Is Fundamentalist Atheism real?

Great Debates
81

[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
You don’t have much of a sense of humor, do you? If use the traditional “false gods,” instead of my parodic “nutjob gods,” it’s still pretty insulting, intolerant and dismissive, isn’t it?

I don’t much care who wrote the Ten Commandments or who believes in them, because this goes to the heart issue of who’s being rude here, and who got the discussion about “false” gods off to a rude start. “I am the Lord your God, and I say that other gods suck donkey balls, but don’t you dare say that about me because then you’ll be rude.”
[/QUOTE]

I get the impression you actually have a point you’re trying to make but I’m not sure I get it.

In my discussions with Christians about my take on what JC taught and the difference between truth and tradition I’ve been accused of being very arrogant because I dare to think I have it right when millions of Christians the world over have it wrong. My response is to note that Christians believe every person on the planet who is not Christian must be “wrong” and they have it right. Is that arrogant?

Still, I don’t get what you’re saying. I’ve already said it isn’t rude to strongly disagree. It’s rude to take the next step and assume that person is a moron for believing differently than you do. Are you claiming it’s rude of God to command people to have no other Gods but him? Are you saying God is calling those who don’t worship him morons? I don’t see it that way. Do scientists seek the truth? Do they want false truths, half truths? Have they discovered everything yet?
The same principle applies to those who seek God. Remember Jesus said the truth will set you free.

82

[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
The Xian god is a false god: it is steeped in untruth, from beginning to end, and people who believe in this false god, and the concept of him, much less the worship of this false, false, false god, must cease immediately.

You have a problem with this commendment that I give unto you, Daniel?
[/QUOTE]

No problem at all. Now I’ll exercise my free will and ignore it.

83

[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
You don’t have much of a sense of humor, do you? If use the traditional “false gods,” instead of my parodic “nutjob gods,” it’s still pretty insulting, intolerant and dismissive, isn’t it?

I don’t much care who wrote the Ten Commandments or who believes in them, because this goes to the heart issue of who’s being rude here, and who got the discussion about “false” gods off to a rude start. “I am the Lord your God, and I say that other gods suck donkey balls, but don’t you dare say that about me because then you’ll be rude.”
[/QUOTE]
Well, as long as you are going to write both parts in your little script, I guess you can make up whatever you wish. Claiming that someone who does not even follow the bible bears some burden of responsibility for the actions of (and, thus, shares in some “rudeness” with) a writer from over 2600 years ago, simply because each of those persons happened to believe that there was a divine presence to which each person might gain access is pretty silly.

84

[QUOTE=Voyager]
Note though that Der Trihs, militant as he is, hardly ever initiates threads on this subject. If evangelicals only evangelized when some atheist came up to them telling them the good news that there is no god, they’d soon forget how to speak.

I suspect that if there were no religious attack on evolution, Dawkins wouldn’t have written his book at all. Most atheism in his main works is in direct response to this kind of thing. I have read neither of Harris’ books, but again I suspect his work is in reaction to the level of fundamentalism in the US. Would a proponent of a native religion, under siege from an onslaught of missionaries and trying to respond, really be considered an evangelical? I don’t think so.
[/QUOTE]

Interesting point. I see some Christians growing increasingly uncomfortable with our more diverse culture. They feel some urgency to declare the US as a Christian nation.
I felt evangelical was appropriate because of this “marked by militant or crusading zeal” definition. I agree that the response by Harris and Dawkins is a reaction to actions by religious groups {see, it’s the actions} but isn’t it still similar? Evangelicals feel it is their responsibility to share salvation {the truth} with the rest of the world. Aren’t Dawkins and Harris doing the same? Christians might say their zeal is a response to God moving in their lives , or the sin in the world. Is the fact that it’s a response change the definition.

85

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
No problem at all. Now I’ll exercise my free will and ignore it.
[/QUOTE]

Excellent policy. Not rude in the least to ignore my belief system, and I will apply a similar policy to yours, except when I feel like repeating my statement about your god’s falseness, assured that it doesn’t bother you at all, because you’re not even paying attention to it. I salute your wisdom.

86

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I get the impression you actually have a point you’re trying to make but I’m not sure I get it.
[/QUOTE]

Your entire belief system is predicated on the Ten Commandments, one of which instructs you to be dismissive and hostile to idols, whom many other people on this planet choose to worship. Yet when I’m somewhat less peremptory and hostile to your beliefs, you call me arrogant and rude. You don’t seem to undertand that your entire belief system is built on intolerance and superiority to others’ beliefs, of which you are certain beyond doubt without the slightest proof, and it’s astonishing to me that you could ever summon up the ability to call anyone else “arrogant” for disagreeing with you. Yet, to my open-jawed amazement, that is indeed what you say about someone who asks you, however politely, to show that there is a Xian God before moving on to further discussions of that Xian God. Your refusal to clarify the most essential point about your God’s existence before making the most absurd assertions contrary to fact is nigh upon incredible.

Do you get it now? Let me if I can help you any more.

87

[QUOTE=Evil Captor]
Most of the time when this line of reasoning is being trotted out, that’s EXACTLY the sentiment being set forth. “Who the hell do those people think they are, denying my god when I have humbly accepted the word of God, Allah, The Great Turtle, etc., as truth? What arrogant bastards!”
[/QUOTE]

I haven’t seen simple disagreement get that reaction, but YMMV.

I’ve seen Christians react with “I’ll pray for you” or bristle at the suggestion of ridicule.

Of course if someone honestly said " I happen to think Christian beliefs are foolish"
in response to some attempt at conversion the individual might react as if they had been called a fool, even though they hadn’t.

88

[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
Excellent policy. Not rude in the least to ignore my belief system, and I will apply a similar policy to yours, except when I feel like repeating my statement about your god’s falseness, assured that it doesn’t bother you at all, because you’re not even paying attention to it. I salute your wisdom.
[/QUOTE]

Thanks for noticing. I get the feeling that you feel religion is getting unfairly thrust on you simply because it is so prevelant. Everywhere you turn you’re forced to see religious symbols or hear relgious speech. Something like that?

89

[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
Why is that outlandish?

I’m an atheist and I get annoyed when someone says that believing in something without proof is necessarily irrational. I believe that I love my husband. I can’t prove it. Am I irrational? I believe that my husband loves me. I can’t prove it. Am I irrational? I believe that I miss my dead father. I can’t prove it. I believe that I will miss my mother if she dies. I can’t prove it.

My finger hurts. I can’t prove it. You have no way of knowing if any of these things are true. They can neither be proved nor disproved. So, do you have to say they aren’t true in order to be consistent?
[/QUOTE]

I agree with how annoying this is. The reason being, “I believe my husband loves me” actually can be proved because you can not only point out specific deeds he’s done that translate to his caring about you (according to your definition of love…not just some general “love” rap), but you can also *ask * him and he’ll *tell * you that he loves you. The same cannot be said for either “proof” with regard to god.

90

[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
Your entire belief system is predicated on the Ten Commandments, one of which instructs you to be dismissive and hostile to idols, whom many other people on this planet choose to worship. Yet when I’m somewhat less peremptory and hostile to your beliefs, you call me arrogant and rude. You don’t seem to understand that your entire belief system is built on intolerance and superiority to others’ beliefs, of which you are certain beyond doubt without the slightest proof, and it’s astonishing to me that you could ever summon up the ability to call anyone else “arrogant” for disagreeing with you. Yet, to my open-jawed amazement, that is indeed what you say about someone who asks you, however politely, to show that there is a Xian God before moving on to further discussions of that Xian God. Your refusal to clarify the most essential point about your God’s existence before making the most absurd assertions contrary to fact is nigh upon incredible.

Do you get it now? Let me if I can help you any more.
[/QUOTE]

It’s already been pointed out to you that I am not a Christian but for the sake of this discussion lets say I am. No, the ten commandments doesn’t say be hostile toward those who believe in other Gods. And No , I clearly did not call you or anyone arrogant and rude for disagreeing. I very explicitly said that is not the case. If you’re going to participate in this discussion try to pay attention and please don’t misrepresent my words.

So, pretending I am Christian, yes I do believe my God is the one true God and my beliefs are the only way to salvation for mankind. That doesn’t automatically include intolerance and hostillity toward others. Quite the contrary. I am commanded to love my fellow man and try to be an example of God’s love, so that others might choose to recieve his loving spirit into their hearts.
{of course we both know not all Christains believe the same or react in the same way, so let’s not go around in circles over this}

Let’s also imagine that I bring up my beliefs in conversation in an attempt to convert you, as Jesus has commanded me to do.
You in turn say, “before we continue our discussion I request that you provide some evidence that the God you’re speaking of actually exists”
Do I think you’ve been rude? No. I’ve already made that clear.
I mention the beauty of creation which you reject as evidence and maybe a couple of other things which you also reject.
Finally it would come down to me talking about faith, and surrendering your heart to Jesus and inviting his spirit in. You might say “no thanks, I just don’t believe any of that stuff. I don’t believe God exists any more than I believe Santa or the Easter Bunny exists”
Thats a statement of your honest belief and still not being rude. Neither party has been rude to the other. If you added “and I think you’re an idiot for believing that crap” then you’ve crossed the line into rudeness. It may also be what you honestly think but it’s also a personal attack on the other person rather than a discussion of belief and thats why it crosses the line. Kind of like our GD guidelines.

Now if a Christian added angrily “Well you’ll burn in hell for that you heathen” I’d say they crossed the line as well.

That’s what I’m trying to discuss here. The methods of dialogue that might lead to further understanding and a little personal examination.

If you prefer to refuse to continue any discussion of beliefs until someone can prove the Christian God exists , that’s your prerogative and perfectly fine.You are free to start every belief discussion with your reqiest for evidence. You are free to not participate until such proof becomes available. It’s not being rude or arrogant to do so.

91

[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
I agree with how annoying this is. The reason being, “I believe my husband loves me” actually can be proved because you can not only point out specific deeds he’s done that translate to his caring about you (according to your definition of love…not just some general “love” rap), but you can also *ask * him and he’ll *tell * you that he loves you. The same cannot be said for either “proof” with regard to god.
[/QUOTE]

Believers would disagree with you. Jesus clearly said our actions are the true reflections of whether God’s loving spirit lived within us. In that case the loving actions of their community are reflections of God’s love for them.

Even outside belief the definition of what constitutes a loving act varies quite a bit.

92

[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
Your entire belief system is predicated on the Ten Commandments, one of which instructs you to be dismissive and hostile to idols, whom many other people on this planet choose to worship. Yet when I’m somewhat less peremptory and hostile to your beliefs, you call me arrogant and rude. You don’t seem to undertand that your entire belief system is built on intolerance and superiority to others’ beliefs, of which you are certain beyond doubt without the slightest proof, and it’s astonishing to me that you could ever summon up the ability to call anyone else “arrogant” for disagreeing with you. Yet, to my open-jawed amazement, that is indeed what you say about someone who asks you, however politely, to show that there is a Xian God before moving on to further discussions of that Xian God. Your refusal to clarify the most essential point about your God’s existence before making the most absurd assertions contrary to fact is nigh upon incredible.

Do you get it now? Let me if I can help you any more.
[/QUOTE]

And you’re saying this to Cosmosdan? :confused: :dubious: I know you are able to read better than that.

Oh, and when do you plan on apologizing to Liberal for stabbing a penknife through his hand? I really think you ought, before he pursues legal action. You say you didn’t? Well, some atheist did, and you’re all alike.

Now do you get it?

93

[QUOTE=Polycarp]
And you’re saying this to Cosmosdan? :confused: :dubious: I know you are able to read better than that.

[/QUOTE]
No, I’m saying this to anyone who claims to subscribe to the Ten Commandments, as an illustraion of why that’s a fine place to begin all discussions of Xianity: with its assumption of dismissive arrogance towards other faiths, particularly those that preceded it, and then to demand, as a condition of further discussion, some actual evidence that a Xian God could possibly exist, apart from your own subecjtive wishes, hopes and beliefs.

You can’t give me anything? And you’re incredibly rude to Baal-worshippers? Well, then I can easily live with your finding my dismissiveness a tad rude. In fact, I can find it kind of hilarious, as you stand up on your hind legs and bray about “doing unto others.” As long as you refuse obstinately to denounce the commandment compelling you to label all other gods as false gods, I don’t really feel that I need to pay a whole lot of attention to your calling me “arrogant.” I simply apply the same standard to your God that you apply to Baal, and listen to you shrieking like a little girl at the gross insult I pay you by paraphrasing your own God to you.

94

My point, done with elaborate irony that seems to have bypassed you, is that there is more erecting of straw men going on here than has been seen since the gay porn parody of the Wizard of Oz.

95

[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
and I can’t punish or dismiss him if that’s how he feels, so long as he looks at it seriously and undertands what’s objectively so about the poem.
[/QUOTE]

You don’t believe students will burn in hell forever for disagreeing with your assessment of the poem? What kind of teacher are you?

96

[QUOTE=Polycarp]
My point, done with elaborate irony that seems to have bypassed you, is that there is more erecting of straw men going on here than has been seen since the gay porn parody of the Wizard of Oz.
[/QUOTE]

I’m trying to show what fundamental atheism means, Poly. It doesn’t need to stray beyond “You haven’t begun to prove your case that God exists, so all further argument is a waste of everyone’s time. Go preach to the converted, and when you attack me as ‘rude,’ I’m very happy to point out that the rudest thing I could say to you, that people are universally forbidden from this day forth to worship the Xian God for no better reason than ‘Because I say so,’ has already been given in imperative form, by that Xian God to his followers, regarding the pagan gods that preceded him historically. When he issues a commnadment admitting that one to be rude and intolerant, or when his followers universally denounce that commandment as being unworthy of any decent God, then I will consider withdrawing my own condemnation of that Xian God.”

97

[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
No, I’m saying this to anyone who claims to subscribe to the Ten Commandments, as an illustraion of why that’s a fine place to begin all discussions of Xianity: with its assumption of dismissive arrogance towards other faiths, particularly those that preceded it, and then to demand, as a condition of further discussion, some actual evidence that a Xian God could possibly exist, apart from your own subecjtive wishes, hopes and beliefs.

You can’t give me anything? And you’re incredibly rude to Baal-worshippers? Well, then I can easily live with your finding my dismissiveness a tad rude. In fact, I can find it kind of hilarious, as you stand up on your hind legs and bray about “doing unto others.” As long as you refuse obstinately to denounce the commandment compelling you to label all other gods as false gods, I don’t really feel that I need to pay a whole lot of attention to your calling me “arrogant.” I simply apply the same standard to your God that you apply to Baal, and listen to you shrieking like a little girl at the gross insult I pay you by paraphrasing your own God to you.
[/QUOTE]

Except nobody did anything like that. Which is a point you seem to be missing repeatedly. Nobody said it was rude or arrogant to dismiss the specific belief of God’s existence. What was described as arrogant and rude was an attitude that labeled all the facets of the belief as stupid or foolish, or labeled all the people who hold that belief as the same. There’s a major difference that has been spelled out clearly, so I ask you once again to stay on subject and not misrepresent what’s been posted in trying to make some point.

Christians don’t necessarily think those who worship other God’s are stupid and morons. They just think they’re mistaken and need to be told so they can bask in God’s love. It’s not rude to dismiss the belief. It’s rude to dismiss the all facets person who holds it. See the difference.

98

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Except nobody did anything like that. Which is a point you seem to be missing repeatedly. Nobody said it was rude or arrogant to dismiss the specific belief of God’s existence. What was described as arrogant and rude was an attitude that labeled all the facets of the belief as stupid or foolish, or labeled all the people who hold that belief as the same. There’s a major difference that has been spelled out clearly, so I ask you once again to stay on subject and not misrepresent what’s been posted in trying to make some point.

Christians don’t necessarily think those who worship other God’s are stupid and morons. They just think they’re mistaken and need to be told so they can bask in God’s love. It’s not rude to dismiss the belief. It’s rude to dismiss the all facets person who holds it. See the difference.
[/QUOTE]

I’ve been informed repeatedly here that it’s arrogant of me to dismiss the specific belief of God’s existence.

I have no idea what you mean by “It’s rude to dismiss the all facets person who holds it.” That doesn’t make sense to me, syntactically. Try expressing your thoughts again, perhaps?

99

[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
I’ve been informed repeatedly here that it’s arrogant of me to dismiss the specific belief of God’s existence.
[/QUOTE]
Citations that you have been told that “repeatedly”?

And, even if you can actually come up with a couple of posts that do that, are the authors of those posts actually participating in this thread? Or are you simply making the claim that if any theist has ever done such a thing, there is some legitimate point in interrupting other threads with complaints that you are just giving back what you (might have) encountered in other places at other times from other people?

100

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Interesting. How so. How would this relate to people who describe their belief as a feeling?
What about our subconscious? I’ve often wondered How our subconscious needs and desires might direct our beliefs.
[/QUOTE]

This is the very heart of a common misunderstanding. Can belief be described as a feeling? In part, certainly. I think many theists confuse the response of “I don’t think X really exists” to the statement “I had an experience of X” with the response (never made, to my knowledge) “I don’t believe you had an experience of X.”

Love is internal, God belief is internal, and the claim of experiencing these things is not extraordinary, and should be credited unless there is strong evidence against. That’s a lot different from accepting that the things believed in truly exist.

Lots of you get it but don’t really get it, and go back to questions like the above on wjhy atheists accept the existence of emotions.

As for the second point, I agree that the subconcious, and other physical characteristics of the brain, affect belief. IIRC there have been studies showing that some people are more fantasy prone than others (this is not a bad thing) and that these people believe in the supernatural more. I think this was in a Skeptical Inquirer, and I can search for the article. We are far from being logical reasoning machines!