agreeable! Particularly so on-line as not knowing each other and not being face to face tends to make people a lot more blunt than they would normally be.

[Rosaline]

I apologise for any offence my assumptions caused, however the assumptions themselves were in their own right perfectly normal. We all make assumptions when communicating with others, and to claim otherwise is unlikely to be true. Indeed, we never truly know what the other side in a conversation actually means, we are forced to build a mental model from a combination of their communication and what we know about them (which will effect the meaning intended).

My thoughts on the original news post are buried now, but the irony of it all is that the events it referred to had little to do with atheism and a lot to do with majority assumptions about minorities. So in a way, the tangent I went on was on topic (and actually agrees that it's all a bit silly) I joined this thread at a point at which it had became something different, however. Perhaps I should have worked to restore it to the original topic.

The quotes I cited displayed more than just disagreement about faiths. Calling something believed by another 'lame' or 'false' is simply not a nice thing at all. My whole point for most of the time has been that such terms don't help, and such acts of not-nice are really not wise way to act at all. The big name atheists like to believe that their public reasonings are without harm to others, but they fail to consider the effect it has on someone when they call 'dangerous' something that in no way harms another person. Dawkins and the ilk of course never mean harm, but then they do not see that it will cause harm. However being ignorant is never an excuse for hurting others (or causing them to lose something they have previously gained value from).

[malfunction]

I apologise for any offence my assumptions caused, however the assumptions themselves were in their own right perfectly normal. We all make assumptions when communicating with others, and to claim otherwise is unlikely to be true. Indeed, we never truly know what the other side in a conversation actually means, we are forced to build a mental model from a combination of their communication and what we know about them (which will effect the meaning intended).

My thoughts on the original news post are buried now, but the irony of it all is that the events it referred to had little to do with atheism and a lot to do with majority assumptions about minorities. So in a way, the tangent I went on was on topic (and actually agrees that it's all a bit silly) I joined this thread at a point at which it had became something different, however. Perhaps I should have worked to restore it to the original topic.

The quotes I cited displayed more than just disagreement about faiths. Calling something believed by another 'lame' or 'false' is simply not a nice thing at all. My whole point for most of the time has been that such terms don't help, and such acts of not-nice are really not wise way to act at all. The big name atheists like to believe that their public reasonings are without harm to others, but they fail to consider the effect it has on someone when they call 'dangerous' something that in no way harms another person. Dawkins and the ilk of course never mean harm, but then they do not see that it will cause harm. However being ignorant is never an excuse for hurting others (or causing them to lose something they have previously gained value from).

Many religions do similar harm - with or without intent (obvious examples being the Catholic attitude to contraception and the enforcement of religious beliefs on children resulting in denying a child needed medical care). Personally I think Dawkin's idea of becoming vocal atheists (outside of internet forums...) won't really gain any ground. The thing about non-beliefs is that they aren't really worth dying for, well not for me anyway.

[malfunction]

Oh and no lasting offence taken... Merry Xmas and all that

[godsdog]

.
.
Carl Sagan - Pale Blue Dot - youtube


/first pic-scene, voyager1 3.7 billion mile look back

[Rosaline]

Many religions do similar harm - with or without intent (obvious examples being the Catholic attitude to contraception and the enforcement of religious beliefs on children resulting in denying a child needed medical care). Personally I think Dawkin's idea of becoming vocal atheists (outside of internet forums...) won't really gain any ground. The thing about non-beliefs is that they aren't really worth dying for, well not for me anyway.

And finally, at long last, we finally agree totally
Religions, as opposed to the pure spiritual non-harming beliefs themselves, are nasty things, far worse than any atheistic questioning.

I suspect that Dawkins even knows he's over the top, using the old idea of argue the extreme, then at least some people will take the moderate point of view and learn something after all.

Discussions online like this, in my experience, almost always end with the two sides realising that they're both actually for a similar large common cause And they see eye to eye, declare the other side to be bright and fairly interesting (if annoying, you're allowed that one ), and that no real offence was even intended So, umm... yeah... all that

[Rosaline]

.
.
Carl Sagan - Pale Blue Dot - youtube

/first pic-scene, voyager1 3.7 billion mile look back

I've just finished a week long watching of Cosmos, actually

[malfunction]

And finally, at long last, we finally agree totally

Possibly...

Religions, as opposed to the pure spiritual non-harming beliefs themselves, are nasty things, far worse than any atheistic questioning.

Well people act based upon religion or other such spiritual beliefs ('unorganised religion' perhaps) and these actions can affect other people and be good or bad, so I wouldn't say all spirituality is harmless.

I haven't thought long and hard about it but I don't see any lasting harm in removing religion or unfounded spiritual beliefs from the world but at the same time I'm not going to go dancing around at a funeral telling everyone that there is no heaven or hell and it's destination worm food for Grandma.

I suspect that Dawkins even knows he's over the top, using the old idea of argue the extreme, then at least some people will take the moderate point of view and learn something after all.

I'd like to see one of his debates at some point to see how he handles the heckles... Particularly the number of times someone screams "give this monkey what she wants".

[Rosaline]

Not every spiritual belief is without harm, and that wasn't what I intended by my statement. I was referring to those beliefs that do not harm or hinder others, and provide the believer with a greater benefit than harm.

In the long term, the removal of such things from society as a whole could well be possible, and may not have any ill effects. But human society as a whole is no where near being able to accept even just the idea of this yet.

It certainly would be interesting to see how he handles heckles and polite reasoned discussion of a moderate opposing view.

[MadduckUK]

just finished watching the four horsemen ,thanks for the link iranu.

[MadduckUK]

Not every spiritual belief is without harm, and that wasn't what I intended by my statement. I was referring to those beliefs that do not harm or hinder others, and provide the believer with a greater benefit than harm.

if you watch (or listen, you could download it, stick it on an mp3 player and listen when your cooking/wandering around like i did) you would know EXACTLY views all four of them have on the matter

[yamangman]

It's all very well us, TeePee, dismissing "supernatural" because it doesn't fit the laws of nature as we perceive them, but we cant know if there are laws we can't perceive. We can't know if our laws of nature are a subset of a much more general set of principles, or that they only apply in our portion of space or that there aren't parallel universes where different laws apply. Maybe "God" is a scientist in a parallel universe, and we're his latest experiment.

Do I believe those parallel universes exist? No, because I've seen nothing to support that belief. But that doesn't mean I believe they don't (or can't) exist, because I have nothing to support that, either. I just don't know.

I'm not sure whether you are just bickering with the other guy here, but I think the point of contention is the original posters' almost militant devotion to his beliefs. It's one thing to suppose that scientifically perhaps there is somthing beyond what we currently comprehend. That sounds reasonble to me, and that very much sounds like your argument. It's quite another to assert you hear God, the bible is all truth (including the bits about giants, extreme old age, and God's fear that man could build a stairway to heaven), and to condemn everyone else who finds it somewhat difficult, and in my case frankly sordid to open our mind to these ideas, as ignorant.

[JPreston]

"And finally...."

BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Unholy dust-up at Nativity church

....which shows in microcosm what is wrong with religion.