No sweat, I’m not always clear on everything either.
So I take it that holy water and a cruxifix wouldn’t bother him. He hasn’t exactly thought it through has he. No evolution either huh? 
Then what would he say to the idea that HE evolved to a vampire?
Well, I kinda thought that was a given. My own shortsightedness. I forget that I’m in the Pit sometimes. You know that place where the real debates go on. 
Dude, look at post #2 (that’s the post right after post #1, which is the OP).
Note that Testy immediately starts arguing against creationism:
Hmm… It appears that Testy is giving reasons why he believes that creationism isn’t a valid belief. I believe that makes it an argument, yes? And he posted that before t-keela had posted to the thread, and in a direct response to the OP, so it wasn’t being introduced as background evidence, nor was it a response to t-keela–unless you want to argue that it was a pre-emptive background argument (doh! I forgot! He’s not arguing, he’s merely stating reasons why he believes something! My bad!) that anticipated t-keela’s future post, or something.
What sort of crap argument is this? I can’t see fundamentalism anywhere in post #2. It first comes up in post #19.
You must be doing fundie code-word association.
When I first realized I was an atheist, I could say the same.
Then again, I am probably one of the people who could be accused of ‘prostylizing’ atheism, because I went on several message boards and got into countless discussions about it. I felt I had to validate atheism to ensure I was correct.
I still get into an occasional discussion about God/no God, but the frequency and my intensity has gone down (at least most of the time).
Now though, I can’t really say that I’m strongly an atheist. To do so would mean that I had a conception of what “God” is and what it means, and to be frank I don’t. The concept is a mystery to me. So I can’t just firmly disbelieve in it, because I don’t know what ‘it’ is. I basically know a quasi-concept of a God and I can’t see being very firm about disbelieving in a quasi-concept.
Maybe I’m being unclear, so I’ll use an example-and I truly do not mean to offend anyone:
If I told you that Snardledinks existed, your first reaction would probably be ‘what’s a Snardledink?’ If I followed up by giving you a vague discription, such as:
They live everywhere, can do lots of things, they are made of flizzjinkles, and are unlike anything you have ever known or could know.
You would probably say ‘well I don’t believe in them’.
I don’t think you could firmly say “They can absolutely not exist” because of how vague and undefined Snardledink’s are.
I hope this illustrates my point.
Oh, puh-leeze, people, if atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color. This atheist does not crusade against faith in Jehovah, nor seek to persecute believers, nor spend one second thinking about the God of the Bible any more than I do with Thor, Osiris, or Quetzalcoatl.
I don’t believe in Santa Claus either–is “anti-Santaism” a religion? Stop misusing the English language to prove a fallacious point.
What young Mr. Lobsang fails to get is that atheism is not the automatic default of a reasonable person. One can be an intelligent person and be a theist at the same time. Certainly there is no compelling evidence against God’s existence any more than there is any compelling evidence for His existence–it’s not a testable proposition, so ultimately one’s stance toward the Supreme Being is a matter of faith, just as believing in reincarnation or supply-side economics are matters of faith.
Now one can argue against secondary instances of religious faith, such as the Creationist denial of evolutionary biology. One can show that there was no Great Flood and that humans are descended from older species, but one cannot prove that a wise Creator didn’t use evolution as His divine tool to form humanity.
As long as the theists do not attempt to force me to subscribe to their religion, then I will let them believe as they wish in peace. Go thou and do likewise, Lobsang (who really needs to re-read Pratchett because he clearly missed the messages of freedom and tolerance in his books).
I take your point about any belief system spawning zealots and agree with it. A quick look at the political threads in this forum makes your point quite easily. OTOH, I consider religion to be in a class of its own due to the multigenerational aspects of it and its ability to consume entire populations. An example would be political parties in the US. Regardless of the majority of one party, I can not see them making membership in the opposite party a death-penaly crime. I can’t even see any single party gaining such a huge majority. In Saudi, blasphemy is a real crime with real consequences and can get a man killed.
You are right and I’ve never understood this. I’ve never met a Buddhist zealot. If you believe then fine. If not, that’s fine too. I used to blame just the religions of Middle Eastern origin but then met some extremely militant/fundamentalist Hindus and Sikhs of the “kill 'em all. let God sort 'em out” variety. Now I’m stuck with saying “all religions except Buddhism”, which is very unsatisfying.
Admittedly, other belief systems form zealots who commit as many atrocities as the religious but I don’t think GMO people is the solution. My own belief is that the fix for this is scepticism, taught early and in a way to increase the likelyhood of it being practically applied. Somehow get people to require sound evidence before simply accepting the unsupported word of their religious and political leaders. People would still be fooled so this would not be a panacea but it would cut down the number of zealots of all flavors. I realize there are critical-thinking couses in many schools but I was thinking of something that started earlier and was repeated more regularly.
I do not believe this will ever happen as both the religious and the more politically inclined would be against it as soon as their own toes were trodden on.
Best regards
Testy
Heh, neither am I. 
Discussing anything with him was a nightmare. Cruxifix’s and holy water didn’t harm him, those were ‘hollywoods bad creations’, as was ‘living forever’ and most of the stuff normally attributed to vampires. He was a real vampire :rolleyes: and possessed an extra organ that apparently didn’t show up on X-Rays, yet helped him digest massive amounts of blood…
Yeah, he didn’t ‘evolve’ into a vampire, he claimed that he was born that way. He used to get all upset when anyone on the board would claim that they had been bitten and transformed into a vampire.
It was really weird. I wasn’t the only total skeptic there, but sometimes I felt as though I was…
I suppose I’m just used to other boards a little too much.
Perhaps we have different views on what fundamentalism is Des. I’d say that the Creation is a fairly fundamental aspect in most religions. Wouldn’t you?
Testy and I seem to have a good understanding of each other at this point. I respect his point of view and I think he has respect for my ideas stated in this thread. There is no reason we can’t be friends and I hope to meet him some day. I’d be happy to buy him a beer and talk some more. You too…
better yet, how ‘bout I just get a couple o’ kegs and BBQ up some stuff. We can all get shitfaced and talk philosophy. or I could break out a few guitars and a keyboard…anybody here can play some Stevie Ray.
Actually, Testy started explicitly mentioning fundamentlism 10 posts prior to that, in post #9. Prior to that, he’d been arguing against creationism, and the use of the Bible to explain natural phenomena, both fundamentalist beliefs. Given that he’d been arguing against fundamentlist beliefs, and then started explicitly mentioning fundamentlism, I feel it’s perfectly justifiable to say that he’s arguing against fundamentalism. If you want to disagree, go ahead: I’m not about to get into a prolonged rhetorical circle jerk with you over this.
It’d be more accurate to say that creationism is the chosen battle ground of some US fundies.
Thank you for the thought.
I am firmly atheist and have no need to test it on random snardles. I believe …no I WANT people to be kind and understanding of each other. It takes no belief in god, mickey mouse, ronald mdonald or any other deity for that matter. Just the simple belief that none of us are better then any other and we all deserve the respect of each other.
To me that IS being an atheist. I’m no better because I believe when I’m dead, I’m just dead then someone who thinks they go to to some happy place in the sky or somoneone who believes they will become a bug/animal is.
I can firmly say with my hand on my child’s heart that I believe god is a load of humbug. I feel no need “explore” my beliefs. I believe what I believe…we are all just worm fodder waiting to happen…
I totally agree with you here.
No disagreement.
I can respect that. For the record, I’d say that I don’t believe in God either. I suppose where we disagree would be about how ‘firmly’ I don’t believe. In the end, there isn’t any difference between you and I (in this respect), as neither of us accept a God concept.
t-keela.
Thank you for your kind wishes. See what I said about some of the religious being the nicest of people? We could leave if it weren’t for some serious medical issues with my wife but in truth it isn’t all *that[/] bad, despite the time I spend complaining about it. I have a belief that morality and social standards are great things but have an intense dislike of enforced morality and standards.
My own thoughts are that the misuse of religion is inevitable, people being what they are, and that religion is not in the same class as other belief systems due to its lifespan and its “contagiousness” for lack of a better word. I’d be interested in the societies without religion. The only example I can think of would be the Soviet Union but my belief was that they had a religion, it was simply suppressed.
Regards
Testy
okay, so who brought the fundies to the party? I gotta admit, I’ve been up all night and mighta missed something. So if you would, get me back on track. I’ve just enjoyed the thread so far and want to not get whooshed too many times if I can help it.
Missed that one, but again, it’s in response to t-keela :rolleyes:
And beliefs of non-fundies, too, I expect.
Yes, it’s prefectly obvious that he’s arguing against fundamentalism. What the fuck, then, was the point of your first post to this thread? Why did you try to call an argument against fundamentalism a straw man?
What the fuck are you talking about?
This is true in the United States to date. Similarly, in the US. to date we have generally not outlawed religious beliefs and have only moderately imposed restrections on religious practices.
However, a quick browse through, say, the Amnesty International website will provide a whole list of countries where being a member of the “wrong” political party invokes the death penalty and some of those countries are on their second or third generation in that format.
The fact that one nation at one moment in history has (somewhat) embraced pluralism does not provide a refutation of my point. I can find places at particular moments in history where religions have demonstrated amazing tolerance. The question is not whether one can establish such an environment, but how long one can maintain it.
There’s religious proselytizing and then there’s anti-religious proselytizing. You don’t do it, but you have to admit that others do.
The last time I bothered to give it any serious consideration my religious faith had devolved into a sort of benign-neglect deism, and I don’t care enough to give it any more thought, so I don’t really have a dog in the fight. Theist or atheist, I don’t care what you are as long as you keep it to yourself, because I don’t care to waste my time listening to anybody blather on about the subject. This is why militant atheists piss me off as much as the aggressively religious do.
I don’t care if “In God We Trust” is printed on our currency, and I’m not going to stiff a waitress on her tip because she wrote “God bless you” on the back of my recipt. They’re just words on pieces of paper, and have no practical impact on my life.
Some people, though, seem to get positively enraged at the mere thought that other people might hold religious beliefs, as if it were some sort of egregious personal affront. Not just an understandable distaste for witnessers bothering them at suppertime, but an all consuming visceral hatred for religion in general, even when they’re not personally inconvenienced.
I can’t understand that mindset at all.
No wooshing going on. The stuff you and Testy have been saying is perfectly reasonable. As is most of the rest of the stuff in this thread. The Pit works much better than GD for some topics.
Because the OP, and therefore this thread, are about religious belief in general. Fundamentalist beliefs are a subset of religious beliefs that are easier to discredit then religious belief in general. Arguing against a position (fundamentalist religious beliefs) that differs from the position Airman was taking (religious belief in general) is a fallacious tactic, and one that bothers me (a non-fundamentlist Christian) greatly, because I’m incredibly fucking sick of people thinking it’s OK to equate “religious” with “fundamentalist.”
After watching the debate this afternoon, well after the faith question, it struck me that I do not know what religion my PM is. I don’t know if she has a religion or not. It has never come up.
She leads the country pretty well though. Why is it an important aspect? I found that question laughable.
( Rune will still call her the Prime Twat though)