PDA

View Full Version : [Merged] New Atheists; same as the Fundies?


Pages : [1] 2 3

mikeyx
19th January 2011, 07:07 AM
[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 [/quote]

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?

jcampbell
19th January 2011, 07:13 AM
I'd hate to feed the troll, but I would consider them distinctly different. We certainly have the right to believe or disbelieve as we choose. So far I haven't witnessed any of these so-called "New Atheists" advocating to the contrary. In contrast, Falwell wanted to change laws to benefit Christian believers to the exclusion of other religious minorities. Osama bin Laden has committed mass murder in the name of his faith, and arguably as a practice of it. I find the argument to be specious, and particularly a reactionary way to respond to the hurt feelings that these "New Atheists" inspire by being so critical of faith, which is all they are doing.

mushy
19th January 2011, 07:23 AM
I agree completely with OP. This board is packed full of people who think being an Athiest just means you are mean to people without addressing any of their points. They learn the fancy latin names for arugments and then post them constantly in an attempt to appear knowledeble and smug of a topic they have little to no understand off. Then fade back into the crowd when challenged.

But if you point this out, you are a troll. Typical new athiest ********

mikeyx
19th January 2011, 07:26 AM
I'd hate to feed the troll, but I would consider them distinctly different. We certainly have the right to believe or disbelieve as we choose. So far I haven't witnessed any of these so-called "New Atheists" advocating to the contrary. In contrast, Falwell wanted to change laws to benefit Christian believers to the exclusion of other religious minorities. Osama bin Laden has committed mass murder in the name of his faith, and arguably as a practice of it. I find the argument to be specious, and particularly a reactionary way to respond to the hurt feelings that these "New Atheists" inspire by being so critical of faith, which is all they are doing.

Is it really a troll, or just an inconvenient question in an Atheist-biased venue?

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?

Foster Zygote
19th January 2011, 07:30 AM
I think that "new atheist" is simply a term used to lump a bunch of diverse people together into one easily dismissed package.

Ladewig
19th January 2011, 07:30 AM
I agree completely with OP. This board is packed full of people who think being an Athiest just means you are mean to people without addressing any of their points. They learn the fancy latin names for arugments and then post them constantly in an attempt to appear knowledeble and smug of a topic they have little to no understand off. Then fade back into the crowd when challenged.

But if you point this out, you are a troll. Typical new athiest ********

I can see how some atheists display the qualities of intolerance, chauvinism, bigotry, and self-righteousness. But I am having a more difficult time seeing these atheists being "as anti-intellectual as religious fundamentalists." Can you or another poster explain this position more clearly?

Foster Zygote
19th January 2011, 07:35 AM
Is it really troll, or just an inconvenient question in an Atheist-biased venue?

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?
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"?

Hellbound
19th January 2011, 07:38 AM
Is it really troll, or just an inconvenient question in an Atheist-biased venue?

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?

A few problems with ideas like this.

Asking "Why can't you just make an aetheist symbol to display?" is the equivalent of asking "Well why can't the religous get together and agree on a single symbol to display, instead of putting a bunch of them up?". You're trying to shoehorn a diverse group of people into a single entity.

As to the pledge, he was actually trying to get them to reverse the change in wording made in 1954 that added "under God".

I don't think these are particularly valid objections. And there's a difference in complaining about something (such as decorations) and actively protesting it. Opinions are protected, whether we consider them good or bad. We might as well talk about moderate Xians complaining about adult situations on TV (we don't even have to go into fundamentalists on that one).

dafydd
19th January 2011, 07:38 AM
I agree completely with OP. This board is packed full of people who think being an Athiest just means you are mean to people without addressing any of their points. They learn the fancy latin names for arugments and then post them constantly in an attempt to appear knowledeble and smug of a topic they have little to no understand off. Then fade back into the crowd when challenged.

But if you point this out, you are a troll. Typical new athiest ********

No understand of? Is English your first language? I am an atheist because I have yet to see evidence of the existence of any god or gods. I have read the entire bible twice which is more than most Christians. In my experience here it is the believers who do not address points and respond by quoting the bible.

Hellbound
19th January 2011, 07:43 AM
No understand of? Is English your first language? I am an atheist because I have yet to see evidence of then existence of any god or gods. I have read the entire bible twice which is more than most Christians. Go on ,challenge me.

While I suspect this will lead nowhere, thought I would add my two cents as well. I became an atheist after conducting an year long, in-depth study of the Bible while attending a Christian University. The more I actually learned about and understood the religion I nominally professed, the more I realized that, even assuming it true, it was not something I could follow.

And, in general, I tend to find more understanding of the bible in atheists than in the religious (excluding fundamentalists on both sides). And I mean understanding not just of what ministers and other believers tell you it means, but actual understanding of the history of the bible (how it was put together and from what), how it fits into the historical context, the cultures that existed a tthe time of the supposed stories, and the times when the tales were actually written, similarities to other religions (many pre-dating the Christian or Judaic systems), the differences between english and the original languages, and similar things.

Resume
19th January 2011, 07:43 AM
Is it really troll, or just an inconvenient question in an Atheist-biased venue?


Yes it's a troll, and a strawman, and the argument is cliched.

mushy
19th January 2011, 07:44 AM
I can see how some atheists display the qualities of intolerance, chauvinism, bigotry, and self-righteousness. But I am having a more difficult time seeing these atheists being "as anti-intellectual as religious fundamentalists." Can you or another poster explain this position more clearly?


I mean by the double standards they use. As ive posted in many other theads. i.e They think its ok to confront theists and tell them they are wrong. However are outraged when Theists hand out tracts in foreign countries.

Alot of them will act like they know why a statment is rubbish and post some insult thats non-related. Then wander off happy that their gained skeptic-points by being harsh to the "Stupid-fundie/conspiracy-theorist".

Tons more, but i don't have the heart to type it again. I'll just be called a troll, it will be ignored and i will be asked the same question in 10 different ways. When i refuse to keep answering this will be heraled as proof i was a troll.

HansMustermann
19th January 2011, 07:45 AM
I agree completely with OP. This board is packed full of people who think being an Athiest just means you are mean to people without addressing any of their points. They learn the fancy latin names for arugments and then post them constantly in an attempt to appear knowledeble and smug of a topic they have little to no understand off. Then fade back into the crowd when challenged.

But if you point this out, you are a troll. Typical new athiest ********

No, I'm pretty sure that it's your posting inflamatory messages with bad logic and occasional hypocrisy makes you a troll, not those eeevil New Atheists. There are people who have managed to make a coherent and well argued case for their religion or favourite woo, and although, granted, the logic failed to support their case, I don't think anyone called that trolling. And at the other end of the spectrum there's the kind of drivel you post.

Gawdzilla
19th January 2011, 07:45 AM
Hey, if OP wants to be into sweeping generalizations, we should let him. It's the only christian thing to do.

Hellbound
19th January 2011, 07:45 AM
I mean by the double standards they use. As ive posted in many other theads. i.e They think its ok to confront theists and tell them they are wrong. However are outraged when Theists hand out tracts in foreign countries.

Alot of them will act like they know why a statment is rubbish and post some insult thats non-related. Then wander off happy that their gained skeptic-points by being harsh to the "Stupid-fundie/conspiracy-theorist".

Tons more, but i don't have the heart to type it again. I'll just be called a troll, it will be ignored and i will be asked the same question in 10 different ways. When i refuse to keep answering this will be heraled as proof i was a troll.

Well, you could break the cycle and post evidence of the type of behavior you're describing, by linking to specific posts/threads.

mushy
19th January 2011, 07:45 AM
No understand of? Is English your first language? I am an atheist because I have yet to see evidence of the existence of any god or gods. I have read the entire bible twice which is more than most Christians. In my experience here it is the believers who do not address points and respond by quoting the bible.

Insult -
Boasting about knowledge -
Make generalisation -

Typical New-Athiest.

mushy
19th January 2011, 07:48 AM
No, I'm pretty sure that it's your posting inflamatory messages with bad logic and occasional hypocrisy makes you a troll, not those eeevil New Atheists. There are people who have managed to make a coherent and well argued case for their religion or favourite woo, and although, granted, the logic failed to support their case, I don't think anyone called that trolling. And at the other end of the spectrum there's the kind of drivel you post.

Another Insult lol. Do you people not know how to talk like human beings. Nice to see you got your Skeptic-Approved word "Woo" in to earn your skeptic points. Also "Woo" implies that what they are arguing is false/made-up/wrong etc.. You shouldn't use it so generally, no matter how bad you want the points.

mikeyx
19th January 2011, 07:50 AM
I think that "new atheist" is simply a term used to lump a bunch of diverse people together into one easily dismissed package.

NOPE. The definition of, the source of the definition of both have been clearly stated. You can say the same about diversity among other fundies, Evangelicans, Baptists, Pentacostals, Mormons, Sunnis, Shias, etc, so your response not only fails to address the question, it seems to attempt to dodge the question asked.

dafydd
19th January 2011, 07:52 AM
Insult -
Boasting about knowledge -
Make generalisation -

Typical New-Athiest.

I am a 58 year old almost lifelong atheist. You are the one making the sweeping generalizations. I am not a member of any atheist club,every atheist is an atheist in his or her own way.

Gawdzilla
19th January 2011, 07:52 AM
NOPE. The definition of, the source of the definition of both have been clearly stated. You can say the same about diversity among other fundies, Evangelicans, Baptists, Pentacostals, Mormons, Sunnis, Shias, etc, so your response not only fails to address the question, it seems to attempt to dodge the question asked.

Chris Hedges is infallible? When did he become pope?

mushy
19th January 2011, 07:52 AM
Well, you could break the cycle and post evidence of the type of behavior you're describing, by linking to specific posts/threads.

No, this is the typical New-Athiest defense. "Show me evidence" - spend 1 hour gathering up evidence to support your point, in that time 20 new people will arrive to ask you for evidence for different things, if you don't provide the evidence to all our questions you are a troll.

p.s - If you post evidence, we will dismiss it and ask you for the evidence again.

Its a stupid cycle to get into with you guys.

dafydd
19th January 2011, 07:53 AM
Another Insult lol. Do you people not know how to talk like human beings. Nice to see you got your Skeptic-Approved word "Woo" in to earn your skeptic points. Also "Woo" implies that what they are arguing is false/made-up/wrong etc.. You shouldn't use it so generally, no matter how bad you want the points.

Do you have better word than woo for unfounded beliefs that have no basis in reality?

Hellbound
19th January 2011, 07:53 AM
Actually, from your OP, the author includes atheists in general into his classifications of "intolerant, chauvinistic, bigoted, anti-intellectual, and self-righteous as their archrivals, religious fundamentalists—in other words, as being secular versions of the religious right".

This is the strawman. I don't think there are many that would deny the existence of "fundamentalist atheists". Many of us would deny, however, that atheists in general are secular versions of the religious right.

HansMustermann
19th January 2011, 07:54 AM
I mean by the double standards they use. As ive posted in many other theads. i.e They think its ok to confront theists and tell them they are wrong. However are outraged when Theists hand out tracts in foreign countries.

Oh please. Exactly when was the last time an atheist rang at your door or stopped you on the street to give you tracts? No, really, time and date.

The only confronting you see is when _you_ come preaching to us. But apparently you think that's some kind of right, but our arguing right back is some offense.

Yes, you illustrate hypocritical double standards but they're just yours.

Alot of them will act like they know why a statment is rubbish and post some insult thats non-related. Then wander off happy that their gained skeptic-points by being harsh to the "Stupid-fundie/conspiracy-theorist".

Yes, well, we do know when a fallacy is a fallacy, because we kinda had over 2000 years of studying what is good logic and what is delusional bullcrap. And there's no shortage of people coming back doing the same ones over and over again, lest we forget it, I guess. So yes, we actually know when you post illogical rubish, we don't just act like it.

If you don't even realize you're spewing rubbish... well, then it's your shortcoming, not ours.

Tons more, but i don't have the heart to type it again. I'll just be called a troll, it will be ignored and i will be asked the same question in 10 different ways. When i refuse to keep answering this will be heraled as proof i was a troll.

Actually, if you genuinely don't even realize why you end up with 10 people trying to hint the same problem in the same statement of yours... Maybe "troll" is the wrong word after all. Maybe we ought to remember to apply Hanlon's Razor ;)

dafydd
19th January 2011, 07:54 AM
No, this is the typical New-Athiest defense. "Show me evidence" - spend 1 hour gathering up evidence to support your point, in that time 20 new people will arrive to ask you for evidence for different things, if you don't provide the evidence to all our questions you are a troll.

p.s - If you post evidence, we will dismiss it and ask you for the evidence again.

Its a stupid cycle to get into with you guys.

Funny,it's people like you who always initiate the cycle.

mikeyx
19th January 2011, 07:54 AM
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"?

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.

mushy
19th January 2011, 07:55 AM
I am a 58 year old almost lifelong atheist. You are the one making the sweeping generalizations. I am not a member of any atheist club,every atheist is an atheist in his or her own way.

As is every christian. Ever used the term fundie?

dafydd
19th January 2011, 07:56 AM
As is every christian. Ever used the term fundie?

No.

Sledge
19th January 2011, 07:57 AM
Show me an example of a "New Atheist" and what they say.

mikeyx
19th January 2011, 07:57 AM
No understand of? Is English your first language? I am an atheist because I have yet to see evidence of the existence of any god or gods. I have read the entire bible twice which is more than most Christians. In my experience here it is the believers who do not address points and respond by quoting the bible.

Noone has yet quoted the bible, we're not talking specifically about Christianity, Islam got thrown in, I could easily observe a healthy anti-Christian undercurrent in various segments of Wicca,.

You didn't answer the question.

Xtian, like USian, isn't a word.

Hellbound
19th January 2011, 07:59 AM
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.

Actually, on that particular example, I can tell you the difference (which I referenced before, and you either missed or ignored).

The religious were the ones that petititoned and eventually pushed through the legal change to have the words "under god" added to the pledge in 1954, making it a statement of religion as much as a statement of allegience.

The father in your example simple wants it to be set back to the way it was originally...a neutral statement regarding the strength and unity of the nation and one's commitment to same.

Or to put it another way, the addition of "under god" specifically excludes those who don't believe in god. Saying nothing there does not exclude the religious.

mikeyx
19th January 2011, 08:00 AM
While I suspect this will lead nowhere, thought I would add my two cents as well. I became an atheist after conducting an year long, in-depth study of the Bible while attending a Christian University. The more I actually learned about and understood the religion I nominally professed, the more I realized that, even assuming it true, it was not something I could follow.

And, in general, I tend to find more understanding of the bible in atheists than in the religious (excluding fundamentalists on both sides). And I mean understanding not just of what ministers and other believers tell you it means, but actual understanding of the history of the bible (how it was put together and from what), how it fits into the historical context, the cultures that existed a tthe time of the supposed stories, and the times when the tales were actually written, similarities to other religions (many pre-dating the Christian or Judaic systems), the differences between english and the original languages, and similar things.

Personal experience is appreciated but this isn't for the sake of the point meant as uniquely addressing Christianity.

dafydd
19th January 2011, 08:00 AM
I agree completely with OP. This board is packed full of people who think being an Athiest just means you are mean to people without addressing any of their points. They learn the fancy latin names for arugments and then post them constantly in an attempt to appear knowledeble and smug of a topic they have little to no understand off. Then fade back into the crowd when challenged.

But if you point this out, you are a troll. Typical new athiest ********

There was a question here? It's well hidden. The atheists here are very good at responding to points,the believers don't do so well.

Dunstan
19th January 2011, 08:00 AM
Is it really troll, or just an inconvenient question in an Atheist-biased venue?

It's a question that gets asked every couple of weeks here in one form or another. Which is fine; if we didn't recycle topics, this forum would shrivel up and die. But that's why some of us get a little fatigued of dealing with the "just like the fundies" claim. It's not "inconvenient," it's just tiresome.

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

That's a pretty substantial difference, don't you think? Otherwise we could say that the Chamber of Commerce, the AARP, and any other political advocacy group you name are "same as terrorists" because they both try to get the government to change its policies.

What on earth is wrong with going through legal channels to challenge language that was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1950s specifically to ostracize atheists and equate them with communists? (Interestingly, the only reason the "under God" language survives is because the religious are dishonest about it. When atheists challenge it, they freak out about how their beliefs are under attack, and it was such an important issue that 90-some senators gathered for a publicity stunt to show their support for the phrase. When they have to defend it in court, however, they fall back on claiming that it's just meaningless "ceremonial deism" and isn't at all an endorsement of religion, no sir! And most courts pretend to believe this.)

, 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?

Again, what's wrong with enforcing the First Amendment?

By the way, if a display truly does combine various religious and secular symbols of the season (not just in a token way), it usually passes constitutional muster. The ACLU and other groups that litigate in this area know this and don't usually bring those kinds of challenges.

And if there was an "atheist symbol," it would just be thrown in our faces as further evidence that atheism is "just another religion."

Ladewig
19th January 2011, 08:01 AM
I mean by the double standards they use. As ive posted in many other theads. i.e They think its ok to confront theists and tell them they are wrong. However are outraged when Theists hand out tracts in foreign countries.

Alot of them will act like they know why a statment is rubbish and post some insult thats non-related. Then wander off happy that their gained skeptic-points by being harsh to the "Stupid-fundie/conspiracy-theorist".

Tons more, but i don't have the heart to type it again. I'll just be called a troll, it will be ignored and i will be asked the same question in 10 different ways. When i refuse to keep answering this will be heraled as proof i was a troll.

So, I will agree that the behavior you describe would make them hypocritical, closed-minded, and self-centered; but living by a double standard does not make one anti-intellectual.

I can give specific examples of Christian fundamentalist in America displaying anti-intellectualism. When scientists say, "here is evidence that the Earth is billions of years old," between 8 and 25 percent of the American population says, "no! I will not consider that evidence - it was created by the devil." Refusing to consider evidence that meets the standards of a U.S. court of law and the standards of the academic community and the standards of the Nobel Prize Committee and the standards of modern medical community and the standards of professionally-published encyclopedias is clearly anti-intellectualism.

So, what precisely do these new atheists do that can be defined as anti-intellectualism?

Hellbound
19th January 2011, 08:01 AM
Personal experience is appreciated but this isn't for the sake of the point meant as uniquely addressing Christianity.

This response was to mushy, not generally to the OP.

jcampbell
19th January 2011, 08:02 AM
Is it really troll, or just an inconvenient question in an Atheist-biased venue?
It's just a troll, same as the book it came from. There isn't really such a thing as a "New Atheist" except as a label to explain the rise of atheists and the popularity of their critical literature. Just because Rick Warren and his books are popular doesn't make him a "New Christian."

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 mean change the Pledge back to its original form? Issues of constitutionality affect all religious minorities. As far as holiday displays, I'm not that passionate about it and I can see both sides of the issue. On the one hand, it's a cultural, mostly secular (menora and christmas tree, not cross or star of David) celebration that is recognized and payed homage. On the other, it's hard to get people to agree on what constitutes a religious or secular holiday icon. Preferably, we should just let people do what they want on private property and leave public funding out of it. Rather than pay for decorations, how about helping the city's residents or homeless?

mikeyx
19th January 2011, 08:02 AM
Yes it's a troll, and a strawman, and the argument is cliched.

actually your response is a dodge and only serves to demonstrate like other Fundies, the more closed minded among the atheists hear don't do well when the shoe is on the other foot.

Foster Zygote
19th January 2011, 08:02 AM
NOPE. The definition of, the source of the definition of both have been clearly stated.
Being able to point to a source for a generalizing label doesn't establish the veracity of that label. Pointing to Martin Luther as the source of numerous generalizations regarding Jews doesn't legitimize said generalizations.

You can say the same about diversity among other fundies, Evangelicans, Baptists, Pentacostals, Mormons, Sunnis, Shias, etc,...
You could, but you would be just as wrong.

so your response not only fails to address the question, it seems to attempt to dodge the question asked.
How so, specifically?

mushy
19th January 2011, 08:02 AM
No.


Well many other Athiests do. They group people, but apparently don't like being grouped. Another Double standard.

HansMustermann
19th January 2011, 08:03 AM
Another Insult lol. Do you people not know how to talk like human beings. Nice to see you got your Skeptic-Approved word "Woo" in to earn your skeptic points. Also "Woo" implies that what they are arguing is false/made-up/wrong etc.. You shouldn't use it so generally, no matter how bad you want the points.

I'm sorry, but

1. Hypocrisy much? You post whole threads at mud-slinging and mis-representing other people as some kind of monsters, but play the oppressed victim card if someone even uses the word "woo"? Oh, right, it's you. Would probably cramp your style to practice what you preach.

2. I'm sorry you didn't learn that part of logic either, but it's actually correct to assume something false until the burden of proof has been met to show it to be true. Want to stop it being called woo? Come win Randi's prize. You get that and a cool million. Until then, sorry, it _is_ "woo".

3. Speaking of fallacies, the argumentum ad misericordiam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_pity) is one. That's the kind of thing where we act like we know what's wrong with your arguments... because we do. We have whole lists of kinds of broken BS logic.

Appeals to playing nice and playing the victim card do not constitute support of an idea. No amount of playing nice or not nice will turn something false into something true. You can get offended all you want by someone saying it's night, it won't make it day. IOW, what you need is _evidence_, not "OMG you're not nice people" handwaving.

Dancing David
19th January 2011, 08:03 AM
[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.
[/quote]
Who, where, when , said what?

I don't have to tolerate anyone talking about fairies in public schools do I?


this is more, Be a Good Little Atheist?


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?

So these overbearing atheists are? And in what context?

And no they are not, I do not see atheist repressing others or trying to pass laws, religion should stay out of public schools.

dafydd
19th January 2011, 08:04 AM
Well many other Athiests do. They group people, but apparently don't like being grouped. Another Double standard.

What do atheists have in common?

mikeyx
19th January 2011, 08:04 AM
Show me an example of a "New Atheist" and what they say.

The sources of the movement were cited already. So NOPE. Maybe address the comparison.

Dancing David
19th January 2011, 08:04 AM
I agree completely with OP. This board is packed full of people who think being an Athiest just means you are mean to people without addressing any of their points.

Wowe, what an amazing and insightful critique, I have been polite to you, you may not like what I have to say.

Bring up a valid point then.

mushy
19th January 2011, 08:05 AM
So, I will agree that the behavior you describe would make them hypocritical, closed-minded, and self-centered; but living by a double standard does not make one anti-intellectual.

I can give specific examples of Christian fundamentalist in America displaying anti-intellectualism. When scientists say, "here is evidence that the Earth is billions of years old," between 8 and 25 percent of the American population says, "no! I will not consider that evidence - it was created by the devil." Refusing to consider evidence that meets the standards of a U.S. court of law and the standards of the academic community and the standards of the Nobel Prize Committee and the standards of modern medical community and the standards of professionally-published encyclopedias is clearly anti-intellectualism.

So, what precisely do these new atheists do that can be defined as anti-intellectualism?

When a creationist makes a point. However valid or stupid, replies like

"YOU.FAIL.GEOLOGY.FOREVER"
"The stupid it burns"

etc are anti-intellectual. They offer no proper answer and only serve to belittle the person and try and get laughs from their piers. I don't believe in being harsh to win favour.

Dancing David
19th January 2011, 08:06 AM
Is it really a troll, or just an inconvenient question in an Atheist-biased venue?

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,

Excuse me bud, but when was God put in the Pledge?
tried changing things legally

Like what specifically, or are you just whining about non-specifics.

, 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?

What specifically are you talking about?

mushy
19th January 2011, 08:06 AM
What do atheists have in common?

A lack of belief in a god/gods.

HansMustermann
19th January 2011, 08:06 AM
As is every christian. Ever used the term fundie?

You do know that that's a label they applied to themselves, and has a very clear meaning, right? If you believe the bible to be the literal and inerrant word of God, then you _are_ a fundamentalist Christian, or in short "fundie". If not, not.

Now please point out some sacred text that atheists hold for inerrant and literal Truth, if you want to turn that label around.

Sledge
19th January 2011, 08:08 AM
The sources of the movement were cited already. So NOPE. Maybe address the comparison.

I must have missed that. Please cite them again or point me to the post you cited them in.

Hellbound
19th January 2011, 08:08 AM
The sources of the movement were cited already. So NOPE. Maybe address the comparison.

I have, several times, and instead of addressing the points I've taken teh time to make, you've simply labelled others as close-minded and dodging the issue.

I'm beginning to wonder on your motives for this thread, when you seem to be ignoring substantial points and responding instead only to what you call dodges.

HansMustermann
19th January 2011, 08:08 AM
When a creationist makes a point. However valid or stupid, replies like

"YOU.FAIL.GEOLOGY.FOREVER"
"The stupid it burns"

etc are anti-intellectual. They offer no proper answer and only serve to belittle the person and try and get laughs from their piers. I don't believe in being harsh to win favour.

I'm sorry, but being anti-stupid is not the same thing as being anti-intellectual. Just the fact that you think the above is anti-intellectual, heh, let's just say I wouldn't worry much about being the victim of anti-intellectualism if I were you ;)

Dancing David
19th January 2011, 08:08 AM
NOPE. The definition of, the source of the definition of both have been clearly stated. You can say the same about diversity among other fundies, Evangelicans, Baptists, Pentacostals, Mormons, Sunnis, Shias, etc, so your response not only fails to address the question, it seems to attempt to dodge the question asked.

So what are the specifics, what laws are they trying to impose? Or just you quoting a vague unsourced complaint?

Be specific, what have these new or old atheists done to repress freedom?

mushy
19th January 2011, 08:09 AM
You do know that that's a label they applied to themselves, and has a very clear meaning, right? If you believe the bible to be the literal and inerrant word of God, then you _are_ a fundamentalist Christian, or in short "fundie". If not, not.

Now please point out some sacred text that atheists hold for inerrant and literal Truth, if you want to turn that label around.

This is the most amazingly stupid thing i have ever read. You are either being intellectually dishonest or amazingly stupid. We are talking ablout GROUPING and LABELING people. You can be grouped by any context, it does not require you believe the literal translation of a sacred text.

Actually i'm going to stop replying to you <snip>

<snipped>, re breach of rule 0.

Dancing David
19th January 2011, 08:10 AM
No, this is the typical New-Athiest defense. "Show me evidence" -

No this is the JREF, so you have a problem with evidence?

Foster Zygote
19th January 2011, 08:10 AM
NOPE. The definition of New Atheist and the largely founders of the Movement have been clearly stated.
See above.

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.
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?

mushy
19th January 2011, 08:10 AM
I'm sorry, but being anti-stupid is not the same thing as being anti-intellectual. Just the fact that you think the above is anti-intellectual, heh, let's just say I wouldn't worry much about being the victim of anti-intellectualism if I were you ;)


Yea thanks for the Insult. Its people like you who give Athiests a bad reputation.

HansMustermann
19th January 2011, 08:10 AM
This is the most amazingly stupid thing i have ever read. You are either being intellectually dishonest or amazingly stupid. We are talking ablout GROUPING and LABELING people. You can be grouped by any context, it does not require you believe the literal translation of a sacred text.

Actually i'm going to stop replying to you because <snip>.

Moderated content <snipped>.

Removed response to moderated content

Ladewig
19th January 2011, 08:11 AM
When a creationist makes a point. However valid or stupid, replies like

"YOU.FAIL.GEOLOGY.FOREVER"
"The stupid it burns"

etc are anti-intellectual. They offer no proper answer and only serve to belittle the person and try and get laughs from their piers. I don't believe in being harsh to win favour.

If it happened the exact way that you describe, then it might be valid to classify it as anti-intellectualism. Can you give me a specific example where a Creationist provided a valid point while arguing that the world is 10,000 years old and an atheist actually said words similar to "YOU.FAIL.GEOLOGY.FOREVER"?

mushy
19th January 2011, 08:11 AM
No this is the JREF, so you have a problem with evidence?


Read what i have said on this thread, i explained this. Quit asking me the same stupid questions over and over.

Foster Zygote
19th January 2011, 08:14 AM
As is every christian. Ever used the term fundie?

Not to my knowledge.

HansMustermann
19th January 2011, 08:16 AM
Yea thanks for the Insult. Its people like you who give Athiests a bad reputation.

Oh, gee. Yet another playing the victim card in the same threads you've slung mud at people? Man, I never saw _that_ coming ;)

And one more fallacy instead of actual evidence for any of your points? Gee, tell me it ain't so ;)

But let's just say that even if I were worried about my reputation with your kind, you've made it perfectly clear before that you don't actually have much to offer there. Just being atheist, or against charlatans like Sylvia, or considering woo to be false, or 'acting like I know when someone spews rubbish' is apparently enough to have a bad reputation with you. So, wth, was there something for me to lose there? :p

HansMustermann
19th January 2011, 08:17 AM
Read what i have said on this thread, i explained this. Quit asking me the same stupid questions over and over.

Well, see, if everyone asks about evidence and you still don't even understand why, maybe it's not them who are stupid. Are you going to actually provide any? Your hypocritical fits and handwaving aren't it.

Resume
19th January 2011, 08:18 AM
actually your response is a dodge and only serves to demonstrate like other Fundies, the more closed minded among the atheists hear don't do well when the shoe is on the other foot.

Nope. Though I very much like your mixed metaphor.

Mister Agenda
19th January 2011, 08:18 AM
Another Insult lol. Do you people not know how to talk like human beings. Nice to see you got your Skeptic-Approved word "Woo" in to earn your skeptic points. Also "Woo" implies that what they are arguing is false/made-up/wrong etc.. You shouldn't use it so generally, no matter how bad you want the points.

'You people'? Really?

Mister Agenda
19th January 2011, 08:26 AM
NOPE. The definition of, the source of the definition of both have been clearly stated. You can say the same about diversity among other fundies, Evangelicans, Baptists, Pentacostals, Mormons, Sunnis, Shias, etc, so your response not only fails to address the question, it seems to attempt to dodge the question asked.

It's a pretty special definition. The definition that people who describe themselves as fundamentalists use involves a literal interpretation of scripture and 'getting back to the fundamentals' of their religion. Since that definition clearly doesn't apply to atheists, a new one, meaning 'openly make your case' had to be substituted for the traditional meaning, for the express purpose of insulting atheists.

I Am The Scum
19th January 2011, 08:27 AM
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.

Do you honestly think there's a comparison, here? I've taken some quotes by the people you referenced, and turned them into straw-atheist versions.

“Atheists, like slaves and soldiers, ask no questions”
“AIDS is not just Darwin's punishment for homosexuals; it is Darwin's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals”
-Straw-atheist Jerry Falwell

“It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-biased media and the homosexuals who want to destroy all atheists”
-Straw-atheist Pat Robertson

“We treat Christians in the same way. Those who kill our women and innocent, we kill their women and innocent, until they refrain.”
“I heard about the bombings the same way everyone else heard about them, from the television or radio. I did not order them but was very glad for what happened to the Christians there.”
Straw-atheist Osama Bin Laden

Yeah, that's pretty much exactly what all the atheists on Youtube are like.

I mean by the double standards they use. As ive posted in many other theads. i.e They think its ok to confront theists and tell them they are wrong. However are outraged when Theists hand out tracts in foreign countries.
There's no double standard with me. I have sought only to have all beliefs, both complex and basic, critically analyzed. I want people to question the nature of reality, and work hard to verify that their beliefs are correct. I've gone on record criticizing blanket statements made by atheists, and have even worked on deconstructing bad atheist arguments.

There have been some very bright practitioners of religion in our history. There may even be a few on this forum. However, it is undeniable that religion finds comfort in the ignorance of the masses. "Let go, let God" is the rallying cry of fools.

Have I made an error? If so, could you please explain it?

Mister Agenda
19th January 2011, 08:29 AM
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.

What Newdow is doing is asking the US to live up to its Constitution. What Christians did in inserting 'under God' in the pledge of allegiance in 1954 was unconstitutional. That's the difference.

jcampbell
19th January 2011, 08:32 AM
to the OP and mushy: Instead of quoting the conclusion of someone else's opinion and merely restating it, perhaps you can provide examples of the phenomenon surrounding "New Atheists" that you claim. Substantiate your position with examples, support your argument, and I will be more than willing to entertain your ideas. The record of this thread indicates your character of being merely on the attack, refusing to support your ideas, and simply lashing out at anyone who questions the substance of what seems to be your premature conclusion. That is why I characterized the initial post as being a troll. I think you'll find that the people on this board are more than willing to entertain your opinions as long as they have evidence or reason behind them.

Piscivore
19th January 2011, 08:37 AM
Chris Hedges argues that there is nothing inherently moral about being either a believer or a nonbeliever.
This is true.

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
This is not. In accusing anyone of anything "in general" because of a group affiliation (legitimate or even simply perceived) is the exact same error he is accusing them of. What would he call this, "fundamentalist moderateism"?

I Am The Scum
19th January 2011, 08:39 AM
to the OP and mushy: Instead of quoting the conclusion of someone else's opinion and merely restating it, perhaps you can provide examples of the phenomenon surrounding "New Atheists" that you claim. Substantiate your position with examples, support your argument, and I will be more than willing to entertain your ideas. The record of this thread indicates your character of being merely on the attack, refusing to support your ideas, and simply lashing out at anyone who questions the substance of what seems to be your premature conclusion. That is why I characterized the initial post as being a troll. I think you'll find that the people on this board are more than willing to entertain your opinions as long as they have evidence or reason behind them.

I'm pretty much in agreement with this, though I think the accusations of trolling are a bit premature.

So let's figure this out, mikeyx. For the sake of argument, I'm willing to work with this definition:
New Atheist: An atheist that is intolerant, chauvinistic, bigoted, anti-intellectual, and self-righteous as their archrivals, religious fundamentalists—in other words, as being secular versions of the religious right
That's fine. It's just a definition.

I would further agree that at least a few of these individuals probably exist. However, I wouldn't consider it very prevalent. I don't even believe that any of them are present on this forum. Are you trying to say that new atheists (as you have defined them) are common? If so, I'd like to see your evidence.

mikeyx
19th January 2011, 08:51 AM
I must have missed that. Please cite them again or point me to the post you cited them in.

In the quote in the first post. Read much?

sphenisc
19th January 2011, 09:00 AM
Well many other Athiests do. They group people, but apparently don't like being grouped. Another Double standard.

You really shouldn't believe everything people say on the internet.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5935704&postcount=924

Mister Agenda
19th January 2011, 09:15 AM
In the quote in the first post. Read much?

So, why should we accept what the person you're quoting says? Does he have some special power that makes what he says true? Can I start posting quotes and use them for evidence and just cite them again when asked to support my claims?

This is how I would have responded with something like this if asked to support my definition of fundamentalism:

"Fundamentalism refers to a belief in a strict adherence to a set of basic principles (often religious in nature), sometimes as a reaction to perceived doctrinal compromises with modern social and political life."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism


And then, if my definition were the same as yours, I would have to retract it; so I understand why you didn't choose this route.

Hellbound
19th January 2011, 09:26 AM
Well, I'm bowing out of the thread. I've made several substanial points, and all of them have been ignored by the OP witht he exception of one that was off-topic. When I pointed out that he seemed to be ignoring substance and responding to what he called dodges, that was also ignored.

My conclusion is that mickeyx is not attempting an honest debate, but working according to some agenda, and therefore I want no part of it.

mikeyx
19th January 2011, 09:32 AM
Well, I'm bowing out of the thread. I've made several substanial points, and all of them have been ignored by the OP witht he exception of one that was off-topic. When I pointed out that he seemed to be ignoring substance and responding to what he called dodges, that was also ignored.

My conclusion is that mickeyx is not attempting an honest debate, but working according to some agenda, and therefore I want no part of it.

riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...... its one thing to dodge a question, but to suggest conspiracy theory to? Nice touch. Xtian is stil not a word btw.

mikeyx
19th January 2011, 09:35 AM
Well, I'm bowing out of the thread. I've made several substanial points, and all of them have been ignored by the OP witht he exception of one that was off-topic. When I pointed out that he seemed to be ignoring substance and responding to what he called dodges, that was also ignored.

My conclusion is that mickeyx is not attempting an honest debate, but working according to some agenda, and therefore I want no part of it.

I provided a definition and the source of it, and there has been very little done to negate the fact there be fundies on both sides of the fence. As for any agenda:

Right wing fundie:
Left Wing Radical:
Pushy gay Rights Activist:
Pushy car salesman:

What's the one thing all of them in common?
Obnoxious ******* forcing their opinions where they may not be wanted. All I did was ask for your thoughts

Edited to properly mask profanity in accordance with Rule 10.

Mister Agenda
19th January 2011, 09:36 AM
riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...... its one thing to dodge a question, but to suggest conspiracy theory to? Nice touch. Xtian is stil not a word btw.

One person cannot engage in a conspiracy, so suggesting you have an agenda you aren't forthcoming about can't be suggesting conspiracy theory. I know these things.

You are correct. Xtian is not a word. It is a widely-accepted abbreviation, and 'X' has been used to indicate 'Christ' for over a thousand years.

Mister Agenda
19th January 2011, 09:38 AM
I provided a definition and the source of it, and there has been very little done to negate the fact there be fundies on both sides of the fence.

Provided you re-define 'fundy' to mean 'someone willing to speak out'.

jcampbell
19th January 2011, 09:39 AM
I provided a definition and the source of it, and there has been very little done to negate the fact there be fundies on both sides of the fence.

You have to support your claim before it can be negated. Merely restating the quoted conclusion of someone else's opinion doesn't make it a fact. Support your position.

John Jones
19th January 2011, 09:43 AM
No, this is the typical New-Athiest defense. "Show me evidence" - spend 1 hour gathering up evidence to support your point, in that time 20 new people will arrive to ask you for evidence for different things, if you don't provide the evidence to all our questions you are a troll.

p.s - If you post evidence, we will dismiss it and ask you for the evidence again.

Its a stupid cycle to get into with you guys.


Here's how you do it: Gather your evidence and some links before reaching a conclusion and making a claim.

Then when somebody asks you for evidence, you have it right there.

pro tip: Use a spell checker. It can help people understand you.

If you don't care if people have trouble understanding you or taking your opinions seriously, then carry on as you were doing.

mikeyx
19th January 2011, 10:00 AM
You have to support your claim before it can be negated. Merely restating the quoted conclusion of someone else's opinion doesn't make it a fact. Support your position.

SO in alledged fairness, if this is a troll, if I have an agenda, then what is said agenda. WHo am I the evil minion of?

Fundies?
Furbies?
Funions?

Or is the bias that thick?

John Jones
19th January 2011, 10:02 AM
riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...... its one thing to dodge a question, but to suggest conspiracy theory to? Nice touch. Xtian is stil not a word btw.

Neither is "riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight". Did you have some other, less obvious point?

John Jones
19th January 2011, 10:04 AM
SO in alledged fairness, if this is a troll, if I have an agenda, then what is said agenda. WHo am I the evil minion of?

Fundies?
Furbies?
Funions?

Or is the bias that thick?

Classic textbook strawman argument.

Ladewig
19th January 2011, 10:07 AM
I provided a definition and the source of it, and there has been very little done to negate the fact there be fundies on both sides of the fence.

Of course, the question then becomes: what percent of Christians are the type of fundamentalists displaying the characteristics in the OP1 and what percent of atheists are the type displaying the characteristics in the OP? I personally am not so much interested in that discussion as I am interested in the question I raised on the first page. I have heard Mushy's reply, but I am interested in yours.


I can relatively easily find some atheists on the internet displaying the qualities of intolerance, chauvinism, bigotry, and self-righteousness. But I am having a more difficult time finding atheists who are "as anti-intellectual as religious fundamentalists." Can you explain this position more clearly?



.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,

1) apparently the newly-elected governor of Alabama falls into this category.

pgwenthold
19th January 2011, 10:07 AM
Oh please. Exactly when was the last time an atheist rang at your door or stopped you on the street to give you tracts? No, really, time and date.

The only confronting you see is when _you_ come preaching to us. But apparently you think that's some kind of right, but our arguing right back is some offense.


Remember, Hans, that christians are heavily persecuted in the US. I mean, those damn secularists won't even do things like let them use teachers in public schools to promote their religious agenda, or to use public property to command everyone to worship their god.

See the crap they have to put up with?

Dancing David
19th January 2011, 10:09 AM
actually your response is a dodge and only serves to demonstrate like other Fundies, the more closed minded among the atheists hear don't do well when the shoe is on the other foot.

Please provide examples of when atheists act like fundies, you are still vague.

I Am The Scum
19th January 2011, 10:10 AM
Hey, mikeyx. There seem to be a lot of people here who are finding it difficult to understand your point. Some have even asked for clarification, though those posts have gone ignored. Take my post, #71 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6783161&postcount=71), for example.

For the sake of clarity and intellectual integrity, wouldn't it be a good idea to take some time and let us know exactly what you're trying to say?

Dancing David
19th January 2011, 10:11 AM
The sources of the movement were cited already. So NOPE. Maybe address the comparison.

Sorry your burden to provide evidence, a vague unsourced editorial is not evidence.

Dancing David
19th January 2011, 10:13 AM
Read what i have said on this thread, i explained this. Quit asking me the same stupid questions over and over.

Wow, that was exciting, asking for evidence is standard here on the forum. And asking for evidence is not rude nor stupid, it is SOP here.

Dancing David
19th January 2011, 10:15 AM
In the quote in the first post. Read much?

So you spin rhetoric and can't provide your own evidence?

In what way are atheists like fundies?
I consider the evidence when presented, I judge the theories and the merits of the supporting evidence, how is that a fundamentalist? So far I have seen no evidence or theory to change my view that there is no evidence for gods.

HansMustermann
19th January 2011, 10:18 AM
Remember, Hans, that christians are heavily persecuted in the US. I mean, those damn secularists won't even do things like let them use teachers in public schools to promote their religious agenda, or to use public property to command everyone to worship their god.

See the crap they have to put up with?

Yeah, that's actually what I'm getting at.

Dancing David
19th January 2011, 10:18 AM
Pushy gay Rights Activist:
[/mod]

So when a gay person asks for the equal rights and privileges they are pushy? Really?
Sad.

So what is an examples of a Pushy gay rights activist?

Or do you not have any evidence of that either?

Dunstan
19th January 2011, 10:20 AM
I provided a definition and the source of it, and there has been very little done to negate the fact there be fundies on both sides of the fence. As for any agenda:

Right wing fundie:
Left Wing Radical:
Pushy gay Rights Activist:
Pushy car salesman:

What's the one thing all of them in common?
Obnoxious ******* forcing their opinions where they may not be wanted. All I did was ask for your thoughts

(asterisks mine)

What constitutes "forcing their opinions where they may not be wanted"?

The fact that you personally are not interested in listening to someone is fine (we all have subjects and/or viewpoints that we're tired of), but that doesn't obligate other people to muzzle themselves in the public sphere, or make them an "obnoxious ******" for not shutting up.

The people who are typically referred to as "New Atheists" seem to confine their "New Atheist" activities to the public sphere -- writing books, articles, and op-ed pieces, attending symposiums and debates, being interviewed by news and current affairs programs, etc., and yes, filing lawsuits to force government entities to follow the damn law (it doesn't get much more "public" than that).

I'm not aware of them walking into churches to interrupt services, or knocking on people's doors and demanding to be heard.

Dunstan
19th January 2011, 10:22 AM
So when a gay person asks for the equal rights and privileges they are pushy?

I'm sure he meant to type "uppity."

jcampbell
19th January 2011, 10:28 AM
SO in alledged fairness, if this is a troll, if I have an agenda, then what is said agenda. WHo am I the evil minion of?

Fundies?
Furbies?
Funions?

Or is the bias that thick?
All I am asking you to do is support your argument. If you can't do that and must insist on building strawmen, then I will conclude you are trolling. For what reasons, I admit I can only speculate, but your dialogue seems to suggest that you are not interested in an honest discussion. If you want demand that your opinion be accepted as fact without supporting it, very few will care about your demand. If you want to engage in a serious discussion, support your initial post with reason and evidence. That isn't an unreasonable request.

Galteeth
19th January 2011, 10:29 AM
Does the author give any examples of distortions people use to argue against the exsitence of god?

Cavemonster
19th January 2011, 10:36 AM
Is it really a troll, or just an inconvenient question in an Atheist-biased venue?

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?

I hate to break it to you, but the last newsworthy case of a problem with a nativity was exactly what you suggested.

Atheists wanted to post a sign honoring atheist troops and veterans alongside a nativity scene. The Christians decided they would rather have nothing than share space.

Beyond that, enforcing a separation of church and state isn't really changing anything legally.

Foster Zygote
19th January 2011, 10:39 AM
Mikeyx, as you have accused myself and others of dodging the issue, would you be so kind as to address my previous post?


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?

tsig
19th January 2011, 10:44 AM
[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]

Belief in god = religious

Non belief in god = religious

Therefore Belief in god = non belief in god.

tsig
19th January 2011, 10:49 AM
Insult -
Boasting about knowledge -
Make generalisation -

Typical New-Athiest.

]Another Insult lol[/HILITE]. Do you people not know how to talk like human beings. Nice to see you got your Skeptic-Approved word "Woo" in to earn your skeptic points. Also "Woo" implies that what they are arguing is false/made-up/wrong etc.. You shouldn't use it so generally, no matter how bad you want the points.

You talk insults??

tsig
19th January 2011, 10:51 AM
No, this is the typical New-Athiest defense. "Show me evidence" - spend 1 hour gathering up evidence to support your point, in that time 20 new people will arrive to ask you for evidence for different things, if you don't provide the evidence to all our questions you are a troll.

p.s - If you post evidence, we will dismiss it and ask you for the evidence again.

Its a stupid cycle to get into with you guys.

Then why do it? Are you stupid?

HansMustermann
19th January 2011, 10:54 AM
SO in alledged fairness, if this is a troll, if I have an agenda, then what is said agenda. WHo am I the evil minion of?

Fundies?
Furbies?
Funions?

Or is the bias that thick?

So what did this have to do with the part you quoted? He asks you to support your position, and the best you can do is... a complete strawman. But just in case it's, shall we say, genuine comprehension problems: he didn't ask you whose minion you are, nor what bias you have, he just asked you to support your claims.

And, really, are you going to? Any time soon?

For someone who's been complaining about dodges in the same thread, that's all I see from you. Either it's repeating some preconceived point (no, we're not in The Hunting Of The Snark, simply pasting the same thing one more time won't make it true), or some strawman like above, or just you postulating stuff.

So, if you don't like dodging, when _are_ you going to stop dodging and start having an intellectually honest conversation?

tsig
19th January 2011, 11:01 AM
SO in alledged fairness, if this is a troll, if I have an agenda, then what is said agenda. WHo am I the evil minion of?

Fundies?
Furbies?
Funions?

Or is the bias that thick?

God.

Skeptic Ginger
19th January 2011, 11:10 AM
In a nutshell:

People are rude and nice and in between on both sides.
Calling atheism a "religion" or atheists "fundies" is a failed attempt at claiming equivalency.
When one assesses the evidence and comes to the conclusion, all gods are mythical beings people invented, you have the unavoidable problem that the conclusions also says to theists, they believe false things.

Now you have the dilemma. Theists would like to say, to each their own beliefs, our beliefs are equivalently likely to be true. That would be the case if it were between one or more god beliefs. But atheism is not equivalent. It is based on tangible evidence and not based on dogma and vague senstations. That is a greater threat to some theist's beliefs than simply choosing a different but equivalent god belief.

The result is, any atheist statement of their position can be seen as 'rude' to some theists. There is no way to nicely say, you believe in a myth.

mikeyx
19th January 2011, 11:16 AM
In a nutshell:

People are rude and nice and in between on both sides.
Calling atheism a "religion" or atheists "fundies" is a failed attempt at claiming equivalency.
When one assesses the evidence and comes to the conclusion, all gods are mythical beings people invented, you have the unavoidable problem that the conclusions also says to theists, they believe false things.

Now you have the dilemma. Theists would like to say, to each their own beliefs, our beliefs are equivalently likely to be true. That would be the case if it were between one or more god beliefs. But atheism is not equivalent. It is based on tangible evidence and not based on dogma and vague senstations. That is a greater threat to some theist's beliefs than simply choosing a different but equivalent god belief.

The result is, any atheist statement of their position can be seen as 'rude' to some theists. There is no way to nicely say, you believe in a myth.

I never offered my own beliefs in this, I posted a quoted definition and asked for thoughts from the Atheist view. As far as I can see the atheist pov on JREF is just as full of its ownership of the truth as any Commited CHristian or other theist fundie.

Religious folk should respect others with restraint in overexpression of their beliefs as much as any other.

As for it all being a myth, all creation began somewhere, and to date, neither side has a decided advantage in knowing more than the other unless you can of course prove me wrong.

Ausmerican
19th January 2011, 11:24 AM
NOPE. The definition of, the source of the definition of both have been clearly stated. You can say the same about diversity among other fundies, Evangelicans, Baptists, Pentacostals, Mormons, Sunnis, Shias, etc, so your response not only fails to address the question, it seems to attempt to dodge the question asked.

Rubbish. Lets look at the four most famous "New Atheists", the so called 4 Horsemen. Any label that lumps together Sam Harris, Chris Hitchens, Dan Dennett, and Richard Dawkins is casting a wide net considering the disparity between their attitudes and debating styles with regards to religion and its adherents.

And to call and of those four anti-intellectual is, well, anti-intelligent.

DC
19th January 2011, 11:27 AM
New Atheists? you are here on a scepetic's Forum.
Would you be complaining about Atheists coming to Religious Forums and try to convince believers to not believe, i could see your point. But whining here? whats the point?

JoelKatz
19th January 2011, 11:31 AM
I never offered my own beliefs in this, I posted a quoted definition and asked for thoughts from the Atheist view. As far as I can see the atheist pov on JREF is just as full of its ownership of the truth as any Commited CHristian or other theist fundie.Being full of ownership of the truth is a good thing if your positions are justified and rationally defensible but a bad thing if they are arbitrary and unsupported. Those with unjustified views shouldn't be attached to them. Those with justified views should be until the justification is validly questioned.

Religious folk should respect others with restraint in overexpression of their beliefs as much as any other.If you are right, there's no virtue in not sharing the truth with others the best you can. If you are wrong, you definitely should avoid trying to spread falsehoods.

As for it all being a myth, all creation began somewhere, and to date, neither side has a decided advantage in knowing more than the other unless you can of course prove me wrong.The difference is that one side makes false claims and the other doesn't make those claims.

There's an old story about two kids who are given a pie. The first one says, "Excellent, I'll eat the pie." The second one says, "No, we were both given the pie, we should share it fifty-fifty." Then an adult comes along and says, "You should compromise and both be reasonable. Give him three-quarters of the pie."

The virtue of different types of behaviors regarding belief depends massively on whether the belief is justified or unjustified. You can't analyze the behavior in the absence of an analysis of the belief.

Say I'm about to buy a car and you think buying that car is a bad idea. What should you do? Well, if your belief that buying the car is a bad idea is based on nothing, you should shut up. If you have a bad feeling, maybe you could mention that, but then shut up about it if your bad feeling isn't based on anything. However, if your belief that buying the car is a bad idea is based on verifiable facts I am not aware of, you should try to persuade me not to buy the car and do your best to make me listen. There is a virtue in trying to make me aware of good reasons that will affect my actions that I might not be aware of.

You cannot analyze the defensibility of the conduct without first analyzing the validity of the beliefs that motivate it.

FattyCatty
19th January 2011, 11:35 AM
quoting wikipedia's article on The New AtheismIn 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?I don't agree that all atheists exhibit the characteristics of fundamentalists. But I agree that some do. I call these people Avid AtheistsTM. Some examples can be found in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6674070#post6674070).

The attitude of intellectual and logical superiority exhibited by these Avid AtheistsTM is without basis.
They are operating on faith just as much as theists. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Basic_argument)
Arguments from ignorance can easily find their way into debates over the Existence of God. This, both from the theistic side (e.g. "You don't have evidence that my God doesn't exist, so regardless of my evidence - he exists!") and from the atheistic side (e.g. "You don't have evidence that your God exists, therefore he doesn't exist, regardless of whether I actually possess Evidence of absence"). Again, it is important to note that it is a fallacy to draw conclusions based precisely on ignorance, since this does not satisfactorily address issues of philosophic burden of proof. In other words, a complete lack of evidence either way results in agnosticism, thus each side must prove that they have satisfied their own burden for providing proof (evidence).
<snip>
Arguments that appeal to ignorance rely merely on the fact that the veracity of the proposition is not known, or is undetected, to arrive at a definite conclusion. These arguments fail to appreciate that the limits of one's understanding or certainty do not change what is true. This fallacy can be very convincing and is considered by some[2] to be a special case of a false dilemma or false dichotomy in that they both fail to consider perfectly valid alternatives. A false dilemma may take the form:

If a proposition has not been disproven, then it cannot be considered false and must therefore be considered true.
If a proposition has not been proven, then it cannot be considered true and must therefore be considered false.
Such arguments attempt to exploit the facts that (a) true things can never be disproven and (b) false things can never be proven. In other words, appeals to ignorance claim that the converse of these facts are also true (therein lies the fallacy).

To reiterate, these arguments ignore the fact, and difficulty, that some true things may never be proven, and some false things may never be disproved with absolute certainty. The phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" can be used as a shorthand rebuttal to the second form of the ignorance fallacy (i.e. P has never been absolutely proven and is therefore certainly false.). Most often it is directed at any conclusion derived from null results in an experiment or from the non-detection of something. In other words, where one researcher may say their experiment suggests evidence of absence, another researcher might argue that the experiment failed to detect a phenomenon for other reasons.


I can see how some atheists display the qualities of intolerance, chauvinism, bigotry, and self-righteousness. But I am having a more difficult time seeing these atheists being "as anti-intellectual as religious fundamentalists." Can you or another poster explain this position more clearly?Isn’t it considered anti-intellectual to reach conclusions based on your bias rather than the facts? If not, then I agree with you.


Actually, from your OP, the author includes atheists in general into his classifications of "intolerant, chauvinistic, bigoted, anti-intellectual, and self-righteous as their archrivals, religious fundamentalists—in other words, as being secular versions of the religious right".

This is the strawman. I don't think there are many that would deny the existence of "fundamentalist atheists". Many of us would deny, however, that atheists in general are secular versions of the religious right.I agree that not all atheists fit the OP label, or my label (Avid AtheistTM).


Please provide examples of when atheists act like fundies, you are still vague.See thread linked above.

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?

Belief in god = religious

Non belief in god = religious

Therefore Belief in god = non belief in god.Or belief in no god(s). I agree.

Dancing David
19th January 2011, 11:36 AM
I never offered my own beliefs in this, I posted a quoted definition and asked for thoughts from the Atheist view. As far as I can see the atheist pov on JREF is just as full of its ownership of the truth as any Commited CHristian or other theist fundie.

And the vidence of that is?

Do you mean teh JREf as an organization?
Do you mean one or two members?
What exactly are you reffering to here?

You provide evidence of god and I will consider it, not exclude it.

So your evidence that 'atheist pov on JREF is just as full of its ownership of the truth" is still lacking, who said what where?

I say I want evidence, both of god and this claim of yours.

Religious folk should respect others with restraint in overexpression of their beliefs as much as any other.

Excuse me, not in public schools, the rulings following McCullom vs. BOE are very liberal and allow teaching about religion, but not indoctrination.
Under God was not in the Pledge as A. Lincoln said it.

Where is an atheist trying to trample on your rights and for that matter where is this Pushy gay activist?


As for it all being a myth, all creation began somewhere, and to date, neither side has a decided advantage in knowing more than the other unless you can of course prove me wrong.

I Am The Scum
19th January 2011, 11:40 AM
Okay, yeah. This guy is a troll. Nevermind.

Sledge
19th January 2011, 11:57 AM
In the quote in the first post. Read much?

I read a great deal. Now demonstrate your reading comprehension skills by giving me examples of these New Atheists and what they say.

mikeyx
19th January 2011, 12:20 PM
Read through the Religion section and note the tone of Atheistic folks here. If you can't see the parallel of fundyism it's the bias. Given the number of dodges from the atheist side, sad.....

Just another group looking to force their pov on an unreceptive audience.
Sad......

RSLancastr
19th January 2011, 12:32 PM
I agree completely with OP. This board is packed full of people who think being an Athiest just means you are mean to people without addressing any of their points. They learn the fancy latin names for arugments and then post them constantly in an attempt to appear knowledeble and smug of a topic they have little to no understand off. Then fade back into the crowd when challenged.

But if you point this out, you are a troll. Typical new athiest ********

Mushy:

I have neither seen nor replied to any of your posts other than in one recent Sylvia Browne thread, so I don't know how you generally behave, nor how others generally respond to you. Yes, some regulars here do respond as you described, but some do not. But know that, at times, "believers" are every bit as obnoxious. In fact, many come here with the specific INTENT to be obnoxious, and to "teach the skeptics a thing or two" (in other words - trolls). That has made some skeptics here perhaps a bit quick to cry "troll!" when a believer posts here. it is unfair, but it is mostly human nature. I'm sorry if you have been the recipient of such behavior. When it happens, try to at least address the skeptics's points and answer their questions. Engaging in the conversation, and not being obnoxious (even in response to obnoxious behavior) helps to show others that you are not just trolling. And in case you were referring to any Sylvia Browne threads, please also know that a person doesn't need to be an Atheist (old or new) to believe that Browne is a fraud. I, for example, am an Agnostic. My Better Half (Susan) is a Christian (Baptist). ExMinister, SeekingTruth, and several others here are gnostic christians and ex-gnostic christians, and we all firmly believe Browne to be a fraud. I hope you stick around and keep participating in threads. Maybe you will learn some things (if only the pretentious Latin names for fallacies), and - who knows - maybe some here will learn a thing or two from you. And Education is the E in JREF!

Foster Zygote
19th January 2011, 12:44 PM
Read through the Religion section and note the tone of Atheistic folks here. If you can't see the parallel of fundyism it's the bias. Given the number of dodges from the atheist side, sad.....

Just another group looking to force their pov on an unreceptive audience.
Sad......

You mean people like Hokulele, Joobz, Wollery, Tricky, Slingblade?

I get the impression that it isn't so much that atheists are trying to force their views on others as that you are simply offended by their views.

mikeyx
19th January 2011, 12:44 PM
Mushy:

I have neither seen nor replied to any of your posts other than in one recent Sylvia Browne thread, so I don't know how you generally behave, nor how others generally respond to you. Yes, some regulars here do respond as you described, but some do not. But know that, at times, "believers" are every bit as obnoxious. In fact, many come here with the specific INTENT to be obnoxious, and to "teach the skeptics a thing or two" (in other words - trolls). That has made some skeptics here perhaps a bit quick to cry "troll!" when a believer posts here. it is unfair, but it is mostly human nature. I'm sorry if you have been the recipient of such behavior. When it happens, try to at least address the skeptics's points and answer their questions. Engaging in the conversation, and not being obnoxious (even in response to obnoxious behavior) helps to show others that you are not just trolling. And in case you were referring to any Sylvia Browne threads, please also know that a person doesn't need to be an Atheist (old or new) to believe that Browne is a fraud. I, for example, am an Agnostic. My Better Half (Susan) is a Christian (Baptist). ExMinister, SeekingTruth, and several others here are gnostic christians and ex-gnostic christians, and we all firmly believe Browne to be a fraud. I hope you stick around and keep participating in threads. Maybe you will learn some things (if only the pretentious Latin names for fallacies), and - who knows - maybe some here will learn a thing or two from you. And Education is the E in JREF!

Funny you mention gnostics, how almost relevant. BUt the one thing you constantly stumble over.....


SYLVIA BROWN IS THE BESTEST PSYCHIC EVAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DC
19th January 2011, 12:53 PM
oh indeed a troll.......

mikeyx
19th January 2011, 12:55 PM
oh indeed a troll.......

Yer just mad I won the thread.

Sledge
19th January 2011, 12:57 PM
Read through the Religion section and note the tone of Atheistic folks here. If you can't see the parallel of fundyism it's the bias. Given the number of dodges from the atheist side, sad.....

Just another group looking to force their pov on an unreceptive audience.
Sad......

So you can't name any of these people or tell me what they've said. That's a pretty big fail there, fella.

mikeyx
19th January 2011, 01:03 PM
So you can't name any of these people or tell me what they've said. That's a pretty big fail there, fella.

dude............ reading comprehension, I clearly stated I have won the thread.

YHBT, deal with it. (But for the record SYLVIA BROWN is awesome and has a little thing for ya)

DC
19th January 2011, 01:03 PM
Yer just mad I won the thread.

yeah i wanted to win the internet today, damn you. :rolleyes:

Sledge
19th January 2011, 01:07 PM
dude............ reading comprehension, I clearly stated I have won the thread.

YHBT, deal with it. (But for the record SYLVIA BROWN is awesome and has a little thing for ya)
Thread? I win the internet for breakfast. Your half-arsed little thread would be nothing more than a late-afternoon Triscuit.





I wonder if anyone will get that one.

mikeyx
19th January 2011, 01:09 PM
Thread? I win the internet for breakfast. Your half-arsed little thread would be nothing more than a late-afternoon Triscuit.





I wonder if anyone will get that one.

Quoting you: NOPE

RSLancastr
19th January 2011, 01:10 PM
Is it really a troll, or just an inconvenient question in an Atheist-biased venue?

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?

Mike, sorry to be pedantic, but I don't participate in the Religion threads, so won't try to address your points. I just wanted to point out that the abbreviation for Christian is Xian, not XTtian. The letter X is an abbreviation for the word "Christ" (as in Xmas). I know that some object to the use of the abbreviation "Xmas" (I once heard a youth pastor say it was "crossing out Christ"), but that is not so. it has been used since the time of Christ. Even, some say, on the sign nailed on the Cross, "IXOYE" which stood for the Greek (or Latin), I forget which) words for Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior". The X standing for, I believe, "Xhristos". I have heard that early Christians, in an effort to avoid persecution, sometimes carved an "X" into the door of a meeting place as a secret sign to other Christians. Also, the Greek word IXOYE (not the abbreviation) means "fish", also purportedly leading to the use of the fish symbol being used by early Christians as a secret symbol. The modern Icthyus/Icthius (the "jesus fish" sometimes found on car bumpers) is a reference to this, and, sometimes, is even made from a stylized "IXOYE".

So, "Xian" is a perfectly respectful abbreviation for Christan (even though that will likely disappoint some who use it).

Sorry if you already knew all of this. I would guess that some here do not.

RSLancastr
19th January 2011, 01:21 PM
Funny you mention gnostics, how almost relevant. BUt the one thing you constantly stumble over.....


SYLVIA BROWN IS THE BESTEST PSYCHIC EVAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

She almost never gets any prediction meaningfully correct. If by "the best ever" you mean that every other psychic in the world is just as inaccurate (they could hardly be worse), I find that hard to believe (call me skeptical). Some of them have to get something right occasionally, just from the laws of statistics!

Sledge
19th January 2011, 01:22 PM
Quoting you: NOPE

I didn't think you'd get that one. It's not a popular film, but I like it.

Ladewig
19th January 2011, 01:26 PM
dude............ reading comprehension, I clearly stated I have won the thread.

YHBT, deal with it. (But for the record SYLVIA BROWN is awesome and has a little thing for ya)

I was taken in too. I would like to ask a quick question. Why troll this board? Even the mildest comments provoke multi-page threads. No skill is needed to troll the JREF board. It's not the Triple-A league, it's not even the Double-A league. When it comes to trolling boards, JREF is like little league. I'd say congratulations, you have struck out a team of ten-year-olds, but you haven't. Some of the posters called you on your trolling on page one - so it is more accurate to say that you struck out some of the ten-year-olds.


ETA: please don't think I am making this post in anger or in retaliation. I am simply curious as to why you picked such a ridiculously easy target.

Sledge
19th January 2011, 01:32 PM
Worst of all, it's basically impossible to troll the JREF forums. Trolling isn't against the rules, and any attempt at trolling is more likely to trigger a discussion than cries of outrage. Hell, the whole reason we're here is to discuss stuff often considered unsuitable or even against the rules at other forums. Trolling here is like trying to upset a pub landlord by getting drunk in his pub.

mikeyx
19th January 2011, 01:33 PM
I was taken in too. I would like to ask a quick question. Why troll this board? Even the mildest comments provoke multi-page threads. No skill is needed to troll the JREF board. It's not the Triple-A league, it's not even the Double-A league. When it comes to trolling boards, JREF is like little league. I'd say congratulations, you have struck out a team of ten-year-olds, but you haven't. Some of the posters called you on your trolling on page one - so it is more accurate to say that you struck out some of the ten-year-olds.


ETA: please don't think I am making this post in anger or in retaliation. I am simply curious as to why you picked such a ridiculously easy target.

A little bit slow day, little bit curiosity. I was mildly curious what kind of responses would come in. Some were fairly predictable, some made an honets effort to have the discussion.

TraneWreck
19th January 2011, 01:35 PM
A little bit slow day, little bit curiosity. I was mildly curious what kind of responses would come in. Some were fairly predictable, some made an honets effort to have the discussion.

You could have read one of the other 1,876,987,098 threads on the topic.

Resume
19th January 2011, 01:43 PM
You could have read one of the other 1,876,987,098 threads on the topic.

1,876,987,099 threads.

Robin
19th January 2011, 01:46 PM
[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
Let's see - a bigot is a person who makes insulting generalisations about a particular group.

And Mr Hedges is saying that atheists and the New Atheists in particular are intolerant, chauvinistic, self-righteous, anti-intellectual bigots

I wonder if he is capable of seeing the irony inherent in his claim.

Skeptic Ginger
19th January 2011, 01:54 PM
I never offered my own beliefs in this, I posted a quoted definition and asked for thoughts from the Atheist view. As far as I can see the atheist pov on JREF is just as full of its ownership of the truth as any Commited CHristian or other theist fundie. Some people on JREF come across that way, no doubt. And some atheists did not come to their conclusion through a broad adoption of rational thinking. Perhaps they are closer to the equivalency you suggest.

But there's a separate issue claiming simple equivalency between theist religions and atheists with a strong conviction that the scientific process offers the best 'truth' about what the real Universe consists of.

Three things theists cannot claim about their religious beliefs:
1) The scientific process is based on observable, measurable evidence.
2) Conclusions determined through the scientific process are subject to change as new evidence is collected and evaluated.
3) The scientific process has proved its utility through incredible successes time and time again.

You can argue that well-being is as good a measure of success as sending a working robot to Mars. You can argue that one claimed miracle cure is the equivalent of the discovery of antibiotics. Those claims even if true, (the latter example is doubtful), still don't reach equivalency.

Religious folk should respect others with restraint in overexpression of their beliefs as much as any other.The trouble with your implication here that atheists should not "over express" their beliefs, whatever that means, is what I posted above: if your conclusion is, all gods are mythical beings, that conclusion is inherently offensive. You are suggesting we say something akin to, "I conclude homeopathy doesn't work but I don't want to suggest my conclusion is any more correct than the person who concludes homeopathy works."

I'm happy to debate the evidence for and against the existence of gods. But I'm not willing to say that the conclusion, gods don't exist, is no more supported by the evidence than the conclusion, gods do exist.

As for it all being a myth, all creation began somewhere, and to date, neither side has a decided advantage in knowing more than the other unless you can of course prove me wrong.The evidence proves you wrong, I am not the evidence. And success proves the evidence based approach to 'truth' is correct while the failures of the superstitious* approach to 'truth' proves that approach is incorrect.



*No offense intended. Superstitious approach refers to purely anecdotal and word of mouth generated memes. In other words, people pray, rain comes, they draw the conclusion the prayer caused the rain.

Robin
19th January 2011, 01:57 PM
One of Christopher Pearson's best friends is Frances Collins. Sam Harris has said that the impulse towards a belief in God is an inherently good but misdirected impulse and he is currently engaged in research into a particular religious practice in a respectful partnership with the practioners of that religion.

I imagine that Hedge's mention of these facts unaccountably went missing in the sub-editing process.

Dunstan
19th January 2011, 02:07 PM
A little bit slow day, little bit curiosity. I was mildly curious what kind of responses would come in. Some were fairly predictable, some made an honets effort to have the discussion.

And what do you conclude from this?

Since you weren't making an honest effort to have a discussion, weren't the "predictable" responses justified? The people who dismissed you as a troll were correct, and the ones who made an honest effort were wasting their time. (I know, I know -- do it for the lurkers.)

TraneWreck
19th January 2011, 02:09 PM
Worst of all, it's basically impossible to troll the JREF forums. Trolling isn't against the rules, and any attempt at trolling is more likely to trigger a discussion than cries of outrage. Hell, the whole reason we're here is to discuss stuff often considered unsuitable or even against the rules at other forums. Trolling here is like trying to upset a pub landlord by getting drunk in his pub.

Trolling, at some level, is about advancing a really stupid/silly/absurd idea and getting others to treat it seriously.

One other aspect of JREF that makes it either untrollable or the easiest board to troll in the history of boards, is that it is literally impossible to develop an idea in jest that is stupider/sillier/more absurd than the earnest arguments we receive on a daily basis.

That's why the "Stundie" exists. We have truthers, birthers, Holocaust deniers, moon landing hoaxers, Bible literalists, Bigfoot enthusiasts, psychic believers, dowsing practitioners, and much, much more (and that's if we restrict ourselves to the set of posters able to present their views with a minimum of coherency).

A Laughing Baby
19th January 2011, 02:13 PM
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.

A Laughing Baby
19th January 2011, 02:18 PM
As for it all being a myth, all creation began somewhere, and to date, neither side has a decided advantage in knowing more than the other unless you can of course prove me wrong.

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.

quixotecoyote
19th January 2011, 03:57 PM
As for it all being a myth, all creation began somewhere, and to date, neither side has a decided advantage in knowing more than the other unless you can of course prove me wrong.

Apart from being wrong, this is a bait&switch. Arguing for some unspecific prime cause is a world apart from arguing for your specific god.

Dancing David
20th January 2011, 04:53 AM
Read through the Religion section and note the tone of Atheistic folks here. If you can't see the parallel of fundyism it's the bias. Given the number of dodges from the atheist side, sad.....

Just another group looking to force their pov on an unreceptive audience.
Sad......

Given the fact that you can't link even to a post shows you are just whining. For every unreasonable poster there are many who are not.

So where are these posts and who said them? In what context?

Who is trying to force what here?

BTW Where is that Pushy gay rights activist?

Jonnyclueless
20th January 2011, 12:11 PM
I don't see how I can take seriously anyone who uses a term such as "New Atheists". If someone doesn't understand what Atheism is, how is there going to be a rational discussion on it?

Sledge
20th January 2011, 12:29 PM
I'm not sure anyone did take this seriously.

Squeegee Beckenheim
20th January 2011, 12:52 PM
Mike, sorry to be pedantic, but I don't participate in the Religion threads, so won't try to address your points. I just wanted to point out that the abbreviation for Christian is Xian, not XTtian.

Tell that to Xtina.

USEagle13
20th January 2011, 07:38 PM
[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?

The aetheist religion is actually called skeptical thinking

because according to "them" you cannot be a skeptic and religious at the same time. And if you post something contradictory to the paradigm they have themselves set up w/the help of fundamental aetheism then they claim you are trolling which is a childish form of name calling.

Your OP's 1st couple of replies are a testament to this

Many of the aetheist hoard are in these forums. An example for a hollywood visualization would be Lord of the Rings series.

Sauron would be Satan. The aetheist hoard being the goblins/orcs/trolls/and undead

USEagle13
20th January 2011, 07:52 PM
Is it really a troll, or just an inconvenient question in an Atheist-biased venue?

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?

Aetheists have a lot of symbols actually. The Staff of Horus (a.k.a. Staff of Hermes), the Eye of Providence (eye of Horus/Evil eye, God in the Bible has 2 eyes like a human but the Evil eye or eye of Ra has one and it is another sun symbol like the Swastika), and the Wings of Nike to name just a few.

Also, the Swoosh sign is another symbol of the wings of Nike/Wings of Hermes. So if you put on a pair symbolically (Occult loves symbols) its like you got lil wings on your feet like Mercury.

They unknowingly worship supposedly dead religions from Greek, Roman, and Egyptian mythology. That is how Satan works. He is "behind the scenes" being the master "trickster"

X
20th January 2011, 07:53 PM
The atheist religion is actually called skeptical thinking.

Because according to "them" you cannot be a skeptic and religious at the same time. And if you post something contradictory to the paradigm they have themselves set up w/the help of fundamental atheism then they claim you are trolling which is a childish form of name calling.

Your OP's 1st couple of replies are a testament to this.

Many of the atheist horde are in these forums. An example for a Hollywood visualization would be Lord of the Rings series.

Sauron would be Satan. The atheist hoard being the goblins/orcs/trolls/and undead



While some members here may have made the claim the you cannot be a skeptic and also be religious, you will find such views to be very much in the minority. So I must ask that you provide evidence for your broad-brush assertion, or retract it.

Further, atheists don't follow Satan. By definition, they don't even believe in Satan. And if you are going to go with the aging canard of "Not believing in Satan means your actually serving him", or similar (ŕ la Chick Tracts), then please provide evidence (in another thread, it is off-topic in this one) for the existence of your religious bogeyman.

devnull
20th January 2011, 08:19 PM
Isnt this whole argument best summed up as "you guys are as stupid as we are, and therefore your philosophical views are just as invalid as ours"???

Talk about desperation.

llwyd
20th January 2011, 08:38 PM
While some members here may have made the claim the you cannot be a skeptic and also be religious, you will find such views to be very much in the minority. So I must ask that you provide evidence for your broad-brush assertion, or retract it.

Well, I can relatively easily be both a very liberal (Finnish Pietist) Christian and an agnostic (which these days is called weak atheism). I lack all faith in the existence of God, as there is no supportive evidence whatsover and quite a bit of countering evidence, but I still very much hope that the Pietist version of Christian God would exist and don't consider that possibility to be zero (like with any other possibility). Moreover, this exceedingly likely non-existence does not make the practice of certain kinds of Christianity pointless. Anyway, maybe one day we end up by creating Him or Her or It.

Foster Zygote
20th January 2011, 08:38 PM
Aetheists have a lot of symbols actually. The Staff of Horus (a.k.a. Staff of Hermes), the Eye of Providence (eye of Horus/Evil eye, God in the Bible has 2 eyes like a human but the Evil eye or eye of Ra has one and it is another sun symbol like the Swastika), and the Wings of Nike to name just a few.
You seem to be confusing atheism, the lack of belief in gods, with belief in ancient Egyptian and Greek gods.

Also, the Swoosh sign is another symbol of the wings of Nike/Wings of Hermes. So if you put on a pair symbolically (Occult loves symbols) its like you got lil wings on your feet like Mercury.

They unknowingly worship supposedly dead religions from Greek, Roman, and Egyptian mythology. That is how Satan works. He is "behind the scenes" being the master "trickster"
So... athletic shoes are a tool of Satan? Seriously? I really hope that this is a joke because otherwise you need help.

Gawdzilla
20th January 2011, 08:45 PM
You seem to be confusing atheism, the lack of belief in gods, with belief in ancient Egyptian and Greek gods.
He's doing the best he can with what he has to work with.
So... athletic shoes are a tool of Satan? Seriously? I really hope that this is a joke because otherwise you need help.
Not a joke. His belief system is so fragile he has to demand everyone else have one.

Foster Zygote
20th January 2011, 08:48 PM
The aetheist religion is actually called skeptical thinking
No, you are conflating the two. Skeptical thinking can lead one to atheism, however skepticism is a tool that can be employed by theists as well.

because according to "them" you cannot be a skeptic and religious at the same time. And if you post something contradictory to the paradigm they have themselves set up w/the help of fundamental aetheism then they claim you are trolling which is a childish form of name calling.
The truth of the matter is that the situation is far more complex than your overly simplistic assessment. Atheists, like any other group of humans represent a great deal more diversity than you give them credit for. Some atheists have said that skepticism and theism are mutually exclusive, yet you will find many atheists who strongly disagree with this assertion. Your simplistic straw man is no more justified than the simplistic straw men constructed by some atheists to represent theists.

Sauron would be Satan.
Well they are both fictional constructs.

Achán hiNidráne
20th January 2011, 09:02 PM
Thread? I win the internet for breakfast. Your half-arsed little thread would be nothing more than a late-afternoon Triscuit.


I wonder if anyone will get that one.

James Coburn in "Hudson Hawk."

Yeah, have a masochistic love of bad movies. It fuels my nihilism.

Mashuna
21st January 2011, 12:38 AM
Also, the Swoosh sign is another symbol of the wings of Nike/Wings of Hermes. So if you put on a pair symbolically (Occult loves symbols) its like you got lil wings on your feet like Mercury.

They unknowingly worship supposedly dead religions from Greek, Roman, and Egyptian mythology. That is how Satan works. He is "behind the scenes" being the master "trickster"

And when you're happy that it's Friday, you're unkowingly worshiping old Norse religions. Thank God it's Freyja's Day!

Gawdzilla
21st January 2011, 12:41 AM
And when you're happy that it's Friday, you're unkowingly worshiping old Norse religions. Thank God it's Freyja's Day!

I always thought it was "Thanks, Gin, I'm getting fried today!"

DC
21st January 2011, 01:07 AM
Aetheists have a lot of symbols actually. The Staff of Horus (a.k.a. Staff of Hermes), the Eye of Providence (eye of Horus/Evil eye, God in the Bible has 2 eyes like a human but the Evil eye or eye of Ra has one and it is another sun symbol like the Swastika), and the Wings of Nike to name just a few.

Also, the Swoosh sign is another symbol of the wings of Nike/Wings of Hermes. So if you put on a pair symbolically (Occult loves symbols) its like you got lil wings on your feet like Mercury.

They unknowingly worship supposedly dead religions from Greek, Roman, and Egyptian mythology. That is how Satan works. He is "behind the scenes" being the master "trickster"

yeah and YHWH surely likes that you are hanging around with us Satans instead of spreading Jesus's gospels.....

mushy
21st January 2011, 01:53 AM
Just to clear something up.

I'm not a theist. I'm Athiest/Agnostic i have not decided yet. I don't believe in psychic abilities. I believe Sylvia Browne is a fraud etc.. HOWEVER my problem lies in the new way Athiests seem to act. I'm not going to say why, because that will spark a "Give evidence" etc... Which is the standard MO people seem to learn on this forum. Its like they are following a script and have no means of addressing individual topics differently and stick to the script for fear of making a mistake that all the pedantic people on here will drag out for AGGGEEEESSSSSS.

Another trait is to purposfully misrepresent a vauge discription of something, even though its obvious what you are talking about so they can get "ONE UP" on you, in some sort of petty contest, rather than actually being polite and discussing what they think.

Aepervius
21st January 2011, 03:37 AM
Is it really a troll, or just an inconvenient question in an Atheist-biased venue?

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 are missing the point of the father, the government is supposed to not favorite a religion over another. The father could have been muslim or hindus and have had the exact same point.

As for the rest about being as bigoted as whoever and atheist not being more moral than other , I fully agree. racism, bigotery, chauvinism are human trait, and can happen to anybody not matter what they believe beside that. Atheism is not a moral code. It is the non belief in the existence of gods !

But where op person cited misses fully the point, by recognizing that atheist can be as bad as theist, he implicitely ADMIT that theist have as bad moral as atheist. In otehr word : religion or the absence of it has no moral impact on the person.And that alone should give him food for thought.

devnull
21st January 2011, 04:01 AM
I'm not going to say why, because that will spark a "Give evidence" etc... Which is the standard MO people seem to learn on this forum.


It is bad to ask someone to back up their statements? Or should we all just accept everything everyone says, or run by gut-feel or something?

How do *you* judge the ideas of others?


Its like they are following a script and have no means of addressing individual topics differently and stick to the script for fear of making a mistake that all the pedantic people on here will drag out for AGGGEEEESSSSSS.


Sounds like a lame whine because you dont have evidence.

People make mistakes here all the time. The better ones admit their mistakes.


Another trait is to purposfully misrepresent a vauge discription of something, even though its obvious what you are talking about so they can get "ONE UP" on you, in some sort of petty contest, rather than actually being polite and discussing what they think.

Evidence?

Actually, Id probably agree with you here, slightly, except that you miss the point of it. It is a method of getting people to define further, or offer more detail.

You: God is blue
Me: God is sad?
You: No! I mean the colour!

One of the frustrating things about believers/woosters/you is that you refuse to define anything. You just throw out random, ill-defined ideas and expect everyone to swallow them. People ask for evidence, and instead of providing it or admitting you dont have any, we end up with whinge-fest threads like this one.

Robin
21st January 2011, 04:23 AM
Aetheists have a lot of symbols actually. The Staff of Horus (a.k.a. Staff of Hermes), the Eye of Providence (eye of Horus/Evil eye, God in the Bible has 2 eyes like a human but the Evil eye or eye of Ra has one and it is another sun symbol like the Swastika), and the Wings of Nike to name just a few.

Also, the Swoosh sign is another symbol of the wings of Nike/Wings of Hermes. So if you put on a pair symbolically (Occult loves symbols) its like you got lil wings on your feet like Mercury.

They unknowingly worship supposedly dead religions from Greek, Roman, and Egyptian mythology. That is how Satan works. He is "behind the scenes" being the master "trickster"
So you never use dollar bills eh?

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

mushy
21st January 2011, 04:27 AM
It is bad to ask someone to back up their statements? Or should we all just accept everything everyone says, or run by gut-feel or something?

How do *you* judge the ideas of others?



Sounds like a lame whine because you dont have evidence.

People make mistakes here all the time. The better ones admit their mistakes.



Evidence?

Actually, Id probably agree with you here, slightly, except that you miss the point of it. It is a method of getting people to define further, or offer more detail.

You: God is blue
Me: God is sad?
You: No! I mean the colour!

One of the frustrating things about believers/woosters/you is that you refuse to define anything. You just throw out random, ill-defined ideas and expect everyone to swallow them. People ask for evidence, and instead of providing it or admitting you dont have any, we end up with whinge-fest threads like this one.


Sadly i could have predicted your responses.

devnull
21st January 2011, 04:35 AM
Sadly i could have predicted your responses.

Case in point.... all you can drum up is "I knew you were gonna say that!"

Yeh, well, I know you are but what am I! nyah nyah nyah


:boggled:

Dancing David
21st January 2011, 04:35 AM
Just to clear something up.

I'm not a theist. I'm Athiest/Agnostic i have not decided yet. I don't believe in psychic abilities. I believe Sylvia Browne is a fraud etc.. HOWEVER my problem lies in the new way Athiests seem to act.

data points, evidence?

I'm not going to say why, because that will spark a "Give evidence" etc...

Because you don't have any ?

Which is the standard MO people seem to learn on this forum.

Welcome to critical thinking!

Its like they are following a script and have no means of addressing individual topics differently and stick to the script for fear of making a mistake that all the pedantic people on here will drag out for AGGGEEEESSSSSS.

So you have rhetoric and no argument, weak.

the basis of critical thinking is to examine the data and possible interpretations



Another trait is to purposfully misrepresent a vauge discription of something, even though its obvious what you are talking about

Nope, defintion is also important in critical thinking.

so they can get "ONE UP" on you, in some sort of petty contest, rather than actually being polite and discussing what they think.

And I have discussed with you politely.

Dancing David
21st January 2011, 04:37 AM
Sadly i could have predicted your responses.

Sadly, you came to a sceptic's forum and expect people to not ask you to support your statements?

devnull
21st January 2011, 04:38 AM
You gotta love someone coming to a forum that has "skepticism" and "critical thinking" in its motto and whining because people ask for evidence :)

there's just something wonderful about that....

mushy
21st January 2011, 04:44 AM
No, What you have done is changed the point to "Critical thinking" which noone was talking about. Then gave a bunch of information about what Critical thinking is to appear more knowledgeable than me.

Which is a perfect example of what i said here.

Another trait is to purposfully misrepresent a vauge discription of something, even though its obvious what you are talking about


You will no doubt now jump on and say this is not what you are doing, move the goal posts, then talk about something completely different. Taking time to highlight your knowledge on whatever topic you pick to talk about. Then ask me to provide evidence that you are doing this.. thus the cycle continues.

devnull
21st January 2011, 04:51 AM
just go have a cry somewhere else dude.

you obviously dont like it here, why put yourself through it?

mushy
21st January 2011, 04:54 AM
You gotta love someone coming to a forum that has "skepticism" and "critical thinking" in its motto and whining because people ask for evidence :)

there's just something wonderful about that....

Again, you can't see the wood for the trees. I love critical thinking,i think its great, what i have a problem with is that people on here take it too far. As far as im concerned Critical thinking means thinking for yourself. The nature of people on this forum prevents that. As i said before, you cannot have a light-hearted conversation. Everything is dragged down into the same boring old "show me evidence", "show your working out". I like to chat about these topics as a means of relaxation, to get opinions. Not to feel like im writing a perfect thesis and being harrassed by the gang mentality. It's now become the social norm, for new people, to adopt the same boring robotic script following method of discussing things. While i agree it is important to discuss facts. I really believe that the vast majority of you guys are quick to call for evidence, in general light-hearted threads in an attempt to fit in with the social norm. It's this complete lack of individuality that really annoys me and its in this respect that critical thinking on this site and with New-Athiests in general supresses knowledge and understanding.

mushy
21st January 2011, 04:55 AM
just go have a cry somewhere else dude.

you obviously dont like it here, why put yourself through it?

Why should i move? You are the ones who are in the wrong. Should Rosa Parks have gave up her seat too?

devnull
21st January 2011, 04:57 AM
Why should i move? You are the ones who are in the wrong. Should Rosa Parks have gave up her seat too?

Dude, we're in a skeptics forum, asking for evidence.

Removed personal attack

Resume
21st January 2011, 04:57 AM
Why should i move? You are the ones who are in the wrong. Should Rosa Parks have gave up her seat too?

Oh get over yourself.

mushy
21st January 2011, 05:01 AM
Dude, we're in a skeptics forum, asking for evidence.

I think you need to see a doctor.

Why can't you understand what you are doing? Asking for evidence, FOR EVERYTHING, is something that you learnt on here. Its good practice for serious topics and claims. However to ask it in every post, when someone is giving an opinion on another person or saying what they think, is wrong. Its you making a decision to drag the topic down, until it becomes unreadable, for the purpose of gaining personal board brownie points.

Dancing David
21st January 2011, 05:03 AM
No, What you have done is changed the point to "Critical thinking" which noone was talking about.
You and we talked about asking for evidence, did you not?





This is what critical thinking is, about 75% of the discussions here are about defintions, I think that children older than the age of ten realize everyone uses words differently, therefore you may think you know what you mean, but guess what, I don't.
Therefore people will ask you to explain what you mean and then ask for evidence. It is what this forum does.

Dancing David
21st January 2011, 05:10 AM
Why can't you understand what you are doing? Asking for evidence, FOR EVERYTHING, is something that you learnt on here. Its good practice for serious topics and claims. However to ask it in every post, when someone is giving an opinion on another person or saying what they think, is wrong. Its you making a decision to drag the topic down, until it becomes unreadable, for the purpose of gaining personal board brownie points.

No, it is because we don't know what peopel are talking about until they present the evidence, so where is this New Atheist doing what the OP talked about?

Yes some atheists are rude, some are not, so what basis is there for a discussion other than the evidence?

Yes Dawkins uses inflamatory language, I don't. (Most of the time.)

Dancing David
21st January 2011, 05:11 AM
Why should i move? You are the ones who are in the wrong. Should Rosa Parks have gave up her seat too?

What are the new atheists doing that compares to Jim Crow?

devnull
21st January 2011, 05:12 AM
Why can't you understand what you are doing? Asking for evidence, FOR EVERYTHING, is something that you learnt on here. Its good practice for serious topics and claims. However to ask it in every post, when someone is giving an opinion on another person or saying what they think, is wrong. Its you making a decision to drag the topic down, until it becomes unreadable, for the purpose of gaining personal board brownie points.

Evidence?

Cainkane1
21st January 2011, 05:12 AM
[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

You can be a bigot in any philosophy believer or not. The atheists I know get sucked into discussions by believers who threaten them with Hell and sometime during the argument the atheist gives them back some of what they are getting. This gets the believers pantys in a wad which causes believers to say we are bigots. Depending on who I'm with I'm sometimes leery of saying anything. I was once threatened after I was overheard saying I didn't believe in TV faith healing.

Sledge
21st January 2011, 05:20 AM
James Coburn in "Hudson Hawk."

Yeah, have a masochistic love of bad movies. It fuels my nihilism.
Five points to Gryffindor. Would have been ten, but I refuse to accept Hudson Hawk was a bad movie.
Sadly i could have predicted your responses.
And yet you still had no answer to any of them. Strange that.

Foster Zygote
21st January 2011, 05:26 AM
HOWEVER my problem lies in the new way Athiests seem to act.

Well my problem lies with the way you make this blanket accusation against atheists in general. If you'd said "some atheists" then I would agree with you. But you seem determined to paint all atheists with the same broad brush. Perhaps this is not your intent?

Resume
21st January 2011, 05:35 AM
Its you making a decision to drag the topic down, until it becomes unreadable, for the purpose of gaining personal board brownie points.

These brownie points, I have none of them. Are they redeemable for valuable prizes? Is there a catalog?

Gawdzilla
21st January 2011, 05:36 AM
Why can't you understand what you are doing? Asking for evidence, FOR EVERYTHING, is something that you learnt on here.

Actually, I learned it during the Watergate Era.

devnull
21st January 2011, 05:41 AM
Seriously, Id like mushy to provide some examples of stuff he would have expected us to accept sans evidence?

I cant understand the issue.

HansMustermann
21st January 2011, 07:55 AM
Why can't you understand what you are doing? Asking for evidence, FOR EVERYTHING, is something that you learnt on here. Its good practice for serious topics and claims. However to ask it in every post, when someone is giving an opinion on another person or saying what they think, is wrong. Its you making a decision to drag the topic down, until it becomes unreadable, for the purpose of gaining personal board brownie points.

Dude, that's what frigging "critical thinking" _means_. If you want us to believe that you actually have a point, you get to support your claims.

Opinion or not, something can be true or false. If you want us to take it as true, support it.

Of course, if you just want to be an opinionated BS-er doing hypocritical mud-slinging fests, you don't need to support anything. We're getting that idea as it is.

ETA: also, it doesn't matter where we learned something. Actually at least in my case, I learned it while learning physics: if you claim a theory, you must show your data points and proof from there. But even that doesn't matter. The association fallacy is just that: a fallacy. It doesn't matter where someone learned something. They could have learned it here, in school, in prison, or from their drug dealer, or whatever. The association with something else doesn't make something automatically true or false, nor good or bad. If you want to argue that practice as good or bad, argue it on its merits, not via delusional strawmen and appeal to motive fallacies like "board brownie points."

HansMustermann
21st January 2011, 08:02 AM
Just to clear something up.

I'm not a theist. I'm Athiest/Agnostic i have not decided yet. I don't believe in psychic abilities. I believe Sylvia Browne is a fraud etc.. HOWEVER my problem lies in the new way Athiests seem to act. I'm not going to say why, because that will spark a "Give evidence" etc... Which is the standard MO people seem to learn on this forum. Its like they are following a script and have no means of addressing individual topics differently and stick to the script for fear of making a mistake that all the pedantic people on here will drag out for AGGGEEEESSSSSS.

Another trait is to purposfully misrepresent a vauge discription of something, even though its obvious what you are talking about so they can get "ONE UP" on you, in some sort of petty contest, rather than actually being polite and discussing what they think.

It doesn't matter what you believe in, either. It doesn't make your point true or false. That would be an ad hominem fallacy.

It matters whether you can support your claims or not. It's that simple.

Gawdzilla
21st January 2011, 08:13 AM
Mushy, if you're not a theist what, exactly, is the basis for your belief that you can tell other people how to behave?

Foster Zygote
21st January 2011, 08:35 AM
Why can't you understand what you are doing? Asking for evidence, FOR EVERYTHING, is something that you learnt on here.
Asking for evidence is something I learned long before this forum even existed. And I don't ask for evidence of everything. But when you present something with the implication that it is factually true then it is perfectly appropriate to both point out flaws in your claim and ask you to state or clarify your reasons for making the claim. This is exactly what this forum was created for and it is how ideas are tested for merit. It is not an idea that originated on, or is unique to, this forum. It is an intellectual practice that is implemented on a worldwide scale and has been for many centuries.

Its good practice for serious topics and claims. However to ask it in every post, when someone is giving an opinion on another person or saying what they think, is wrong.
It is one thing to state an opinion such as, "I prefer Miles Davis to Toby Keith". It is another thing to make claims that you present as fact. If you claim that atheists behave in a certain manner then it is perfectly appropriate for others to ask you to express your reasoning behind this claim.

Its you making a decision to drag the topic down, until it becomes unreadable, for the purpose of gaining personal board brownie points.
Actually, what seems to be happening here is that you have made a claim about the behavior of atheists and when challenged to defend this claim you have been unable to do so with any sound logic, so you have resorted to asserting that the very act of challenging your claim is inappropriate.

caniswalensis
21st January 2011, 08:39 AM
Well, I don't want to get in the middle of the argument here, but I would like to add my thoughts.

I am an atheist, and I see all sorts of behaviors, both positive & negative from both atheists & theists alike.

I guess it is a a passionate subject for both sides. That is understandable.

As for the statements being made in this thread about atheists and theists, I see them as gross generalizations, and therefore not really true.

I have heard some really nasty, hateful & intolerant tirades directed at believers in a face to face discussion. So to be honest, I have to say that atheists sometimes indulge in the sort of behavior spoken of in the OP. Believers do so as well, so there is no real distinction to be made there.

If people see patterns of behavior in a certain group of humans, I tend to think the operative word there is "humans." We tend to behave the same because we are the same. If you see a group of people behaving a certain way, don't assume that the behavior is a characteristic of the group. Instead, look at another group and you will almost certainly see the same sort of behavior. This holds true for other group designations as well. look at politicians. You see a wide variety of behavior patterns displayed there.

I do not even think that we will ever grow out of it. It is a part of human nature.

Mister Agenda
21st January 2011, 08:42 AM
The aetheist religion is actually called skeptical thinking

because according to "them" you cannot be a skeptic and religious at the same time. And if you post something contradictory to the paradigm they have themselves set up w/the help of fundamental aetheism then they claim you are trolling which is a childish form of name calling.

Your OP's 1st couple of replies are a testament to this

Many of the aetheist hoard are in these forums. An example for a hollywood visualization would be Lord of the Rings series.

Sauron would be Satan. The aetheist hoard being the goblins/orcs/trolls/and undead

Believe me, there are plenty of atheists who are virtual strangers to anything resembling skeptical thinking. They just tend not to post much on the JREF, which is a discussion board largely about skepticism.

Also, what you're trying to say is 'atheist horde'.

Mister Agenda
21st January 2011, 08:45 AM
Would have been ten, but I refuse to accept Hudson Hawk was a bad movie.


Represent!

Hellbound
21st January 2011, 08:45 AM
Also, what you're trying to say is 'atheist horde'.

Are you sure? I just assumed he was a collector of some sort...

:D

nvidiot
21st January 2011, 08:48 AM
James Randi keeps us as pawns in his colossal game of world domination. Didn't you get the memo?

Mister Agenda
21st January 2011, 09:01 AM
Why can't you understand what you are doing? Asking for evidence, FOR EVERYTHING, is something that you learnt on here. Its good practice for serious topics and claims. However to ask it in every post, when someone is giving an opinion on another person or saying what they think, is wrong. Its you making a decision to drag the topic down, until it becomes unreadable, for the purpose of gaining personal board brownie points.

It took a long time, about 18 years with a lot of reading and some college courses on logic for me to learn critical thinking. Years after that, I encountered JREF. I wish it had been available when I first started becoming skeptical in my late teens, it would have shortened my learning curve considerably.

We don't always ask for evidence. Sometimes a post just isn't controversial or doesn't actually make a claim or is so cogent or well-reasoned that no one disagrees with it, or at least so clear that no one is confused by it. OPs like that make for short threads though.

Seriously, what kind of conversation were you expecting? Something like this?:

You: Here's a quote that says New Atheists are bigoted fundamentalists.
Us: Wow, we never thought of it that way, thanks for bringing this to our attention, You!
You: Yeah, it's really a problem.
Us: We should spend several pages talking about how bad New Atheists are and what we can do to make them nicer!

mikeyx
21st January 2011, 09:03 AM
And what do you conclude from this?

Since you weren't making an honest effort to have a discussion, weren't the "predictable" responses justified? The people who dismissed you as a troll were correct, and the ones who made an honest effort were wasting their time. (I know, I know -- do it for the lurkers.)

Not at all, like any other fundy, the New Atheists automatically dismiss a differing to theirs as a troll, because they of course have the monopoly on truth; not....

mikeyx
21st January 2011, 09:05 AM
The aetheist religion is actually called skeptical thinking

because according to "them" you cannot be a skeptic and religious at the same time. And if you post something contradictory to the paradigm they have themselves set up w/the help of fundamental aetheism then they claim you are trolling which is a childish form of name calling.

Your OP's 1st couple of replies are a testament to this

Many of the aetheist hoard are in these forums. An example for a hollywood visualization would be Lord of the Rings series.

Sauron would be Satan. The aetheist hoard being the goblins/orcs/trolls/and undead

Nope: Skeptical thinking is considering all possibilities and then widdling through from there, a whole lotta what happens here is just debunking for debunking sake, and the ego of the debunker.

mikeyx
21st January 2011, 09:06 AM
Isnt this whole argument best summed up as "you guys are as stupid as we are, and therefore your philosophical views are just as invalid as ours"???

Talk about desperation.

Actually it was a troll born out of some degree of bordeom. Your comprehension skills might need a tune up.

New Aethists were give a quasi textbook definition, and the question was asked, and YOU just can't seem to see that. You are actually proving me right.

mikeyx
21st January 2011, 09:11 AM
Not a joke. His belief system is so fragile he has to demand everyone else have one.

Whose? Mine? I never demanded any such thing, the whole thread began as a question based on a definition. Clarify, my fundy atheist friend.

tsig
21st January 2011, 09:11 AM
Why should i move? You are the ones who are in the wrong. Should Rosa Parks have gave up her seat too?


I got a hammer, someone bring the nails.

mikeyx
21st January 2011, 09:15 AM
You can be a bigot in any philosophy believer or not. The atheists I know get sucked into discussions by believers who threaten them with Hell and sometime during the argument the atheist gives them back some of what they are getting. This gets the believers pantys in a wad which causes believers to say we are bigots. Depending on who I'm with I'm sometimes leery of saying anything. I was once threatened after I was overheard saying I didn't believe in TV faith healing.

I dont believe in that crap either, how dare you suggest I do. I didn't say you were bigots, I suggested you are the other fundys. So far, you are.

Gawdzilla
21st January 2011, 09:16 AM
Whose? Mine? I never demanded any such thing, the whole thread began as a question based on a definition. Clarify, my fundy atheist friend.

Right, play that game by yourself.

mikeyx
21st January 2011, 09:16 AM
Mushy, if you're not a theist what, exactly, is the basis for your belief that you can tell other people how to behave?

Whats yours?

Gawdzilla
21st January 2011, 09:19 AM
Whats yours?

Hobgoblin, thanks!

tsig
21st January 2011, 09:20 AM
James Randi keeps us as pawns in his colossal game of world domination. Didn't you get the memo?

So that's what P-K4 meant.:eek:

Steve
21st January 2011, 09:23 AM
These brownie points, I have none of them. Are they redeemable for valuable prizes? Is there a catalog?

Well, they are redeemable for brownies, of course. Hence the name.

Gawdzilla
21st January 2011, 09:24 AM
Well, they are redeemable for brownies, of course. Hence the name.

Alice B. Toklas, I love you!

Skeptic Ginger
21st January 2011, 09:25 AM
And when you're happy that it's Friday, you're unkowingly worshiping old Norse religions. Thank God it's Freyja's Day!

But don't we have the Judeo-Christian religion to thank for weekends off? Or was Freyja's day something else altogether?

tsig
21st January 2011, 09:26 AM
Nope: Skeptical thinking is considering all possibilities and then widdling through from there, a whole lotta what happens here is just debunking for debunking sake, and the ego of the debunker.

Do you just keep considering all possibilities or at some point do you decide which is more possible?

tsig
21st January 2011, 09:29 AM
I dont believe in that crap either, how dare you suggest I do. I didn't say you were bigots, I suggested you are the other fundys. So far, you are.

So you're here at JREF just to call everyone else names?

Steve
21st January 2011, 09:30 AM
Alice B. Toklas, I love you!

I wasn't necessarily thinking of that type of brownie, but now that you mention it........

tsig
21st January 2011, 09:30 AM
Right, play that game by yourself.

Looks like he's playing with himself quite nicely.

FattyCatty
21st January 2011, 09:37 AM
Asking for evidence is something I learned long before this forum even existed. And I don't ask for evidence of everything. But when you present something with the implication that it is factually true then it is perfectly appropriate to both point out flaws in your claim and ask you to state or clarify your reasons for making the claim. This is exactly what this forum was created for and it is how ideas are tested for merit. It is not an idea that originated on, or is unique to, this forum. It is an intellectual practice that is implemented on a worldwide scale and has been for many centuries.
<snip>
Actually, what seems to be happening here is that you have made a claim about the behavior of atheists and when challenged to defend this claim you have been unable to do so with any sound logic, so you have resorted to asserting that the very act of challenging your claim is inappropriate.I agreed about the behavior of some atheists (Avid AtheistsTM). I presented some evidence and reasons in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6783973#post6783973). Everyone has ignored it. Do you really want evidence, or do you (plural) just want to assume you're right?

Limbo
21st January 2011, 09:38 AM
I think that "new atheist" is simply a term used to lump a bunch of diverse people together into one easily dismissed package.


Its the term "woo-woo" that you are thinking of.

Foster Zygote
21st January 2011, 10:47 AM
Mikeyx, were you sincere when you posted this, or were you just trolling out of boredom?

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.

If you really were sincere, would you mind addressing my response to you?

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?

I'm attempting to have an actual debate with you, in contrast to your characterizations. Are you actually interested in an honest discussion, or are you simply seeking conflict? It's up to you.

Foster Zygote
21st January 2011, 10:54 AM
Its the term "woo-woo" that you are thinking of.

Are you able to discern the irony of your response? You are lumping me in with a group without justification. Can you point to an instance where I have used the term "woo-woo"?

Dancing David
21st January 2011, 12:05 PM
I dont believe in that crap either, how dare you suggest I do. I didn't say you were bigots, I suggested you are the other fundys. So far, you are.

I am not and your evidence is still lacking.

Foster Zygote
21st January 2011, 12:07 PM
I agreed about the behavior of some atheists (Avid AtheistsTM). I presented some evidence and reasons in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6783973#post6783973). Everyone has ignored it. Do you really want evidence, or do you (plural) just want to assume you're right?

What am I (singular) assuming that I am right about? My position is that it is unjustified to point to the behavior of a few individuals as support for a broad characterization. It is just as wrong to do it to theists as it is atheists. Do you disagree?

FattyCatty
21st January 2011, 12:17 PM
What am I (singular) assuming that I am right about? My position is that it is unjustified to point to the behavior of a few individuals as support for a broad characterization. It is just as wrong to do it to theists as it is atheists. Do you disagree?I don't disagree with this statement.


Asking for evidence is something I learned long before this forum even existed. And I don't ask for evidence of everything. But when you present something with the implication that it is factually true then it is perfectly appropriate to both point out flaws in your claim and ask you to state or clarify your reasons for making the claim. This is exactly what this forum was created for and it is how ideas are tested for merit. It is not an idea that originated on, or is unique to, this forum. It is an intellectual practice that is implemented on a worldwide scale and has been for many centuries.
<snip>
Actually, what seems to be happening here is that you have made a claim about the behavior of atheists and when challenged to defend this claim you have been unable to do so with any sound logic, so you have resorted to asserting that the very act of challenging your claim is inappropriate.I was responding to your (implied) requests for evidence and reasons for making a claim. I referred to the post where I provided that information, which has been ignored.

I Am The Scum
21st January 2011, 12:18 PM
Why can't you understand what you are doing? Asking for evidence, FOR EVERYTHING, is something that you learnt on here. Its good practice for serious topics and claims. However to ask it in every post, when someone is giving an opinion on another person or saying what they think, is wrong. Its you making a decision to drag the topic down, until it becomes unreadable, for the purpose of gaining personal board brownie points.

Hey, mushy? Do you realize where you are? This is the philosophy section of a skeptic's forum.

But anyways, let's explore the implications of what you're saying.

Initially I'm presented with two possibilities. Either all beliefs require evidence, or not all of them do. If they all require evidence, then you have no case. You are chastising people because they ask for that which is required. So (assuming you are consistent), it must be the case that you accept that some beliefs require no evidence. As such, I am now presented with two questions.

1. What are the beliefs that require no evidence?
2. How do you know they require no evidence?

Foster Zygote
21st January 2011, 12:45 PM
I was responding to your (implied) requests for evidence and reasons for making a claim. I referred to the post where I provided that information, which has been ignored.

I was responding to mikeyx, not you. My participation in this forum amounts to but a small fraction of my life's activities. I have an eleven week old daughter and a six year old son to care for, so I do not have the time to sit for hours and read hundreds of posts. Your post was not directed to me specifically so it was among those that I passed over while scanning through the thread. This was not intended as an insult to you.

That being said, I don't see where you've done anything but find posts by people whom you feel were behaving rudely and then use them as justification for creating yet another label that ignores the complexities of individual behavior. New Atheist, Avid AtheistsTM, Creotard... It's all pretty much the same to me.

FattyCatty
21st January 2011, 02:12 PM
I was responding to mikeyx, not you. My participation in this forum amounts to but a small fraction of my life's activities. I have an eleven week old daughter and a six year old son to care for, so I do not have the time to sit for hours and read hundreds of posts. Your post was not directed to me specifically so it was among those that I passed over while scanning through the thread. This was not intended as an insult to you.

That being said, I don't see where you've done anything but find posts by people whom you feel were behaving rudely and then use them as justification for creating yet another label that ignores the complexities of individual behavior. New Atheist, Avid AtheistsTM, Creotard... It's all pretty much the same to me.Well, you may have missed the requests by others for examples of this kind of behavior (as you didn't read all posts); I supplied the requested examples.

devnull
21st January 2011, 04:27 PM
My belief is that this is just a big whine because somebody lost an argument.

Beth
21st January 2011, 06:21 PM
What am I (singular) assuming that I am right about? My position is that it is unjustified to point to the behavior of a few individuals as support for a broad characterization. It is just as wrong to do it to theists as it is atheists. Do you disagree?

I think in this situation, that's about all one can provide in the way of evidence. I just don't think that you can realistically expect any more than that in the way of evidence to be provided on a forum like this for a claim of that nature.

eta: if you disagree, could you describe the type of evidence you feel could realistically be expected to support that point?

I don't think that FC was making a broad characterization of atheists in general. I think she giving examples of the type of behavior that gives rise to that charactorization. She hasn't ventured any opinion as to what proportion of all atheists such folks are.

I have an eleven week old daughter and a six year old son to care for You are one lucky dude!
That being said, I don't see where you've done anything but find posts by people whom you feel were behaving rudely and then use them as justification for creating yet another label that ignores the complexities of individual behavior. New Atheist, Avid AtheistsTM, Creotard... It's all pretty much the same to me.

Actually, I think there is a major difference between them. "Creotard" and "Woo" are similar to terms such as n***** and chink; they are designed to have a connotation of sneering disdain to them. "New Atheist" or "Avid Atheist" does not, they are neutral labels for a set of characteristic behaviors. I don't see anything wrong with trying to develop categories and labels to describe people. It's the added component of "they are not as good as us" that I see as the issue, particularly with regard to civility and tone.

Gawdzilla
21st January 2011, 06:25 PM
Actually, I think there is a major difference between them. "Creotard" and "Woo" are similar to terms such as n***** and chink; they are designed to have a connotation of sneering disdain to them. "New Atheist" or "Avid Atheist" does not, they are neutral labels for a set of characteristic behaviors. I don't see anything wrong with trying to develop categories and labels to describe people. It's the added component of "they are not as good as us" that I see as the issue, particularly with regard to civility and tone.

"Creotard" and "woo" are simply descriptive. You'll have to deal with that.

Resume
21st January 2011, 06:47 PM
Actually, I think there is a major difference between them. "Creotard" and "Woo" are similar to terms such as n***** and chink; they are designed to have a connotation of sneering disdain to them.

Oh I think not. There is a very large difference between the suffering borne by African and Asian Americans and the insults borne by creationists and paranormal buffs. Murder for instance.

Beth
21st January 2011, 06:52 PM
Oh I think not. There is a very large difference between the suffering borne by African and Asian Americans and the insults borne by creationists and paranormal buffs. Murder for instance.

I've no disagreement with that. But it doesn't contradict what I said about similarities in the connotations of such labels.

Gawdzilla
21st January 2011, 06:54 PM
We could stop calling them "creotards" and return to calling them "religion Nazis" if you wish.

Resume
21st January 2011, 06:57 PM
I've no disagreement with that. But it doesn't contradict what I said about similarities in the connotations of such labels.

The labels are insults certainly, but I don't think they carry the same weight as racial epithets.

Dancing David
22nd January 2011, 01:39 AM
Creotard and w00-w00 are labels of an un-useful sort, besides being incvil.

It is better to critique the theory and interpretation of evidence.

Gawdzilla
22nd January 2011, 04:03 AM
Creotard and w00-w00 are labels of an un-useful sort, besides being incvil.

It is better to critique the theory and interpretation of evidence.

In the classroom or the drawingroom, this is fine. In the trenches it's a different matter.

mikeyx
22nd January 2011, 01:29 PM
My belief is that this is just a big whine because somebody lost an argument.

nope, just a troll, a continuing one apparently

Foster Zygote
22nd January 2011, 09:01 PM
nope, just a troll, a continuing one apparently

Granting you the benefit of the doubt by allowing for your "trolling" defense to be something other than a clumsy attempt to extricate yourself from a hole that you've dug, you've now established a reputation as someone who is dishonest and has nothing substantive to offer in the way of intellectual discourse.

edge
23rd January 2011, 05:43 AM
I am a 58 year old almost lifelong atheist. You are the one making the sweeping generalizations. I am not a member of any atheist club,every atheist is an atheist in his or her own way.

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

Gawdzilla
23rd January 2011, 05:52 AM
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

You have your church, we have a place to be skeptical about your church. If you were at all skeptically inclined you wouldn't be religious.

Puppycow
23rd January 2011, 06:02 AM
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/atheists.png

http://xkcd.com/774/

(Permission for hotlinking is given)

DC
23rd January 2011, 06:16 AM
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

we have a god here? who?

Gawdzilla
23rd January 2011, 06:20 AM
we have a god here? who?

check your avatar. :D

KoihimeNakamura
23rd January 2011, 06:23 AM
we have a god here? who?

I guess Randi. (Lame joke deleted)

DC
23rd January 2011, 06:28 AM
check your avatar. :D

:D

DC
23rd January 2011, 06:29 AM
I guess Randi. (Lame joke deleted)

well as a child i did imagine gods with long white beards.
mmhhhh

Foster Zygote
23rd January 2011, 06:43 AM
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

Notice that you typed "skeptical" rather than "atheist". You are correct, this is a social network for skeptics. But it is also open to non-skeptics as well, as you yourself can attest. Skepticism and atheism, while often related, are not one and the same.

Sledge
23rd January 2011, 06:47 AM
It always seems to come down to that with religious people. I've never understood how "Look! You act like us in some ways!" is supposed to be a killer argument.

dafydd
23rd January 2011, 10:35 AM
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

Wrong. I do not tithe,I am a poor man. I come here because I love reading the ramblings of delusionauts. It beats TV hands down. The only club I belong to is the Gentse Muziekantenhuis Unroyal And Not So Ancient Cork Club,of which I am a founding member.

Aepervius
23rd January 2011, 11:04 AM
Actually, I think there is a major difference between them. "Creotard" and "Woo" are similar to terms such as n***** and chink; they are designed to have a connotation of sneering disdain to them.

There is ONE big difference.

You can stop to be a "creotard", you can stop being a woo, you can try to educate yourself, or look at knowledge outside your circle etc...etc...

You can never ever stop being black or chinese , or god forbid (:D), a "jewish black chinese".

Now that said, I am with you, nowadays I feel uncomfortable reading such insulting label as "cretoard", even if in my youth I might have used some very pictoral label onto other people.

mikeyx
23rd January 2011, 01:18 PM
Granting you the benefit of the doubt by allowing for your "trolling" defense to be something other than a clumsy attempt to extricate yourself from a hole that you've dug, you've now established a reputation as someone who is dishonest and has nothing substantive to offer in the way of intellectual discourse.

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.

DC
23rd January 2011, 01:22 PM
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.

The bible just claims that he is not provable because the inventors of YHWH were scared people find out he does not exist. :D

tsig
23rd January 2011, 01:47 PM
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.

One of the ways of disproving a proposition is to see if it leads to a logical contradiction. Since you say god is both provable and non provable you have just disproved gods' existence.

Gawdzilla
23rd January 2011, 01:56 PM
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.

You have a thorn in your paw?

Dani
23rd January 2011, 02:18 PM
I agreed about the behavior of some atheists (Avid AtheistsTM). I presented some evidence and reasons in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6783973#post6783973). Everyone has ignored it. Do you really want evidence, or do you (plural) just want to assume you're right?

From what I read on the thread you linked, that's possibly a case of confirmation bias.

The post reflects that there was a misconception among many forum members in thinking that the astronomer was a literal creationist. The poster from your link seems to have information that dismisses the possibility that the astronomer was a literal creationist.

This happens all the time, not only in cases that involve atheism and religion. I don't find it particularly bigotted, and I definitely wouldn't compare these misconceptions with religious fundamentalism.

Confirmation bias is a human trait that, were it equated to religious fundamentalism, we would find out that we are all fundamentalists one way or another.

There is not a perfect skeptic or a perfect rational person. Some people are more aware of this method, but that doesn't make them infallible at all.

Of course there are bigotted atheists, and possibly only a bigotted atheist would deny that. Why atheist would be an exception to bigotry? Obviously I agree that there must be some bigotted atheists.

Since the label New Atheism has been used in the OP, we can directly do the exercise of comparing the characteristics described in the OP with those of people like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. Hmm... they don't look like anti-intellectuals to me. But of course I'm not sure you're equating the label New Atheists with your Avid Atheists.

And I agree with Skeptic Ginger's post in this thread. By the law of excluded middle, we know that a claim is either true or false. Well, it happens that people have opinions, and if something isn't true, then it's not. Some atheists argue that a particular claim is false. And strongly, if necessary. Some are even provocative. I don't necessarily agree with the way someone like Richard Dawkins communicates or argues his points. However, I fail to see what's particularly bigotted about what he does.

Foster Zygote
23rd January 2011, 06:48 PM
Nope, I was just bored, and bored with the smug atheist overtone that misses an incredibly simple premise.
So you are now saying that you don't think that the father protesting the imposition of religious language by a public school was an "Obnoxious ******* forcing his opinions where they may not be wanted"? I'm just trying to sort out the boredom motivated lies from what you really think.

The very notion of god makes god unprovable. Or provable.
Like most imaginary constructs. It pretty much depends on who is defining God.

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.
And is the father who protested the imposition of religion by a public institution one of those peas? You accused me of dodging questions, yet I can't seem to get you to address this issue, which you opened.

Deal.
You're pretty young, yes?

Lord Emsworth
23rd January 2011, 07:15 PM
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.

Prove that premise of yours. :rolleyes:

Dave Rogers
24th January 2011, 01:35 AM
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.

So, by the same token, is the belief that there is a teapot in orbit around the sun somewhere between Earth and Mars precisely as reasonable that there is not a teapot in orbit around the sun somewhere between Earth and Mars?

Dave