If you spent all of your time doing it you would be a fundamentalist not-a-stamp-collector.
So, mswas, what totalitarian religion are you attempting to impose on society, then?
Yeees, your insistence I get involved in your buddy mswas new interesting load of rhetoric, which wouldn’t convince a four year old (though it might stun him long enough to take his lolly) is duly noted. My core statement remains : road apples.
A more involved rebutal of his… well, I guess I have to call them “points”, would need to start by attacking the root of his argument : Chewbacca does not, and has in fact **never **lived on Endor. Adress.
No, Chewbacca is from Kashyyk.
Oh my Thor I am a fundamentalist not-a-stamp-collector! :eek:
Clearly I’m going to start oppressing society any minute now!
If I understand correctly, you’re saying if atheism replaces theism entirely, some social structure that functionally resembles religion in all meaningful ways will arise? No argument from me, and I welcome it, because whatever it is, it will be grounded in a correct belief, not a fantasy. I’m holding out for some form of humanism, myself (which is now pretty much ideologically divorced from the Christian Humanism it shares a name with).
That’s not true. There are those who don’t believe in a(ny) god(s) and there are those who claim to know that there is no god. This has been the subject of an extended thread hijack. Someone has even commented that this argument is so worn that it does not bear repeating. Yet, this distinction is the basis for my “fundamentalist” comment. I will reiterate, a fundamentalist atheist is someone who claims to know that there is(are) no god(s), i.e., someone who has a strict adherence to the denial of (not disbelief in) god. One may be an atheist and still not fit this description.
Regarding the a hypothetical god, in this thread, I have made the following comments indicating a concept of god that would exclude your styrofoam cup and still not be subject to the arguments against the existence of an Abrahamic god:
Post 124: quoting Trey Parker” there’s this big giant universe and it’s expanding, it’s all gonna collapse on itself and we’re all just here just 'cause … just ‘cause’.”
Post 140: deity that is supernatural
Post 152: A creator who made the world. The world is evidence of its creation.
Post 197: the dilemma . . . [created by] the removal of the concept of a god(s) - namely, who, how, why, from whence?
Was Communism then grounded in a correct belief? You do not believe that a person can hold erroneous materialist beliefs?
A soft atheist is fully as much an atheist as a hard atheist, when it comes to the one “fundamental” of atheism: a lack of belief in a god. You are an atheist if you are not a theist. It’s really that simple, and the position that soft atheists/atheistic agnostics are not “full” atheists is simply incorrect, and remains incorrect regardless of how often you reiterate it or try to warp the definition of “fundamentalist”.
And again, you’d be surprised at how few real hard atheists there are, when you get down to hair-splitting levels, as you are doing. Most “hard” atheists know that there’s no god the same way you know there are no seven-legged ducks. “Knowing” is an assertion of 100% certainty in a belief, and there’s not any doubt in our minds that these silly god-things are made up - but if persuasive evidence turned up to show us that some seven-legged god did exist, we’d believe it. Not to say we’d worship the thing or anything - but when it comes to unprovables, most or all atheists are technichally agnostic about literal unknowables. Certainly all the atheists you’ve seen in this thread are.
Funny, I didn’t see where you demonstrated that my styrofoam cup didn’t have a supernatural side or that it didn’t create the universe. But anyway…
Have you read the Jewish/Christian creation myths? You know, the ones in the same book of myths that gave us the flood and the little ark and the tower of babel? Yeah. Didn’t happen. I’d say that’s an argument that your Abrahamic god is subject to.
Supernatural is poorly defined. Might as well leave it at that.
And for fun:
who: nobody
how: a whole passel of processes, all based in the natural laws.
why: for the same reason a row of dominos fall.
from whence: Kaboom!
Nope, state control is still state control, an (IMO) incorrect belief. But so what, Communism isn’t grounded in atheism, which was the correct belief I referenced.
Of course they can. But I didn’t say they couldn’t, just that being grounded in a correct belief is better than being grounded in a lie. I gave a specific example of one that I think is grounded in correct belief, but a culture grounded in, say, the materialist belief of eugenics, would be abbhorent.
What’s wrong with “just 'cause”? Do events need reasons?
Does not, and can not, exist.
Piss-poor evidence. *How *is the world evidence for a creator?
False dilemma - we know the who and how and wherefrom, and “why?” is a meaningless question in this context. The Universe doesn’t need a purpose, that’s your human failing speaking.
If you mean by fundamentalists people like these than yes, in fact I’d say they’re the best friends of Satan also: