Forums > Personal > Athiest fundamentalists

forum rss feed
Author

-fatty- 2850 user not visiting Queenzone.com
-fatty- 2850
Deity: 2029 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Jun 09, 20:44 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Has anyone else noticed a greater number of over-enthusiastic athiests in the real world these days? A few of the non-believers out there are no longer content to deny the existence of god and his pals, they now feel they have the right to ram their opinions down your throat.

For the record I dont believe in god and I used to think that made me an athiest but ever since the recent wave of athiest fundamentalism emerged I no longer wish to be associated with these nutters. I've managed to live my life in a state of blissful apathy so far and as far as I'm concerned people can believe in whatever the hell they like. The most annoying thing I've had to put up with from christians/muslims/scientologists is being handed a leaflet by a well meaning man or woman in the street but athiests seem to think that they have the god-given right (okay so tht's a bad choice of words) to bore me rigid with their stories about spaghetti monsters or whatever it is they don't believe in.

Hs anyone else noticed an increase in these dull people or am I just getting old and I've found something new to moan about?

Mr.Jingles user not visiting Queenzone.com
Mr.Jingles
Deity: 10532 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Jun 09, 22:34 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I love the South Park episode where Richard Dawkins marries Mrs Garrison and both turn the entire world atheist.
Problem is that there are 2 atheist sects fighting and waging war against each other. It was hilarious!

Personally I'm getting fed up with fundamentalist atheists as much as religious nuts.
I fuckin' hate how extremely religious people think that they are the moral and ethical authority everyone should follow, but I also hate the condescending attitude of certain atheists who think that everyone who believes (or even wonders) if there might be some sort of higher power is mentally retarded.

While we are on the subject, will the hippie generation for once shut the fuck up about how truthful John Lennon's "Imagine" is? (Yes, that includes Mr. Roger Taylor). Seriously, if there was no religion we will still find other reasons to kill each other. The Soviet Union tried to get rid of religion to apparently make the world a better place, and that only fucked things up even more.



[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Brandon wrote: [/QUOTENAME]... and now the "best you can offer is Mr. Jingles? HA! He's... just pathetic.[/QUOTE]
The Real Wizard user is on Queenzone.com
The Real Wizard
Deity: 18633 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 Jun 09, 02:00 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote







Richard Orchard wrote:



I find it all a bit weird given that either side doesn't have a "100%" truth, and has to take a leap of  "faith" as to what is more probable for them. 


In terms of physical truth, atheists are closer to it, as it does not require testable measures to prove (or even suggest) that there isn't a metaphysical monothestic being up in the sky.  But I do agree that fundamentalist atheists have crossed the line as well, albeit in a completely different way than the religious ones do.  At least they don't threaten you with eternal damnation.



Mr.Jingles wrote:

Seriously, if there was no religion we will still find other reasons to kill each other.

Absolutely right.  There would be some other way to attempt to explain the unexplainable and control people with it.




"The more generous you are with your music, the more it comes back to you." -- Dan Lampinski



http://www.queenlive.ca
Holly2003 user not visiting Queenzone.com
Hot Buttered Soul
Holly2003
Deity: 4706 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 Jun 09, 03:28 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Want to team up to fight the spaghetti monsters?




"With a population of 1.75 million, Northern Ireland should really be a footballing minnow. Instead, they could be better described as the piranhas of the international game" (FIFA.com)
JoxerTheDeityPirate user not visiting Queenzone.com
JoxerTheDeityPirate
Deity: 6272 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 Jun 09, 04:26 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote



Holly2003 wrote:

Want to team up to fight the spaghetti monsters?

i would prefer it if the world united to fight the 'honey monster' first and then 'tony the tiger'.









isnt innuendo an italian suppository?

im gonna ride the wild wind!

its_a_hard_life wrote:you nutcase you rule!

joxer replies: but in a nice way :-]

-fatty- 2850 user not visiting Queenzone.com
-fatty- 2850
Deity: 2029 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 Jun 09, 04:55 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote



JoxerTheDeityPirate wrote:



 



Holly2003 wrote:



Want to team up to fight the spaghetti monsters?


i would prefer it if the world united to fight the 'honey monster' first and then 'tony the tiger'.







Didn't we defeat Tony the Tiger in the Grrrrrrrrrreat war. Hahahahahahahaha...............

I'll get me coat
fatty.







FriedChicken user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 10641 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 Jun 09, 05:00 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote



Mr.Jingles wrote:


While we are on the subject, will the hippie generation for once shut the fuck up about how truthful John Lennon's "Imagine" is? (Yes, that includes Mr. Roger Taylor). Seriously, if there was no religion we will still find other reasons to kill each other. The Soviet Union tried to get rid of religion to apparently make the world a better place, and that only fucked things up even more.


That´s true to some extend, but religion is a major reason for most of the wars and injustice on this planet.









"On the first day Pim & Niek created a heavenly occupation. Pim & Niek blessed it and named it 'Loosch'."



(Genesis 1:1)
thomasquinn 32989 user not visiting Queenzone.com
thomasquinn 32989
Deity: 6256 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 Jun 09, 05:29 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote



Mr.Jingles wrote:



The Soviet Union tried to get rid of religion to apparently make the world a better place, and that only fucked things up even more.


That is not technically true. It was official policy to rid the Soviet Union of religion in every form, but it was feared that there would be so much opposition to that amongst the common people, especially in the countryside, where the party was never very strong, that the policy was never really put in practice.



Not Plutus but Apollo rules Parnassus

thomasquinn 32989 user not visiting Queenzone.com
thomasquinn 32989
Deity: 6256 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 Jun 09, 05:38 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote



Sir GH wrote:















Richard Orchard wrote:







I find it all a bit weird given that either side doesn't have a "100%" truth, and has to take a leap of  "faith" as to what is more probable for them. 






In terms of physical truth, atheists are closer to it, as it does not require testable measures to prove (or even suggest) that there isn't a metaphysical monothestic being up in the sky.  But I do agree that fundamentalist atheists have crossed the line as well, albeit in a completely different way than the religious ones do.  At least they don't threaten you with eternal damnation.


To remain quite technical here, no, you're wrong, from a purely logical point of view.

The religious argument goes like this - (a) God was there first; he/she/it then created the universe and all things in it (all at the same time or in a specific order, depending on the religion). In a very small number of religions, the God then disappears, or is at least no longer discussed, but in most religions, the deity in question remains, exerting influence on his/her/its creation.

The logical necessity if we accept the above is then that God exists *outside* the Universe, for the simple reason that he/she/it created that universe, and cannot be part of what he/she/it created (or, at the very least, cannot *wholly* be part of what he/she/it created).

Science cannot explain anything outside the universe, for the simple reason that from science's point of view, the universe is all that is (and all that is outside it therefore "is not", though not in the vulgar sense of nothingness). Thus, both atheists and religiosos have the same impossible task if they wish to prove their point. Whichever way you turn it, both are based on faith.

Having said all that, I, too, find myself in increasing numbers of discussions with atheist fundamentalists (a term I've recently started using, too), who, to my intense displeasure, use the same kinds of arguments as religious fundamentalists. And, like religious fundamentalists, they have an "if you're not with us you're against us" attitude, which they believe makes my IMHO enlightened agnostic standpoint synonymous with religion.

The bottom line being, you don't need religion to have religious fanatics...








Not Plutus but Apollo rules Parnassus

FriedChicken user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 10641 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 Jun 09, 06:28 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

`Science
cannot explain anything outside the universe, for the simple reason
that from science's point of view, the universe is all that is (and all
that is outside it therefore "is not", though not in the vulgar sense
of nothingness). Thus, both atheists and religiosos have the same
impossible task if they wish to prove their point. Whichever way you
turn it, both are based on faith.`



True, but to bring a fairly good Richard Dawkins argument. We can also not prove that there aren´t fairies. I think he does make a pretty good point there. If someone claims something absurd (i.e the existence of something or someone nobody can see) isn't it the task of that group of people to come with the facts, and prove that it DOES excist, and not the task of the other group to find prove that it doesn't?

at least that's how it works in science. Scientists come up with a theory, they test it, and can predict future evidence. They don't think of a theory and say: "You know folks, this is the truth, I don't have any evidence, but I believe it's the truth, and if you don't believe it you'd better find prove that it doesn't." That just doesn't make sense!

And I agree that some atheists go to far, but when you compare it to religious zealots it could be much much worse.


"On the first day Pim & Niek created a heavenly occupation. Pim & Niek blessed it and named it 'Loosch'."



(Genesis 1:1)
thomasquinn 32989 user not visiting Queenzone.com
thomasquinn 32989
Deity: 6256 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 Jun 09, 06:59 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

You are right, FriedChicken, that is the scientific method, and it is the only method we know of that allows more or less objective testing of a hypothesis. But the problem is, if science cannot establish that something IS there, it does not automatically mean that it is not. For instance, until quite recently, the exitence of sub-atomic particles could not be empirically demonstrated, and thus any theory stating that the atom was not indivisible was not supported by scientific evidence. Thus, said the fundamentalists of that day and age, anyone saying the atom isn't indivisible is an idiot, unscientific, a metaphysicist, etc. But then we did establish that there are subatomic particles.

The point is: the scientific method is a very useful system to work with, and it has greatly accelerated (and made more accurate) the growth of man's knowledge. But it is not infallible nor absolute.

Incidentally, the scientific method is based on the *falsification* of theories, not the *verification* thereof, for the simple reason that absolute proof does not exist. Therefore, we accept a theory as true so long as no theory that explains the available evidence better than the previous one exists. Thus, it would be up to the people who say that there aren't fairies to prove that they are right (providing those who say there are wrote up their theory in a way that does allow for testing and falsification). The falsification principle is the very thing that makes religion and science dwell in different domains, as statements of a theological or philosophical type (like those of historical, psychological, sociological, anthropological, etc.) are incompatible with the falsification principle.



Not Plutus but Apollo rules Parnassus

mr mercury user not visiting Queenzone.com
Adam who?????
mr mercury
Deity: 4631 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 Jun 09, 07:15 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote



-fatty- wrote:

Has anyone else noticed a greater number of over-enthusiastic athiests in the real world these days? A few of the non-believers out there are no longer content to deny the existence of god and his pals, they now feel they have the right to ram their opinions down your throat.

For the record I dont believe in god and I used to think that made me an athiest but ever since the recent wave of athiest fundamentalism emerged I no longer wish to be associated with these nutters. I've managed to live my life in a state of blissful apathy so far and as far as I'm concerned people can believe in whatever the hell they like. The most annoying thing I've had to put up with from christians/muslims/scientologists is being handed a leaflet by a well meaning man or woman in the street but athiests seem to think that they have the god-given right (okay so tht's a bad choice of words) to bore me rigid with their stories about spaghetti monsters or whatever it is they don't believe in.

Hs anyone else noticed an increase in these dull people or am I just getting old and I've found something new to moan about?




The way round that is to talk to them about "Fannies". They might immediately think that you are being facetious towards them, but when you explain that it actually stands for "Fanatics Against Non-believing Non-ideologist Icons, Especially Scientologists" they might take the hint and go away.

Or you could simply waste as much of their time as they have done with you by getting them to repeat themselves (by pretending not to understand what they are saying) or by asking as many stupid questions as you could possibly think of.





"Normally i can't dance to save my life.

But as soon as I step in dog shit, I can moonwalk better than Michael Jackson."
FriedChicken user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 10641 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 Jun 09, 09:20 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote



ThomasQuinn wrote:

You are right, FriedChicken, that is the scientific method, and it is the only method we know of that allows more or less objective testing of a hypothesis. But the problem is, if science cannot establish that something IS there, it does not automatically mean that it is not. For instance, until quite recently, the exitence of sub-atomic particles could not be empirically demonstrated, and thus any theory stating that the atom was not indivisible was not supported by scientific evidence. Thus, said the fundamentalists of that day and age, anyone saying the atom isn't indivisible is an idiot, unscientific, a metaphysicist, etc. But then we did establish that there are subatomic particles.

The point is: the scientific method is a very useful system to work with, and it has greatly accelerated (and made more accurate) the growth of man's knowledge. But it is not infallible nor absolute.

Incidentally, the scientific method is based on the *falsification* of theories, not the *verification* thereof, for the simple reason that absolute proof does not exist. Therefore, we accept a theory as true so long as no theory that explains the available evidence better than the previous one exists. Thus, it would be up to the people who say that there aren't fairies to prove that they are right (providing those who say there are wrote up their theory in a way that does allow for testing and falsification). The falsification principle is the very thing that makes religion and science dwell in different domains, as statements of a theological or philosophical type (like those of historical, psychological, sociological, anthropological, etc.) are incompatible with the falsification principle.



True, but I think there's a major difference between a man in the clouds who knows no time and space, and has always been there and performs miracles (or not, depending on your vision of the deity) and sub atomic particles.
And I know it's not infallible nor absolute. That's why science evolves, in contrast to religious dogma, who still have  the same ideas as the believes in the bronze age.






"On the first day Pim & Niek created a heavenly occupation. Pim & Niek blessed it and named it 'Loosch'."



(Genesis 1:1)
-fatty- 2850 user not visiting Queenzone.com
-fatty- 2850
Deity: 2029 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 Jun 09, 09:59 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote



From now on I'm going to devote my life to the teachings of apathy. If I can be bothered, that is.



fatty.



Micrówave user not visiting Queenzone.com
Delilah, on Medium Power
Micrówave
Deity: 7037 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 Jun 09, 10:42 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

*opens door*

*quickly closes door to keep Spaghetti Monster inside*

(I'd love to jump in, but I am not an Athiest, so my point of view wouldn't be much help.  I will say that I, too, am annoyed by such things as the "It's OK not to believe in God" billboards that are popping up all around here. 
Which means these people have organized, which is a really scary thought.

thomasquinn 32989 user not visiting Queenzone.com
thomasquinn 32989
Deity: 6256 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 Jun 09, 11:06 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote



FriedChicken wrote:







ThomasQuinn wrote:



You are right, FriedChicken, that is the scientific method, and it is the only method we know of that allows more or less objective testing of a hypothesis. But the problem is, if science cannot establish that something IS there, it does not automatically mean that it is not. For instance, until quite recently, the exitence of sub-atomic particles could not be empirically demonstrated, and thus any theory stating that the atom was not indivisible was not supported by scientific evidence. Thus, said the fundamentalists of that day and age, anyone saying the atom isn't indivisible is an idiot, unscientific, a metaphysicist, etc. But then we did establish that there are subatomic particles.

The point is: the scientific method is a very useful system to work with, and it has greatly accelerated (and made more accurate) the growth of man's knowledge. But it is not infallible nor absolute.

Incidentally, the scientific method is based on the *falsification* of theories, not the *verification* thereof, for the simple reason that absolute proof does not exist. Therefore, we accept a theory as true so long as no theory that explains the available evidence better than the previous one exists. Thus, it would be up to the people who say that there aren't fairies to prove that they are right (providing those who say there are wrote up their theory in a way that does allow for testing and falsification). The falsification principle is the very thing that makes religion and science dwell in different domains, as statements of a theological or philosophical type (like those of historical, psychological, sociological, anthropological, etc.) are incompatible with the falsification principle.




True, but I think there's a major difference between a man in the clouds who knows no time and space, and has always been there and performs miracles (or not, depending on your vision of the deity) and sub atomic particles.
And I know it's not infallible nor absolute. That's why science evolves, in contrast to religious dogma, who still have  the same ideas as the believes in the bronze age.




Yeah, but the whole point, and most of the religious elite, certainly the great religious leaders have forgotten that too, is that science and religion answer *different* questions. They are both separate, different branches of philosophy. Only much of religion has been corrupted, as has, I might add, science, only to a lesser degree it seems.




Not Plutus but Apollo rules Parnassus

Mr.Jingles user not visiting Queenzone.com
Mr.Jingles
Deity: 10532 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 Jun 09, 12:16 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote



FriedChicken wrote:







Mr.Jingles wrote:




While we are on the subject, will the hippie generation for once shut the fuck up about how truthful John Lennon's "Imagine" is? (Yes, that includes Mr. Roger Taylor). Seriously, if there was no religion we will still find other reasons to kill each other. The Soviet Union tried to get rid of religion to apparently make the world a better place, and that only fucked things up even more.



That´s true to some extend, but religion is a major reason for most of the wars and injustice on this planet.


Yes and No from where I see it.

I would say instead that politics are the major reason for wars and injustice in this planet (from far left and far right in particular). Of course, religion plays an important role when it comes to influencing politics in many countries, but then again it's mankind the ones that chooses to use religion to manipulate the masses.








[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Brandon wrote: [/QUOTENAME]... and now the "best you can offer is Mr. Jingles? HA! He's... just pathetic.[/QUOTE]
FriedChicken user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 10641 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 Jun 09, 12:37 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Are you sure it isn't Satan doing that? :P



"On the first day Pim & Niek created a heavenly occupation. Pim & Niek blessed it and named it 'Loosch'."



(Genesis 1:1)
magicalfreddiemercury user not visiting Queenzone.com
magicalfreddiemercury
Deity: 2693 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 Jun 09, 13:35 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote



Micrówave wrote:

*opens door*

*quickly closes door to keep Spaghetti Monster inside*

(I'd love to jump in, but I am not an Athiest, so my point of view wouldn't be much help.  I will say that I, too, am annoyed by such things as the "It's OK not to believe in God" billboards that are popping up all around here. 
Which means these people have organized, which is a really scary thought.

Actually, I don't think it's scary at all. If anything, I think it's about time. The Religious Right has always had an enviable way of organizing in a flash, and they've fought vigorously against the left AND the middle. Finally, they'll have another extreme to fight and that will, hopefully, balance them.

The effect of the last administration is, I think, a good example of this. It generated a lot of support from the far right, and that extreme - so "in your face" for eight years - helped more people declare themselves as moderates. With two extremes enthusiastically voicing their ideas, the amount of people leaning toward the middle will probably increase, thus creating common ground for a larger percentage of us. IMO, that's a good thing.



"The others don't like my interviews. And frankly, I don't care much for theirs." ~ Freddie Mercury



The Real Wizard user is on Queenzone.com
The Real Wizard
Deity: 18633 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 Jun 09, 13:47 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































ThomasQuinn wrote:































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































The logical necessity if we accept the above is then that God exists *outside* the Universe, for the simple reason that he/she/it created that universe, and cannot be part of what he/she/it created (or, at the very least, cannot *wholly* be part of what he/she/it created).






























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Ah yes, I knew this would come!  This is why I was careful with my wording, and said "monotheistic".  I certainly am not denying that a force of some sort created the universe.  I am denying any monotheistic religion's outdated and scientifically devoid explanation of said process.  And who says the force that created the universe did not integrate itself into the universe as it is now?

Science cannot explain anything outside the universe, for the simple reason that from science's point of view, the universe is all that is (and all that is outside it therefore "is not", though not in the vulgar sense of nothingness). Thus, both atheists and religiosos have the same impossible task if they wish to prove their point. Whichever way you turn it, both are based on faith.

I strongly disagree.  Faith is believing in a proposition without any kind of proof, whereas science is acceptance of facts undeniably proven by testable measures (without getting into the philosophical idea that we created our linguistic ideas and systems of understanding).  Science is always ready and willing to amend their stance on any given subject in light of new evidence.  Organized religion, on the other hand, sticks to antiquity for antiquity's sake.

Yes, there are very few exceptions, like the Bahai faith, but the overwhelming majority of religious stances worldwide are outdated and are to be scientifically rejected on the grounds that their propositions cannot be proven by testable measures.  Only the argument from ignorance can permit one the illusion of asserting the physical existence of a metaphysical being on the basis that a hypothesis is true because it cannot be proven to be untrue.

As for the universe itself, it is defined as everything that physically exists.  There is no "outside" of the universe.  Any forces beyond our limited human understanding are still within the universe.  Arguing in favour of an outside of the universe is to eliminate the possibility that we can grow to understand more about this aspect the universe.

Incidentally, the scientific method is based on the *falsification* of theories, not the *verification* thereof, for the simple reason that absolute proof does not exist.

In principle, yes, you are correct.  But this argument is wrongly used by religious people, as they somehow try to discount science with it in favour of their faith.  Today, I see organized religion being like when you a squash a bug and only its legs are still moving a little bit.  Most people agree that the bug is still alive in principle, but it is fundamentally powerless.

science and religion answer *different* questions. They are both separate, different branches of philosophy.

On the subject of the nature of the universe, I disagree.  They're both attempting to explain the unexplainable.  But science is one inching closer to achieving that because their method is far superior.




"The more generous you are with your music, the more it comes back to you." -- Dan Lampinski



http://www.queenlive.ca