New Atheists; same as the Fundies?

[Dancing David]

Nope, I was just bored, and bored with the smug atheist overtone that misses an incredibly simple premise. The very notion of god makes god unprovable. Or provable. Its faith or the lack thereof. The fact you keep trying to deny the obvious is just funny. Fundy atheists and fundy bible thumpers are peas in the same pod. Deal.

Except there is nothing obvious, you haven't said what is obvious. I have seen no proof or evidence of any conventional notions of gaod.

The only smug one here is you.

[Mister Agenda]

Horse spit and a lie.
You are in here and this is one of the biggest skeptical clubs around and I am sure you tithe in here to your JREF god.
:eye-poppi

There are hundreds of millions of atheists in the world, I don't think JREF is that representative. And why would you be sure of something you're just guessing at, like someone's charitable contributions?

[USEagle13]

So you never use dollar bills eh?

I just used it as example because they (aetheists) always want to get rid of Christian religious themes/symbols when there are tons of other religious themes/symbols that aetheist people are fine with (and even think is cool).

They (aetheists) are just being pickers and choosers upon which symbols they deem appropriate. Ban one...ban em all. It's only way to be fair.

You have to use money you silly rabbit. It was a system set up before I was born that I have no control over. I just don't worship money like a lot of people do.

For example people that kill themselves over debt, fly planes into buildings because of taxes, rob a bank because they are broke, go into state of depression due to all the "stress", etc.

Those are people that tripped out because they worshiped money their whole life, and once it was no longer there or in sufficient supply according to the type of life they "wanted" to live they totally lose it.

You have never in your life used a calendar that has Wednesday, Thursday or Friday on it, or July or August for that matter?

You have to you silly rabbit. It's a forced system. Kinda like what I explained above.

[Sledge]

"Atheists." The word is spelt "atheists."

[Gawdzilla]

"Atheists." The word is spelt "atheists."

I'm the athiest of the atheists.

[Dancing David]

I just used it as example because they (aetheists) always want to get rid of Christian religious themes/symbols when there are tons of other religious themes/symbols that aetheist people are fine with (and even think is cool).



I am a true atheist, I don't wear a kilt. I do not want government endorsement of religion. So you are using one big straw man. The line is 'In God We Trust", all others pay cash.

I don't care if my local city puts up a creche or whatever, but no indoctrination at school.

[Foster Zygote]

I just used it as example because they (aetheists) always want to get rid of Christian religious themes/symbols when there are tons of other religious themes/symbols that aetheist people are fine with (and even think is cool).

They (aetheists) are just being pickers and choosers upon which symbols they deem appropriate. Ban one...ban em all. It's only way to be fair.

I think that you will find most atheists to be tolerant of religious themes/symbols as long as they are not being imposed on others. If a public school were to set up a Hindu shrine of have morning calls to Islamic prayer over the intercom, you would find that those who value the separation of religion and state would be just as opposed.

[Mister Agenda]

I just used it as example because they (aetheists) always want to get rid of Christian religious themes/symbols when there are tons of other religious themes/symbols that aetheist people are fine with (and even think is cool).

They (aetheists) are just being pickers and choosers upon which symbols they deem appropriate. Ban one...ban em all. It's only way to be fair.

You have to you silly rabbit. It's a forced system. Kinda like what I explained above.

I'm thinking you're making an unspoken distinction about religious symbols on government property, but rather than assume, I'll try to clarify and you tell me if you disagree. I can't think of any atheists who have a problem with religious symbols on private property. Legally, you can have religious symbols on public property as long as one particular religious viewpoint isn't favored over others...but it impossible to be fair to everyone doing that (as you mentioned) so a ban on all of them on government property or otherwise supported by everyone's taxes is the fairest thing to do.

I would hope no one would seek to curtail a person's right to display symbols of their religion on their own property, with the exception of regulations not specifically aimed at religious symbols, like how big signage can be in the neighborhood.

[Gawdzilla]

I am a true atheist, I don't wear a kilt. I do not want government endorsement of religion. So you are using one big straw man. The line is 'In God We Trust", all others pay cash.

I don't care if my local city puts up a creche or whatever, but no indoctrination at school.

Good for you. You'll not be upset, I trust, if my own hackles go up when I see a bumper sticker that says, "One book is enough for anybody."

[dafydd]

Good for you. You'll not be upset, I trust, if my own hackles go up when I see a bumper sticker that says, "One book is enough for anybody."

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_234094d3df08526ec9.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=22341)

[Galteeth]

Good for you. You'll not be upset, I trust, if my own hackles go up when I see a bumper sticker that says, "One book is enough for anybody."

Haha, is that a real bumpersticker?

[Gawdzilla]

Haha, is that a real bumpersticker?

Seen in St. Louis just this weekend. It was on a fairly new Expedition.

[A Laughing Baby]

I'd like to address this in the most caged, passive way possible, so as not to offend anyone (atheist or theist).

I'd like to start by summarizing what seems to be the primary points made by both sides--and again, this is simply my opinion, as I'm sure there will be some difference in perception depending on the reader. The OP's point seems to be that atheists, or at least "New Atheists" are a group primarily composed of reactionaries, with a focus on hating/demeaning theists (or more definitively, Christians). The response has been typical for the JREF, replete with calls for evidence, etc. Please note that I'm not judging either side's strengths, merely trying to state what I see.

To address the validity of each argument, I'd like to address what (and again, this is my own opinion) seems to be the point of the OP: that "New Atheists" are a group defined by what they oppose. I would say that there are indeed some confrontationally-defined atheists in the world, just as there are confrontationally-defined theists (be they Christian, Muslim, etc. It would not take too much thought to think of prominent examples of all these). However, I would think it to be a bit of a stretch to say that all atheists are defined in this way--or all atheists since a certain time, etc. Atheists are defined by a lack of belief, which separates them in a unique fashion from groups who are defined by a presence of belief. It is this unique separation that leads to some unique distinctions.

For example, consider an evangelical (or outspoken Muslim or Jew, etc.). If he attempts to persuade someone to his beliefs, he is in fact implanting a belief into that person. This is not inherently wrong or immoral, and I hope that you do not think that I would say that. What I wish to draw a distinction between, however, is the difference between that and an outspoken atheist--for your amusement, consider him an "evangelical atheist." If this evangelical atheist attempts to persuade someone to his beliefs, then he is implanting a lack of belief into that person. More aptly put, I would put forth that he is removing belief from that person. The important point to note is that a lack of belief is not an inherent belief in and of itself. To draw such a conclusion is mathematically equivalent to saying that 0 is equivalent to 1.

Now, that is not to say that he or she may not fervently hold to this lack of belief or defend it as if it WERE a belief, but the important distinction, in my mind, is that defending a lack of belief is not substituting a proxy for belief or representative thereof, but rather defending a lack of belief is similar to defending one's own thoughts and so on.

Just my two.



There is a wealth (http://www.astro.ubc.ca/people/scott/cmb_intro.html) of (http://kottke.org/10/11/lhc-generates-a-mini-big-bang) evidence (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#evidence) supporting the predominant scientific theory of universal creation. To be slightly confrontational, I would like to ask politely that you provide counterexamples showing supporting evidence for the implicit "other side" that is referred to in the quote above.

I was really hoping for a response to either of these, as I was trying to stay out of the confrontational debate and start a measured conversation. If you really don't want to address either of these posts, just say so, and I'll accept that.

[Gawdzilla]

Been there, done that. Have fun with it.

[mikeyx]

"Atheists." The word is spelt "atheists."

specially the fundy ones

[Gawdzilla]

specially the fundy ones

@roll

[Sledge]

specially the fundy ones

... what?

[devnull]

... what?

dont ask.......

[Dave Rogers]

"Atheists." The word is spelt "atheists."

Unless you're talking about people who don't believe in special relativity, in which case 'aetheists' is near enough.

Dave

[Gawdzilla]

Unless you're talking about people who don't believe in special relativity, in which case 'aetheists' is near enough.

Dave

Aether way, it's tenuous.

[Dancing David]

Good for you. You'll not be upset, I trust, if my own hackles go up when I see a bumper sticker that says, "One book is enough for anybody."

I think I am more scared by 'God is my co-piolot' or 'In case of rapture vehicles will be driverless'. I agree only ONE book?

I couldn't chose 10

[Dancing David]

Aether way, it's tenuous.

You win! :D

[devnull]

That was great :)

I wonder if anybody can think of anaether one?

[Gawdzilla]

That was great :)

I wonder if anybody can think of anaether one?

Aphlogistonism is off limits, is it?

[DC]

That was great :)

I wonder if anybody can think of anaether one?

i didnt get it from start on :(

[USEagle13]

I am a true atheist, I don't wear a kilt. I do not want government endorsement of religion. So you are using one big straw man. The line is 'In God We Trust", all others pay cash.

I don't care if my local city puts up a creche or whatever, but no indoctrination at school.

Yes. No indoctrination at public schools. I highly agree w/you on that one. And the term "In God We Trust" is all based upon perception of the person holding the money.

That is why it is such a cool one liner.

I think that you will find most atheists to be tolerant of religious themes/symbols as long as they are not being imposed on others. If a public school were to set up a Hindu shrine of have morning calls to Islamic prayer over the intercom, you would find that those who value the separation of religion and state would be just as opposed.

That is a good thing to know.


I'm thinking you're making an unspoken distinction about religious symbols on government property, but rather than assume, I'll try to clarify and you tell me if you disagree. I can't think of any atheists who have a problem with religious symbols on private property.

I can't put up a cross or anything on my property because it will just get vandalized and make my house a "target" for the crazy anarchist style aetheists.

Legally, you can have religious symbols on public property as long as one particular religious viewpoint isn't favored over others...but it impossible to be fair to everyone doing that (as you mentioned) so a ban on all of them on government property or otherwise supported by everyone's taxes is the fairest thing to do.

But they take down all the Christian stuff while leaving up all the Greek/Roman/Egyptian stuff. That was the point I was trying to make.

I would hope no one would seek to curtail a person's right to display symbols of their religion on their own property, with the exception of regulations not specifically aimed at religious symbols, like how big signage can be in the neighborhood.

Churches symbols on their properties get vandalized all the time. If I put up religious Christian stuff on my property it would make me and my family a target for hate.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_234094d3df08526ec9.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=22341)

LOL that is funny cartoon. I thought the candle light was gonna be the Christian religion til I made it bigger and was able to read the cartoon. "Hit it with the bible?" LOL it would catch on fire!

[Sledge]

"Atheists." Are you trying to make a point by spelling the word wrong?

[edge]

"Atheists." Are you trying to make a point by spelling the word wrong?

it's aparty now here have one!
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/22284d3f0fe869148.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=22355)

[Mister Agenda]

I can't put up a cross or anything on my property because it will just get vandalized and make my house a "target" for the crazy anarchist style aetheists.

That's terrible!

But they take down all the Christian stuff while leaving up all the Greek/Roman/Egyptian stuff. That was the point I was trying to make.

Thanks for clarifying. I'm of two minds about that...hardly anyone believes in Greek/Roman/Egyptian religion anymore so it's more cultural than religious. I don't think you could make a serious case that the government having those things actually endorses Zeus or Anubis worship...but with pagan revivalism those religions aren't entirely extinct. I think I wouldn't bring a suit myself but I think I could sympathize with someone who did if the gods or specifically religious pagan symbols were being used...but I would think it was a bit over the top unless there were Greek/Roman/Egyptian pagans about having their religion favored over others.

Churches symbols on their properties get vandalized all the time. If I put up religious Christian stuff on my property it would make me and my family a target for hate.

I'm very sorry to hear that. Where do you live, if you don't mind me asking?

[Gawdzilla]

I can't put up a cross or anything on my property because it will just get vandalized and make my house a "target" for the crazy anarchist style aetheists.

You make up a lot of crap.

[DC]

Yes. No indoctrination at public schools. I highly agree w/you on that one. And the term "In God We Trust" is all based upon perception of the person holding the money.

That is why it is such a cool one liner.



That is a good thing to know.




I can't put up a cross or anything on my property because it will just get vandalized and make my house a "target" for the crazy anarchist style aetheists.



But they take down all the Christian stuff while leaving up all the Greek/Roman/Egyptian stuff. That was the point I was trying to make.



Churches symbols on their properties get vandalized all the time. If I put up religious Christian stuff on my property it would make me and my family a target for hate.



LOL that is funny cartoon. I thought the candle light was gonna be the Christian religion til I made it bigger and was able to read the cartoon. "Hit it with the bible?" LOL it would catch on fire!

Christian signs are very anti Atheist and very Homophobic.

[A Laughing Baby]

Still nothing in response to what I said? (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6802622&postcount=263) I mean, seriously, if you don't want to respond to it, feel free, but just say so. I will just accept that and move on.

[USEagle13]

Thanks for clarifying. I'm of two minds about that...hardly anyone believes in Greek/Roman/Egyptian religion anymore so it's more cultural than religious. I don't think you could make a serious case that the government having those things actually endorses Zeus or Anubis worship...but with pagan revivalism those religions aren't entirely extinct. I think I wouldn't bring a suit myself but I think I could sympathize with someone who did if the gods or specifically religious pagan symbols were being used...but I would think it was a bit over the top unless there were Greek/Roman/Egyptian pagans about having their religion favored over others.

I have never been one to sue. Except for the time I had 3 older men try to cut my head off w/a shovel when I was in H.S. Even then I just sued for my medical bills to be paid, nothing more. They never served any jail time except a holding tank.

Well. A symbol is a symbol. A cross is a cross, a swastika is a swastika, and a confederate flag is a confederate flag......see where I'm going here?

Just because most Christians/non believers do not know the meaning behind it does not mean it is not there. Most could not tell you what any of the said symbols (I talked about earlier) represent for instance because they never really look anywhere else for meanings of stuff besides the Bible or school.


I'm very sorry to hear that. Where do you live, if you don't mind me asking?

South East Texas. During Christmas times the vandalism gets worse but at least then the news covers it. The rest of the year no one hears about it because the news doesn't care about it then. Only around the Christian holidays will the news report on it.

Many Churches are being robbed also and they even take our A/C unit parts during the summer time. It makes it very hot but we have to just "deal with it" I guess.

You make up a lot of crap.

No I don't. You make a lot of personal accusations and attacks towards individual people instead of attacking topics.

Christian signs are very anti Atheist and very Homophobic.

Says who? Are you one of these who vandalize them?

[USEagle13]

Still nothing in response to what I said? (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6802622&postcount=263) I mean, seriously, if you don't want to respond to it, feel free, but just say so. I will just accept that and move on.

It's the "lack of belief" that causes people to do crimes. The lack of belief they will get caught, the lack of belief that it is against their own paradigm in their head, the lack of belief that they will face justice due to trying to abuse the mental ill status quo of judgement in court, the lack of belief that any thing they do is immoral.

I mean if you have a lack of belief in anything than for some that includes a lack of belief even in the laws of the land.

You see how dangerous that could be? I mean some aetheists are level headed but for a crazy person the "lack of belief" system sounds like an awesome cop out to them.

The Jared guy had a lack of belief for many things.....I can go on and on....

[Gawdzilla]

No I don't. You make a lot of personal accusations and attacks towards individual people instead of attacking topics.
Documentation then. Trot out evidence to support your claim.

[Hellbound]

It's the "belief" that causes people to do crimes. The belief their god will protect them, the belief that it is following a higehr power than man, the belief that earthly justice is immaterial, and they answer only to the divine, the belief that any thing they in their god's name do is moral.

I mean if you have a belief in anything than for some that includes a belief that they are above the laws of the land.

You see how dangerous that could be? I mean some theists are level headed but for a crazy person the "belief" system sounds like an awesome cop out to them.

The Jim Jones guy had a belief for many things.....I can go on and on....

Fixed that for you. That's nothing particular to do with atheism or theism, more of an issue with sanity vs insanity.

And I have to second other's questions, where do you live? In the middle of an anti-Christian cult?

It's not uncommon AT ALL to see Christian symbols on peoples houses around here. Put up an atheist sign and it will get vandalized, quickly. I'd be willign to bet that if you and a neighbor each put somethin gup in your yards, on of you a Christian cross and the other a sign that said "There is no God" (or maybe a Darwin fish), the cross would get no more vandalism, and probably quite a bit less.

[Foster Zygote]

Just because most Christians/non believers do not know the meaning behind it does not mean it is not there. Most could not tell you what any of the said symbols (I talked about earlier) represent for instance because they never really look anywhere else for meanings of stuff besides the Bible or school.

A symbol has no intrinsic meaning beyond what people may assign to it. A swastika means something entirely different depending on whether one is a Hindu or a Nazi. If everyone forgets the religious symbolism behind a certain image then it is no more religious in meaning than the Burger King logo.

[Foster Zygote]

It's the "lack of belief" that causes people to do crimes. The lack of belief they will get caught, the lack of belief that it is against their own paradigm in their head, the lack of belief that they will face justice due to trying to abuse the mental ill status quo of judgement in court, the lack of belief that any thing they do is immoral.

I mean if you have a lack of belief in anything than for some that includes a lack of belief even in the laws of the land.

You see how dangerous that could be? I mean some aetheists are level headed but for a crazy person the "lack of belief" system sounds like an awesome cop out to them.

The Jared guy had a lack of belief for many things.....I can go on and on....

The problem with this argument, besides the logical issues, is that it is not only insulting to atheists, but theists as well. When you try to argue that atheism is amoral because atheists lack belief in a greater power that will mete out punishment (again, ignoring the fact that one does not observe in increase in violence and crime associated with a decrease in theistic belief), you are also arguing that the only reason theists don't behave badly is because they don't think that they can get away with it.

[DC]

Says who? Are you one of these who vandalize them?

the bible.

[A Laughing Baby]

It's the "lack of belief" that causes people to do crimes. The lack of belief they will get caught, the lack of belief that it is against their own paradigm in their head, the lack of belief that they will face justice due to trying to abuse the mental ill status quo of judgement in court, the lack of belief that any thing they do is immoral.

I mean if you have a lack of belief in anything than for some that includes a lack of belief even in the laws of the land.

You see how dangerous that could be? I mean some aetheists are level headed but for a crazy person the "lack of belief" system sounds like an awesome cop out to them.

The Jared guy had a lack of belief for many things.....I can go on and on....

With respect, I think you may be conflating a lack of belief in a god or gods (atheism) with a lack of belief in anything (nihilism). It is my opinion, and I'm sure others here would agree with me, that it is quite possible to not believe in a god or gods and yet still follow a moral code. I am not saying that atheists have zero belief in anything--to say so would be a dramatic misunderstanding of what atheism entails.

Perhaps an analogy can clarify. By your logic, a Christian would also be a Satanist or crusade/jihad style warrior, because belief leads to those things. They would surely also believe in ESP, faith healing, and communication with the dead, since those are all based in belief as well. Of course, this is not the case--but I am lumping all meanings of "belief" in with one another, which is a simple enough rhetorical trick, but clearly not what I meant by what I was saying. Does this clarify what I meant any? Does this adjust your response? I sincerely hope the answer is yes to both.


ETA: It's also worth mentioning that presence of belief in a god or gods is clearly not enough to stop people from committing crimes, so even the rhetorical justification for this argument is somewhat shaky. On top of that, my post was in response to the original question of "are atheists the same as fundamentalists." I addressed this point as best I could, and yet, in your response to it, you chose to make a normative statement concerning human behavior and the decision (if you want to call it that) to have faith in a god or gods. My post was clearly not intended to say what someone should or should not do, and yet, that is precisely what the response did. I'm now not actually sure you responded to me or instead used my post as a springboard to make a sweeping normative statement concerning atheism/nihilism.

[Mister Agenda]

Christian signs are very anti Atheist and very Homophobic.

You're kidding, right?

[Gawdzilla]

You're kidding, right?

If you add the qualifier "some" to that, it's accurate. I spent 20 years in the USN, I'm 100% disabled now, and xtian groups put up signs saying I'm a traitor to the US because I don't agree with their imaginary friend.

[DC]

You're kidding, right?

well yes actually i am kidding, but actually Christian signs are representing a religion and that religion is very anti atheist and very homophobic.

[Mister Agenda]

If you add the qualifier "some" to that, it's accurate. I spent 20 years in the USN, I'm 100% disabled now, and xtian groups put up signs saying I'm a traitor to the US because I don't agree with their imaginary friend.

I'd agree with your assessment of that kind of sign, I was thinking crosses and such.

[Mister Agenda]

well yes actually i am kidding, but actually Christian signs are representing a religion and that religion is very anti atheist and very homophobic.

I think Christianity is arguably hundreds of religions with some things in common. Not all flavors are anti atheist or homophobic. Some Christian churches welcome gays and atheists...they're a minority, but it will change. In 30 years they'll be taking credit for ending the persecution of gays and atheists and using how tolerant they are as a selling point. I say that based on Christianity's history with theocracy, slavery, and civil rights.

[mikeyx]

If you add the qualifier "some" to that, it's accurate. I spent 20 years in the USN, I'm 100% disabled now, and xtian groups put up signs saying I'm a traitor to the US because I don't agree with their imaginary friend.

Xtian is not a word.

[Lord Emsworth]

Xtian is not a word.

It is an abbreviation.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Xtian

[Gawdzilla]

Xtian is not a word.

So?

@roll

[devnull]

You make up a lot of crap.

bingo!

[DeusPhasmatis]

It's the "lack of belief" that causes people to do crimes. The lack of belief they will get caught, the lack of belief that it is against their own paradigm in their head, the lack of belief that they will face justice due to trying to abuse the mental ill status quo of judgement in court, the lack of belief that any thing they do is immoral.

I mean if you have a lack of belief in anything than for some that includes a lack of belief even in the laws of the land.

You see how dangerous that could be? I mean some aetheists are level headed but for a crazy person the "lack of belief" system sounds like an awesome cop out to them.

The Jared guy had a lack of belief for many things.....I can go on and on...
It's the "belief" that causes people to do crimes. The belief they will not get caught, the belief that it is for their own paradigm in their head, the belief that they won't face justice due to trying to abuse the mental ill status quo of judgment in court, the belief that nothing they do is immoral.

I mean if you have a belief in anything than for some that includes a belief even in disobeying the laws of the land.

You see how dangerous that could be? I mean some theists are level headed but for a crazy person the "belief" system sounds like an awesome cop out to them.

[mikeyx]

It is an abbreviation.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Xtian

still not a word and oft abused

[mikeyx]

So?

@roll

you are a troll, quite often, very correct.

[A Laughing Baby]

Mikey, can you please take the time to tell me if you are willing to respond to the points I brought up? I am genuinely interested in talking about your thoughts without resorting to insulting one another, and would appreciate you at least letting me know if you are willing to discuss it.

[mikeyx]

Mikey, can you please take the time to tell me if you are willing to respond to the points I brought up? I am genuinely interested in talking about your thoughts without resorting to insulting one another, and would appreciate you at least letting me know if you are willing to discuss it.

Lets start in PM, if you're open to that.

[A Laughing Baby]

Lets start in PM, if you're open to that.

Sure. Go take a look at the posts I made that I quoted on the last page and send me a message whenever.

[Hellbound]

still not a word and oft abused

No kidding. Those damn Christians going around making up words, we should throw them to the lions or something...

[Foster Zygote]

Lets start in PM, if you're open to that.

So you're only willing to carry on a mature conversation if you can do it via private messaging? Why?

[A Laughing Baby]

So you're only willing to carry on a mature conversation if you can do it via private messaging? Why?

Forgive me for answering for him, but my guess would be so that he could maintain track of the conversation without being sidetracked by people picking apart various things he said throughout it.

[Mister Agenda]

still not a word and oft abused

No one has claimed it is a word. It's an abbreviation, and the only way to abuse it is to deliberately misspell it or use it to mean something other than 'Christian'. What's your point?

[USEagle13]

Fixed that for you. That's nothing particular to do with atheism or theism, more of an issue with sanity vs insanity.

And I have to second other's questions, where do you live? In the middle of an anti-Christian cult?

Sometimes it seems so, even though I don't. There is a lot of youth that, at times, walk the streets and vandalize crap. Makes me wonder what the hell their parents are doing or are at.

It's not uncommon AT ALL to see Christian symbols on peoples houses around here. Put up an atheist sign and it will get vandalized, quickly. I'd be willign to bet that if you and a neighbor each put somethin gup in your yards, on of you a Christian cross and the other a sign that said "There is no God" (or maybe a Darwin fish), the cross would get no more vandalism, and probably quite a bit less.

Doubt it.

A symbol has no intrinsic meaning beyond what people may assign to it. A swastika means something entirely different depending on whether one is a Hindu or a Nazi. If everyone forgets the religious symbolism behind a certain image then it is no more religious in meaning than the Burger King logo.

Then why don't they? I mean they don't even say the pledge of allegiance in school anymore. When I was in school they did every morning.

The problem with this argument, besides the logical issues, is that it is not only insulting to atheists, but theists as well. When you try to argue that atheism is amoral because atheists lack belief in a greater power that will mete out punishment (again, ignoring the fact that one does not observe in increase in violence and crime associated with a decrease in theistic belief), you are also arguing that the only reason theists don't behave badly is because they don't think that they can get away with it.

The ones that are not severely mentally disturbed...yes. Also, you have to remember, just because someone says they are Christian does not mean they are.

Many people who have not really read the bible or went to church in years associate themselves w/Christianity just because their parents are, or because when they were kids their parents "made them go."

Does not mean they "are one."


With respect, I think you may be conflating a lack of belief in a god or gods (atheism) with a lack of belief in anything (nihilism). It is my opinion, and I'm sure others here would agree with me, that it is quite possible to not believe in a god or gods and yet still follow a moral code. I am not saying that atheists have zero belief in anything--to say so would be a dramatic misunderstanding of what atheism entails.

I suppose it could be a possibility.


Perhaps an analogy can clarify. By your logic, a Christian would also be a Satanist or crusade/jihad style warrior, because belief leads to those things. They would surely also believe in ESP, faith healing, and communication with the dead, since those are all based in belief as well. Of course, this is not the case--but I am lumping all meanings of "belief" in with one another, which is a simple enough rhetorical trick, but clearly not what I meant by what I was saying. Does this clarify what I meant any? Does this adjust your response? I sincerely hope the answer is yes to both.

Yes to both.


ETA: It's also worth mentioning that presence of belief in a god or gods is clearly not enough to stop people from committing crimes, so even the rhetorical justification for this argument is somewhat shaky. On top of that, my post was in response to the original question of "are atheists the same as fundamentalists." I addressed this point as best I could, and yet, in your response to it, you chose to make a normative statement concerning human behavior and the decision (if you want to call it that) to have faith in a god or gods. My post was clearly not intended to say what someone should or should not do, and yet, that is precisely what the response did. I'm now not actually sure you responded to me or instead used my post as a springboard to make a sweeping normative statement concerning atheism/nihilism.

I believe that aetheists in many ways are fundamentalists once they "group up" and try to find a commonality amongst their self created paradigms, which in turn; starts to mold the said parties beliefs into a fundamentalist style of aetheism because they are lining out further commonalities besides the one common fact of no belief in gods.


If you add the qualifier "some" to that, it's accurate. I spent 20 years in the USN, I'm 100% disabled now, and xtian groups put up signs saying I'm a traitor to the US because I don't agree with their imaginary friend.

You want a cookie? You probably spewed out your BS to the wrong people. Why the hell are you going to even worry about letting others know your beliefs if you are in the military? The point of the military is to defend the country, not compare religious notes. There is a time and place for everything.

For example I would not talk about religion at work because it isn't the place for it. In the military you reap what you sow just like anywhere else. You say or do something that ticks off someone else then they may let you know.

I'm sure you went in there bullheaded (like you do w/your one-liners on this forum) and got yer ass handed to you. Some times it's best to keep your mouth shut. If you would have ticked off a Marine it would have been worse.


I think Christianity is arguably hundreds of religions with some things in common. Not all flavors are anti atheist or homophobic. Some Christian churches welcome gays and atheists...they're a minority, but it will change. In 30 years they'll be taking credit for ending the persecution of gays and atheists and using how tolerant they are as a selling point. I say that based on Christianity's history with theocracy, slavery, and civil rights.

Taking credit? Proof. I have never heard none of that nonsense.


It is an abbreviation.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Xtian

It's an ugly abbreviation created by haters.

No kidding. Those damn Christians going around making up words, we should throw them to the lions or something...

Words are created everyday. Get with the program.


No one has claimed it is a word. It's an abbreviation, and the only way to abuse it is to deliberately misspell it or use it to mean something other than 'Christian'. What's your point?

Yes. Like when I intentionally type aetheist.

[Gawdzilla]

You want a cookie? You probably spewed out your BS to the wrong people. Why the hell are you going to even worry about letting others know your beliefs if you are in the military? The point of the military is to defend the country, not compare religious notes. There is a time and place for everything.

For example I would not talk about religion at work because it isn't the place for it. In the military you reap what you sow just like anywhere else. You say or do something that ticks off someone else then they may let you know.

I'm sure you went in there bullheaded (like you do w/your one-liners on this forum) and got yer ass handed to you. Some times it's best to keep your mouth shut. If you would have ticked off a Marine it would have been worse.


I didn't bother talking about being an atheist in the military, chucko, I did my job and went about my business. The only time I got in real trouble about religion was when I pointed .50 at testifier and asked him real politely to shut the **** up.

You know know nothing, and you prove it every day.

[Foster Zygote]

Then why don't they? I mean they don't even say the pledge of allegiance in school anymore. When I was in school they did every morning.
I'm not sure what this reply has to do with my statement. Also, kids say the Pledge of Allegiance in school all the time. My son says it every morning.

The ones that are not severely mentally disturbed...yes. Also, you have to remember, just because someone says they are Christian does not mean they are.

Many people who have not really read the bible or went to church in years associate themselves w/Christianity just because their parents are, or because when they were kids their parents "made them go."

Does not mean they "are one."
Aside from offering a 'No True Scotsman' fallacy, this does not address my statement at all.

[Gawdzilla]

Well, well, well, lookee what I done found me.

Substance over sweetness — another New Atheist critique gone askew (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/01/substance_over_sweetness_anoth.php)

Category: Godlessness
Posted on: January 26, 2011 12:01 PM, by PZ Myers

Another of those common, erroneous strategies used to criticize those danged Gnu Atheists is to first invent a definition for New Atheism that the Gnu Atheists themselves would find foreign, and then to jump all over it for a prolonged period of time until they've convinced themselves they've finally defeated their nemesis. It's the cardboard cutout tactic — it turns out that cardboard versions of us put up much less of a fight than the real thing.

Continued at URL above.

So, does this remind us of any one?

[slingblade]

It's an ugly abbreviation created by haters.

You seem to know all about it.
Can you show us the history of those abbreviations? Just in general. You know, something on the Internet that says when and where they were first used? Who are these haters, how did they come up with that X abbreviation, and how long has it been going on? Since the 1960s? The 1930s? When did it start? Who started doing it first, and why?

I'm curious.

[mikeyx]

I didn't bother talking about being an atheist in the military, chucko, I did my job and went about my business. The only time I got in real trouble about religion was when I pointed .50 at testifier and asked him real politely to shut the **** up.

You know know nothing, and you prove it every day.

yer like an angry liberal who blames the republicans for everything and ignores that both sides can suck. Hypocrites both.

[Gawdzilla]

yer like an angry liberal who blames the republicans for everything and ignores that both sides can suck. Hypocrites both.

@roll

[Lord Emsworth]

Continued at URL above.

URL is not a word.

[Lord Emsworth]

I agree completely with OP.

OP is not a word.

[Lord Emsworth]

New Atheists; same as the Fundies?

Fundies is not a word.

[Lord Emsworth]

still not a word and oft abused

That is not a sentence.

[slingblade]

Could you stop, please? I've asked a question and all this crap could cause it to get lost. I'd like an answer. So please, stop? Thanks.

[Foster Zygote]

I'd just like to add...

Oops! Sorry.

[Gawdzilla]

word is not a word.

[Resume]

word is not a word.

Word

[mikeyx]

So you're only willing to carry on a mature conversation if you can do it via private messaging? Why?

maybe to do it because he at least responded to the original without the same bullpuckey anyone ever recieves under this subject heading. Major hint there.

[mikeyx]

@roll

proof noted, troll.....

[Sledge]

maybe to do it because he at least responded to the original without the same bullpuckey anyone ever recieves under this subject heading. Major hint there.

Wait a second, you set the tone by starting a troll thread. Why would you think anyone will take it seriously?

[Lord Emsworth]

Could you stop, please? I've asked a question and all this crap could cause it to get lost. I'd like an answer. So please, stop? Thanks.

I have no idea why you would want an answer from USEagle13 or so, but OK you must know. I'll do you the favor of requoting the post:

You seem to know all about it.
Can you show us the history of those abbreviations? Just in general. You know, something on the Internet that says when and where they were first used? Who are these haters, how did they come up with that X abbreviation, and how long has it been going on? Since the 1960s? The 1930s? When did it start? Who started doing it first, and why?

I'm curious.




:blush:

[dudalb]

At times some New Athiests do seem to use the same tactics as the Fundies. I have seen many Internet arguments between Athiest and Fundies from which a neutral observer could only go away saying "They are both Nuts".

[slingblade]

Many thanks, M'Lord. :D

[The Norseman]

Many thanks, M'Lord. :D



M'Lord is not a word.













:D

[joobz]

It's the "lack of belief" that causes people to do crimes. The lack of belief they will get caught, the lack of belief that it is against their own paradigm in their head, the lack of belief that they will face justice due to trying to abuse the mental ill status quo of judgement in court, the lack of belief that any thing they do is immoral.

I mean if you have a lack of belief in anything than for some that includes a lack of belief even in the laws of the land.

You see how dangerous that could be? I mean some aetheists are level headed but for a crazy person the "lack of belief" system sounds like an awesome cop out to them.

The Jared guy had a lack of belief for many things.....I can go on and on....
I think Foster Zygote addressed this point well. But I must say that your premise is exactly false.

What was Andrea Yate's reason for drowning her children? (Hint: it wasn't due to a lack of belief)
What drove Son of Sam to kill? (Hint: it wasn't due to a lack of belief)
What Drove the Terrorist into the twin Towers? (Hint: It wasn't due to a lack of Belief)
What made Heaven's gate Cult Kill themselves? (Hint: It wasn't due to a lack of Belief)


If your premise is wrong, the rest of the argument fall completely flat.

[jhunter1163]

Let's get back to the topic, shall we? And whilst we're at it, let us refrain from troll allegations.

[Gawdzilla]

Wait a second, you set the tone by starting a troll thread. Why would you think anyone will take it seriously?
Opps, death threats.

[mikeyx]

Wait a second, you set the tone by starting a troll thread. Why would you think anyone will take it seriously?

and yet, four pages later here we are, and I took a break from it. If in fact, it were the t word, it was make a point, the point has been made, in spade(s)

[Dismember]

maybe to do it because he at least responded to the original without the same bullpuckey anyone ever recieves under this subject heading. Major hint there.

Mikey, for what it's worth, I'd be interested in reading an authentic reply from you right here in the thread.

I hope you'll at least respond to Slingblade's post on the previous page (post 314).

[slingblade]

Mikey, for what it's worth, I'd be interested in reading an authentic reply from you right here in the thread.

I hope you'll at least respond to Slingblade's post on the previous page (post 314).

Oh, thank you, but I was actually asking US Eagle. But I appreciate the help. :)
In fact...Mikeyx, do you know the history of the Xtian and Xmas abbreviations?

I can ask you both. :)

[Sledge]

Let's get back to the topic, shall we? And whilst we're at it, let us refrain from troll allegations.

mikeyx on being asked what this thread was about:
Actually it was a troll born out of some degree of bordeom. Your comprehension skills might need a tune up.

Given this, I think my question was reasonable.

[joobz]

and yet, four pages later here we are, and I took a break from it. If in fact, it were the t word, it was make a point, the point has been made, in spade(s)
So does this mean that you've retracted your point about supposed new atheists?

[Foster Zygote]

maybe to do it because he at least responded to the original without the same bullpuckey anyone ever recieves under this subject heading. Major hint there.

Immature posturing will not mask your evasion of significant rational criticism of your argument.

You claimed that a father who protested religious language in a public school's curricula was an example of "new atheism" and a population of people whom you characterized as "obnoxious ******* forcing their opinions where they may not be wanted".

I replied,

Many Christians and other theists support the separation of church and state. The difference is that the father was not trying to impose any specific belief, or lack thereof, on anyone else. He was simply trying to get the state to uphold the constitutional protection of all beliefs by restricting the state endorsement of any beliefs.

Then I asked,

How is the state imposition of theism on an atheist any different than imposing Christianity on a Jew, or Buddhism on a Muslim? Do Jews have to sit quietly and not complain if Christianity is imposed on them by a public institution? Do they get labeled as "new Jews", or is it just atheists?

Now, why is it that a question that I asked on page two is yet unanswered on page nine? The point I raised and the question that I asked are directly related to a statement that you offered in support of the subject of this thread. Are you unable to defend your argument and unwilling to own your error? Around here, admitting error is seen as an indicator of intelligence. Refusing to admit error, in the belief that doing so is somehow an acknowledgement of weakness, is not.

[Foster Zygote]

and yet, four pages later here we are, and I took a break from it. If in fact, it were the t word, it was make a point, the point has been made, in spade(s)
I doubt anyone seriously buys into your claim of trolling. You resorted to that tactic after your arguments began to fall apart.

[USEagle13]

You seem to know all about it.
Can you show us the history of those abbreviations? Just in general. You know, something on the Internet that says when and where they were first used? Who are these haters, how did they come up with that X abbreviation, and how long has it been going on? Since the 1960s? The 1930s? When did it start? Who started doing it first, and why?

I'm curious.

Oh, thank you, but I was actually asking US Eagle. But I appreciate the help. :)
In fact...Mikeyx, do you know the history of the Xtian and Xmas abbreviations?

I can ask you both. :)


First time I seen it was here. Never seen Christians use it ever. Just figured it was made up. Guess not.

[slingblade]

First time I seen it was here. Never seen Christians use it ever. Just figured it was made up. Guess not.

I'm afraid I simply can't believe you've never seen it before. It's ubiquitous (that means it's everywhere).

You ought to look it up and educate yourself. It's much, much older than you might think, and it wasn't invented by "haters."


eta: And thanks for the answer, and taking a crack at it. However, until you go look it up and find out for yourself, you're still just listening to what a bunch of people are telling you is true.

Which is the problem in the first place. :)

[Gawdzilla]

First time I seen it was here. Never seen Christians use it ever. Just figured it was made up. Guess not.

Google is our friends. Jumping to conclusions is not.

[joobz]

First time I seen it was here. Never seen Christians use it ever. Just figured it was made up. Guess not.
I agree with Slingblade that is usually is good to go out and seek your own information. But I suggest starting with this page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xmas

And then go and confirm the information provided.

[Hellbound]

Sometimes it seems so, even though I don't. There is a lot of youth that, at times, walk the streets and vandalize crap. Makes me wonder what the hell their parents are doing or are at.

That sounds just like a bad group of kids, rather than anything specific to atheism (again).

Doubt it.

It's true. I'll see about getting you pictures of the numerous Xtian symbols around, if you'd like. Now admittedly, I am in the Bible Belt.

Words are created everyday. Get with the program.
sar·casm
   /ˈsɑrhttp://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngkæzhttp://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngəm/ http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html) Show Spelled[sahr-kaz-uhhttp://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngm] http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.html) Show IPA
–noun 1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.

2. a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a review full of sarcasms.




I was making a joke about mikeyx's typical misunderstanding (along with yours, but kudos for admitting ignorance...I DO respect someone who can do that). Many modern Christians think the abbreviation of Xtian is somehow supposed to be an insult or a statement made by atheists. The word actually started with Christians, with the X representing Christ. I just enjoy the irony of Xtians complaining about a word they created.

[Gawdzilla]

Carrier has a handy scale we could use for this subject.

http://rationalia.com/gawdzilla/2viewtopic.php_files/file_007.jpg

[Mister Agenda]

Taking credit? Proof. I have never heard none of that nonsense.

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Christianity-And-Emancipation-Or-The-Teachings-And-The-Influence-Of-The-Bible-Against-Slavery/Joseph-Parrish-Thompson/e/9781110122813

Or, just visit Townhall.com and in the comments section of any column whatsoever, post 'Christianity was not the reason slavery was ended in the USA' and observe the responses.

Yes. Like when I intentionally type aetheist.

Unlike you, when we type 'Xtian' we're just using a common abbreviation because....it's briefer. Most of us know the origin of the term. When you type 'aetheist' you're going to the trouble of adding an extra letter just to irritate us and flaunt your disrespect. I thought you were just not observant enough to catch on to the correct spelling, but apparently you were trying to 'get back at us' for using 'Xtian'? I trust that now you've been informed that we're not showing disrespect by using 'Xtian' or 'Xmas'; you'll switch to the correct spelling of 'atheist'.

[mikeyx]

You seem to know all about it.
Can you show us the history of those abbreviations? Just in general. You know, something on the Internet that says when and where they were first used? Who are these haters, how did they come up with that X abbreviation, and how long has it been going on? Since the 1960s? The 1930s? When did it start? Who started doing it first, and why?

I'm curious.

Xtian is like USian, it's a lame attempt at trying to disparage someone while trying to seem superior doing it. It seldom comes across that way.

[Foster Zygote]

Xtian is like USian, it's a lame attempt at trying to disparage someone while trying to seem superior doing it. It seldom comes across that way.

Like "new atheist"?

[mikeyx]

Like "new atheist"?

I quoted it, not create it.

[Resume]

I quoted it, not create it.

You started a thread that disparages atheists. You gonna take ownership or not?

[joobz]

I quoted it, not create it.

Hi Mikeyx.
Since you are here, would you mind addressing this question?
How is the state imposition of theism on an atheist any different than imposing Christianity on a Jew, or Buddhism on a Muslim? Do Jews have to sit quietly and not complain if Christianity is imposed on them by a public institution? Do they get labeled as "new Jews", or is it just atheists?
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6811761#post6811761

It is both on topic and quite interesting.

[Hellbound]

Xtian is like USian, it's a lame attempt at trying to disparage someone while trying to seem superior doing it. It seldom comes across that way.

Like "new atheist"?

No, not like "new atheist". Because mikeyx's staement is actually true for "new atheist"....not so much for Xtian. But I doubt he'll bother to find out the actual history of it, or meaning behind it.

[Dancing David]

South East Texas. During Christmas times the vandalism gets worse but at least then the news covers it. The rest of the year no one hears about it because the news doesn't care about it then. Only around the Christian holidays will the news report on it.



How do you know they are atheists, sounds like teen agers?

[Dancing David]

It's the "lack of belief" that causes people to do crimes. The lack of belief they will get caught, the lack of belief that it is against their own paradigm in their head, the lack of belief that they will face justice due to trying to abuse the mental ill status quo of judgement in court, the lack of belief that any thing they do is immoral.

I mean if you have a lack of belief in anything than for some that includes a lack of belief even in the laws of the land.

You see how dangerous that could be? I mean some aetheists are level headed but for a crazy person the "lack of belief" system sounds like an awesome cop out to them.

The Jared guy had a lack of belief for many things.....I can go on and on....

Um, the basis of crime is an inability to empathize with other people. Are you saying that Catholics who commit crimes are atheists?

[Dancing David]

Xtian is not a word.

You are right, it is Xian. Just like Xmas.

[Gawdzilla]

How do you know they are atheists, sounds like teen agers?

He knows nothing. He makes up crap.

[Foster Zygote]

I quoted it, not create it.

And you think someone here created the abbreviation "Xtian"?

At any rate, you certainly did create this, way back in post #4 (the same post in which you implied that you were not trolling, but rather that atheists found your question too inconvenient to answer).

New Atheists have admittedly not killed anyone, but they have in the case of a Father trying to change the wording of Pledge of Allegiance, tried changing things legally, and every Holiday season somewhere there's a Atheist group complaining about the Xtian's and their displays on the town green. Wouldn't be easier to make an Atheist symbol and just display next to the Cross and the Menora?

You clearly presented this case as an example of the "new atheist" behavior as defined in the OP. I responded by stating,

Again, you're just using one simple, universal label to apply to any atheist at your convenience. How does protesting the unconstitutional imposition of religious speech in a public school warrant lumping an individual in with every other "new atheist"?

Then you wrote,
NOPE. The definition of New Atheist and the largely founders of the Movement have been clearly stated. How is what the father did any different than what Fundie Christians have attempted legally? Conceptually they're the same thing, without the potential observation that the Father is potentially interfering with the daughter's right to choose by imposing atheism on here. The point you seem to be having with is, it works both ways.

Then I responded,
Many Christians and other theists support the separation of church and state. The difference is that the father was not trying to impose any specific belief, or lack thereof, on anyone else. He was simply trying to get the state to uphold the constitutional protection of all beliefs by restricting the state endorsement of any beliefs.

Let me ask you this: How is the state imposition of theism on an atheist any different than imposing Christianity on a Jew, or Buddhism on a Muslim? Do Jews have to sit quietly and not complain if Christianity is imposed on them by a public institution? Do they get labeled as "new Jews", or is it just atheists?

And that's as far as it got. That was back on page two. I can only conclude that you are doing what you had the temerity to accuse others of doing: dodging the question. Like I said, if you'd just admitted your error you would have earned respect from myself and many others. Avoiding the issue just looks bad.

[slingblade]

Xtian is like USian, it's a lame attempt at trying to disparage someone while trying to seem superior doing it.



You don't know that these abbreviations are hundreds of years old, and first created by Christians, and used in Christian writings, do you?

Instead, you claim that modern atheists made them up to use against you as a taunt.

Your credibility was never strong. Now, it's nonexistent. You not only don't know what you're talking about, you don't care if you know. You'd rather remain ignorant, if ignorance helps you score points.

That's actually rather sad. Isn't it?

[slingblade]

It's the "lack of belief" that causes people to do crimes. The lack of belief they will get caught, the lack of belief that it is against their own paradigm in their head, the lack of belief that they will face justice due to trying to abuse the mental ill status quo of judgement in court, the lack of belief that any thing they do is immoral.

I mean if you have a lack of belief in anything than for some that includes a lack of belief even in the laws of the land.

You see how dangerous that could be? I mean some aetheists are level headed but for a crazy person the "lack of belief" system sounds like an awesome cop out to them.


How easy is it to do wrong when you believe you'll be forgiven for it if you ask?

You see how dangerous that could be? I mean, some religious people are level headed, but for a crazy person, the "forgiveness" system sounds like an awesome cop out to them.

You could get some woman hanging and burning her pet dog because it chewed her bible, and all she has to do is say she did it to protect God's holy word from the devil.

You could have a pastor of a huge church get caught having sex with a male prostitute and using meth, and all he has to do is say he went to counseling and God forgave him.

Do you see how this can be abused? I mean, one can't even ask this God to verify any forgiveness was granted or deserved. We just have to take the criminal's word for it. Yeah, sure, and we can trust them, right?

[mikeyx]

You don't know that these abbreviations are hundreds of years old, and first created by Christians, and used in Christian writings, do you?

Instead, you claim that modern atheists made them up to use against you as a taunt.

Your credibility was never strong. Now, it's nonexistent. You not only don't know what you're talking about, you don't care if you know. You'd rather remain ignorant, if ignorance helps you score points.

That's actually rather sad. Isn't it?

nope, your closedmindedness is, why I dont take many of you seriously. there ya go

[slingblade]

nope, your closedmindedness is, why I dont take many of you seriously. there ya go

You've made it painfully clear that you'd rather remain ignorant so you can score points.

You really couldn't be bothered to open your own mind to the possibility you might be mistaken about those abbreviations?

You didn't want to even consider that you could be wrong?

You closed your mind to the opportunity to learn?

[AdinDraco]

nope, your closedmindedness is, why I dont take many of you seriously. there ya go

Ok, but you haven't actually addressed the point beyond name-calling back at someone you consider is name-calling you.

To be clear - do you understand and agree that these abbreviations are actual "official" abbreviations, created by christians, and used in the correct context the majority of the time. I was actually surprised to learn that whenever I wrote xmas instead of christmas, I wasn't just using less letters, I was using a term that could be argued to be more religious.

I found this out by a respected - and appropriately educated - atheist that I follow reporting of believers objecting to the xmas abbreviation and facepalming at the fact that these believers don't know their own supposed history.

[joobz]

nope, your closedmindedness is, why I dont take many of you seriously. there ya go
Why do you keep avoiding answering the on topic questions?

[Foster Zygote]

nope, your closedmindedness is, why I dont take many of you seriously. there ya go

Refusing to address your own errors doesn't make them go away.

[Gawdzilla]

This thread is a perfect example of something I've been muttering under my breath for a while now:

This is the wrong forum for bluffing.

[tsig]

This thread is a perfect example of something I've been muttering under my breath for a while now:

This is the wrong forum for bluffing.

That's because it costs nothing to call.

[Gawdzilla]

That's because it costs nothing to call.

Yep, and people will do it readily. So a good idea would to not bluff if you don't want your ass handed to you.

[Dancing David]

Xtian is not a word.

What do you call Germany and Fierenza? Or Venizia, maybe Nihon?

[Dancing David]

Lets start in PM, if you're open to that.

He asked them in public, so now you are going private? Sure.

[I Am The Scum]

I can't believe you guys are still trying to have this discussion with an admitted troll.

[Mister Agenda]

Xtian is like USian, it's a lame attempt at trying to disparage someone while trying to seem superior doing it. It seldom comes across that way.

What's offensive about 'USian'? It's shorter than 'American'. It means exactly the same thing as 'American'. I don't get how it's supposed to disparage me.

Do any other USians here think the term is disparaging? Does it have a special history I don't know about that makes it insulting?

[Mister Agenda]

I can't believe you guys are still trying to have this discussion with an admitted troll.

The subforum would wither and die without them, and if we don't feed them they won't come back.

[Dancing David]

What's offensive about 'USian'? It's shorter than 'American'. It means exactly the same thing as 'American'. I don't get how it's supposed to disparage me.

Do any other USians here think the term is disparaging? Does it have a special history I don't know about that makes it insulting?

I prefers USers

[mikeyx]

I can't believe you guys are still trying to have this discussion with an admitted troll.

kinda silly, idnt it?

[joobz]

kinda silly, idnt it?
If you wish not to simply and foolishly waste your time, please feel free to respond to this post.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6811761#post6811761

[Gawdzilla]

I prefers USers

USvsTHEMs.

[Foster Zygote]

If you wish not to simply and foolishly waste your time, please feel free to respond to this post.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6811761#post6811761

He obviously can't. Not without embarrassing himself, anyway. Hence the "it was all a troll" bailout in an attempt to save face.

Sling was correct, it is rather sad.

[mikeyx]

You've made it painfully clear that you'd rather remain ignorant so you can score points.

You really couldn't be bothered to open your own mind to the possibility you might be mistaken about those abbreviations?

You didn't want to even consider that you could be wrong?

You closed your mind to the opportunity to learn?

nope, I started this as maybe a half troll, yet the responses were as predictable as I would have expected and I just cant some of you seriously. Any wanting a serious discussion about the obvious, fundies can be religious atheist can turn the tide anytime, but the gawdzilla type predictability proves my point.

[mikeyx]

This thread is a perfect example of something I've been muttering under my breath for a while now:

This is the wrong forum for bluffing.

noones bluffing, yer just proving me right. Thanks

[Resume]

nope, I started this as maybe a half troll, yet the responses were as predictable as I would have expected and I just cant some of you seriously. Any wanting a serious discussion about the obvious, fundies can be religious atheist can turn the tide anytime, but the gawdzilla type predictability proves my point.

Currently, you don't have a point. Re-state your OP, with evidence, or be honest and shut this biotch down.

[joobz]

nope, I started this as maybe a half troll, yet the responses were as predictable as I would have expected and I just cant some of you seriously.
Rational thought, to its credit, is very predictable.

Any wanting a serious discussion about the obvious, fundies can be religious atheist can turn the tide anytime, but the gawdzilla type predictability proves my point.
I've tried to engage you in serious discussion. Why do you avoid this?

[eerok]

I can't believe you guys are still trying to have this discussion with an admitted troll.
He's not really a troll, though. He's playing the troll card to pretend that his OP wasn't glaringly ridiculous.

[mikeyx]

Currently, you don't have a point. Re-state your OP, with evidence, or be honest and shut this biotch down.

I posted a definition of new atheism, comparable to other fundamentalism, the atheists here reacted predictably and have been jumping through hoops since. I have yet to deny this.....

[mikeyx]

He's not really a troll, though. He's playing the troll card to pretend that his OP wasn't glaringly ridiculous.

is it or are you just blind?

[Foster Zygote]

is it or are you just blind?

An interesting question.

"Many Christians and other theists support the separation of church and state. The difference is that the father was not trying to impose any specific belief, or lack thereof, on anyone else. He was simply trying to get the state to uphold the constitutional protection of all beliefs by restricting the state endorsement of any beliefs.

Let me ask you this: How is the state imposition of theism on an atheist any different than imposing Christianity on a Jew, or Buddhism on a Muslim? Do Jews have to sit quietly and not complain if Christianity is imposed on them by a public institution? Do they get labeled as "new Jews", or is it just atheists?"

[eerok]

is it or are you just blind?
No, your sweeping generalizations are in fact ridiculous. "Atheist" is such a general category that there's not much you can say about it. Just like "theist."

[devnull]

He's not really a troll, though. He's playing the troll card to pretend that his OP wasn't glaringly ridiculous.

Bingo!

[tsig]

I posted a definition of new atheism, comparable to other fundamentalism, the atheists here reacted predictably and have been jumping through hoops since. I have yet to deny this.....

When you go into any group of people and yell "YOU'RE ALL IDIOTS!", you can predict a negative reaction because if they are idiots they don't know they are and will resent you and if they're not idiots they're really resent you so you adopted a strategy designed to give you the reaction you wanted in order to confirm your bias.

[Gawdzilla]

He's not really a troll, though. He's playing the troll card to pretend that his OP wasn't glaringly ridiculous.

Petulantly dug in and going "la, la, la, la."

[mikeyx]

An interesting question.

"Many Christians and other theists support the separation of church and state. The difference is that the father was not trying to impose any specific belief, or lack thereof, on anyone else. He was simply trying to get the state to uphold the constitutional protection of all beliefs by restricting the state endorsement of any beliefs.

Let me ask you this: How is the state imposition of theism on an atheist any different than imposing Christianity on a Jew, or Buddhism on a Muslim? Do Jews have to sit quietly and not complain if Christianity is imposed on them by a public institution? Do they get labeled as "new Jews", or is it just atheists?"

another question; why do you assume I'm a Christian? It might be a wee bit more complicated than that.

[mikeyx]

When you go into any group of people and yell "YOU'RE ALL IDIOTS!", you can predict a negative reaction because if they are idiots they don't know they are and will resent you and if they're not idiots they're really resent you so you adopted a strategy designed to give you the reaction you wanted in order to confirm your bias.

Thats one helluva an admission.

[mikeyx]

Petulantly dug in and going "la, la, la, la."

zero credibility as you, are as what you call me. In such a hypocrite as well.

[Dancing David]

nope, I started this as maybe a half troll, yet the responses were as predictable as I would have expected and I just cant some of you seriously. Any wanting a serious discussion about the obvious, fundies can be religious atheist can turn the tide anytime, but the gawdzilla type predictability proves my point.

Considering that many athesists have not behaved that way, you have not made your point.

[Dancing David]

another question; why do you assume I'm a Christian? It might be a wee bit more complicated than that.

Um I would say that you are anti evidence and must belong to a very vague religion, udefined and unexplained.

[joobz]

another question; why do you assume I'm a Christian? It might be a wee bit more complicated than that.
I saw nothing in his post that suggested such an claim.

Now, please answer the question.

[eerok]

why do you assume I'm a Christian?
Does anyone assume that? You do realize that jerks are jerks whether they're theist, atheist, or agnostic, right?

[tsig]

When you go into any group of people and yell "YOU'RE ALL IDIOTS!", you can predict a negative reaction because if they are idiots they don't know they are and will resent you and if they're not idiots they're really resent you so you adopted a strategy designed to give you the reaction you wanted in order to confirm your bias.

Thats one helluva an admission.

I pointed out that you adapted a strategy designed to give you the result you wanted so your post is a complete non sequitur.

[mikeyx]

I pointed out that you adapted a strategy designed to give you the result you wanted so your post is a complete non sequitur.

nope, through the trees the forest eludes you.

[tsig]

nope, through the trees the forest eludes you.

This sentence eludes meaning.

[Gawdzilla]

This sentence eludes meaning.

Don't bother. He has to post something every time someone replies. He's given up on content and is just posting babble. If you want to have some fun, respond in kind repeatedly until he collapses.

[Foster Zygote]

another question; why do you assume I'm a Christian? It might be a wee bit more complicated than that.

You appear to have difficulty with reading comprehension. Nowhere in that post did I state, or even imply, that I thought you to be a Christian. If you disagree, please point out where you believe that I did.

[mikeyx]

This sentence eludes meaning.

yours, yes, it does

[mikeyx]

You appear to have difficulty with reading comprehension. Nowhere in that post did I state, or even imply, that I thought you to be a Christian. If you disagree, please point out where you believe that I did.

Then you are if fact denying the atheists are incapable of being fundies? Please....

[dafydd]

yours, yes, it does

That eludes meaning too. Where did you learn grammar?

[joobz]

Then you are if fact denying the atheists are incapable of being fundies? Please....I think I know what you meant to type. But in any event, it is a non sequitur.

[John Jones]

Then you are if fact denying the atheists are incapable of being fundies? Please....


Huh?

[John Jones]

yours, yes, it does


154?:confused:

[Foster Zygote]

Then you are if fact denying the atheists are incapable of being fundies? Please....

What are you on about? Seriously, you aren't making the least bit of sense. Your reply has nothing to do with what I wrote.

[Gawdzilla]

154?:confused:

Sniff, sniff.

[Lord Emsworth]

Then you are if fact denying the atheists are incapable of being fundies? Please....

"Oh tangled is the web [of negations] we weave ..." :p

[Mister Agenda]

Definition of fundamentalist:

1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.
2.
a. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
b. Adherence to the theology of this movement.

You can't call an atheist a fundamentalist unless you change the definition. Of course, some people have no problem using their own definitions for things so long as it allows them so get the effect they want; in this case, attaching a word that many atheists find to represent the worst of religion to atheists themselves.

[noreligion]

Definition of fundamentalist:

1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.
2.
a. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
b. Adherence to the theology of this movement.

You can't call an atheist a fundamentalist unless you change the definition. Of course, some people have no problem using their own definitions for things so long as it allows them so get the effect they want; in this case, attaching a word that many atheists find to represent the worst of religion to atheists themselves.

I'm an atheist myself (username gives it away). You gotta admit that adding the word new onto atheist kinda smells like the same type of ploy that was used by taking the original bible and adding a new testament.

[mikeyx]

Definition of fundamentalist:

1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.
2.
a. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
b. Adherence to the theology of this movement.

You can't call an atheist a fundamentalist unless you change the definition. Of course, some people have no problem using their own definitions for things so long as it allows them so get the effect they want; in this case, attaching a word that many atheists find to represent the worst of religion to atheists themselves.

The definition is biased, because fundy atheists display often the mechanics, it's like saying a black person cant be racist, which is crap, anyone can be racist, anyone, yes even atheists can be fundy. And given the evangelical nature of some atheists, kinda comes across with a religious fervor of its own. Atheism a religion? Maybe.

[tsig]

I'm an atheist myself (username gives it away). You gotta admit that adding the word new onto atheist kinda smells like the same type of ploy that was used by taking the original bible and adding a new testament.

'Gnu atheists' is the correct term. Get with the program or we'll have to cancel your non-membership in our non-club. If that happens I'm afraid your life will continue precisely the same as if we didn't.:)

[tsig]

The definition is biased, because fundy atheists display often the mechanics, it's like saying a black person cant be racist, which is crap, anyone can be racist, anyone, yes even atheists can be fundy. And given the evangelical nature of some atheists, kinda comes across with a religious fervor of its own. Atheism a religion? Maybe.

Could you post a link to these evangelical atheists?

[Foster Zygote]

Mikeyx, if I strip my query down to a single question, might I get a response?

Are parents who protest the unconstitutional imposition of religious speech in their children's schools "Obnoxious ******* forcing their opinions where they may not be wanted"?

[Gawdzilla]

'Gnu atheists' is the correct term. Get with the program or we'll have to cancel your non-membership in our non-club. If that happens I'm afraid your life will continue precisely the same as if we didn't.:)

And then he'll have to turn in the stamps he didn't collect.

[mikeyx]

Could you post a link to these evangelical atheists?

some of you should look in the mirror.

[joobz]

some of you should look in the mirror.
So, no links or examples?

Making unsupported assertions is not a very effective argument strategy.

[Sledge]

nope, through the trees the forest eludes you.

The forest endures while wise man climb ladder.

[Dancing David]

nope, through the trees the forest eludes you.

Through the lack of evidence of the behavior of atheists and the undefined behavior of how many of those atheists do what, your argument is a will of the wisp, a fog, a mirage and just you making stuff up.

A forest there is not (in terms of any evidence there is a blank page) , though there may be a bridge over the stream...

[Dancing David]

Then you are if fact denying the atheists are incapable of being fundies? Please....

Not at all, the issue is who, what and where. The set of people who outright deny any possibility of god vs. those who deny any evidence of the existence of god are not the same set.

That you have yet to establish what any of the terms means is eluding you.

[Agatha]

Mikeyx, what are the fundamentals of atheism, that you contend these "New Atheists" insist upon and impose on others?

[eerok]

I think mikeyx is a fundie agnostic.

[joobz]

I think mikeyx is a fundie agnostic.
No.
I think he's a New Agnostic.

[Gawdzilla]

No.
I think he's a New Agnostic.

Which he will admit is the same as the Fundies.

[tsig]

some of you should look in the mirror.

Preach it, brother preach it! Can we get an amen on that?

[Mister Agenda]

The definition is biased, because fundy atheists display often the mechanics, it's like saying a black person cant be racist, which is crap, anyone can be racist, anyone, yes even atheists can be fundy. And given the evangelical nature of some atheists, kinda comes across with a religious fervor of its own. Atheism a religion? Maybe.

It's a definition in accord with the definition of fundamentalism given by the religious fundamentalists themselves. It pre-dates by decades the new definition you are trying to impose.

There are many words you could use in place of fundamentalist without redefintion: strident, activist, uppity, even evangelical. But you want to use fundamentalist AND you want us to agree that it is the right word to use. Why?

And don't get me started on how much you have to mutilate the definition of 'religion' to make atheism one.

[mikeyx]

I think this should jump to Abandon All Hope as the deriders of of my obvious logic have derailed the thread. It's the only thing you should do at this point.

[Foster Zygote]

I think this should jump to Abandon All Hope as the deriders of of my obvious logic have derailed the thread. It's the only thing you should do at this point.

There is no need to send this thread to AAH. There are still pertinent questions regarding your own statements that you have yet to address. Or is that why you would like to see this thread buried?

[mikeyx]

There is no need to send this thread to AAH. There are still pertinent questions regarding your own statements that you have yet to address. Or is that why you would like to see this thread buried?

Nah, you guys have done a complete derail, stick a fork.

[tsig]

[quoting wikipedia's article on The New Atheism] In his 2008 book I Don't Believe in Atheists (retitled When Atheism Becomes Religion: America's New Fundamentalists for the paperback),[24] journalist and author Chris Hedges argues that there is nothing inherently moral about being either a believer or a nonbeliever. He goes a step further by accusing atheists in general and New Atheists in particular of being as intolerant, chauvinistic, bigoted, anti-intellectual, and self-righteous as their archrivals, religious fundamentalists—in other words, as being secular versions of the religious right

My point is pretty much spelled out in the quote. There is among a good number of the posters here, a seemingly "New Atheist" mindset. The point often missed seemingly is, well quoted. You don't believe, that's your right. But in your dislike of the fundies, be they Christian, Muslim, faith of your choice, and I am not in any way advocating their side, in the quest to rescue the religious from their own pathetic ignorance, many atheists come off sounding oddly familiar. They kinda sound like the very thing they claim to oppose.

In a more moderate, you have a right to be a believer, nonbeliever, or agnostic, bit it's still a personal thing and any group, imposing it's mindset really is any better than any other, overbearing Atheists included right alongside the Falwells, the Robertsons, and the Bin Ladens.

Thoughts?[/QUOTE]

Nah, you guys have done a complete derail, stick a fork.

First you ask for them now they're a derail.

Never ask for thoughts unless you're willing to do some yourself.

[Foster Zygote]

Nah, you guys have done a complete derail, stick a fork.

How is it a derail to ask you why someone who is asking the government to uphold the constitutional establishment of separations of church and state is an example of a "new atheist" behaving like an "obnoxious ******* forcing his opinions where they may not be wanted"?

You've offered nothing but evasion and claims that you were just trolling the forum, what we might call the "I only pooped my pants so that you would have to smell it" defense.

The only thing you have managed to demonstrate with this thread is your own intellectual dishonesty and your inability to construct a cogent argument.

[Sledge]

No.
I think he's a New Agnostic.

I hate those guys! Trying to rescue atheists from their own pathetic ignorance but coming off sounding oddly familiar. They kinda sound like the very thing they claim to oppose.

[tsig]

I hate those guys! Trying to rescue atheists from their own pathetic ignorance but coming off sounding oddly familiar. They kinda sound like the very thing they claim to oppose.

Whatever that is.

[joobz]

Nah, you guys have done a complete derail, stick a fork.
It's impossible to derail a thread in which the OP poster refuses to remain on topic.

Prove me wrong, and answer Foster Zygote's questions.

[mikeyx]

It's impossible to derail a thread in which the OP poster refuses to remain on topic.

Prove me wrong, and answer Foster Zygote's questions.

nope derail.

[Sledge]

What about the chainsaws, mikeyx? Does the wise man see them?

[slingblade]

nope derail.

Nope, avoidance.

[joobz]

nope derail.
Are you claiming that answering Foster Zygote's question would be a derail?

[slingblade]

I don't think he's claiming anything. I think he's running away, and using "derail" as an excuse to stop engaging.

It's like that game I used to play in school. At lunch, we'd pick a common word that could hardly be avoided, and declare it the "it" word. Anyone who came up to us after that, and who said the "it" word, had to be ignored. But they didn't know what the "it" word was; only we did. So today, the "it" word is "milk," and Suzy says, I hate milk! and now no one will talk to Suzy and she doesn't know why.

Today's "it" word is "derail," and now that it's been said, Mikey can't talk to us no mo'.
Kids are so much fun, aren't they? :D

[LightningTeg]

In his 2008 book I Don't Believe in Atheists (retitled When Atheism Becomes Religion: America's New Fundamentalists for the paperback),[24] journalist and author Chris Hedges argues that there is nothing inherently moral about being either a believer or a nonbeliever. He goes a step further by accusing atheists in general and New Atheists in particular of being as intolerant, chauvinistic, bigoted, anti-intellectual, and self-righteous as their archrivals, religious fundamentalists—in other words, as being secular versions of the religious right

My point is pretty much spelled out in the quote. There is among a good number of the posters here, a seemingly "New Atheist" mindset. The point often missed seemingly is, well quoted. You don't believe, that's your right. But in your dislike of the fundies, be they Christian, Muslim, faith of your choice, and I am not in any way advocating their side, in the quest to rescue the religious from their own pathetic ignorance, many atheists come off sounding oddly familiar. They kinda sound like the very thing they claim to oppose.

In a more moderate, you have a right to be a believer, nonbeliever, or agnostic, bit it's still a personal thing and any group, imposing it's mindset really is any better than any other, overbearing Atheists included right alongside the Falwells, the Robertsons, and the Bin Ladens.

Thoughts?

Well as Richard Dawkins puts it, religion is keeping civilization from progressing as a whole.

[eerok]

I don't think he's claiming anything. I think he's running away, and using "derail" as an excuse to stop engaging.
Then it seems he's not any better at running away than he was in presenting his argument. Wouldn't the obvious exit be for him to just stop posting?

I'd rather see him try to make a case that wasn't just a blanket smear of atheism.

[slingblade]

Then it seems he's not any better at running away than he was in presenting his argument. Wouldn't the obvious exit be for him to just stop posting?

Methinks thou dost expect too much. ;)

I'd rather see him try to make a case that wasn't just a blanket smear of atheism.

When your argument devolves to "get the last word in," there isn't any case left that you can make.

[mikeyx]

Are you claiming that answering Foster Zygote's question would be a derail?

nope I asked for opinions about the definition and got nothing but the usual crap, I'm bored with my own thread, are you happy now. Just the same know it all bullpuckey.

[epeeist]

Well as Richard Dawkins puts it, religion is keeping civilization from progressing as a whole.

Well, as Jesus puts it, [etc.]

Was my point too subtle?

Are you saying that based upon the arguments Dawkings puts forth, which you've independently read and considered and thought about, and based upon your studies of history and modern civilization, you agree with him?

Or are you simply throwing in a pithy quote from a leader figure as a substitute for thinking for yourself? :p

I am Roman Catholic, but I don't merely accept what the church says Jesus taught, I question. To the extent I can I read and study religion and theology (and ontology) including other religions (as well as some non-religious ethics like Kant, having started with the introduction to it in "Simpsons Guide to Philosophy" ;) ), including criticisms. I agree with the church teaching about most things, not others (except for a very few religious dogmas, one may disagree and still be a "good Catholic", and indeed it is one's moral duty to not merely "follow orders").

Having done that, Christianity, following Jesus' teachings and principles, and specifically Catholicism, makes the most sense to me. Atheism doesn't - agnosticism does logically make sense to me, and in a sense almost any religious believer is an agnostic to some extent, but that's a more complicated discussion.

[Foster Zygote]

nope I asked for opinions about the definition and got nothing but the usual crap, I'm bored with my own thread, are you happy now. Just the same know it all bullpuckey.
You did get opinions about the definition. I, for example, opined that the term was just another derogatory label used as an excuse to dismiss the views of members of a group rather than engage with them and evaluate their views on an individual basis.

Then I directly addressed your very own statement offered as support of the validity of the definition. You have offered nothing but evasion in return.

You even claimed that the term "Xtian" was created by non-Christians specifically as a derogatory label for Christians. After being shown that this claim is false, you refused to admit any error.

Perhaps you are as yet simply too immature or uneducated to adequately engage in such discourse as this. Whatever the case may be, you can't blame anyone else for the failure of your presentation.

[Foster Zygote]

Having done that, Christianity, following Jesus' teachings and principles, and specifically Catholicism, makes the most sense to me. Atheism doesn't - agnosticism does logically make sense to me, and in a sense almost any religious believer is an agnostic to some extent, but that's a more complicated discussion.

[Mikeyx, the above post is an example you might wish to study.]

I think you'll find that most of the atheists on this forum would consider themselves to be agnostic as well. It is rare, in my experience, to encounter someone claiming to be a gnostic atheist, at least in this forum.

[joobz]

nope I asked for opinions about the definition and got nothing but the usual crap, I'm bored with my own thread, are you happy now. Just the same know it all bullpuckey.

you received those opinions. multiple times. It seems your "boredom" kicked in when your original premise was found to be error ridden.

It is a common approach to claim disinterest when one has no ability to defend one's position. It provides a means of deceiving one self into thinking they weren't found to be lacking.

[dlorde]

I am Roman Catholic, but I don't merely accept what the church says Jesus taught, I question.
...
Having done that, Christianity, following Jesus' teachings and principles, and specifically Catholicism, makes the most sense to me.

I grew up in the Roman Catholic tradition - but it never made much sense to me, and makes less as I grow older... Strange how it 'takes' in some people but not in others.

Didn't Jesus say that to follow him you should sell all your worldly goods and give them to the poor?

[Foster Zygote]

I grew up in the Roman Catholic tradition - but it never made much sense to me, and makes less as I grow older... Strange how it 'takes' in some people but not in others.

Didn't Jesus say that to follow him you should sell all your worldly goods and give them to the poor?
The Vatican knows all about poverty. It has many priceless works of art depicting it.

Stephen Colbert

[epeeist]

The Vatican knows all about poverty. It has many priceless works of art depicting it.

Stephen Colbert

Excellent example. From what I've read, Stephen Colbert is a fairly observant Catholic. It doesn't mean he's humorless, or uncritical of the institution.

A brief, incomplete response. Shouldn't the poor - not just the rich - be able to go and see beautiful religious art and architecture if they want, be able to go to a nice church? Unlike most museums and galleries, churches don't charge admission (collection is voluntary, and not taken at most weekday masses). Go when the church is open and not celebrating a mass if you don't want that part. Food for the soul, not just the body. The Vatican library has many valuable documents and makes it available to academic researchers generally (e.g. historians etc., not just religious researchers). Should the collection be broken up and sold piecemeal to collectors?

[tsig]

nope I asked for opinions about the definition and got nothing but the usual crap, I'm bored with my own thread, are you happy now. Just the same know it all bullpuckey.

And you are an expert in bullpuckey?

[tsig]

Well, as Jesus puts it, [etc.]

Was my point too subtle?

Are you saying that based upon the arguments Dawkings puts forth, which you've independently read and considered and thought about, and based upon your studies of history and modern civilization, you agree with him?

Or are you simply throwing in a pithy quote from a leader figure as a substitute for thinking for yourself? :p

I am Roman Catholic, but I don't merely accept what the church says Jesus taught, I question. To the extent I can I read and study religion and theology (and ontology) including other religions (as well as some non-religious ethics like Kant, having started with the introduction to it in "Simpsons Guide to Philosophy" ;) ), including criticisms. I agree with the church teaching about most things, not others (except for a very few religious dogmas, one may disagree and still be a "good Catholic", and indeed it is one's moral duty to not merely "follow orders").

Having done that, Christianity, following Jesus' teachings and principles, and specifically Catholicism, makes the most sense to me. Atheism doesn't - agnosticism does logically make sense to me, and in a sense almost any religious believer is an agnostic to some extent, but that's a more complicated discussion.

You don't accept the pope as infallible?

[epeeist]

I grew up in the Roman Catholic tradition - but it never made much sense to me, and makes less as I grow older... Strange how it 'takes' in some people but not in others.

Didn't Jesus say that to follow him you should sell all your worldly goods and give them to the poor?

Catholic - as distinct from some Protestant - methods of Biblical interpretation is too look at the whole Bible for meaning, not quoting isolated bits.

Jesus dined with sinners, including tax collectors. He celebrated the wedding at Cana (and provided more wine to help the celebration...). He rebuked Judas for his criticism of the woman who provided unguent ("...the poor will always be with us..."). Etc.

[tsig]

Excellent example. From what I've read, Stephen Colbert is a fairly observant Catholic. It doesn't mean he's humorless, or uncritical of the institution.

A brief, incomplete response. Shouldn't the poor - not just the rich - be able to go and see beautiful religious art and architecture if they want, be able to go to a nice church? Unlike most museums and galleries, churches don't charge admission (collection is voluntary, and not taken at most weekday masses). Go when the church is open and not celebrating a mass if you don't want that part. Food for the soul, not just the body. The Vatican library has many valuable documents and makes it available to academic researchers generally (e.g. historians etc., not just religious researchers). Should the collection be broken up and sold piecemeal to collectors?

Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go [and] sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come [and] follow me.


For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.


No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.


I think Jesus said 'yes'.

[mikeyx]

You did get opinions about the definition. I, for example, opined that the term was just another derogatory label used as an excuse to dismiss the views of members of a group rather than engage with them and evaluate their views on an individual basis.

Then I directly addressed your very own statement offered as support of the validity of the definition. You have offered nothing but evasion in return.

You even claimed that the term "Xtian" was created by non-Christians specifically as a derogatory label for Christians. After being shown that this claim is false, you refused to admit any error.

Perhaps you are as yet simply too immature or uneducated to adequately engage in such discourse as this. Whatever the case may be, you can't blame anyone else for the failure of your presentation.

nope

[dlorde]

Catholic - as distinct from some Protestant - methods of Biblical interpretation is too look at the whole Bible for meaning, not quoting isolated bits.
Oh, you mean like broad generalisations as opposed to cherry-picking?

Jesus dined with sinners, including tax collectors. He celebrated the wedding at Cana (and provided more wine to help the celebration...). He rebuked Judas for his criticism of the woman who provided unguent ("...the poor will always be with us..."). Etc.

Yeah, he sounds like a nice enough guy; but he did really say to sell up and give everything to the poor, didn't he? If not, how can you be sure he really did all that other stuff?

[LightningTeg]

Well, as Jesus puts it, [etc.]

Was my point too subtle?

Are you saying that based upon the arguments Dawkings puts forth, which you've independently read and considered and thought about, and based upon your studies of history and modern civilization, you agree with him?

Or are you simply throwing in a pithy quote from a leader figure as a substitute for thinking for yourself? :p

I am Roman Catholic, but I don't merely accept what the church says Jesus taught, I question. To the extent I can I read and study religion and theology (and ontology) including other religions (as well as some non-religious ethics like Kant, having started with the introduction to it in "Simpsons Guide to Philosophy" ;) ), including criticisms. I agree with the church teaching about most things, not others (except for a very few religious dogmas, one may disagree and still be a "good Catholic", and indeed it is one's moral duty to not merely "follow orders").

Having done that, Christianity, following Jesus' teachings and principles, and specifically Catholicism, makes the most sense to me. Atheism doesn't - agnosticism does logically make sense to me, and in a sense almost any religious believer is an agnostic to some extent, but that's a more complicated discussion.

So you assume that because I used Dawkins as an example that I simply follow his ideology aimlessly? No, I came to aetheism on my own. I can honestly say I tryed to believe in god, even participated in a christian organization outside school, but it just didnt click. I just happen to stumble across dawkins material while surfing the net.

How can you be a catholic and not follow all of the beliefs? That's one main issue I have with religion. You guys pick and choose things out of the book to follow so that it conforms with today's morals.

I am not intolerant of anyone, regardless of religion. You can believe in anything you want, as long as it doesnt effect me. Whatever gets you to sleep at night I guess. I prefer reason and evidence, not fairy tales written thousands of years ago when people wanted answers and science couldnt give it to them.

[joobz]

nope
How unfortunate it is that that is the best response you have provided.

[jhunter1163]

A bunch of silliness has gone to AAH. Also, the topic called; it wants all you fine folks to come back.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well as Richard Dawkins puts it, religion is keeping civilization from progressing as a whole.Two steps forward, one step back seems to the be current pattern.

[HarvardVegan]

I conclude with, "If we don't know, we don't know."

[Gawdzilla]

Re the OP, we're still waiting for a sensible reason to compare atheists to fundies.

To provide something of a baseline, here's some fundies in action, in Afghanistan:

a4xrpjR0_0o

[joobz]

They are one and the same, and you can't prove otherwise.
Sure, as they are completely made up terms, you are free to make them equal. I have no quibble with the terms that you use.


I fear nothing, yet you insult. I have give the zygote's point the credit it's due. Your derails fails.
I haven't insulted you. I've only pointed out that you have avoided addressing a very ON TOPIC question.

Do you consider a father who is attempting to use our government system to uphold the separation of church and state as a "Fundie atheist"?
it's a yes or no question.

If you do, then it ends the discussion of the thread. Afterall, it makes it clear that your only goal is to apply a label to place on people so you can dismiss their arguments without rational thought. It's dishonest tactic and typically only used by those who don't have a rational basis to argue from.

If you don't actually categorize such an individual as a fundie atheist, then there may still be a discussion to be had. As we can start to identify who you are talking about.

[Foster Zygote]

That's not what we're talking about and a sad attempt at a derail,...
It is exactly what we were talking about. You introduced the subject yourself when you said, "New Atheists have admittedly not killed anyone, but they have in the case of a Father trying to change the wording of Pledge of Allegiance, tried changing things legally...". You can't introduce a subject in support of your claims and then declare any response to your own statements to be a derail just because you realize too late that you can't defend your assertion. Well, you can, but it looks really bad.


...we were talking about how Fundy Atheists, scourge that they are, are no different than the fundy Christians they cry about on a daily basis, and the rest is your own obsession.
And in talking about this claim of yours you introduced an example. Why won't you address my points about the example that you introduced to the argument? Seeing as you have been evading this question since page two of this thread, allow me to tell you why I think you are avoiding this issue: You have been confronted with the fact that the separation of church and state is intended to protect everyone from having a religion not of their choice forced on them. It not only protects atheists from the imposition of Christianity, it protects Jews from the imposition of Christianity. It also protects Christians from the imposition of Islam and it protects Hindus from the imposition of Scientology. You realized that atheists aren't the only citizens of the US who value the separation of church and state, but you can't bring yourself to admit that you were wrong because you came into this thread with an adversarial attitude from the very start.

No, it's just a stupid attempt at revisionism, and often wrongly applied by the scourge that is the Fundy Atheists.
Did you read the link provided? It clearly shows that in the English language the abbreviation "Xtian" goes back at least as far as the mid 18th century. The use of an "X" to denote CHrist goes back even further.
http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k490/FosterZygote/150px-Simple_Labarum2svg.png

Why are you denying that thisquestion you ask in fact a troll?
When have I denied trolling?
How does that negate the fact that you and your buds are doing different? It doesn't because it's exactly what you're doing.
Once again you seem to have problems with reading comprehension. I made no pronouncements regarding Gawdzilla's posts, nor did I claim that you denied being a troll. I asked you why you were criticizing someone for a behavior that you have admitted doing yourself.

[LashL]

Several more posts have been moved to Abandon All Hope and a few have been infracted. Please, keep it civil, on topic, and try to keep the bickering to a minimum. Thanks in advance.

[epeeist]

So you assume that because I used Dawkins as an example that I simply follow his ideology aimlessly? No, I came to aetheism on my own. I can honestly say I tryed to believe in god, even participated in a christian organization outside school, but it just didnt click. I just happen to stumble across dawkins material while surfing the net.

How can you be a catholic and not follow all of the beliefs? That's one main issue I have with religion. You guys pick and choose things out of the book to follow so that it conforms with today's morals.

I am not intolerant of anyone, regardless of religion. You can believe in anything you want, as long as it doesnt effect me. Whatever gets you to sleep at night I guess. I prefer reason and evidence, not fairy tales written thousands of years ago when people wanted answers and science couldnt give it to them.

(I am quoting your post, but responding also to the Papal infallibility and Biblical interpretation ones.)

I was humorously introducing my post by making the point that quoting Dawkins doesn't prove a point anymore than (to many people on this board, at least!) quoting Jesus does (and their may also be quibbles with my use of the word "quoting" in that context... :rolleyes: ).

OVERSIMPLIFICATION WARNING

Being a Christian generally, and a Roman Catholic specifically, means accepting the Apostles Creed (and for Catholics, but not all Christians, the Nicene Creed also). A Catholic also accepts a number of other religious teachings, especially 7 dogmas.

Other religious teachings or doctrines, that aren't dogmas, a Catholic may disagree with and still be a "good" Catholic. This is subject to some conditions, e.g. start with a premise that the church is correct, examine, pray, discuss the issue, but if ultimately one considers Church teaching to be wrong, one is obliged to follow one's conscience even in contradiction to the Catholic church. Papal infallibility only applies to the Pope promulgating church teachings under very specific conditions. It certainly does NOT mean everything "religious" the Pope says is to be accepted by Catholics. By way of example, contrary to what some (including some religious groups) say, what Pope John Paul II said about ordination of women did not meet the conditions for an infallible teaching.

I think there is one 19th century nun venerated as a Saint, who was at one point in her life excommunicated by the local bishop...

On a different note, a "good" Catholic could be someone who believes a guy named Adam and a woman named Eve were created X thousand years ago. But the Catholic church teaching is more that the fall of Adam is not necessarily literally true, but is religiously true, and speaks of humanity's separating itself from relationship with God (by pride/arrogance especially). The Catholic church has no problem with the age of the universe or continental drift or evolution (i.e. God engaged in creation, it's not a Deistic view, but in terms of biological scientific analysis would be the same) etc.

My reference to Jesus, Judas and the unguent was that Biblically, honouring Jesus/God was not a "waste" of money in the same way that personal expenditure might be. So I see e.g. religious art and architecture, gold or silver chalices for Communion, etc. as being intended to honour God and different from non-religious property of value.

[joobz]

In describing examples of "New atheist/Fundie Atheist," A claim was made that a father was limiting choice on a child by fighting for separation of church and state.

I would still like to see a rational defense of this view. As yet, only assertions have been made.

[Mister Agenda]

I think he backed off on Newdow being an atheist fundie, just puritanical and restrictive of his children's choices. Which leaves us without an example of what he means.

[Foster Zygote]

In describing examples of "New atheist/Fundie Atheist," A claim was made that a father was limiting choice on a child by fighting for separation of church and state.

I would still like to see a rational defense of this view. As yet, only assertions have been made.

I think that a few posts were moved to AAH despite being a pertinent discussion of the subject as introduced by mikeyx. Namely his assertion that the father he mentioned was restricting his child's right to choose, a contention that he has not backed up with any evidence such as, say, a statement by the child that she wishes to have religion included in her school curricula. Plus his assertion that the father is imposing his will on others. I would like to know whom mikeyx feels is allowed to impose his views on others. Is a Catholic allowed to impose the Rosary on a Lutheran in a public school? Is a Muslim student SOL if her teachers happen to be Baptist and insist that the class pray to Jesus every morning? And how is anyone's right to choose infringed upon by declaring public institutions to be religiously neutral?

[A Laughing Baby]

Would not the exclusion of a religious phrase from a patriotic pledge of allegiance imply an increase in choice rather than a decrease? Surely, the exclusion of the phrase does not dictate a lack of religion to the child or even promote a lack of religion. If that were the case, the vast majority of human communication could be said to promote atheism since it doesn't speak of a god in it.

On the other hand, the inclusion of that phrase clearly indicates an implicit support of religion, christian or otherwise, which one would assume speaks to the child. I know it did to me. Does that increase the child's "choice?" If so, how? Do advertisements increase my choice at the grocery store? If I watch a show on, say, HBO with no ads, does that limit my choice at the grocery store?

[Foster Zygote]

I think he backed off on Newdow being an atheist fundie, just puritanical and restrictive of his children's choices. Which leaves us without an example of what he means.

I guess Christian parents who would protest having their children attend a public school in which the principal leads the students in Wiccan rituals on a regular basis are being puritanical and restrictive of their children's choices. Or does it only apply to some groups?

[mikeyx]

I think he backed off on Newdow being an atheist fundie, just puritanical and restrictive of his children's choices. Which leaves us without an example of what he means.

I did, but since the powers that be insist on butchering the thread to their biases, I'm done. Argue amongst yourselves.

[Foster Zygote]

I did, but since the powers that be insist on butchering the thread to their biases, I'm done. Argue amongst yourselves.

You're done attempting to defend your assertions? That's unfortunate. Not to worry, some of us will remain vigilant of the use of public resources to impose belief on others and will actively seek to promote the constitutional policy that assures that everyone in the United States is free to choose their own beliefs without having those of others inflicted upon them against their will.

[Jonnyclueless]

If the mods are going to keep chucking parts of their choosing into AAH this becomes pointless....

Point 1: Atheists have the same fundy potential as fundy religious folk;


No. People have the potential to be nuts. Them believing in gods or not is irrelevant. Are there nuts who happen to be Atheists? Of course. But you'll hvae a hard time finding any that use Atheism to justify their being nuts. As opposed to religious fundamentalists. You don't see many Atheists crashing planes into buildings or oppressing other people in the name of Atheism. But you'll see plenty of people doing that while shouting "God is great".

What is happening here is that you are aware of this but want to simply try to make a false implication that Atheists in general are on the same playing field as religious nuts. And since there is absolutely no way to rationally support such an absurd position you have to resort to literally pretend you're being treated unfairly. And by unfairly you mean by not being given special privileges over others.

[LightningTeg]

No. People have the potential to be nuts. Them believing in gods or not is irrelevant. Are there nuts who happen to be Atheists? Of course. But you'll hvae a hard time finding any that use Atheism to justify their being nuts. As opposed to religious fundamentalists. You don't see many Atheists crashing planes into buildings or oppressing other people in the name of Atheism. But you'll see plenty of people doing that while shouting "God is great".

What is happening here is that you are aware of this but want to simply try to make a false implication that Atheists in general are on the same playing field as religious nuts. And since there is absolutely no way to rationally support such an absurd position you have to resort to literally pretend you're being treated unfairly. And by unfairly you mean by not being given special privileges over others.

Good Post.

I've heard the argument that good examples of "atheistic fundamentalists" were Hitler and Stalin. While I'm pretty sure Hitler was Catholic, that its not even relevant to the point Im making.

Both Hitler and Stalin were evil men who happened to be aethiest (if even true). The driving force behind their motives was not atheism. How many criminals can you name that did whatever they did because they didn't believe in the flying spaghetti monster?

[Gawdzilla]

Good Post.

I've heard the argument that good examples of "atheistic fundamentalists" were Hitler and Stalin. While I'm pretty sure Hitler was Catholic, that its not even relevant to the point Im making.

Both Hitler and Stalin were evil men who happened to be aethiest (if even true). The driving force behind their motives was not atheism. How many criminals can you name that did whatever they did because they didn't believe in the flying spaghetti monster?

Hitler wasn't an atheist. There are countless examples of him calling on God to help in the struggle.

[Foster Zygote]

Good Post.

I've heard the argument that good examples of "atheistic fundamentalists" were Hitler and Stalin. While I'm pretty sure Hitler was Catholic, that its not even relevant to the point Im making.

Both Hitler and Stalin were evil men who happened to be aethiest (if even true). The driving force behind their motives was not atheism. How many criminals can you name that did whatever they did because they didn't believe in the flying spaghetti monster?

I've bolded the part that I am in complete agreement with. Imposed atheism was used by Stalinist states as a political tool to suppress rival power systems in the form of religion.

However, Hitler was most definitely not an atheist.

Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith ...we need believing people.

- Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933, speech made during negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican Concordant
We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.

- Adolf Hitler, Speech in Berlin, October 24, 1933

[pgwenthold]

If Hitler was an atheist, it really doesn't matter, because as has been shown, he certainly did a great job of impersonating a christian, and use that to motivate all the other folks in Germany.

As far as I know, Hitler never personally killed anyone (except himself). To do that took his army, who were as christian as anyone.

Does anyone really think that Hitler could have gotten to the level he did, and did what he did, if the populace of Germany thought he was an atheist?

Hitler was not solely responsible for the holocaust. That took the cooperation of the (religious) German people. So whether Hitler himself was religious or not (I think he was typical in his religiousness) is pretty much irrelevant.

[Dancing David]

I did, but since the powers that be insist on butchering the thread to their biases, I'm done. Argue amongst yourselves.

The start of the split is a personal attack.

I take it this means your evidence will not be forthcoming?

[edge]

I've bolded the part that I am in complete agreement with. Imposed atheism was used by Stalinist states as a political tool to suppress rival power systems in the form of religion.

However, Hitler was most definitely not an atheist.

He was hiding behind the cross more like the anti-christ leading his people into beliefs that were made obsolete when Jesus fulfilled his mission and the real teachings on how to treat others. Being an anti-christain is worse than being an atheist.
That would give you a power to change the christain beliefs into what ever you want them to say.

[Foster Zygote]

He was hiding behind the cross more like the anti-christ leading his people into beliefs that were made obsolete when Jesus fulfilled his mission and the real teachings on how to treat others. Being an anti-christain is worse than being an atheist.
I'm curious to know why a perfect god would give imperfect teachings to begin with. Why didn't god just teach us correctly in the first place?

Oh, and thanks for the implication that atheists are bad, but not that bad.

That would give you a power to change the christain beliefs into what ever you want them to say.
For example, you could make the think that Jesus condemned slavery.

[Gawdzilla]

He was hiding behind the cross more like the anti-christ leading his people into beliefs that were made obsolete when Jesus fulfilled his mission and the real teachings on how to treat others. Being an anti-christain is worse than being an atheist.
That would give you a power to change the christain beliefs into what ever you want them to say.

So, he was doing what any church scholar would do?

[joobz]

He was hiding behind the cross more like the anti-christ leading his people into beliefs that were made obsolete when Jesus fulfilled his mission and the real teachings on how to treat others. Being an anti-christain is worse than being an atheist.
That would give you a power to change the christain beliefs into what ever you want them to say.
What about those people who fell for it?
how were they supposed to distinguish between which form of christianity is the "true form"?

[Foster Zygote]

What about those people who fell for it?
how were they supposed to distinguish between which form of christianity is the "true form"?

Ironically, they used much the same excuse for the holocaust as that which Edge has offered as a justification for the slaughter described in the book of Joshua.

[tsig]

He was hiding behind the cross more like the anti-christ leading his people into beliefs that were made obsolete when Jesus fulfilled his mission and the real teachings on how to treat others. Being an anti-christain is worse than being an atheist.
That would give you a power to change the christain beliefs into what ever you want them to say.

Just like every preacher does every Sunday.

Hitler preached good Christian doctrines: duty, honor, country.

[tsig]

Ironically, they used much the same excuse for the holocaust as that which Edge has offered as a justification for the slaughter described in the book of Joshua.

Obviously, whether mass murder is right or wrong depends on who is getting slaughtered.

[mikeyx]

You may begin.

[Alan]

Didn't you make or post a lot in a thread about the same kind of thing already?

[A Laughing Baby]

Here's a link to the original thread in Religion/Philosophy. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=198190) He admits to it being posted as a troll on page...7 or so. I edited the default number of posts per page, so I can't be sure.

[KingMerv00]

You may begin.

What are they supposed to begin exactly?

Do such people exist?

[Stankeye]

Didn't you make or post a lot in a thread about the same time of thing already?

Definately. Maybe if you say it enough it becomes true?

[tyr_13]

What are they supposed to begin exactly?

Do such people exist?

Laughing.

EDIT: Damnit, you ninja edited it and now what I said doesn't make sense.

[KingMerv00]

Laughing.

EDIT: Damnit, you ninja edited it and now what I said doesn't make sense.

Sorry. I'd edit it back but then your post above wouldn't make any sense. You see the bind I'm in? :o

[A Laughing Baby]

At least put the effort in to come up with a new topic instead of just posting the same thing in a different subforum. If you're going to troll, at least respect the art of it.

[A Laughing Baby]

After declaring himself to be bored with the topic, mikey has just moved the same garbage to a different subforum to try to get a rise out of more people with the same line. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=199838) Creative.

[Gawdzilla]

Needs a move and a merge, I think.