Attacking Fundamentalism is not the only Atheist Agenda

[cleanhippie]

In the marketplace of ideas, atheism offers plenty of criticism against scripture, dogmatism, and blind faith. Fundamentalism tends to be close-minded and fanatical, and it deserves all the censure and rebuke that atheists can provide. Liberal-minded religious people should join in.

However, believers are joining forces against atheism. We don’t see many attacks on fundamentalist religion arriving from mainline church leaders and liberal theologians. Rather, the bookstore shelves are full of books by all sorts of preachers and theologians saying that atheists don’t know what they are talking about. When atheists declare that religion has no intellectual value at all, religious leaders only have an easier time reassuring the faithful that they aren’t crazy.

-snip-

Atheists need more comprehensive approaches to dealing with religious belief than just a lot of boasting that reason only sides with atheism. Theological defenses of religion can be intelligently designed, too. Under stress from science and Enlightenment philosophy, modern theology has explored cosmological, ethical, emotional, and existential dimensions of religious life. Many kinds of theology have emerged, replacing a handful of traditional arguments for God with robust methods of defending religious viewpoints. There are philosophical atheists who have quietly and successfully kept pace. The discipline of atheology is quite capable of matching these theologies with its skeptical replies, so atheists can have pride in their reasoning skills. Taking theology seriously enough to competently debate God should not be beneath atheism.


http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/attacking_fundamentalism_is_not_the_only_atheist_agenda/

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. Sounds like it was written with a random generator.

[cleanhippie]

2. Whats that?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. Neocapitalist textual theory in the works of Fellini.

1. Realism and the postcultural paradigm of expression

“Class is intrinsically responsible for elitist perceptions of sexual identity,” says Sontag. The subject is contextualised into a postcultural paradigm of expression that includes language as a reality.

It could be said that Finnis<1> suggests that the works of Fellini are empowering. The primary theme of the works of Fellini is the common ground between consciousness and society.

However, Foucault uses the term ‘neocapitalist textual theory’ to denote the role of the poet as artist. Many theories concerning realism exist.
2. Fellini and Marxist socialism

The main theme of Hanfkopf’s<2> analysis of the postcultural paradigm of expression is the bridge between culture and class. It could be said that Lacan uses the term ‘realism’ to denote the futility, and eventually the defining characteristic, of dialectic society. The primary theme of the works of Fellini is the role of the participant as observer.

In the works of Fellini, a predominant concept is the distinction between closing and opening. In a sense, any number of theories concerning the failure of subsemantic class may be found. Foucault suggests the use of the postcultural paradigm of expression to attack class divisions.

Thus, the absurdity, and hence the collapse, of realism prevalent in Fellini’s Amarcord is also evident in La Dolce Vita, although in a more mythopoetical sense. The premise of cultural postdeconstructive theory holds that sexual identity has objective value.

However, Lacan uses the term ‘realism’ to denote the role of the artist as reader. Several narratives concerning Sontagist camp exist.

Thus, Derrida promotes the use of the postcultural paradigm of expression to modify consciousness. The subject is interpolated into a neocapitalist textual theory that includes art as a paradox.

But the main theme of Dahmus’s<3> model of realism is the difference between class and reality. If the postcultural paradigm of expression holds, we have to choose between postcultural theory and capitalist conceptualism.
3. Contexts of economy

The characteristic theme of the works of Fellini is not theory, as the postcultural paradigm of expression suggests, but pretheory. In a sense, Lacan suggests the use of neocapitalist textual theory to challenge outmoded, colonialist perceptions of society. Finnis<4> states that we have to choose between posttextual semantic theory and subdialectic dematerialism.

Thus, the primary theme of Hanfkopf’s<5> essay on the postcultural paradigm of expression is a pretextual whole. The subject is contextualised into a neocapitalist textual theory that includes art as a paradox.

In a sense, realism holds that the significance of the poet is social comment. The subject is interpolated into a neocapitalist textual theory that includes culture as a totality.

1. Finnis, W. H. ed. (1987) Consensuses of Failure: Realism in the works of Stone. Panic Button Books

2. Hanfkopf, K. C. V. (1998) Neocapitalist textual theory and realism. University of Oregon Press

3. Dahmus, O. K. ed. (1982) Cultural Dematerialisms: Precapitalist dialectic theory, Marxism and realism. Harvard University Press

4. Finnis, T. (1973) Realism in the works of Smith. Schlangekraft

5. Hanfkopf, I. J. K. ed. (1980) Reassessing Modernism: The conceptualist paradigm of narrative, realism and Marxism. O’Reilly & Associates

[cleanhippie]

26. Yeah, not following.

Perhaps thats above my intellect.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

28. Probably.

[cleanhippie]

30. Or its just nonsense.

Either one works for me.

C ya.

[Deep13]

4. I don't think it is really up to atheists figure out why religion makes sense.

"...replacing a handful of traditional arguments for God with robust methods of defending religious viewpoints."

Yes by equivocation and moving the goal posts. The religious point of view is only valid if there is a god. So that puts the matter right back to square one. If there is no god (which is almost a scientific certainty) then religion is based on a lie. If there is some new evidence that lends credence to the supernatural point of view, I'd love to hear it.

[cleanhippie]

6. Agreed.

"Why should non-fundamentalists band together with atheists, since few atheists are trying to understand liberal religion’s merits?"


And just what ARE those merits? Therein lies the problem, IMO.

[Deep13]

8. Having been a liberal Christian, I am aware of its merits...

...and they are few.

[mike_c]

5. I see no reason to argue about nonsense....

Seems an utter waste of ATP.

[cleanhippie]

7. What are you considering nonsense?

I'm not sure where you are coming from.

[mike_c]

9. religion and philosophical arguments for "god," no matter how "sophisticated..."

...they might become. If anything, that level of effort simply highlights the paucity of simple direct evidence for supernatural beliefs-- if one has to perform mental gymnastics to support them, perhaps Occam's razor is in order.

See, now I've wasted some energy!

[cleanhippie]

11. I never see reason and logical thought as a waste.

Thanks for your input.

[dkf]

10. It's funny how Atheists are the one minority that get no sympathy.

[trotsky]

12. Indeed, and additionally are expected to be the ones to extend sympathy...

to the majority believers. Weird, that.

[dimbear]

32. Not hard to understand.

If atheists aren't going to hell, then there is no hell. If there is no hell, there is no heaven. So atheists have to go to hell.

If they are going to hell, they deserve no sympathy.

The other irritating thing is that since atheists aren't supporting a building, a janitor, and assorted spiritual guides, they have more money to give to charity. That rankles.

[rrneck]

13. Debating about the existence of god is an exercise in futility.

Faith isn't about rational argument, it's about emotions. That's why it's so easy to shoot down fundamentalist conceptions of the divine.

Telling people how they feel just pisses them off.

[Deep13]

15. Religion is more than emotion.

It makes specific claims about how the universe or world works. God either exists or else he doesn't. In principle that ought to be ascertainable by evidence. The fact that there is no supporting evidence anywhere and much contrary evidence weighs heavily on god's probability. So I don't think the question is futile.

I do agree that any DEBATE is futile since the adversarial forum just isn't suited to finding the truth. If one wants to know, examine the evidence and don't waste time with debates.

[wookie72]

20. There's contrary evidence towards a literalist view of scriptures

Not nearly the same thing as contrary evidence towards God.

Ever since the dawn of the Abrahamic faiths there has been the notion of not actually being able to define God.

So if you think that God is an omnipetent old man, then yes, that doesn't exist. But that proves nothing.

Read Karen Armstrong's Case For God (not an apologetic, btw) with an open mind.

[arKansasJHawk]

47. Wouldn't an "undefinable" God ...

Be exactly the same thing as no God at all?

It seems pretty obvious to me that any kind of God worth of the title ought to actually do something. A God that doesn't do anything, never did anything, and has absolutely no function whatsoever in the material universe isn't really "God" is it? It's noting more than a concept, an idea, like unicorns and invisible dragons.

But, suppose you say, "That's silly. Of course God does things, or has done things, or at least has some kind of function in the material universe." Well, to me, once that happens, said God absolutely has a definition.

Q: What is the definition of God?
A: God (does/did/has function) X. For whatever value of X you want to supply.

It may not be a complete definition, but it's a definition, and unless X has a value so vague as to be meaningless, that definition is subject to rational examination like any other evidence.

[Deep13]

65. "Omnipotent old man" is a deflection.

It is to distract attention from the fact that what theists do believe isn't any more plausible.

I was not talking about any specific religion. I am talking about the idea of a god. It is counter-indicated by scientific evidence. The clearest example of that is life itself. The purely physical nature of its origin and development means that god had no part in it. A hot planet full of constant complex chemical reaction happening globally, constantly meant it was inevitable one of them would produce a molecule whose chemical properties caused it to replicate itself. Once that happened, the evolutionary process began. A random change in a molecule like DNA is--well--random. That means it happens without direction. Since nearly all changes either do nothing or else cause a critter to be incompatible with its environment, most are killed by the editing power of natural selection. Again, this is a physical process that actually could not work as observed if divinely controlled. Controlled evolution such as dog breeding is far less wasteful and far more rapid in its changes than natural selection. The wastefulness of evolution-millions of failures for every success--also cuts against a creator. Our backward-wired eyes, mistake-prone senses, bad sinuses, sore backs and knees and digestive problems are all the result of walking upright using bodies that had been horizontal for millions of years. The hazardous nature of childbirth is another example.

Anyway, that's life. The definition of god most believers accept has him (her, it, them) responsible for the creation and preservation of life. Well, the evidence eliminates this big part of divine purpose. Also we know that the motions of celestial objection is the result of the blind force of gravity and not divine control as has been assumed since neolithic times. The major gods of old were always synonymous with the sun, moon and five naked-eye planets. There is a strong circumstantial case against god too. It appears that the reason so many people believe in him is because of humanity's inate psychological need to assign purpose to everything. This is a useful survival skill, but has some unfortunate side-effects too. Plus the development of religion has been so cynically utilitarian that it is impossible to escape the conclusion that it is all made up. Many theologians grant that but insist that god is still real even if powerful men have corrupted that idea. But why assume that? Isn't the more likely explanation that god himself is made up?

[struggle4progress]

14. Another idiotic piece aimed at debating the existence of G-d

It's a silly and pointless debate, and one that has nothing whatsoever to do with any important theological issues

[Deep13]

16. Wow, what a devastating admission.

"one that has nothing whatsoever to do with any important theological issues"

The existence of god has nothing to do with any theological issue? So you are essentially conceding that even if god is a lie, it is still good that people believe in that lie for other reasons, whatever they might be. You don't believe in god. You believe in belief even if that belief is bullshit. How contemptible. What little regard you must have for people.

I submit that the nonexistence of god pretty much ends all theological "issues." For any of the claims of any religion to make even partial sense, a divinely ordered universe if not an interventionist god is necessary. Note I said "divinely ordered," not just "ordered." Otherwise, theology gets put on the shelf next to alchemy and astrology.

[struggle4progress]

17. Well, you easily slide into rabid personal attacks, don't you?

[Deep13]

64. Rabid? That's an overstatement.

Am I wrong?

[wookie72]

19. Then you pretty much don't know what you're talking about.

If religious people move the goalposts, then atheists have never made clear what their definition of the goalposts are. If "God" is defined as a massive old man in the clouds controlling everything, then most modern theologians don't believe in that, and frankly neither did the ancients. That does not mean God is a con. God does not exist in the way you or I or a tree does. If that concept doesn't mean anything to you, fine. But quit trying to win an argument that can't be won by anyone.

" For any of the claims of any religion to make even partial sense, a divinely ordered universe if not an interventionist god is necessary."

Buddhism? Taoism? (and spare me the "they're not religions" notion)

[cleanhippie]

22. There ARE no goalposts!

Thats exactly what we are trying to say: that the goalposts are not even real.

The one that believes in a god or gods is the one responsible for defining what "god" is. THAT is the goalpost. Without a definition of god that can be proven, there are no goalposts to begin with.

God does not exist in the way you or I or a tree does

Then prove it!

[wookie72]

34. Again, read the book

Fine, we won't agree. But then quit assuming you know exactly what religious people believe, because, well, you don't.

[skepticscott]

35. Actually, it's not hard at all

to know exactly what a lot of religious people believe, because they trumpet it at the top of their lungs all the time, and attempt to infuse every facet of society with their unsupported, delusional dogma. And they've been doing it for many, many centuries. Where have YOU been?

[wookie72]

39. A small minority have been trumpeting it.

There are plenty of mainline churches that don't get on the news, some people on here even go to them. But they get all lumped in with the worst of the worst.

[skepticscott]

40. And if you go to the website

of any of those "mainline churches", you'll find a page entitled "WHAT WE BELIEVE", which lists in great detail exactly what they believe. Gee. So tell us again why we can't know exactly what religious people believe.

And please, ditch the idiotic talking point that the radical religious right is a "small minority" in this country. That notion has been debunked over and over on this board, so it'd be nice to see something new for a change.

[wookie72]

44. Actually, it's true.

The largest single denomination is Catholic, which does not actually side with the Religious Right on issues other than abortion (in fact, most evangelicals consider Catholics of the devil.) There are a lot of Baptists, but again, that's a group wide enough to include Bill Clinton and Jesse Jackson and Gerry Falwell and Jesse Helms.

As for the "what they believe," you say they're available, but have you really read all of them? For one thing, I sincerely doubt that most of those statements say anything about an anthropmorphic God or even a God that interacts with human affairs. The Creed of the church I go to simply says that God "has created and is created, has come in Jesus,the word made flesh, to reconcile and make new, who works in us and others by the Spirit." Nothing about dying for our sins, omnipotence, intercessionary prayer, or anything like that. Perhaps "the word made flesh" may be a little troubling to some, but it's hardly saying "if you don't believe you're all going to Hell."

[skepticscott]

59. On issues other than abortion

And divorce. And artificial contraception. And the conversion of heathens to the "right religion". Try again.

And if you'd like to know a little more about what religious folk believe, you might just go their churches and listen to them:

I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell. On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

or

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
one in Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered, died, and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in fulfillment of the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of Life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Or here: http://www.umc.org/site/c.lwL4KnN1LtH/b.2299859/k.13B7/Our_Christian_Roots.htm

Or here: http://www.elca.org/What-We-Believe/Statements-of-Belief/ELCA-Confession-of-Faith.aspx

Or here: http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp#iv

But yeah, you're right...it really is silly for me to think that I know what any religious people believe.

As far as the rest, if you actually watched how religious folk behave in their everyday life, you'd never say claim something so silly as that they don't believe in or practice intercessory prayer to a god they expect to intervene on their behalf.

[wookie72]

60. So, you are a saying that people like myself aren't religious??

Do not presume that you understand religious people better than they do themselves. It's that simple.

[skepticscott]

61. Where did I say that?

And where did I say that I know what EVERY religious person believes? Answer: Nowhere. Just more false attributions by you trying to deflect from a bankrupt argument.

But do forgive me for assuming that religious people actually believe what they say they believe, freely, openly, repeatedly and unashamedly. I guess the alternative, that churches on Sunday are full of liars and hypocrites, makes about as much sense. At least to you.

[wookie72]

62. You wrote the following

"As far as the rest, if you actually watched how religious folk behave in their everyday life, you'd never say claim something so silly as that they don't believe in or practice intercessory prayer to a god they expect to intervene on their behalf."

Implying that someone like myself, who doesn't believe that, isn't religious, because I don't fit into your neat, stereotypical paradigm. I posted my church's creed, and it says that God works within ourself and others. Nothing about intercessory prayer to an intervening God.

If you're not claiming to "know what EVERY religious person believes," then what is your point? That some people believe things you find irrational? Whoop-de-sh*t. It sounds like you just want to insult people, not understand them or reach them.

[skepticscott]

67. My point

since you seem to be clueless about it, was to respond to this statement of yours:

"But then quit assuming you know exactly what religious people believe, because, well, you don't."

Obviously all religious people don't believe the same thing, and equally obviously (to any rational person), the person you made that statement to wasn't claiming to know what EVERY religious person in the entire world believes, only that they are aware of SOME of the beliefs of SOME religious people. So you claim of "you don't" is simply idiotic on its face. And the point of THAT isn't just that some of them believe things we find irrational. If that was all there was to it, who would really care? It's the evil, destructive, hateful things that those irrational beliefs lead them to say and do to others, proudly, enthusiastically and with full confidence that they are doing god's will.

I realize you're too busy trying to play the "liberal", "progressive", REAL Christian to have much of a grasp of this, but oh, well.

[cleanhippie]

48. But I DO know what religious people believe.

They believe in a supernatural being that they cannot prove even exists. I don't care what flavor of religion one chooses, but that is the fundamental belief right there.

Unless a believer also chooses to define what they think "god" is, I cannot see how what I stated is not true.


And read what book?

[skepticscott]

25. The same tired old dodge

trying to morph the concept of "god" into something ephemeral and undefinable that you hope will render his/her/its/their existence outside the sphere of rational inquiry and your belief in he/she/it/they immune from criticism. The problem is, those versions of "god" (regardless of how many "modern theologians" subscribe to them) don't remotely resemble the "god" that most Christians (or Jews or Muslims) believe in. They believe in god as a conscious being, capable of deliberate action and of influencing and being influenced by events in the physical world. They believe in a god who talks to them, answers prayers, cures diseases, causes disasters and makes the other team's field goal kicker miss. You'd be hard pressed to find one church full of people on Sunday worshipping a "god" that "does not exist in the way you or I or a tree does".

And btw, the argument that such a god exists could be won easily. If only some amputees who prayed to "god" see their limbs grown back got their wish, you'd be seeing a whole bunch more believers. That type of evidence could be easily forthcoming (as it was, allegedly, many times in the Bible) if anything like that "god" existed. But it never does. Gee.

[wookie72]

37. Fine believe what you want

But don't pretend you know what objective reality is, and don't pretend that you know what Christians, Jews, or Muslims belie4ve, because you don't. Have you actually talked to every person who goes to Church, synagogue or mosque? Do you know *for a fact* that they believe in the God you describe?
God doesn't appear as a physical being anywhere in the Bible, BTW. What you're suggesting is a false dichotomy. "Because the God I think people believe in hasn't manifested any proof, there is no God."
Like I said, read Karen Armstrong's book. It won't convert you, but you might learn a little humility.
And quit saying that liberal Christians never speak out against fundamentalists. That's simply not true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_W._Lynn

[skepticscott]

41. You're really new at this, aren't you?

Where did I "pretend" to know what objective reality is? And where did I say that liberal Christians never speak out against fundamentalists? Please show me my quote. I'm quite familiar with Barry Lynn, thank you, and I send money to his organization all the time (what were you saying about humility?). And it's an idiotic straw man argument to say that because you don't know what EVERY person sho goes to church believes that you can't possibly know what ANY religious people believe.

And have you never heard of a guy named Jesus? Part of the Triune God (oh, I know...no REAL Christians believe in THAT). Seems like he was pretty much a physical being. And even if he wasn't. where in my description of the common version of "god" did I say that he had to be?


And this: "Because the God I think people believe in hasn't manifested any proof, there is no God." Sheesh. Please don;t assume you know what I believe. I'll tell you: "Because there is no good reason to believe in the god that most people describe as the one they believe in, I don't believe in that god."

Was there anything in your post that wasn't completely wrong or ridiculously misrepresented?

[Deep13]

63. What theologians do believe isn't much less absurd than the old man in the clouds.

I'm talking about explanations that are so far removed traditional definitions of god that they are effectively meaningless. "Something had to cause there to be something rather than nothing. Why can't that be god?" Because that's not what "god" means. A god is something very much like your old-man-in-the-sky deflection: an aware and intelligent personality that is apart from the universe (or at least its ordinary rules) but is free to intervene in it. Generally, that deity cares greatly about people, their morality, their sexual habits, prayers and created the universe and life, usually with humanity in mind. An entity that is just kind of there but who doesn't do anything is not god.

"God does not exist in the way you or I or a tree does."

Right. You, I and trees are real. God isn't. Your explanation doesn't mean anything to me because it doesn't mean anything. In what way can something be real without it being real in the normal sense? I've given up trying to make sense of claims based solely on word games.

Sorry, and I realize most people do not accept this, but the argument has been won by the skepics a long time ago. There simply is no basis for supposing that anything requires a divine explanation. In the case of the development of life, divine intervention is positively ruled out.

My admittedly limited understanding of Taoism is that it does assume a kind of divine order for everything. Buddism has more varieties than Christianity and those varieties have far more differences among them than Christian denominations. Much of Buddhism does believe in a theistic god or in many gods. Some varieties, however, are philosophical without being religious.

[cleanhippie]

21. And just what would be "important theological issues"?

[struggle4progress]

45. I've posted my views here for years; they're no secret

The interesting and important religious issues for human-trying-to-live-fully are associated with the choice of what one will regard as fundamental and non-negotiable

One can somehow and must make an existential choice about what one will regard as the fundamental and non-negotiable aspects of the world in which one lives, and I regard "religion" sociologically as an effort to describe what one regards as non-negotiable

Not being an expert on religions-in-general, I will simply say that the old Jewish texts seem to identify certain human-relationship issues as non-negotiable, and thus became a source of a whole series of humanistic traditions

[wookie72]

18. It makes perfect sense to me.

Camus, Sartre and others actively engaged with religious thinkers while rejecting their beliefs. Nowadays atheists seem to want nothing to do with anyone who believes what they don't. That's not progress.

[cleanhippie]

23. I think you may be mistaken.

Nowadays atheists seem to want nothing to do with anyone who believes what they don't.


I think it might be more fitting to say "atheists don't want anything to do with anyone that cannot provide proof of what they believe and will apply the same skepticism to that proof that they require in everything else"

[wookie72]

33. No, I meant what I said.

The fact is that no proof will ever be sufficient, because that's not the way religious belief works. And no, I'm not saying that it's faith in things that aren't there. I'm saying that you're never going to find the God that you think we believe in.

I find it hard to believe that many militant atheists are really activists, for anything other than militant atheism. Noam Chomsky, an atheist and an activist, has said that the Quakers have kept him honest. Carl Sagan, when working for nuclear disarmament, praised Pope john Paul II for his hard line on the issue, even though he didn't agree with him on anything else. Nowadays, it seems like (some) atheists are so anxious to get rid of anything religious that they don't want anything to do with church groups of any kind, even though in the 70s and 80s it was churches that formed the backbone of protest against militarism and Reagan's assault on social programs.

[skepticscott]

36. Which atheists

are anxious to get rid of anything religious? (Leaving aside your inability to distinguish atheism and anti-theism...

[wookie72]

38. Well, your reluctance to deal with anyone religious, for one.

And I've encountered several "internet atheists" who call for "banning religion" altogether.
And it has been tried before: The French Revolution, the USSR, China. (no, I'm not going to get into some pissing match about "who killed more," but it's simply a fact that the USSR and China persecuted religious people.)

[skepticscott]

42. With ANYONE religious?

What do you know about who and what I deal with? Who's assuming now?

Try again.

[wookie72]

43. FIne. As you say, prove it.

Prove that you deal with religious people on a regular basis without any sense of condescension or ridicule. Should be a lot easier to prove than the existence of God.

[cleanhippie]

50. I deal with religious people everyday on an honest and rational level

as long as we are not talking about religious issues. When we are discussing THAT, we are discussing opinions, and I am just an entitled to mine as they are theres, and if their opinion is baseless and not grounded in reality, then there is going to be some ridicule and condescension.

[humblebum]

51. this is the problem that I have with atheism and "radical" atheism in particular.

"if their opinion is baseless and not grounded in reality" - those are some of the most arrogant words I have ever heard and if you have to resort to actions and attitudes like that then your "beliefs" or lack of them are based on shakey ground and you are certainly not that confident in your position. For me to become an atheist, I would have to deny so many things that I feel to be true or perceived to be true. Atheism is based on material, empirical existence, period. And of course empiricism basically says that if I can't perceive it with the 5 senses, it's doesn't exist. To me that is like living in a box and stating flatly that there is nothing outside the box. Emotions, subject evidence, intuitions, historical accounts, blah, blah, are all discarded in the atheistic viewpoint. So what you are left with is a very narrowly focused epistemology that is limited to 100 percent objectivity.
Religious people cannot base their claim wholly on objectivity because their belief systems extend far beyond that. You can choose to accept that view or not. that is certainly your right, but for you to say that someone else's beliefs are wrong, and to ridicule them for something you don't believe in just makes you out to be narrow-minded and mouthy.

[cleanhippie]

53. Puh-lease. Bring the proof of your cliams, then and only then can we discuss it rationally

But until then, what YOU believe, what YOU say you have experienced, what YOU claim to "know" is irrational and defies the natural laws of the universe. Bring the proof up for testing, replication and verification first.


But hey, you can believe what you want, regardless of how out of touch with reality it is, just keep it to yourself and/or in your church and we won't have to discuss it and can get along just fine.



Arrogant? For sure, but until you can prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, my arrogance is based in reality.

[humblebum]

54. Your knowledge of different epistemologies or ways of knowing and reasoning

is extremely limited. You have just proven that to me. If you cannot see, hear, feel, smell, or taste something then for all practical purposes it doesn't exist. There is absolutely nothing "freethinking" about atheism. Tell me, in a court case if there is no physical evidence but only circumstantial evidence and witnesses to prove guilt, should a defendant ever be found guilty?

If you are intent on this "I'm right and everyone else is wrong who doesn't see it the way I do" - then I really question who needs to be ridiculed. No one is telling you that you have to believe anything, but you are certainly showing your ignorance if you deny that there are other epistemologies that drive the beliefs of others. Extremely narrow-minded.

[cleanhippie]

55. Sophisty. Thats all it is.

If you cannot see, hear, feel, smell, or taste something then for all practical purposes it doesn't exist.


Yes, correct. if you cannot "see, hear, feel, smell, or taste" or measure it, then how do you prove it exists?

It simple really, show me the proof.



And I never stated "I'm right and everyone else is wrong who doesn't see it the way I do" I just said that without evidence its not real.

[humblebum]

56. I have no problem with your beliefs or maybe I should say nonbelief, but

you are showing a definite denial that other ways of reasoning exist. You can call it sophistry or whatever, but if you're prepared to ridicule other's for their conflicting beliefs and opinions then you yourself need to called narrow-minded. And I do apologize for putting "I'm right and everyone else is wrong who doesn't see it the way I do" in quotations. That's my interpretation of your attitude.

[cleanhippie]

57. Not denial.

Skepticism. Without proof it is only opinion. opinions are great but they are not proof.


I require proof, not philosophical arguments or sophistry or personal experience, proof. I require it for everything in my life. You should too.

[humblebum]

58. We could debate what constitutes "proof" and "evidence" all day long, but

I can see that your knowledge of epistemologies and subjective forms of evidence is either limited or you choose to ignore such. Suit yourself, but if you ridicule others with a different point of view, you display an ignorance that is ... well let's just leave it at that. Is the blind man sitting in a room of many colors?

[cleanhippie]

66. You can continue with your sophistry if you want

I actually find it amusing.

[cleanhippie]

49. That is the most honest answer I have ever read. Thank you.

And I mean that sincerely.


The fact is that no proof will ever be sufficient, because that's not the way religious belief works.

Fine, but since it doesnt work that way, please keep it to yourself and out of public schools, government, the military and everywhere it does work that way.

I'm not saying that it's faith in things that aren't there. I'm saying that you're never going to find the God that you think we believe in.

If I can't find him, how do you? I require proof, and since you say proof does not exist, see my answer above.


I find it hard to believe that many militant atheists are really activists, for anything other than militant atheism.

WTF is a "militant atheist"? Other than the nonsense Humblebum spouts off about militant atheists in Communist Russia (and your use of this term makes me wonder if I am not talking to a sock puppet here) I never see this term, ever.

[blueworld]

24. plus a million n/t

[cleanhippie]

27. minus a million and one.

for not contributing your own thoughts on the subject.



:evilgrin:

[blueworld]

52. Sigh. I see this article as a battleplan for a sect of atheism that believes it's unfairly attacked

I see no difference between the "debates" referenced and the evangelicizing of fundamentalists. I think it is patently absurd to debate the existence or non-existence of God, since neither side can scientifically prove it's position. Sometimes these debates are invigorating; sometimes they're simply an excuse to berate someone else's beliefs.

I personally regard all religion/philosophy as a tool. If I build a house & the plumbing is leaky from day one, do I blame the wrench or the plumber?

I don't have time to research all the subjects I'd like, but I would dearly love to see some links (on the DU in particular since I regard this site so highly) to biographies of great American atheists who have contributed mightily to the strength of this country. Something "pro-atheist" rather than the usual tired "anti-religion" whereas we believers are generally portrayed as being responsible for all the horrors of history. As if Stalin, Mao & Ho-Chi-Minh never existed.

How's them for thoughts?

[WolverineDG]

46. No, they just call us idiots & morons while claiming to be intellectually & morally superior

& then wonder why no one likes them.

:think:

dg

[DeSwiss]

29. I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with your view that.....

..."Atheists need more comprehensive approaches to dealing with religious belief than just a lot of boasting that reason only sides with atheism."

It isn't boasting, but simply stating the facts. Non-believers need not be pulled down to the level of religionists by appealing to people's emotions, but rather by appealing to their intellect. As Dan Barker said: "Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing 'Yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up must come down, down, down. Amen!' If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it."

"The very concept of blasphemy is a perfect illustration of the cowardly immaturity of the religious mind, and the emptiness of religion itself.

If religion contained any truth, it could be ridiculed, insulted, even be defiled without being diminished in any way. Its truth would shine through, undimmed, unblemished, shaming those who abused it into silence. But that's not how things are.

Religion is prickly and intolerant. It's ultra-defensive precisely because it's brittle and fragile. It's about as substantial as a meringue. It's all front and no substance. It's had thousands of years to make its case, and all it's produced is sophistry and violence. And a raft of morals that would shame a rattlesnake.

And no amount of wind-baggery and flimflam from clergy can any longer disguise the simple bald fact that there is: "nothing there." The only true thing about religion, is that it is false. Its claim to higher knowledge is laughable, it doesn't even have any lower knowledge. Not one of its ludicrous claims about reality would have a hope in hell of standing up in a court of law. And it is high time to stop treating them as if they do."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjO4duhMRZk">Pat Condell - On ''Aggressive atheism''

[cleanhippie]

31. I like this part.

If religion contained any truth, it could be ridiculed, insulted, even be defiled without being diminished in any way. Its truth would shine through, undimmed, unblemished, shaming those who abused it into silence. But that's not how things are.


Me likey! Gonna use that one!