The Collapse of Atheism

[Ryokan]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=0ssKZavFZJE

40 minutes long video, but worth a watch.

The funny thing is, it isn't Christian propoganda, it's Muslim propoganda!

[Upchurch]

The funny thing is, it isn't Christian propoganda, it's Muslim propoganda!
Fundamentalism is fundamentalism.

[DeviousB]

If there's ever a collapse of atheism it'll be because our combined laughter at things like this bring the house down.

[Ryokan]

Fundamentalism is fundamentalism.

Indeed, it's just uncommon, at least for me, to see attacks on atheism coming from Islam.

Let's hope they don't wake up one day and realize that they have much in common with the fundamentalist Christians, and a mutual enemy.

[hammegk]

Let's hope they don't wake up one day and realize that they have much in common with the fundamentalist Christians, and a mutual enemy.
IMO, atheists share too many character traits with garden variety anarchists to ever be a significant political force for cohesive and politically powerful groups -- exemplified by religious fundamentalists -- to worry about.

[Darth Rotor]

Indeed, it's just uncommon, at least for me, to see attacks on atheism coming from Islam.

Let's hope they don't wake up one day and realize that they have much in common with the fundamentalist Christians, and a mutual enemy.
Aha, so you finally admit that atheists are all in league with Muslims! :D Muahahahaha, an OPSEC violation reveals the truth. This conspiracy is no longer a theory, it is exposed!

Call the Church! Call the Police! Call the Church Police!

Darn, can't, Monty Python have disbanded.

*Whips out cell phone out, calls Pope*

*ring*

*ring*

*ring*

Pope: "Jawol?"

Caller: "Herr Popenmeister, wir hat evidenzen auf den atheisten bist mit der verdamter Muslim stoogenmachen. Diesen teufeln Machts mit der haten und logican mit der towell kopfen schweinhunder Mohammedmenschen, alles machen Krieg nacht Weinachten!"

Pope: "Auf Deutsch, oder auf Englisch, bitte? Non capisco"

Caller: "OK, here's the link, yer Eminence (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2140269#post2140269)."
*texts the link to the Pope*

*Pope's voice to someone else*

"Vee need to get ziss number unlisted, Vincenzo. Zee verucht dumbkopfen have discovered it."

*click*

(Ryokan, the next line is you, a la Snidely Whiplash: "Curses, foiled again!") :D

DR

[Ryokan]

Err, Darth... I have no idea what you're on about.

I wasn't talking about Muslim/atheist cooperation, I was talking about a possible Christian/Muslim cooperation against atheists, as they both percieve us as an enemy.

(ETA: Curses, foiled again!)

[Ryokan]

IMO, atheists share too many character traits with garden variety anarchists to ever be -- exemplified by religious fundamentalists -- to worry about.

What, huh? Character traits with anarchists? How do you figure that? I'm an atheist, and I am certainly not an anarchist in any way.

And who says atheists want to be 'a significant political force for cohesive and politically powerful groups'?

Your problem is that you see atheists as a group with the same beliefs and motives - they're not. The only thing atheists have in common is they don't believe in any god or gods.

Just look at me, I'm religious myself. But I'm still an atheist.

[KingMerv00]

What, huh? Character traits with anarchists? How do you figure that? I'm an atheist, and I am certainly not an anarchist in any way.

And who says atheists want to be 'a significant political force for cohesive and politically powerful groups'?

Your problem is that you see atheists as a group with the same beliefs and motives - they're not. The only thing atheists have in common is they don't believe in any god or gods.

Just look at me, I'm religious myself. But I'm still an atheist.

I think he means that atheists and anarchists are not prone to group together or be lead.

[Ryokan]

I think he means that atheists and anarchists are not prone to group together or be lead.

That's one trait. He said atheists shared 'too many' traits with the anarchists.

Or maybe one trait is too many? Might be.

[KingMerv00]

Both start with "a" and end with "s"?

[hammegk]

Your problem is that you see atheists as a group with the same beliefs and motives ....
Er, no.

For many if not most I see a collection of the worlds' biggest egotists who will never agree on anything.


Just look at me, I'm religious myself. But I'm still an atheist.
How zen-like. :D

[Darth Rotor]

Err, Darth... I have no idea what you're on about.

I wasn't talking about Muslim/atheist cooperation, I was talking about a possible Christian/Muslim cooperation against atheists, as they both percieve us as an enemy.

(ETA: Curses, foiled again!)
I was making with the funny. (Not particularly well it seems) over "and a mutual enemy" for Muslims and atheists working in common cause. Not every skit makes the audience laugh. :(

*adjusts tie*

"Tough room! I get no respect!"

DR

[KingMerv00]

Er, no.

For many if not most I see a collection of the worlds' biggest egotists who will never agree on anything.

Many if not most of the world's objective idealists are bigots apparently.

[Merko]

I don't think there's anything from preventing egoists to join together, as long as they have the capacity to understand that their own appreciation of themselves does not in any way necessitate that others would share that sentiment. I'm the center of my universe, you're the center of yours, but we may still have many common interests.

[HeyLeroy]

Many if not most of the world's objective idealists are bigots apparently.
With a huge streak of irony.

[hammegk]

Many if not most of the world's objective idealists are bigots apparently.
Oh? In what way do you consider my comment that of a bigot?

PS. Not that I'm not one ...

[Foster Zygote]

For many if not most I see a collection of the worlds' biggest egotists who will never agree on anything.

Is that straw I smell? No, wait. It's a completely different, but still farm related, smell.

[KingMerv00]

Oh? In what way do you consider my comment that of a bigot?

PS. Not that I'm not one ...

You attributed negative qualities to a large group of people without justification.

Atheist != egotist
Objective idealist != bigot

[Darth Rotor]

You attributed negative qualities to a large group of people without justification.

Atheist != egotist
Objective idealist != bigot
Getting rid of scientists and intellectuals would seem to either preempt, or contribute to the collapes of, atheism in some places.
The pre emption of atheism in Iraq. (http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2006/11/30/iraqs_violent_brain_drain_called_a_threat_to_futur e/)

DR

[Darth Rotor]

As Baghdad's morgues overflow with civilian victims of Iraq's expanding war, the targeted assassinations of the country's intellectual elite is fueling a "brain drain" that will have longterm consequences for the country's ability to maintain a middle class, the linchpin to a successful and stable society, Iraqi leaders and private specialists say.

Professors, doctors, lawyers, and engineers are among the professionals who provide the human capital necessary to run the basic institutions of any healthy society and help forge a new generation of leaders. By removing those building blocks, the leaders and specialists say, the insurgents are aiming to eliminate all support for a democratic society, making it more likely that a Saddam Hussein-like strongman will return, or Iraq will become a theocracy like Iran.

"I think it is getting worse day by day," said Abdul Sattar Jawad , a visiting scholar and professor of literature at Duke University who left Iraq after threats on his life last year. "We need liberal people -- lawyers, engineers -- to build the country," Jawad said in an interview. "The intelligentsia has been beaten down, murdered, or fled."

The recent spate of assassinations -- including at least six medical professors killed in Baghdad during August and September -- does not appear to be the work of a single group, according to US and Iraqi officials and specialists. Rather, the assassinations are seen as a concerted effort by extremists on all sides of Iraq's ethnic divide to snuff out the educated classes and dash the chances for a moderate, pluralistic government.
From the article in the Boston Globe. Having some browser "time out" troubles.

DR

[Kochanski]

Getting rid of scientists and intellectuals would seem to either preempt, or contribute to the collapes of, atheism in some places.
The pre emption of atheism in Iraq. (http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2006/11/30/iraqs_violent_brain_drain_called_a_threat_to_futur e/)

DR

Sounds like they are just following in the footsteps of Pol Pot. :mad: And atheism isn't the only thing to suffer.

[Tanstaafl]

Very disturbing article. Sounds like insanity is on the rise there.

[Wheezebucket]

For what it's worth, I laughed at the text messaging the pope bit.

[l0rca]

Fundamentalism is fundamentalism.

I don't know about that. Actually the first thing that came to mind when I read that was a semantic fallacy.

The Middle-East Muslims have been incubating in a cut-off society for very long. I would say that Middle-age Christianity is equal to today's fundamental Muslims. But the modern Christian fundamentalists aren't quite so bad.

[jimlintott]

Seems to me that the only way to collapse atheism is for, paradoxically, all the believers to stop believing in and claiming that god(s) exist.

If it wasn't for the claim that god(s) exist I wouldn't be atheist.

[hammegk]

You attributed negative qualities to a large group of people without justification.

Did I? ;)

We must interpret what we see differently. :p

[KingMerv00]

Did I? ;)

We must interpret what we see differently. :p

Alright then. Explain what you mean. I am willing to apologize.

[hammegk]

By what I've seen, here and elsewhere, I claim justification. YMMV. :D

[Zygar]

By what I've seen, here and elsewhere, I claim justification. YMMV. :D

I think that that is simply because the only people you know are athiest are the ones that display it proudly. It takes a bit of ego to stand up to the Xtian norm around you.

[AWPrime]

Indeed, it's just uncommon, at least for me, to see attacks on atheism coming from Islam.

Is it because they are too busy with jews and christians or/and that most of their attacks is in arab and other ME languages?

[Ryokan]

Is it because they are too busy with jews and christians or/and that most of their attacks is in arab and other ME languages?

I have no idea. Maybe?

[Glen.Nogami]

Getting rid of scientists and intellectuals would seem to either preempt, or contribute to the collapes of, atheism in some places.
The pre emption of atheism in Iraq. (http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2006/11/30/iraqs_violent_brain_drain_called_a_threat_to_futur e/)

DR
So...did they look at the cultural revolution and go "What a good idea! Let's do that."? :boggled:

So they're trying to make a theocracy easier to implement. There are, of course, side effects to killing the educated professionals within a country and scaring the others out of the country.

I guess that craziness is the religion talking, or something.

[Gurdur]

I think that that is simply because the only people you know are athiest are the ones that display it proudly. It takes a bit of ego to stand up to the Xtian norm around you.
Since when does simple courage = ego ?

Hammegk does have a point; one of the most common reactions from people is that vocal atheists are often perceived as egotistical and arrogant (Madelyn Murray O'Hair, anyone?); it doesn't have to be that way and it shouldn't be.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hammegk does have a point; one of the most common reactions from people is that vocal atheists are often perceived as egotistical and arrogant (Madelyn Murray O'Hair, anyone?); it doesn't have to be that way and it shouldn't be.
That's because, no matter how egotistical and arrogant god's cheerleaders are, they are perceived as humble simply because they are god's cheerleaders. After all, how can god's people think of themselves as humble if they don't think of god's other people as humble, too?

~~ Paul

[hammegk]

Neat tack, equating "god's cheerleaders" to atheists, and actually I'd agree that egotism is the main component of both their respectives acts.

It's all me. Me. Me! And what can I scam from the followers? Power, money, esteem, any-old-ego-trip will do.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I have no belief in god. I'm not sure how that's egotistical. Is it because I consider my self more important than god's self? If that's the case, then I am also egotistical because I lack belief in fairies. If it is egotistical to lack belief in one construct created by humans, then it is egotistical to lack belief in any construct created by humans. Or is there a spectrum? Is it more egotistical to lack belief in a construct that lots of people believe in, while less egotistical to lack belief in a backwater construct? If that is so, then it sounds like the egotism is a product simply of the fact that lots of other people believe in the thing. I daresay that the egotism arises because there are lots of other people pointing at me and telling me I am egotistical. It is egotism imposed from without.

I don't think it is egotistical per se not to believe in a human construct.

~~ Paul

[hammegk]

I have no belief in god. I'm not sure how that's egotistical.
And how should we interpret that? Are you 100% sure god does not, cannot exist? Even your pied piper Dawkins was quoted here (my srch skillz are poor and I haven't found that post again) as saying, paraphrasing, "er, yes god might exist". I don't find that stance egotistical per se; I do find it logically indefensible.


I don't think it is egotistical per se not to believe in a human construct.

~~ Paul
Nor do I, nor is that the question.

[Dave1001]

IMO, atheists share too many character traits with garden variety anarchists to ever be a significant political force for cohesive and politically powerful groups -- exemplified by religious fundamentalists -- to worry about.

That could perhaps be true of skepticism, but I don't think it's true of atheism. One can have funadamentalist atheism, arguably in the Soviet Union and Maoist China, for example.

[Dave1001]

But the modern Christian fundamentalists aren't quite so bad.

Sure Christian fundamentalists are "quite as bad", in Africa. Also, encouraging poor people to have babies they can't afford and not use condoms in the context of the AIDS epidemic is arguably quite as bad as what modern Muslim fundamentalists are doing.

[Elizabeth I]

I was making with the funny. (Not particularly well it seems) over "and a mutual enemy" for Muslims and atheists working in common cause. Not every skit makes the audience laugh. :(

*adjusts tie*

"Tough room! I get no respect!"
DR

Well, I liked it. :cool:

[Elizabeth I]

Hammegk does have a point; one of the most common reactions from people is that vocal atheists are often perceived as egotistical and arrogant (Madelyn Murray O'Hair, anyone?); it doesn't have to be that way and it shouldn't be.

Madalyn Murray O'Hair WAS an arrogant egotist. Her arrogance, in part, was what set her up to get murdered - she simply refused to believe that her judgment could possibly be wrong.

[RandFan]

And how should we interpret that? Are you 100% sure god does not, cannot exist? Even your pied piper Dawkins was quoted here (my srch skillz are poor and I haven't found that post again) as saying, paraphrasing, "er, yes god might exist". I don't find that stance egotistical per se; I do find it logically indefensible. I don't understand. Dawkins makes the point frequently BTW. It is an honest response to the ontological argument that we can't prove that god does not exist and therefore X. It is intellectually honest to acknowledge the premise. Any conclusion (X) beyond "we don't know for certain that god does not exist" is spurious. It follows that god "might exist".

[RandFan]

Madalyn Murray O'Hair WAS an arrogant egotist. Her arrogance, in part, was what set her up to get murdered - she simply refused to believe that her judgment could possibly be wrong. When I grew up I hated O'Hair. She was the devil incarnate to me. My feelings for her were very strong. So strong that long after I became an atheist her name came up in conversation and I said something nasty about her. This took me back since I wasn't exactly sure why I disliked her so much. I have since watched her in some interviews she gave. I think she came off as arrogant but I think much of it was simply the strength of her convictions and a courage to face a most intimidating society that did not want to hear what she had to say.

I no longer hate O'Hair. Odd how that happens.

[Kochanski]

Everyone has an ego. However, having no belief in god does not make Atheists egotistical. That is the perception of believers since they assume that it means we think we are better than god. Well, nope, you can't think you are better than something if you do not believe it exists.

Any perception of that from believers is usually in response to our trying to explain to them that we DON'T want or need their religion rammed down our throats.

Just because we can't prove god doesn't exist doesn't mean it is any more probable that it does. Dawkins makes that point too, kids. It just tends to get overlooked by believers who want to see any sort of possible concession from him toward their belief.

[hammegk]

I don't understand. Dawkins makes the point frequently BTW. It is an honest response to the ontological argument that we can't prove that god does not exist and therefore X. It is intellectually honest to acknowledge the premise. Any conclusion (X) beyond "we don't know for certain that god does not exist" is spurious. It follows that god "might exist".
Welcome to objective idealism, or illogical dualism. :D

[l0rca]

Sure Christian fundamentalists are "quite as bad", in Africa. Also, encouraging poor people to have babies they can't afford and not use condoms in the context of the AIDS epidemic is arguably quite as bad as what modern Muslim fundamentalists are doing.

I am speaking of Terrorist groups. The Christians don't have anything that extreme.

[RandFan]

Welcome to objective idealism, or illogical dualism. :D Why "or"? If this is a dichotomy I will agree. If you are simply giving an equivalent to idealism then I don't agree.

[Zygar]

Since when does simple courage = ego ?

Hammegk does have a point; one of the most common reactions from people is that vocal atheists are often perceived as egotistical and arrogant (Madelyn Murray O'Hair, anyone?); it doesn't have to be that way and it shouldn't be.

Perhaps you are correct. I admit to having an ego, and perhaps that very ego prevents me from being able to see the distinction.

[hammegk]

Why "or"? If this is a dichotomy I will agree.
It's a 100% dichotomy. Which do you choose to defend? :)

[RandFan]

It's a 100% dichotomy. Which do you choose to defend? :) I would argue for idealism.

[Squishua]

I am speaking of Terrorist groups. The Christians don't have anything that extreme.
Except maybe "Operation Rescue" and its ilk.

Past examples are the Crusades and the Inquisition. The brutal sadism of these "holy wars" makes the events of 9-11-01 look like a group hug in comparison.

I once had a link to a website containing pictures of the Inquisitor's implements of torture, which were quite perverse and horrific.

These Christians read and believed the same bible modern day Christians do.

-Squish

ETA: Here's the website referred to above:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/murderers.htm
(great domain name, eh :D )

[l0rca]

Except maybe "Operation Rescue" and its ilk.

Past examples are the Crusades and the Inquisition. The brutal sadism of these "holy wars" makes the events of 9-11-01 look like a group hug in comparison.

I once had a link to a website containing pictures of the Inquisitor's implements of torture, which were quite perverse and horrific.

These Christians read and believed the same bible modern day Christians do.

-Squish

Did you read my first reply in this thread?

[Squishua]

Did you read my first reply in this thread?
Why yes, I did.

I didn't put the two replies together until now, though. :)

-Squish

[Darth Rotor]

I once had a link to a website containing pictures of the Inquisitor's implements of torture, which were quite perverse and horrific.

These Christians read and believed the same bible modern day Christians do.

-Squish


Riiight, the Inquisition is still on, the Star Chambers remain, the witches are still being burned, the mass was only celebrated in Latin, wars are started over the Christian sect one worships in, and people are put in stocks.

Oh, wait, that isn't happening.

How about couching your discussion in contemporary terms? Something relevant in the time and place of the discussion we are having.

DR

[Squishua]

Riiight, the Inquisition is still on, the Star Chambers remain, the witches are still being burned, the mass was only celebrated in Latin, wars are started over the Christian sect one worships in, and people are put in stocks.

Oh, wait, that isn't happening.

How about couching your discussion in contemporary terms? Something relevant in the time and place of the discussion we are having.
Oh goodie! Now I can see if the ignore feature works. :D

-Squish

[Dave1001]

Sure Christian fundamentalists are "quite as bad", in Africa. Also, encouraging poor people to have babies they can't afford and not use condoms in the context of the AIDS epidemic is arguably quite as bad as what modern Muslim fundamentalists are doing.
I am speaking of Terrorist groups. The Christians don't have anything that extreme.


I would argue that encouraging people at a high risk for AIDs not to use condoms, and for people in famine-susceptible regions not to use birth control is as extreme as terrorism. Also, there are flat-out christian terrorists in some regions of the world, notably in Africa.

[Squishua]

Just for the benefit of those like the good Mr. Rotor who do not understand the relevance of the Inquisition and Crusades, or why I would invoke them in a discussion involving modern day Christianity, I submit the following.

The religion is based on the divinity and infallibility of the "Holy Bible." This is the exact same text (minor textual differences of KJV, NEV, etc. not withstanding) that was selected by the Church for the Cannon, and which the Church used to justify the Inquisition's power and actions.

I would not expect any religious organization that regards this book as divine to be terrorist-free any more than I would expect some religion that based its worship on Mein Kampf to be Nazi-free.

It is a collection of vaguely written philosophical and metaphysical fantasies. Christianity, bible-worship or whatever you want to call it can inspire terrorists just as easily as Islam.

Just my opinion. :)

-Squish

[Ryokan]

I'd say that the evangelical groups that do missionary work in the third world, and refuses to help people unless they convert to Christianity, almost deserves to be called terrorism.

But no, they're still not close to the terrorism that certain Muslim groups perform.

[The Atheist]

I was making with the funny. (Not particularly well it seems) ...I thought it was funny!

[The Atheist]

The religion is based on the divinity and infallibility of the "Holy Bible."

Just my opinion. :)

-Squish
Sorry to disabuse you of that notion, but you're just plain wrong.

I've had this argument times without question and I'm involved in a discussion about how much of the bible is true on a christian board. Only strict fundamentals demand that the bible is literally true from Genesis to Revelation.

[Dave1001]

I'd say that the evangelical groups that do missionary work in the third world, and refuses to help people unless they convert to Christianity, almost deserves to be called terrorism.

But no, they're still not close to the terrorism that certain Muslim groups perform.

promoting that people at high risk for AIDS not use condoms. Promoting that famine susceptible people not practice birth control. Arguably as bad as terrorism.

[The Atheist]

Riiight, the Inquisition is still on, the Star Chambers remain, the witches are still being burned, the mass was only celebrated in Latin, wars are started over the Christian sect one worships in, and people are put in stocks.

Oh, wait, that isn't happening.

How about couching your discussion in contemporary terms? Something relevant in the time and place of the discussion we are having.

DRI'm having this discussion elsewhere and I know you like slippery slopes, so I'll aim this one at you:

If the bible is incorrect in some places, isn't that the start of a very slippery slope?

Evangelist: "I have all the answers to life, the universe and everything. Most of the wisdom is contained in this book, the bible"

Non-theist: "So, it's the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?"

E: "Noooo. Some of it is simply allegorical."

N: "How do we know which bits are which? When I read it, I found it incomprehensible."

E: "We have bishops, popes, cardinals and preachers who tell us what god really means and how to interpret the bible."

N: "So, it's all hearsay., then?"

I fully accept Huntster's assertion about evolution of christianity, but the trouble seems to be that it's moved so far from its starting point - the bible - that the whole thing is becoming quite meaningless. Is it evolving from new facts or theories being introduced, or simply to defeat the ever-growing list of refutations the real world has shown up?

[Squishua]

Sorry to disabuse you of that notion, but you're just plain wrong.

I've had this argument times without question and I'm involved in a discussion about how much of the bible is true on a christian board. Only strict fundamentals demand that the bible is literally true from Genesis to Revelation.
You are quite right.

I should have qualified that only certain sects of Christianity fall into the "Bible is complete, true and infallible" camp.

-Squish

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

And how should we interpret that? Are you 100% sure god does not, cannot exist? Even your pied piper Dawkins was quoted here (my srch skillz are poor and I haven't found that post again) as saying, paraphrasing, "er, yes god might exist". I don't find that stance egotistical per se; I do find it logically indefensible.
I am 100% sure I have never heard a definition of god that made sense to me. Were I to hear such a definition, then I probably would not be 100% sure that that god does not exist. In the meantime, I simply have no belief in god. I do not see how that is egotistical.

~~ Paul

[Merko]

I am speaking of Terrorist groups. The Christians don't have anything that extreme.

They don't? I think the LRA matches and even surpasses pretty much any Muslim terrorist group. How about forcing *thousands* of children to kill their own family members. You know of any Muslim groups that did this?

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army

There are many others. In India, there are several christian terrorist groups. There were some headlines in the last year because one of them had forced villagers to engage in sex acts, filmed it, edited the violence out and sold it as pornography to finance their operations. Ok, this was not one of the larger scale groups, but I think it qualifies as rather 'extreme'.

But of course, none of this gets reported very much in western media, and when it does, there is usually no mention that these groups are Christian. Most Christians would probably even deny that they are. But of course, most Muslims also deny that al Qaeda would be 'real' Muslims.

[blutoski]

I fully accept Huntster's assertion about evolution of christianity, but the trouble seems to be that it's moved so far from its starting point - the bible - that the whole thing is becoming quite meaningless. Is it evolving from new facts or theories being introduced, or simply to defeat the ever-growing list of refutations the real world has shown up?

I think you've got it backwards: the bible is a late shower in the Christian world. Obviously, the religion started with Jesus (assuming there was such a person) or at least, it started with the Apostles. The Jewish kings restored Hebrew law shortly after Jesus' era, and the Apostles lost their influence on Christianity, which was soon overshadowed by a huge mix of Christian splinter-groups. Eventually, the one that had organized in Rome won strategic fights, and Constantine adopted their view and officially enforced it. At exactly the same time, the Bible was created.

Eastern regions beyond Roman power operated with some freedom: the Coptics and Orthodox. When I was in Jerusalem, there were Coptic churches. The group I spoke to claim to be a creed handed down directly from Matthew.

The Vatican claims very strongly that their legitemacy stems from their lineage from St. Peter, and therefore, a direct link back to the Apostles and Jesus. However, there isn't a shred of evidence that this is true.

In any case, the Catholic church embraces this uncertainty in a roundabout way, and refers to Christianity as a "living church" which does not have static doctrine, but is interpreted by humans with God's guidance and can change with better understanding, although revelation is seen with suspicion. Sometimes humans got it wrong, and therefore the salvation escape hatch of Papal Infallibility.

In fact, I would say that ironically, Protestantism is now the more rigid and biblically literalist creed, especially Southern Baptists, Mormons, Pentacostals, and Methodists.

[l0rca]

I would argue that encouraging people at a high risk for AIDs not to use condoms, and for people in famine-susceptible regions not to use birth control is as extreme as terrorism. Also, there are flat-out christian terrorists in some regions of the world, notably in Africa.

What sort of acts have these Christian terrorists done?

[Dave1001]

I would argue that encouraging people at a high risk for AIDs not to use condoms, and for people in famine-susceptible regions not to use birth control is as extreme as terrorism. Also, there are flat-out christian terrorists in some regions of the world, notably in Africa.

What sort of acts have these Christian terrorists done?

Contemporary third world christian terrorist have engaged in standard religious terrorism: massacring people, destroying houses of worship of other faiths, etc.

[l0rca]

They don't? I think the LRA matches and even surpasses pretty much any Muslim terrorist group. How about forcing *thousands* of children to kill their own family members. You know of any Muslim groups that did this?

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army

There are many others. In India, there are several christian terrorist groups. There were some headlines in the last year because one of them had forced villagers to engage in sex acts, filmed it, edited the violence out and sold it as pornography to finance their operations. Ok, this was not one of the larger scale groups, but I think it qualifies as rather 'extreme'.

But of course, none of this gets reported very much in western media, and when it does, there is usually no mention that these groups are Christian. Most Christians would probably even deny that they are. But of course, most Muslims also deny that al Qaeda would be 'real' Muslims.

I agree with what you said. But I think I did a poor job making the point I was trying to.

My originally brought up argument of Muslim vs Christian fundamentalism would have better served as an example of what I meant than the main idea. Serving as the main idea even caused the example to be misinterpreted.

The main stab of my argument here is one of time/incubation, and geography/civilization. Fundamentalism as a term, shouldn't be so pigeonholing as it is. "Fundamentalism is fundamentalism," to me means, being fundamentalist is equally wrong everywhere the term can be applied. I disagree (but I think, looking back, even the person who said this in the first place would also disagree; it was probably loosely meant at the time). Rather I think, fundamentalist is a term, while which might be specific and well-used, tends instead to be a word a group's opposer uses. I also think that the word fundamentalist should carry a different air depending on the beliefs which are taken fundamentally, as well as the overall progress those beliefs have taken.

For example, I would call Christian fundamentalists in America just that, whereas I would call Lord's Resistance a Christian Extremest group.

However, I would call our Muslim terrorist foes Muslim fundamentalists. This is because what they are doing, from the perspective of the Muslim religion, is allowable. Their religion needs a land run by their religion, and their religion is supposed to go to war for it. According to their beliefs, it's fundamental to attack us. Christians, however, are supposed to live a life of peace, despite being harassed.

The Lord's Resistance, if like other Christian extremest factions, also has a prophet, a medium of sorts, encouraging these actions. That's also a difference.

[Dave1001]

I agree with what you said. But I think I did a poor job making the point I was trying to.

My originally brought up argument of Muslim vs Christian fundamentalism would have better served as an example of what I meant than the main idea. Serving as the main idea even caused the example to be misinterpreted.

The main stab of my argument here is one of time/incubation, and geography/civilization. Fundamentalism as a term, shouldn't be so pigeonholing as it is. "Fundamentalism is fundamentalism," to me means, being fundamentalist is equally wrong everywhere the term can be applied. I disagree (but I think, looking back, even the person who said this in the first place would also disagree; it was probably loosely meant at the time). Rather I think, fundamentalist is a term, while which might be specific and well-used, tends instead to be a word a group's opposer uses. I also think that the word fundamentalist should carry a different air depending on the beliefs which are taken fundamentally, as well as the overall progress those beliefs have taken.

For example, I would call Christian fundamentalists in America just that, whereas I would call Lord's Resistance a Christian Extremest group.

However, I would call our Muslim terrorist foes Muslim fundamentalists. This is because what they are doing, from the perspective of the Muslim religion, is allowable. Their religion needs a land run by their religion, and their religion is supposed to go to war for it. According to their beliefs, it's fundamental to attack us. Christians, however, are supposed to live a life of peace, despite being harassed.

The Lord's Resistance, if like other Christian extremest factions, also has a prophet, a medium of sorts, encouraging these actions. That's also a difference.

Christian-identified people throughout history would disagree with you. And I think there are parts of the Christian New Testament (Revelations?) which specifically discuss violent conflict between Christians and non-Christians. I'm sure this can all be rationalized away. But a good case can be made that if you're going to call it Christian Extremism you shoud call it Muslim Extremism, and if you're going to call it Muslim Fundamentalism you should call it Christian Fundamentalism.

[hammegk]

I am 100% sure I have never heard a definition of god that made sense to me. Were I to hear such a definition, then I probably would not be 100% sure that that god does not exist. In the meantime, I simply have no belief in god. I do not see how that is egotistical.

~~ Paul
Nor do I consider you a "100% atheist". ;)

[joobz]

What, huh? Character traits with anarchists? How do you figure that? I'm an atheist, and I am certainly not an anarchist in any way.

And who says atheists want to be 'a significant political force for cohesive and politically powerful groups'?

Your problem is that you see atheists as a group with the same beliefs and motives - they're not. The only thing atheists have in common is they don't believe in any god or gods.

Not to quibble, but the first statement is in stark contrast with the second and third. the lack of desire for a cohesive/politically powerful group IS an anarchistic trait.

The fact that atheists have no central core of beliefs/motives further strengthens this comparison. Anarchists are only united in their desire to have no central government, not their love of punk music. Sort of a "free market" version of governance.

Hammegk is right to say that are similar in that they are unlikely to come together enough to create a political force. (although I disagree with his hamfisted labeling of egoists....) And in some way the establishment of such an organization would be almost against its own principles. How do you assemble a group and not establish some norms of behavior, belief and rituals? I'm not saying it can't be done, but the greater the unity of a group, the greater it can become a powerful force.

Look at the republicans vs. democrats. i'd argue that the variation in potical agenda of the democratic party (e.g., unions, environmentalists, gay rights, socialists) is much more varied than that of the republican party. I'd say these in-tensions has been a primary reason for the democrats inability to win elections (except for now, which was more a unification against a view rather than a unification on a principle).

So, atheists must contend between thier ideals of being non-religious and having some political say.

[hammegk]

...egoists ...

Egotists. ;)

[joobz]

Egotists. ;)
If you've followed any of my posts, you'll notice
1.) I can't spell
2.) I can't write

:o

[l0rca]

Christian-identified people throughout history would disagree with you. And I think there are parts of the Christian New Testament (Revelations?) which specifically discuss violent conflict between Christians and non-Christians. I'm sure this can all be rationalized away. But a good case can be made that if you're going to call it Christian Extremism you shoud call it Muslim Extremism, and if you're going to call it Muslim Fundamentalism you should call it Christian Fundamentalism.


You got me there.

But what's this good case? I think we're rationalizing your point differently now.

[hammegk]

If you've followed any of my posts, you'll notice
1.) I can't spell
2.) I can't write

:o
Nobodies purfect. :p

[RandFan]

Nobodies purfect. :pSpeak for yourself. ;)

[The Atheist]

I think you've got it backwards: the bible is a late shower in the Christian world. I think maybe I just didn't explain it well enough, in fact.

Obviously, christianity started with Jesus, but given the gap between his death and the rise of RCC, the bible is the only thing linking the two eras. The bible was held as true for many centuries, but isn't any more.

[hammegk]

Speak for yourself. ;)
I did.

Who speaks for you?

[Merko]

I
However, I would call our Muslim terrorist foes Muslim fundamentalists. This is because what they are doing, from the perspective of the Muslim religion, is allowable. Their religion needs a land run by their religion, and their religion is supposed to go to war for it. According to their beliefs, it's fundamental to attack us. Christians, however, are supposed to live a life of peace, despite being harassed.

The Lord's Resistance, if like other Christian extremest factions, also has a prophet, a medium of sorts, encouraging these actions. That's also a difference.

I think you are mistaken on all these accounts, actually. First, if we're discussing al Qaeda at least (we'd better use a specific example) they definitely don't adhere to standard Muslim scripture, they are doing quite inventive interpretations of it. And they, too, have their own theologicians that 'adapt' Islam to their needs. In standard Islam, only defense is allowable, and all mainstream Muslim interpreters disagree with al Qaedas expansion of this provision. Additionally, there are commandments also in the Koran that tells its adherents to ignore hecklers and leave them in peace. Just as with Christianity, it depends on what section you choose to read.

Second, there are many, many commandments in the Bible that encourage all sorts of terrorist deeds. The worst is arguably the text in 2 Samuel where God commands a genocide (God literally demands the killing of infants), which is then loyally carried out by the faithful. There are several other genocides described as blessed by God, but this is probably the clearest example. I don't think there's anything quite so terrible in the Koran, actually. This is probably because Muhammed broke with the Old Testament bible which he considered to be flawed, while Christians never removed these old bloodthirsty texts.

So again, it depends on what sections you choose to emphasise. Terrorists naturally emphasise sections that support their deeds, while ordinary, agreeable Muslims or Christians emphasise more common-sense parts of their scripture.

[RandFan]

I did.

Who speaks for you? Nobody. According to you nobody is perfect so I guess I've got a damn good spokesperson.

[hammegk]

... According to you nobody is perfect ...
Yup. Now what?

[l0rca]

I think you are mistaken on all these accounts, actually. First, if we're discussing al Qaeda at least (we'd better use a specific example) they definitely don't adhere to standard Muslim scripture, they are doing quite inventive interpretations of it. And they, too, have their own theologicians that 'adapt' Islam to their needs. In standard Islam, only defense is allowable, and all mainstream Muslim interpreters disagree with al Qaedas expansion of this provision. Additionally, there are commandments also in the Koran that tells its adherents to ignore hecklers and leave them in peace. Just as with Christianity, it depends on what section you choose to read.


Do you have articles or online documentation I can read on this?

[pgwenthold]

Madalyn Murray O'Hair WAS an arrogant egotist. Her arrogance, in part, was what set her up to get murdered - she simply refused to believe that her judgment could possibly be wrong.

As opposed to Jerry Falwell or, for that matter, your average fundy.

[Merko]

Do you have articles or online documentation I can read on this?

This guy is believed to be something of 'al Qaedas theologician':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheikh_Omar_Abdel_Rahman

What sets this guy apart from bin Ladin, al-Zawahiri and others who also perform their own reinterpretations, is that he's actually a 'legitimate' Muslim cleric (even if denounced by others). This gives him more weight in the eyes of al Qaeda supporters who are eager to defend their view as a 'legitimate' Islam.

For a list of various Muslim authorities who have denounced al Qaeda, this page seems to have quite a lot of them:
http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

I can't find an online source for the part of Koran that deals with tolerance towards hecklers. I remember it as an episode about someone making fun of Muhammed, and he responds by ignoring them or something like that. It's drawn upon by moderate Muslims. I saw it cited after the 'Danish cartoon' incident. On that note it can be of interest that many Muslim clerics actually tried to calm down the situation, while the ones who were inciting rage and violence were often more politically than religiously motivated.

[l0rca]

This guy is believed to be something of 'al Qaedas theologician':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheikh_Omar_Abdel_Rahman

What sets this guy apart from bin Ladin, al-Zawahiri and others who also perform their own reinterpretations, is that he's actually a 'legitimate' Muslim cleric (even if denounced by others). This gives him more weight in the eyes of al Qaeda supporters who are eager to defend their view as a 'legitimate' Islam.

For a list of various Muslim authorities who have denounced al Qaeda, this page seems to have quite a lot of them:
http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

I can't find an online source for the part of Koran that deals with tolerance towards hecklers. I remember it as an episode about someone making fun of Muhammed, and he responds by ignoring them or something like that. It's drawn upon by moderate Muslims. I saw it cited after the 'Danish cartoon' incident. On that note it can be of interest that many Muslim clerics actually tried to calm down the situation, while the ones who were inciting rage and violence were often more politically than religiously motivated.

I actually didn't know there was such a dichotomy. That would make the terrorists extremists, then.

My ignorance actually comes from a number of documentaries I bought. Within, they had a number of sessions where they interviewed Muslims on the thoughts of their actions. Most of them voiced some sort of support for the terrorists, saying it was a true call of their religion.

[AWPrime]

In standard Islam, only defense is allowable, and all mainstream Muslim interpreters disagree with al Qaedas expansion of this provision.
Defense is such a relative term.

[juryjone]

Neat tack, equating "god's cheerleaders" to atheists, and actually I'd agree that egotism is the main component of both their respectives acts.

It's all me. Me. Me! And what can I scam from the followers? Power, money, esteem, any-old-ego-trip will do.

I'm a little bit surprised that nobody has called you on this statement yet. Pray tell, how do atheists scam from their followers? What power, money or esteem follows from being an atheist?

(And that's 500 posts for me. Finally.)

[Merko]

I actually didn't know there was such a dichotomy. That would make the terrorists extremists, then.


While there are different terrorists, I would say that the worst such as al Qaeda are even extremists among extremists. Most Muslim extremists may hold an irrational hatred of the US and Israel for example, but they would still disagree about the methods.


My ignorance actually comes from a number of documentaries I bought. Within, they had a number of sessions where they interviewed Muslims on the thoughts of their actions. Most of them voiced some sort of support for the terrorists, saying it was a true call of their religion.

Well, may I ask who produced those 'documentaries'?

Clearly, even al Qaeda, and to a larger extent other Muslim terrorists, have significant support among the Muslim population. It is not difficult to find fairly 'ordinary looking' Muslims who to some degree support them. There is also a sort of paradoxic admiration of bin Laden as a 'hero-villain', people will agree that he is doing terrible things, which they do not support, but still sort of admire him for standing up to the US, which they deplore.

[Foster Zygote]

Neat tack, equating "god's cheerleaders" to atheists, and actually I'd agree that egotism is the main component of both their respectives acts.

It's all me. Me. Me! And what can I scam from the followers? Power, money, esteem, any-old-ego-trip will do.

So there are no atheists who are not focused only on themselves?

[joobz]

So there are no atheists who are not focused only on themselves?
I have to admit, I think he's intentially trying to ruffle feathers here.

Ignoring that, I think he has a legitimate critique about atheists being easy targets for fundementalists. You aren't likely to see atheistic movements for the same reason you don't see anarchy movements. The act of unifing almost contridicts the key elements to form a unity.

[RandFan]

Yup. Now what? A discussion of the 5 "Good Roman Emperors" beginning with the last, Marcus Aurelius. I'll let you go first. Might I suggest a discussion of stoicism as background for his philosophy as a prelude?

[RandFan]

So there are no atheists who are not focused only on themselves?Don't you know, we are all egoists.

[Zygar]

Speak for yourself. ;)

I did.

Who speaks for you?

I do (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2135672#post2135672). ;)

[RandFan]

I do (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2135672#post2135672). ;) I appreciate it.

[hammegk]

I'm a little bit surprised that nobody has called you on this statement yet. Pray tell, how do atheists scam from their followers? What power, money or esteem follows from being an atheist?

(And that's 500 posts for me. Finally.)
Ask Randi, Dawkins, Penn, Newdow, etcetc.

How is your cash flow? Book sales? Ego? ;)


So there are no atheists who are not focused only on themselves?
I'm not acquainted with all of 'em. :D


Randfan: "First, decide who you would be. Then, do what you must do."

[Foster Zygote]

Don't you know, we are all egoists.

Well, my ego is bigger than yours!

[RandFan]

Randfan: "First, decide who you would be. Then, do what you must do."Master passions and emotions. Seek virtue and reason.

[RandFan]

Well, my ego is bigger than yours!Perhaps but I stroke mine more often.

[joobz]

Perhaps but I stroke mine more often.
If you keep that up, you'll make your third eye blind.

[juryjone]

Ask Randi, Dawkins, Penn, Newdow, etcetc.

How is your cash flow? Book sales? Ego? ;)


I really should have put quotes around "followers". And you haven't said anything at all about how Randi, Dawkins, Penn are scamming anyone.

Newdow? Is he making any money at all from taking a stand?

As for me, I make no money whatsoever from being an atheist. Did I miss an email? "Be an atheist AT HOME. Earn BIG MONEY."

[Beerina]

Both start with "a" and end with "s"?

I can think of another word with that property, too.

[Beerina]

So...did they look at the cultural revolution and go "What a good idea! Let's do that."? :boggled:

If your goal is power, and you don't wanna jump through the hoops of democracy, then yes. Killing off the upper middle class is the way to go. This leaves a handful of elites already under your thumb, most thugs already, and a huge host of angry, ignorant, savage masses ready to follow anyone who shows a backbone.

[Beerina]

And how should we interpret that? Are you 100% sure god does not, cannot exist?

In the New Testament sense, that he's kind and loving and all-powerful, no, such a god cannot exist. Either he is not kind and loving, or he is not all-powerful.

The capricious, murdering, "I'm not even bound by my own rules of morality I apply to you humans" god of the Old Testament, though, could very well exist without contradicting anything we see. No proof, but that's not quite the same thing.*


* Although, of course, it's incorrect to presume something exists just because it doesn't contradict any observations if it is also incapable of generating any new hypothetical observations for testing. Which is more likely, that such a god exists, and has the property of "wanting to hide", or that such a god doesn't exist?

[MacDuff]

Sorry, I didn't get a chance to read all the responses. However, the maker of this video is clearly mistaken about what is actually going on in the United States and the growth of the Intelligent Design Movement in the scientific community in particular. That is understandable considering his geographic position. I see this a lot in overseas publications. For instance I read an article in the Guardian the other day about the Flying Spaghetti Monster in which it sited that Kansas had been the site of the Scopes Monkey Trial. Anyone in the US on either side of the Jehovah vs Darwin debate knows it took place in Tennessee. It causes me to wonder how many errors US publications unwittingly make regarding events overseas.

[hammegk]

If you keep that up, you'll make your third eye blind.
LOL. That is not compatible with Atheism/Materialism. You a "woo-woo"? ;)


Master passions and emotions. Seek virtue and reason.
Understanding, Purpose, Speech, Conduct, Vocation, Effort, Mindfulness, Meditation.

Re OP, see 'ballad of warty bliggens'.


I really should have put quotes around "followers". And you haven't said anything at all about how Randi, Dawkins, Penn are scamming anyone.
Themselves most of all, perhaps? :)


Newdow? Is he making any money at all from taking a stand?
I sense a book deal .... :D

If not, just the stroked Ego may have to do.


As for me, I make no money whatsoever from being an atheist. Did I miss an email? "Be an atheist AT HOME. Earn BIG MONEY."
Who knows what you will make of your assets? It's really up to you. Atheism not helping? So sorry. :dio:

[juryjone]

Who knows what you will make of your assets? It's really up to you. Atheism not helping? So sorry. :dio:

It's like, how much more condescending could hammegk be? and the answer is none. None more condescending.

[Ryokan]

Understanding, Purpose, Speech, Conduct, Vocation, Effort, Mindfulness, Meditation.

I'd swap purpose with intention, and put 'right' in front of each word.

But I think you're on to something here ;)

[hammegk]

It's like, how much more condescending could hammegk be? and the answer is none. None more condescending.
How condescending. :mad:



I'd swap purpose with intention, and put 'right' in front of each word.

But I think you're on to something here ;)
Ya think? :D

[Foster Zygote]

It's like, how much more condescending could hammegk be? and the answer is none. None more condescending.

[St.Hubbins]There's such a fine line between genius and stupidity.[/St.Hubbins]

[Foster Zygote]

Perhaps but I stroke mine more often.

Yeah? Well my ego is bright red with racing stripes and a raccoon tail tied to the antenna.

[Foster Zygote]

If you keep that up, you'll make your third eye blind.

So that's what that band's name means. It was a masturbation reference all along.:D

[Darth Rotor]

I fully accept Huntster's assertion about evolution of christianity, but the trouble seems to be that it's moved so far from its starting point - the bible - that the whole thing is becoming quite meaningless.
Not meaningless. Change does not render the Faith meaningless, nor does acquired wisdom. The basic principles have generally stood the test of time, though the doctrine (like clergy not marrying) could use a bit of improvement, IMO. One of the great tragedies of Vatican II was that the initiative to allow the clergy to marry was not carried through to new doctrine.

DR

[joobz]

So that's what that band's name means. It was a masturbation reference all along.:D
That was the sole reason I posted that
I got to make a masturbation joke, make a reference to an atheist of being woo-like and include a band name in the process.

It was my own mixed joke trifecta

[hammegk]

[St.Hubbins]There's such a fine line between genius and stupidity.[/St.Hubbins]
May you eventually find it.

[RandFan]

So that's what that band's name means. It was a masturbation reference all along.:D Damn, I didn't get it even then. :D

[RandFan]

Yeah? Well my ego is bright red with racing stripes and a raccoon tail tied to the antenna. Interesting. I like to just clean mine regularly and apply liberal amounts of car wax.

[Tricky]

Interesting. I like to just clean mine regularly and apply liberal amounts of car wax.
Hah! I always knew you were a closet liberal!

[RandFan]

Hah! I always knew you were a closet liberal!:D

[Foster Zygote]

Hah! I always knew you were a closet liberal!

Who'd a thunk it?

[The Atheist]

It was my own mixed joke trifectaLet's see how many know what one of them is.

[The Atheist]

Not meaningless. Change does not render the Faith meaningless, nor does acquired wisdom. The basic principles have generally stood the test of time, though the doctrine (like clergy not marrying) could use a bit of improvement, IMO. One of the great tragedies of Vatican II was that the initiative to allow the clergy to marry was not carried through to new doctrine.

DRCan I just take issue with some of that?

How can change not affect faith, unless the faith ignores the changes?

You say that the basic priciples have stodd the test of time. Have they really? If so, why is christianity declining so rapidly?

I'm with you on Vatican II. Maybe the current pope-bloke will catch up with that, he seems surprisingly open to change for a bloke who was very much fire, brimstone and orthodixy before he collected the CEO job.