Atheistic Fundamentalism

NymphaeaAlba

24th July 2011 - 08:33 AM

I am sick and tired of being called a “fundamentalist” atheist, or a militant atheist. I am not trying to control anyone, nor am I judging the moral worth of others. As thousands of atheists have said before, “people are free to believe what they want, as long as it doesn’t affect me.” But why on earth am I considered rude, if I take a stance, or if they engage me in a discussion, why should I back down? After all, this is a discussion forum.

There may be a God and there may not be a God. Can’t we just leave it at that? Uh, No. Why in the hell does everyone think that this agnostic position (golden mean fallacy) is superior?

I’m tired of being shushed. A fundamentalist is not just rude, or aggressive, they are unwilling to change their minds. I could think of many things that would make me change my mind.

Michael Burleigh, the author of “Earthly Power” says that if you subtract God and the notion of an afterlife then there is a real risk for a quick fix, to create heaven on earth, political utopianisms, which were so deadly in the 20th century. He refers to the cult of reason.

Dr. David Stack says, “Once you do that, you begin to regard man as animals, and as you would the plant kingdom." He teaches a course, 'From Darwin to the Death Camps'. This is such bullѕhit.

Atheists are not authoritarians or totalitarians. I don’t want to kill Christians in the name of atheism, well, maybe just one.

I don’t believe that we should or could force people into believing anything that they didn’t want to. But I do think it’s important to discuss it. People should know that there are other opinions out there. Some churches teach that it is a sin to read anti-propaganda. Ever heard the saying “reason is the devil’s whore?” I do have the desire to understand differing points of view. I’m not close minded.

I do not think that many atheists would say that science has all the answers. However, they would say that it is the best tool that we have to discover answers.

I agree with this guy.

“Does this make me a "fundamentalist"? Some will doubtless say so. And there is one sense in which I will accept this charge: I am a truth fundamentalist. I believe that the truth is superior to error.”

flyingbuttressman

24th July 2011 - 12:46 PM

Obviously, some religious people feel threatened by atheism, not because of anything bad that atheists are doing, but because they are losing people in large numbers to the faithless. Of course they are going to whinge and moan.

On the other hand, atheists are not doing too well in the battle for the hearts and minds of the general populace. You have to admit that atheists can be stuck-up a-holes sometimes. I've seen many who assume that atheism is actively endorsed by science, or claim superiority in scientific knowledge simply because they are atheist. Many high-level atheist figureheads (Dawkins, Hitchens, Myers) have put their feet in their mouths on more than one occasion.

Aside from that, I am worried about atheism's relationship with religious people. Obviously, we would like to prove that we are fundamentally different from them, no?
What things do religions do that we think are wrong?
Evangelism
Shaming those they disagree with
Painting the world in black and white terms
Claiming the world would be better if everyone was a part of their group
I could go on, but you get the picture

I would argue that atheists shouldn't do any of those things. I think we shouldn't run bus campaigns or argue that Islam is a horrible religion or state that raising a child in a religion is child abuse. If we do these things we lose the moral high ground and become just like everyone else.

El_Machinae

24th July 2011 - 01:13 PM

What's a fundamentalist atheist? Really, really skeptical?

flyingbuttressman

24th July 2011 - 02:19 PM

QUOTE (El_Machinae+Jul 24 2011, 09:13 AM)

What's a fundamentalist atheist? Really, really skeptical?

I'm so skeptical, I'm skeptical of skepticism.

Kino

24th July 2011 - 03:38 PM

Amusingly, the bishop complaining about 'virulent, almost irrational' attacks on religion is quoting a myth with only loose foundations in reality as evidence: Winterval (warning - 47 page PDF).

brucep

24th July 2011 - 04:21 PM

QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Jul 24 2011, 08:33 AM)

'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

I am sick and tired of being called a “fundamentalist” atheist, or a militant atheist. I am not trying to control anyone, nor am I judging the moral worth of others. As thousands of atheists have said before, “people are free to believe what they want, as long as it doesn’t affect me.” But why on earth am I considered rude, if I take a stance, or if they engage me in a discussion, why should I back down? After all, this is a discussion forum.

There may be a God and there may not be a God. Can’t we just leave it at that? Uh, No. Why in the hell does everyone think that this agnostic position (golden mean fallacy) is superior?

I’m tired of being shushed. A fundamentalist is not just rude, or aggressive, they are unwilling to change their minds. I could think of many things that would make me change my mind.

Michael Burleigh, the author of “Earthly Power” says that if you subtract God and the notion of an afterlife then there is a real risk for a quick fix, to create heaven on earth, political utopianisms, which were so deadly in the 20th century. He refers to the cult of reason.

Dr. David Stack says, “Once you do that, you begin to regard man as animals, and as you would the plant kingdom." He teaches a course, 'From Darwin to the Death Camps'. This is such bullѕhit.

Atheists are not authoritarians or totalitarians. I don’t want to kill Christians in the name of atheism, well, maybe just one.

I don’t believe that we should or could force people into believing anything that they didn’t want to. But I do think it’s important to discuss it. People should know that there are other opinions out there. Some churches teach that it is a sin to read anti-propaganda. Ever heard the saying “reason is the devil’s whore?” I do have the desire to understand differing points of view. I’m not close minded.

I do not think that many atheists would say that science has all the answers. However, they would say that it is the best tool that we have to discover answers.

I agree with this guy.

“Does this make me a "fundamentalist"? Some will doubtless say so. And there is one sense in which I will accept this charge: I am a truth fundamentalist. I believe that the truth is superior to error.”

Another clueless ideologue. The fundamentalist ideologues are theists, bonehead politicians, and bottom line knuckleheads. IE those who use the bottom line to rip off everybody who works for them and all their customers. This is a pretty stupid world.

synthsin75

24th July 2011 - 05:58 PM

QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jul 24 2011, 06:46 AM)

Obviously, some religious people feel threatened by atheism, not because of anything bad that atheists are doing, but because they are losing people in large numbers to the faithless. Of course they are going to whinge and moan.

On the other hand, atheists are not doing too well in the battle for the hearts and minds of the general populace. You have to admit that atheists can be stuck-up a-holes sometimes. I've seen many who assume that atheism is actively endorsed by science, or claim superiority in scientific knowledge simply because they are atheist. Many high-level atheist figureheads (Dawkins, Hitchens, Myers) have put their feet in their mouths on more than one occasion.

Aside from that, I am worried about atheism's relationship with religious people. Obviously, we would like to prove that we are fundamentally different from them, no?
What things do religions do that we think are wrong?
Evangelism
Shaming those they disagree with
Painting the world in black and white terms
Claiming the world would be better if everyone was a part of their group
I could go on, but you get the picture

I would argue that atheists shouldn't do any of those things. I think we shouldn't run bus campaigns or argue that Islam is a horrible religion or state that raising a child in a religion is child abuse. If we do these things we lose the moral high ground and become just like everyone else.

Exactly what I think. Thank you FBM for expressing it better than I could have.

If for no other other reason than the Golden Rule, the religious would be wise follow the same guidelines.

flyingbuttressman

24th July 2011 - 10:10 PM

QUOTE (synthsin75+Jul 24 2011, 01:58 PM)

Exactly what I think. Thank you FBM for expressing it better than I could have.

If for no other other reason than the Golden Rule, the religious would be wise follow the same guidelines.

It's easy to get non-atheists to agree with this, but it's very hard to get atheists to abandon some of the rhetoric pushed by atheist "figureheads." It's really kind of sad that Dawkins and Hitchens have so much influence within the atheist community. I wish there were more atheists like Isaac Asimov.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Asimov#Religion

AlexG

24th July 2011 - 11:48 PM

That presupposes there is an 'athiest community'.

I myself, an athiest since I was able to think for myself, have never encountered an 'athiest community'.

And to be quite frank, I've almost never heard of Dawkins or Hitchens. They play absolutely no role in my thinking, nor of anyone I know outside of internet chat boards.

synthsin75

24th July 2011 - 11:50 PM

I still find it odd that there could be an identifiable "atheist community". A community definitively formed around something expressly non-existent. I can handle a lot of counter-intuitive science, but this eludes me.

Perhaps I'd understand better if it were expressed as simply secularism (as in separation of church and state) rather than atheism.

Gary Gaulin

25th July 2011 - 12:18 AM

QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Jul 24 2011, 08:33 AM)

I do not think that many atheists would say that science has all the answers. However, they would say that it is the best tool that we have to discover answers.

I agree with this guy.

“Does this make me a "fundamentalist"? Some will doubtless say so. And there is one sense in which I will accept this charge: I am a truth fundamentalist. I believe that the truth is superior to error.”

Whether you are religious "fundamentalist" or not, is easily testable. Here's the only question you need to answer:
Is the following science or religion?

Levels of Intelligence

The structure of our brain changes at the cellular level in response to what we sense/learn at the multicellular level. For example, a taxi driver has a larger than average hypothalamus from storing the spatial maps that their job requires. We are unaware of these changes, but at the cellular level our brain is changing in response to what we sense and learn.

Likewise, the structure of our cells also change at the molecular genetic level in response to what they sense and learn. For example, stem cells can differentiate into one of many possible types of cells depending on what their job requires. Stem cells would not be aware of these changes, but at the molecular level our cells are changing in response to what they sense/learn. Since cells replicate by division of their genome, these changes are inherited in the next generation of cells.

We now have the three primary levels of biological intelligence required for theory, a one level to the next causation where one is the intelligent cause of the other.

(1) Molecular Intelligence
(2) Cellular Intelligence
(3) Multicellular Intelligence

For scientific experiments to model intelligent systems we must also include computer algorithm produced Algorithmic Intelligence. Where electronic components are connected to form the four requirement circuit we have Electronic Intelligence useful for robotics.

(More detail is here in MS Word format, in case you need more information)
Theory of Intelligent Design

Gary Gaulin

25th July 2011 - 12:30 AM

QUOTE (AlexG+Jul 24 2011, 11:48 PM)

I myself, an athiest since I was able to think for myself, have never encountered an 'athiest community'.

Sounds to me like you missed your calling. But it only takes a minute or two to become a legally ordained Atheist minister (not joking either). Here's one of the websites that will welcome you into their religious community, where you can visit the sick and dying as well as legally marry and even bury people (but they must first be legally dead of course):

http://churchofatheism.webs.com/

And there is more info here in case you need it:

http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/02/16/free-ordinations.htm

Reverend Alex G, sounds good to me.

flyingbuttressman

25th July 2011 - 12:56 AM

QUOTE (AlexG+Jul 24 2011, 07:48 PM)

That presupposes there is an 'athiest community'.

I myself, an athiest since I was able to think for myself, have never encountered an 'athiest community'.

And to be quite frank, I've almost never heard of Dawkins or Hitchens. They play absolutely no role in my thinking, nor of anyone I know outside of internet chat boards.

In the past few years, there has been a large effort to create an "atheist community." A lot of people have joined the atheist fold recently, and the internet has played a huge roll in connecting people. Dawkins has been very vocal in the media and his books are bestsellers. He created the Out Campaign and a number of other public outreach endeavors.

Of course he does not speak for all atheists, no one does. The issue is that a lot of people became atheists through his work, or became aware of his work shortly thereafter. If you were going to ask a man on the street to name a famous atheist, "Richard Dawkins" would be in the top 5 responses.

Gary Gaulin

25th July 2011 - 01:51 AM

The most famous and successful Atheist in history is Joseph Stalin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin

QUOTE

Religion

Main article: Religion in the Soviet Union

Stalin followed the position adopted by Lenin that religion was an opiate that needed to be removed in order to construct the ideal communist society. To this end, his government promoted atheism through special atheistic education in schools, massive amounts of anti-religious propaganda, the antireligious work of public institutions (especially the Society of the Godless), discriminatory laws, and also a terror campaign against religious believers. By the late 1930s it had become dangerous to be publicly associated with religion.[85]

Stalin's role in the fortunes of the Russian Orthodox Church is complex. Continuous persecution in the 1930s resulted in its near-extinction as a public institution: by 1939, active parishes numbered in the low hundreds (down from 54,000 in 1917), many churches had been leveled, and tens of thousands of priests, monks and nuns were persecuted and killed. Over 100,000 were shot during the purges of 1937–1938.[86] During World War II, the Church was allowed a revival as a patriotic organization, and thousands of parishes were reactivated until a further round of suppression in Khrushchev's time. The Russian Orthodox Church Synod's recognition of the Soviet government and of Stalin personally led to a schism with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia.

Just days before Stalin's death, certain religious sects were outlawed and persecuted. Many religions popular in the ethnic regions of the Soviet Union including the Roman Catholic Church (including the Eastern Catholic Churches), Baptists, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, etc. underwent ordeals similar to the Orthodox churches in other parts: thousands of monks were persecuted, and hundreds of churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, sacred monuments, monasteries and other religious buildings were razed.

They also did a great job of getting rid of pseudoscience like that which came from Monk Mendel the religious nutter:

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Religion

Main article: Religion in the Soviet Union

Stalin followed the position adopted by Lenin that religion was an opiate that needed to be removed in order to construct the ideal communist society. To this end, his government promoted atheism through special atheistic education in schools, massive amounts of anti-religious propaganda, the antireligious work of public institutions (especially the Society of the Godless), discriminatory laws, and also a terror campaign against religious believers. By the late 1930s it had become dangerous to be publicly associated with religion.[85]

Stalin's role in the fortunes of the Russian Orthodox Church is complex. Continuous persecution in the 1930s resulted in its near-extinction as a public institution: by 1939, active parishes numbered in the low hundreds (down from 54,000 in 1917), many churches had been leveled, and tens of thousands of priests, monks and nuns were persecuted and killed. Over 100,000 were shot during the purges of 1937–1938.[86] During World War II, the Church was allowed a revival as a patriotic organization, and thousands of parishes were reactivated until a further round of suppression in Khrushchev's time. The Russian Orthodox Church Synod's recognition of the Soviet government and of Stalin personally led to a schism with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia.

Just days before Stalin's death, certain religious sects were outlawed and persecuted. Many religions popular in the ethnic regions of the Soviet Union including the Roman Catholic Church (including the Eastern Catholic Churches), Baptists, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, etc. underwent ordeals similar to the Orthodox churches in other parts: thousands of monks were persecuted, and hundreds of churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, sacred monuments, monasteries and other religious buildings were razed.

They also did a great job of getting rid of pseudoscience like that which came from Monk Mendel the religious nutter:

Science

Main articles: Science and technology in the Soviet Union and Suppressed research in the Soviet Union
Science in the Soviet Union was under strict ideological control by Stalin and his government, along with art and literature. There was significant progress in "ideologically safe" domains, owing to the free Soviet education system and state-financed research. However, the most notable legacy during Stalin's time was his public endorsement of the Agronomist Trofim Lysenko who rejected Mendelian genetics as "bourgeois pseudosciences" and instead supported Hybridization theories that caused widespread agricultural destruction and major setbacks in Soviet knowledge in biology. Although many scientists opposed his views, those who publicly came out were imprisoned and denounced. Some areas of physics were criticized.[80][81]

And only millions of people died as a result of Atheist science and farming practices:

QUOTE

Famines

Famine affected other parts of the USSR. The death toll from famine in the Soviet Union at this time is estimated at between five and ten million people.[62] The worst crop failure of late tsarist Russia, in 1892, had caused 375,000 to 400,000 deaths.[63] Most modern scholars agree that the famine was caused by the policies of the government of the Soviet Union under Stalin, rather than by natural reasons.[64] According to Alan Bullock, "the total Soviet grain crop was no worse than that of 1931 ... it was not a crop failure but the excessive demands of the state, ruthlessly enforced, that cost the lives of as many as five million Ukrainian peasants." Stalin refused to release large grain reserves that could have alleviated the famine, while continuing to export grain; he was convinced that the Ukrainian peasants had hidden grain away, and strictly enforced draconian new collective-farm theft laws in response.[65][66] Other historians hold it was largely the insufficient harvests of 1931 and 1932 caused by a variety of natural disasters that resulted in famine, with the successful harvest of 1933 ending the famine.[67] Soviet and other historians have argued that the rapid collectivization of agriculture was necessary in order to achieve an equally rapid industrialization of the Soviet Union and ultimately win World War II. Alec Nove claims that the Soviet Union industrialized in spite of, rather than because of, its collectivized agriculture.[citation needed]

The USSR also experienced a major famine in 1947 as a result of war damage and severe droughts, but economist Michael Ellman argues that it could have been prevented if the government did not mismanage its grain reserves. The famine cost an estimated 1 to 1.5 million lives as well as secondary population losses due to reduced fertility.

The minor problem in Iraq and Afghanistan that was much the result of Atheists using books then the internet to piss off Muslims is no big deal. I'm sure Reverend Dawkins can afford the bill for the US military to clean up his mess using the income from his new "Out Campaign".

Like they say, nothing has killed more people than religion.
Welcome to the Knee Deep in Blood Club...

flyingbuttressman

25th July 2011 - 02:23 AM

QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+Jul 24 2011, 09:51 PM)

The most famous and successful Atheist in history is Joseph Stalin.

Dude, shut up and GTFO this thread.

Gary Gaulin

25th July 2011 - 02:40 AM

QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jul 25 2011, 02:23 AM)

Dude, shut up and GTFO this thread.

Drats flying butt man! I thought you would be proud of a "man on the street" like me who knew who the MOST famous Atheist of them all really is.

flyingbuttressman

25th July 2011 - 02:59 AM

QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+Jul 24 2011, 10:40 PM)

Drats flying butt man! I thought you would be proud of a "man on the street" like me who knew who the MOST famous Atheist of them all really is.

If you're trying to prove something by pointing out horrible people who have something in common with someone you disagree with, you're either an idiot or a troll.

synthsin75

25th July 2011 - 03:03 AM

QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+Jul 24 2011, 08:40 PM)

Drats flying butt man! I thought you would be proud of a "man on the street" like me who knew who the MOST famous Atheist of them all really is.

These kinds of inferences weaken your position just as much as any atheist pointing out pedophile priests. You'd be wise to steer clear of that sort of mud-slinging. It's simple-minded and self-defeating.

Gary Gaulin

25th July 2011 - 04:04 AM

QUOTE (synthsin75+Jul 25 2011, 03:03 AM)

These kinds of inferences weaken your position just as much as any atheist pointing out pedophile priests. You'd be wise to steer clear of that sort of mud-slinging. It's simple-minded and self-defeating.

Oh lighten up while reading the history of the Atheist religion. It's very honestly only ten million or so dead and counting since the 1900's. Of course monastery schooled Galileo who wanted to become a monk too would not find it so humorous. Suicidal Atheist philosopher Bruno was misrepresenting the cosmological theory he was working on in an attempt to take down the pope in a fight to the death, which got Galileo in trouble too for working on what was at the center of the conflict being used as a weapon, but that was a long long time ago, sort of.

This is only an "Atheistic Fundamentalism" thread the PhysOrg forum, anyway. It's not like it's a science forum.

Gary Gaulin

25th July 2011 - 04:17 AM

QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jul 25 2011, 02:59 AM)

If you're trying to prove something by pointing out horrible people who have something in common with someone you disagree with, you're either an idiot or a troll.

It sure is easy to disown ones from your own religion when they are "horrible people" isn't it?

If you were there at the time, then you would have been as excited as the rest of that generation's New Atheist movement after achieving such an ultimate success. Looks to me like you cannot wait to repeat that history. Even got the color of the "A" just right. Blood red. Looks good on you!

Gary Gaulin

25th July 2011 - 06:22 AM

QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jul 25 2011, 04:32 AM)

Try to separate the tragedies of the human condition from the self-interest inherent in your current spamming. Else you are just part of the problem, not part of the solution. Atheists were labelled such and persecuted for generations by like egomaniacal religionists and religious nutters/psychpaths, so can you doubt that the reaction to that has been for more free thinking people to be forced to seek 'safety in numbers' and organise to counter the ongoing stupid 'confrontations' and interference and impositions and plain persecutions still being sought/perpetrated by people like the religious fundamentalists and nutters and their 'political/financial' offshoots and opportunistic scammers and hangers-on (like you, for instance, perhaps, hmmm?).

A book like "God Delusion" followed by years of stone throwing ridicule at the world's religions, is hardly a peacemaking effort. So speak for yourself, instigator...

But here's a quick question for you:

Is the following (and to make it easier for you only the following 4 paragraphs) science or religion?

Levels of Intelligence

The structure of our brain changes at the cellular level in response to what we sense/learn at the multicellular level. For example, a taxi driver has a larger than average hypothalamus from storing the spatial maps that their job requires. We are unaware of these changes, but at the cellular level our brain is changing in response to what we sense and learn.

Likewise, the structure of our cells also change at the molecular genetic level in response to what they sense and learn. For example, stem cells can differentiate into one of many possible types of cells depending on what their job requires. Stem cells would not be aware of these changes, but at the molecular level our cells are changing in response to what they sense/learn. Since cells replicate by division of their genome, these changes are inherited in the next generation of cells.

We now have the three primary levels of biological intelligence required for theory, a one level to the next causation where one is the intelligent cause of the other.

(1) Molecular Intelligence
(2) Cellular Intelligence
(3) Multicellular Intelligence

For scientific experiments to model intelligent systems we must also include computer algorithm produced Algorithmic Intelligence. Where electronic components are connected to form the four requirement circuit we have Electronic Intelligence useful for robotics.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll be awaiting your honest answer to the question.

flyingbuttressman

25th July 2011 - 11:07 AM

QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+Jul 25 2011, 02:22 AM)

A book like "God Delusion" followed by years of stone throwing ridicule at the world's religions, is hardly a peacemaking effort. So speak for yourself, instigator...

You poor, oppressed Christian. It's so hard being in the majority, isn't it?

You're trolling and spamming. I have a mind to report your posts.

El_Machinae

25th July 2011 - 05:26 PM

Stalin was an especially successful atheist because Stalin was really, really skeptical.
More skeptical than the lot of you.

lol

flyingbuttressman

25th July 2011 - 06:02 PM

QUOTE (El_Machinae+Jul 25 2011, 01:26 PM)

Stalin was an especially successful atheist because Stalin was really, really skeptical.
More skeptical than the lot of you.

Let's just say he was skeptical of morality.

NymphaeaAlba

25th July 2011 - 07:53 PM

I’m sure there are some people who are born intelligent, but I know how much time and effort it took me to gain even the little amount of knowledge that I have acquired. Looking up appropriate definitions, laws, equations, etc., is time consuming, and not everyone has the time or luxury to do so. Just learning the language is time consuming. Who cares if others want only a superficial description? It’s a chance to plant a seed of curiosity. So, I do feel strongly that there is no place for arrogance or mockery in education. An intelligent and great teacher knows that most human minds have the capability to learn. It’s their job to inspire and motivate this process.

Yes, there are those who are arrogant like Dawkins, but he isn’t saying “You’re too stupid to learn.” He’s saying, “If you don’t find science interesting, then you can F--- off!” So, his arrogance doesn’t bother me so much. It’s like a bully on a playground. If someone stronger mirrors this behavior, and beats the crap out of the bully, we cheer. Dawkins is mocking the religious leaders of the world, not the people. In his book “Unweaving the Rainbow”, he talks about how science enriches our lives. How it’s like music. You don’t have to learn to play an instrument to appreciate music and you don’t have to be a scientist to appreciate science.

The political systems, which they are referring to, where the state has no limits to its authority, did not occur due to lack of belief, critical thinking, skepticism, or scrutiny. I feel that there is no subject matter that should be excluded from scrutiny.

Religion has a huge influence on society and behavior. Nobody cringes when mockery is flung towards cults, whose practices are considered abnormal or bizarre. However, the major religions of the world are granted with this non-conscious ideology because it is the majority, the social norm. They hold this position of privilege, while nonbelievers, whether its atheists, agnostics, humanists, freethinkers, skeptics, or secularists, still carry a stigma.

flyingbuttressman

25th July 2011 - 08:32 PM

QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Jul 25 2011, 03:53 PM)

Religion has a huge influence on society and behavior. Nobody cringes when mockery is flung towards cults, whose practices are considered abnormal or bizarre. However, the major religions of the world are granted with this non-conscious ideology because it is the majority, the social norm. They hold this position of privilege, while nonbelievers, whether its atheists, agnostics, humanists, freethinkers, skeptics, or secularists, still carry a stigma.

On the other hand, challenging that bias toward established religion isn't that helpful. Public opinion is the end goal here, so we have to decide which goal is more important: more respect for atheists or decreased respect for religion. We can't do both.

NymphaeaAlba

25th July 2011 - 08:46 PM

QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jul 25 2011, 12:32 PM)

On the other hand, challenging that bias toward established religion isn't that helpful. Public opinion is the end goal here, so we have to decide which goal is more important: more respect for atheists or decreased respect for religion. We can't do both.

So, little buddy (I like calling you that), are you saying that you feel that it is time to stop mocking them and time to start inspiring them?

flyingbuttressman

25th July 2011 - 09:23 PM

QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Jul 25 2011, 04:46 PM)

So, little buddy (I like calling you that), are you saying that you feel that it is time to stop mocking them and time to start inspiring them?

Sounds good to me!

synthsin75

25th July 2011 - 10:14 PM

QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jul 25 2011, 02:32 PM)

On the other hand, challenging that bias toward established religion isn't that helpful. Public opinion is the end goal here, so we have to decide which goal is more important: more respect for atheists or decreased respect for religion. We can't do both.

Hear, hear. Majority rules, so it really does no good to buck the norm, other than being self-defeating by energizing your perceived opposition by providing a definite target. You'll notice that teaching creation along side evolution really didn't become an issue until after people became sticklers about prayer in schools. It's really just a case of making your own opposition.

Now what you should be interested in doing is providing as much of a counter-point to the tactics you dislike of the religious to work toward changing the majority. That means no proselytizing, campaigns, tours, opposition bashing, etc.

Of course, that depends on what type of people you wish to draw to your cause. If you want venomous and hateful people, then use those tactics. But if you truly want intelligent, reasonable people, give up the mud slinging.

Just try to think of it this way. You are not being suppressed. You are being given opportunities to show that you don't have to be an ***-hole, and try to stomp opposition, to be an atheist. You can be an atheist without any animosity.

NymphaeaAlba

25th July 2011 - 10:46 PM

QUOTE (synthsin75+Jul 25 2011, 02:14 PM)

You are being given opportunities to show that you don't have to be an ***-hole.

Ditto, and you can think what you want, but you can’t just stop caring about what other people think. Understanding why they feel this way helps, but it’s still difficult, no matter how old you are.

I agree. It is time to stop slinging mud and and it's time for science and reason.

I think that a great number of people in the secular community simply bury their heads in the sand. Take you for example, do you think you're more intellectual because you don't let it bother you? But what about the ones that it does affect.

People are starting to understand this and there are now, tons of inspirational videos and messages, but the social pressure from religious organizations are extremely powerful. This person just subscribed to my YouTube channel yesterday.

Deconversion: Jesus & Young People - Part 1

They need to know that they're not alone.

BTW, since I mentioned music, this was awesome and you should check out the “Stand by Me” it’s pretty good.

Playing for a Change: Imagine

flyingbuttressman

25th July 2011 - 11:11 PM

QUOTE (synthsin75+Jul 25 2011, 06:14 PM)

You'll notice that teaching creation along side evolution really didn't become an issue until after people became sticklers about prayer in schools. It's really just a case of making your own opposition.

Actually, the evolution education issue has been an issue for as long as the theory has existed. Remember that the state of Tennessee had actually banned the teaching of evolution?

As for prayer in schools, I think it's beyond an atheist issue. All religious people should be against prayer in schools. Muslims don't want their kids being pressured into praying Christian prayers, and Christians vice versa. And it's not about whether the teachers are pressuring students or not, students will pressure other students on their own. If group prayer happens during school hours, you can bet there will be peer pressure going on. It's just not a good idea.

NymphaeaAlba

26th July 2011 - 01:45 AM

QUOTE (RC+)

Change direction now, mate, for your own sake and that of science and humanity. The decision is yours.

Holy smokes!

That a boy, Realty Check. Tell em’ how it is.

I hope you’re feeling better.

Cheers, R.C.

QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)

Actually, the evolution education issue has been an issue for as long as the theory has existed. Remember that the state of Tennessee had actually banned the teaching of evolution?

As for prayer in schools, I think it's beyond an atheist issue. All religious people should be against prayer in schools. Muslims don't want their kids being pressured into praying Christian prayers, and Christians vice versa. And it's not about whether the teachers are pressuring students or not, students will pressure other students on their own. If group prayer happens during school hours, you can bet there will be peer pressure going on. It's just not a good idea.

I call BS on your age, FBM. You’re pretty mature. Is your mom helping you write this stuff?

flyingbuttressman

26th July 2011 - 02:00 AM

QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Jul 25 2011, 09:45 PM)

I call BS on your age, FBM. You’re pretty mature. Is your mom helping you write this stuff?

Maybe you shouldn't hold such a low opinion of people in their 20's.

NymphaeaAlba

26th July 2011 - 02:34 AM

QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jul 25 2011, 06:00 PM)

Maybe you shouldn't hold such a low opinion of people in their 20's.

Ya, you’re right. Friggin kids these days! They’re surpassing us, that’s for sure. Mine showed me how to break into Sapo’s and have a little panty raid.

synthsin75

26th July 2011 - 05:57 AM

QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Jul 25 2011, 04:46 PM)

Ditto, and you can think what you want, but you can’t just stop caring about what other people think. Understanding why they feel this way helps, but it’s still difficult, no matter how old you are.

I agree. It is time to stop slinging mud and and it's time for science and reason.

I think that a great number of people in the secular community simply bury their heads in the sand. Take you for example, do you think you're more intellectual because you don't let it bother you? But what about the ones that it does affect.

I guess selective blindness made you miss the mud slinging about "ignorance" and "superstition" in that video huh? Atheists just don't seem capable of avoiding interjecting some barb. Now I'm not saying the religious are any better, they simply use "immoral" of "sinner" as their barbs.

Starting to see my point yet? Instead of winning over the ideologically "independent", atheists come off looking like no better an option that their opposition. Pushy, arrogant, self-righteous. And honestly, an atheist making an appeal to being inspirational or uplifting sounds like a disingenuous attempt to encroach upon their opposition's territory. Quite aside from the blatant propaganda. Yes, I'm sure a disbelief in God was crucial to forming a democracy [sarcasm].

I very much can stop caring about what other people think. Or more precisely, I can chose to not let it effect my own estimation of myself. It is just their subjective opinion, and I believe that everyone should have the freedom to allow any opinion to exist. If it were to effect me, I'd assume that I must be lending it some validity, in which case it would be my own fault for not having a stronger estimation of myself or personal beliefs.

A great many secular people simply don't care enough to make it a cause which defines them. Among them are many who, if asked, would say they believe in some God, but live wholly secular lives otherwise.

QUOTE (FBM+)

And it's not about whether the teachers are pressuring students or not, students will pressure other students on their own. If group prayer happens during school hours, you can bet there will be peer pressure going on. It's just not a good idea.

If that were the worst peer pressure we had to worry about, no one would worry about children at all.

Gary Gaulin

26th July 2011 - 07:50 AM

QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jul 25 2011, 11:06 PM)

As to your opening statement, it seems like you have not lived in the world at all in recent times. Man, have you not seen what religions have done to our hopes of social harmony and justice for the innocents? ....
....
....
....
....
....
....

Seeing how the question was whether what I showed you was from science or religion then you went on and on and on pointing fingers at others instead of answering the simple question, regardless of your having a "self-styled religion" you honestly qualify as a religious fanatic. Scientific objectivity is batting zero, even though all that you are willing to accept makes it seem like it's not a problem you could have.

You seriously need to put history into perspective because if you lived under Stalin then you would have gone with the crowd to be the first to commit atrocity that in your mind (as was in theirs) was easily justified even though it was one of the biggest hate crimes in all of human history.

And although it wasn't easy to spot, you also seem to have not noticed a word that needed changing. Instead of "hypothalamus" it should have read "hippocampus". So you missed your chance to force me to "self-correct" as science requires!

After having been further described, it now reads:

Levels of Intelligence

The structure of our brain changes at the cellular level in response to what we sense/learn at the multicellular level. For example, navigation-related structural change in the hippocampi of London taxi drivers accommodate the huge amount of navigating experience their job requires [43]. Also, neurons form new connections then store new memories by making permanent changes to these synaptic connections. We are unaware of these ongoing structural changes, but at the cellular level our brain is constantly changing in response to what we sense and learn.

Likewise, the structure of our cells also change at their molecular (genetics based) level in response to what they sense and learn. For example, stem cells can differentiate into one of many possible types of cells depending on what their job requires. Stem cells would also not be aware of these ongoing changes, but at the molecular level our cells are changing in response to what they sense/learn. Since cells replicate by division of their genome, these changes are inherited in the next generation of cells that divide from them.

In our development from a single cell (zygote) what is expressed at its molecular level produces cell growth and division. Likewise, what is expressed at the cellular level by the dividing colony of cells causes our growth and in the case of identical twins there is division of the cell colony. We now have the three primary levels of biological intelligence, a one level to the next causation where one is the “intelligent cause” of the other.

(1) Molecular Intelligence
(2) Cellular Intelligence
(3) Multicellular Intelligence

These three biological levels may be further subdivided according to whether it is a single molecule system that qualifies as rudimentary intelligence, for example self-replicating RNA would here be classifiable as Unimolecular Intelligence (a most simple form of Molecular Intelligence). Although not well understood and too early to fully qualify as intelligence, what is currently known about animal cell centrosomes are meeting requirements as a self-contained molecular intelligence system here called Centrosomal Intelligence, which is in addition to the cells Molecular Intelligence which together produces (animal cell) Cellular Intelligence.

For scientific experiments to model intelligent systems we must also include computer algorithm produced Algorithmic Intelligence. Where electronic components are connected to form the circuit of an intelligence system we have Electronic Intelligence useful for robotics.

Reference

[43] Eleanor A. Maguire, David G. Gadian, Ingrid S. Johnsrude, Catriona D. Good, John Ashburner, Richard S. J. Frackowiak, and Christopher D. Frith
Navigation-related structural change in the hippocampi of taxi drivers
PNAS 2000 97 (8) 4398-4403; published ahead of print March 14, 2000, doi:10.1073/pnas.070039597
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/8/4398.long

NymphaeaAlba

26th July 2011 - 08:19 AM

Gary Gaulin. I remember that name. You’re the one that was cryin’ around about how you were treated here. Not by me, of course. I'm a nice atheist. Isn't that right, synthsin75?

http://www.biology-online.org/biology-foru...0&hilit#p112200

I noticed that my mature little buddy, FBM called you a Giant Anus.

QUOTE (synthsin75+)

I guess selective blindness made you miss the mud slinging about "ignorance" and "superstition" in that video huh?

Yes, I noticed but did you see her, Synthsin? She probably got picked as a child for Christ’s sake. Give her a break.

Synthsin is a little ropable, eh?

Wow, RC! So you’re bit of a piker. Aren’t we all?

What are some other slang words that Australians use? I like how they say “not the full Quid” and “Pull your head in mate” but I hate the word “Sheila” and “Seppo”. Do Australians really call relatives and close friends “rellies”?

Gary Gaulin

26th July 2011 - 09:50 AM

QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Jul 26 2011, 08:19 AM)

I noticed that my mature little buddy, FBM called you a Giant Anus.

Showing them all the names I was called here over time sure proved I was not imagining things! In a forum where all are used to that kind of crap not even being allowed, it's very hard to believe it could get that bad. But I had absolutely no credibility problem after that. A sample of what happens in other so-called "science forums" worked real good. And the "Giant Anus" later became excellent humor right after the search engines picked up on it as though it was an actual biology definition, even where it was me being called that. Might have drawn extra hits/attention to the thread that way too.

At least it goes to show that what happens in this forum is abnormal, sort of like an insane asylum for ones that other forums just can't handle, so they eventually end up here or another forum I know that accepts the anal overflow.

flyingbuttressman

26th July 2011 - 02:06 PM

QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Jul 26 2011, 04:19 AM)

http://www.biology-online.org/biology-foru...0&hilit#p112200

I noticed that my mature little buddy, FBM called you a Giant Anus.

That was a long time ago

(ok, 2 years don't judge me)
It really speaks to how pitiful Gary is that he would copy feedback from THIS forum and paste it on another to get sympathy.

I'll also note that some of our comments are appreciated:
http://www.biology-online.org/biology-foru...ut16274-12.html

Goofus A Gallant

26th July 2011 - 07:07 PM

QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+Jul 26 2011, 02:50 AM)

Levels of Intelligence

The structure of our brain changes at the cellular level in response to what we sense/learn at the multicellular level. For example, navigation-related structural change in the hippocampi of London taxi drivers accommodate the huge amount of navigating experience their job requires [43]. Also, neurons form new connections then store new memories by making permanent changes to these synaptic connections. We are unaware of these ongoing structural changes, but at the cellular level our brain is constantly changing in response to what we sense and learn.

Likewise, the structure of our cells also change at their molecular (genetics based) level in response to what they sense and learn. For example, stem cells can differentiate into one of many possible types of cells depending on what their job requires. Stem cells would also not be aware of these ongoing changes, but at the molecular level our cells are changing in response to what they sense/learn. Since cells replicate by division of their genome, these changes are inherited in the next generation of cells that divide from them.

In our development from a single cell (zygote) what is expressed at its molecular level produces cell growth and division. Likewise, what is expressed at the cellular level by the dividing colony of cells causes our growth and in the case of identical twins there is division of the cell colony. We now have the three primary levels of biological intelligence, a one level to the next causation where one is the “intelligent cause” of the other.

(1) Molecular Intelligence
(2) Cellular Intelligence
(3) Multicellular Intelligence

These three biological levels may be further subdivided according to whether it is a single molecule system that qualifies as rudimentary intelligence, for example self-replicating RNA would here be classifiable as Unimolecular Intelligence (a most simple form of Molecular Intelligence). Although not well understood and too early to fully qualify as intelligence, what is currently known about animal cell centrosomes are meeting requirements as a self-contained molecular intelligence system here called Centrosomal Intelligence, which is in addition to the cells Molecular Intelligence which together produces (animal cell) Cellular Intelligence.

For scientific experiments to model intelligent systems we must also include computer algorithm produced Algorithmic Intelligence. Where electronic components are connected to form the circuit of an intelligence system we have Electronic Intelligence useful for robotics.

Reference

[43] Eleanor A. Maguire, David G. Gadian, Ingrid S. Johnsrude, Catriona D. Good, John Ashburner, Richard S. J. Frackowiak, and Christopher D. Frith
Navigation-related structural change in the hippocampi of taxi drivers
PNAS 2000 97 (8) 4398-4403; published ahead of print March 14, 2000, doi:10.1073/pnas.070039597
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/8/4398.long

I see you're still marketing for Jesus...

Have you managed to define "Intelligence" yet?

synthsin75

26th July 2011 - 07:55 PM

QUOTE (NA+)

Yes, I noticed but did you see her, Synthsin? She probably got picked as a child for Christ’s sake. Give her a break.

Her? I was talking about that CFI PSA, not the sentiment-appealing sob story.

RC,

Points well taken. As I've said before, I don't condone that behavior from any quarter, but when I criticize an atheist they always seem to assume my criticism doesn't apply equally to the religious. I assure you, it does.

Speaking of human rights, we can only go so far. You can only curtain so much without 1) going against the majority in an undemocratic fashion, or 2) grossly curtailing parental rights. Even though we may not agree with children being raised to believe certain things, at least they are being proactively raised by parents rather than media.

Yes, action should be taken to ensure science is not unduly curtailed, but there's no reason to hit your head against a wall when you can open the door, i.e. education. Atheists should be looking to better our education system as their most important goal. That is the only genuine way they truly spread their view.

NymphaeaAlba

26th July 2011 - 08:30 PM

QUOTE (synthsin75+Jul 26 2011, 11:55 AM)

Her? I was talking about that CFI PSA, not the sentiment-appealing sob story.

Ya, I know. I thought you were talking about Susan Jacoby. She was the only one who used the word "ignorance".

synthsin75

26th July 2011 - 08:45 PM

QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Jul 26 2011, 02:30 PM)

Ya, I know. I thought you were talking about Susan Jacoby. She was the only one who used the word "ignorance".

As a PSA, which is what it appears to be, I'm sure it was edited to include exactly what was intended, and apparently the barbs were intended as well.

No comment on making improving education the primary Atheist goal huh?

NymphaeaAlba

26th July 2011 - 09:02 PM

QUOTE (synthsin75+Jul 26 2011, 12:45 PM)

As a PSA, which is what it appears to be, I'm sure it was edited to include exactly what was intended, and apparently the barbs were intended as well.

No comment on making improving education the primary Atheist goal huh?

Jesus Christ! You always have to hear it, don’t you? Okay. I agree. Education should be number one, but I think that most of the organized nonbelievers are committed to promoting reason and science as the most reliable methods for understanding the universe, and improving the human condition.

Do you still think I'm a proselytizing fundamentalist?

synthsin75

26th July 2011 - 09:29 PM

QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Jul 26 2011, 03:02 PM)

Jesus Christ! You always have to hear it, don’t you? Okay. I agree. Education should be number one, but I think that most of the organized nonbelievers are committed to promoting reason and science as the most reliable methods for understanding the universe, and improving the human condition.

Do you still think I'm a proselytizing fundamentalist?

Well with that kind of reaction... It was a simple question after all. You kind of skirt the issue (pun intended) of education not necessitating bashing the "understanding" of others, nor science and reason being the sole means of improving the human condition.

So yeah, as long as you have this sort of reaction in defense of your ideology, especially to the expressed exclusion of others, you still do seem so.

NymphaeaAlba

26th July 2011 - 09:39 PM

A giant anus is better than a fundamentalist.

flyingbuttressman

26th July 2011 - 09:58 PM

I don't see anything remotely resembling fundamentalism in atheism.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fundamentalism

That said, the atheism that people don't like most closely resembles trolling. Offending for the sake of offending, etc.

synthsin75

27th July 2011 - 02:38 AM

QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jul 26 2011, 03:58 PM)

I don't see anything remotely resembling fundamentalism in atheism.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fundamentalism

QUOTE

a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles

I.e. a stricture to science which denies anything beyond the realm of its "basic principles". Quite aside from the conclusion erroneously claimed as fully supported by science.

RC,

I appreciate your viewpoint. I simply cannot fully reconcile it with the undemocratic notion of restraining the majority. No matter how crazy, once you subjugate the majority to ANY minority, you have strayed from democracy. Does that mean we like it? Decidedly not in most cases. That is the cross the upper percentiles of the population have to bear.

If you are a moderate, then you have missed the boat. Every bit of ground gained can make concessions which would minimize the backlash. For example, when ID was barred from science class there could have been a simultaneous push for mandatory religious studies (covering all the major world religions, but in a proper context rather than a science class). This would have extended an olive branch, legitimizing the value of understanding religion in its own right, and its obvious role in world events and a well-rounded education.

You see, that would engender understanding on both sides. Evolution in its proper context, and religion in its own. Instead, atheists seem unable to accept (or forward to ease resistance to) such a simple idea.

That is a moderate view.

As far as talking about the Taliban, you are once again dealing with what the majority there allows to occur, completely aside from it being an equal counter-point to GG's Stalin comments.

Now if you're really interested in financial/ecological reform, those can be achieved in concert with the religious (as they espouse "being a good steward", which applies equally to both). You must simply decide on what front you wish to fight, and realize that those who feel threatened will strike back.

I mean come on, if atheists are the intellectuals they make themselves out to be, then they should be able to think beyond their own sensitivities. Most fights don't have to be head-on, and those that do can be eased with just a little thoughtful concession.

Of course, like most minorities, it may be assumed that they deserve their own chance to lord their ideology over their opposition, rather than just achieving a strictly parsimonious goal.

flyingbuttressman

27th July 2011 - 02:55 AM

QUOTE (synthsin75+Jul 26 2011, 10:38 PM)

I.e. a stricture to science which denies anything beyond the realm of its "basic principles". Quite aside from the conclusion erroneously claimed as fully supported by science.

My point was that atheism doesn't have any principles other than "no god."

If you want to say that science is fundamentalist, that's another matter.

synthsin75

27th July 2011 - 03:45 AM

QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jul 26 2011, 08:55 PM)

My point was that atheism doesn't have any principles other than "no god."

If you want to say that science is fundamentalist, that's another matter.

Wouldn't you say that atheists utilize science as the principles supporting their ideology?

NymphaeaAlba

27th July 2011 - 04:17 AM

QUOTE (Realty Check+)

What I don't like to do is 'join' groups where elitism and corruption and control/politics end up being the inevitable result.

But you’re planning on returning to that other forum anyhow, eh?

I forgot to tell you about the panty raid. Well, Orestis caught me red handed. He made a few derogatory remarks but said he found it amusing. I did find that ancient city that GE mentioned, which I asked you about. It was the ancient city of Caral but he wasn’t saying they were atheists like I thought. He was just pointing out that they were more like pantheists and lived peacefully without Gods. Like the Pirahã people, I suppose.

Cheers, mate.

AlexG

27th July 2011 - 04:20 AM

QUOTE (synthsin75+Jul 26 2011, 10:45 PM)

Wouldn't you say that atheists utilize science as the principles supporting their ideology?

You mean lack of ideology.

You seem to confuse non-belief with belief.

Of course, from a believer's point of view, everything is a matter of belief.

synthsin75

27th July 2011 - 04:56 AM

QUOTE (AlexG+Jul 26 2011, 10:20 PM)

QUOTE (synthsin75 @ Jul 26 2011+ 10:45 PM)

Wouldn't you say that atheists utilize science as the principles supporting their ideology?

You mean lack of ideology.

You seem to confuse non-belief with belief.

Of course, from a believer's point of view, everything is a matter of belief.

No, I don't. An ideology is a set of ideas differentiated from science by not being verifiable. In this respect, the idea of no God does not lend itself to verification any better than the idea for the existence of one.

Dismissing the view that atheism is only another ideology is just cheap and poorly thought out.

AlexG

27th July 2011 - 05:03 AM

QUOTE (synthsin75+Jul 26 2011, 11:56 PM)

Dismissing the view that atheism is only another ideology is just cheap and poorly thought out.

Well, if it was an ideology, I might care. But since it's not, I don't.

Dismissed

synthsin75

27th July 2011 - 06:37 AM

QUOTE (AlexG+Jul 26 2011, 11:03 PM)

Well, if it was an ideology, I might care. But since it's not, I don't.

Dismissed

If it is an idea you feel requires defending, and is not strictly fact based, the it is an ideology. Period.

Jesuit

27th July 2011 - 06:48 AM

What science proves wrong is the bible's scientific content. That's fine by me. The bible was never meant to be a science text book. It is a spiritual book that was sent to us so that we live a moral, harmonious and peacefull life on earth as it prepares us for eternal life in paradise. God wrote two books. The Bible is just one of the two, the other being nature. The priests have been given custody over the bible while scientist are the ones tasked to study nature. Of course we've had priests who have dubbed in science (Gregory Mendel being a notable example) and Scientists who have had a shot at religion, a priestly art, notable personality being Sir Isaac Newton.
The atheist fundamentalist is the one who fight both the science and moral/spiritual aspect of the bible or religion. Those who stop or limit themselves to fighting only the 'science' content are hardly fundamentalist but are in error in not taking the bible or religion for what it is, a holistic treatment of man and the universe. Hard science alone is incomplete. God bless you all (never mind if you don't believe in Him for now).

AlexG

27th July 2011 - 07:54 AM

QUOTE (synthsin75+Jul 27 2011, 01:37 AM)

If it is an idea you feel requires defending, and is not strictly fact based, the it is an ideology. Period.

But I don't feel that the idea that god does not exist needs defending.

I think, (not believe but think) that the universe does not need a supernatural force to explain how and why it exists and works, and that the introduction, without any evidence of such, is an unnecessary complication. Hence my reasoned conclusion that there is no god.

Goofus A Gallant

27th July 2011 - 03:07 PM

QUOTE (synthsin75+Jul 26 2011, 09:38 PM)

Evolution in its proper context, and religion in its own.

Have you read the crap that Gary Gaulin is trying to pass off as science. He wants his "theory" to be in textbooks!

Have you read about what is happening in Texas?
http://ncse.com/news/2009/04/setback-scien...on-texas-004710
http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/20...ook_wars_ed.php

Wake up!

flyingbuttressman

27th July 2011 - 04:14 PM

QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Jul 27 2011, 11:07 AM)

Have you read about what is happening in Texas?
http://ncse.com/news/2009/04/setback-scien...on-texas-004710
http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/20...ook_wars_ed.php

Wake up!

Pop the champagne corks!
http://ncse.com/news/2011/07/victory-evolution-texas-006802

synthsin75

27th July 2011 - 06:12 PM

RC,

You still miss my point.

Religion in the public School Curriculum
Notice the sponsors.

It only persists to go "beyond nice" because the purported intellectually superior atheists* can't evolve from a tit for tat mentality.

* The more intelligent always carry the burden of more responsibility. IOW, you don't expect the ignorant to be capable of seeing the detriment of their ways, but you do expect the intelligent to see and correct their own, so as not to exacerbate an otherwise unavoidable confrontation with the ignorant.

I say both sides should show more maturity, but more so the one which claims to be more intelligent. It should be realized that the more tit for tat tactics are employed, the more tit for tat will be the only tactics to employ. It's a self-defeating trap.

If atheists didn't erroneously claim science to support their ideology of no God, the religious wouldn't have half the reason for distrusting science they do now. Guess what, when an atheist says science supports their view, they are directly telling the religious that science is wrong, as the atheist view contradicts what they "know" and they trust the atheist to know the science better. Atheists dug their own hole, and by making that argument they've discredited science in general.

The ignorant can always be expected to react irrationally, so it's no surprise what lengths the religious will go to to protect their ideology. Like I said, atheists are the ones who erroneously made the debate about science, and now that has come home to roost.

So just because atheists have to be so vocal about a non-existent God, they've cut their own throats on fronts such as climate change. That's the causation. The religious wouldn't have any reason to disbelieve climate change unless they previously disbelieved science because it had been so clearly told them that science contradicts what they "know".

A majority is made up of the greatest vocal number, and whatever uncaring majority may exist remains mute. There very well may be the overwhelming numbers to topple the Taliban and the religious right, but until they decide to become an active majority, they give tactic consent with their silence. Simple as that. There are no unseen majorities, as what makes it a true majority is its visible magnitude.

QUOTE

The fundamentalists are by definition already 'lost' to reason and science and objective education.

And this attitude only reciprocates the religious attitude of your "lost" soul. It's just childish tit for tat.

But by all means, win your court battles. Most definitely. This is something all atheists should examine personally. How hard do you really want to have to fight? Is it worth arrogantly pitting the religious against science? Or should you relax your argument about no God in order to forward much more useful and productive goals?

Time constraints are only an excuse for your own reactionary behavior, and these do not help your cause.

synthsin75

27th July 2011 - 06:22 PM

QUOTE (AlexG+Jul 27 2011, 01:54 AM)

But I don't feel that the idea that god does not exist needs defending.

I think, (not believe but think) that the universe does not need a supernatural force to explain how and why it exists and works, and that the introduction, without any evidence of such, is an unnecessary complication. Hence my reasoned conclusion that there is no god.

Believe and think are both opinion. It's when people start to argue with science that they cross the line. Science has nothing definitive to say on the subject.

QUOTE (GAG+)

Have you read the crap that Gary Gaulin is trying to pass off as science. He wants his "theory" to be in textbooks!

I just think, if atheists hadn't concatenated their arguments with science, the religious wouldn't have felt the necessity to try to argue on those grounds.

flyingbuttressman

27th July 2011 - 07:07 PM

QUOTE (synthsin75+Jul 27 2011, 02:22 PM)

I just think, if atheists hadn't concatenated their arguments with science, the religious wouldn't have felt the necessity to try to argue on those grounds.

Religious people have been fighting science since before atheism was even known in the Western world. There are many religious people who will fight anything that does not line up exactly with the teachings of their religion. I really don't like how you are trying to say that this whole issue is the fault of atheists for speaking up. I hope that's not what you're saying.

AlexG

27th July 2011 - 07:17 PM

QUOTE

Believe and think are both opinion.

The latter has a rational basis, the former doesn't.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Believe and think are both opinion.

The latter has a rational basis, the former doesn't.

Science has nothing definitive to say on the subject.

Agreed.

Goofus A Gallant

27th July 2011 - 07:38 PM

QUOTE (synthsin75+Jul 27 2011, 01:22 PM)

I just think, if atheists hadn't concatenated their arguments with science, the religious wouldn't have felt the necessity to try to argue on those grounds.

I have to disagree. When I was in elementary school in the 1960s (in Texas) it was the children of the religious fundies telling me that science was atheistic... I didn't even know what atheist meant. I just knew that there was a lot of dispute over the age of the Earth.

See, the problem is that these people believe their mythology is literally true. They CAN NOT keep the two separate.

synthsin75

27th July 2011 - 09:50 PM

QUOTE (RC+)

So your advice to 'back off' is futile and dangerous, simply because the crazies will only see that as a 'victory' for them instead of us just choosing to 'be better' than them.

I don't consider myself to have anything to lose from anyone of questionable sanity considering themselves to have won. Lending credence to the opinions of the insane may reflect on one's own sanity, so I strictly do not worry about such.

RC, FBM, AG, GAG,

New science takes time to be fully accepted, even among scientists, so it has never been any surprise that it takes the general public much longer to accept what they don't have the education to properly evaluate for themselves. In that light, the reactions to Copernicus, Galileo, etc. were , in hindsight, completely expected, as there were much fewer people equipped to evaluate it.

Such arguments have no more validity than Stalin does to atheism.

Religious people, specifically, have not always fought science. People, in general, have always tended to fight change of any kind. It is artificial to say that religious people have always resisted science. People just resist change, whether scientist, religious, or what have you.

And I don't care from whom you may have first heard of atheism, as obviously there use to be much fewer atheists. It's just a resistance to change that atheists have attached to religion as if it wasn't a general human tendency regardless of ideology.

Nowadays, many religions have made progress toward reconciling their scriptures with science. The Catholic church for example, which has had its share of scientists among its clergy and members. The major hang-up is the notion that science precludes God.

If more atheists could avoid the pushy, self-righteous tactics of the religious on the subject of God, and perhaps learn more about religion other than only a way to refute it like so many religious people do with science, they could actually help to bridge the gap in the understanding of the religious.

For example, the age of the Earth. If one day to God is as a million years to man, then there is ample time for evolution within the story of Genesis. But no, most atheists would much rather just go on the attack and remove any possibility of encouraging more trust and understanding of science.

Poor persecuted minority syndrome.

Everything else is just reactionary hyperbole to justify the same tactics as the religious.

And this "they did it first" mentality is just childish.

flyingbuttressman

27th July 2011 - 10:06 PM

QUOTE (synthsin75+Jul 27 2011, 05:50 PM)

Nowadays, many religions have made progress toward reconciling their scriptures with science. The Catholic church for example, which has had its share of scientists among its clergy and members. The major hang-up is the notion that science precludes God.

Depends on which religions you are talking about. Muslims were famous throughout the Middle Ages as scholars and mathematicians. Economic and political circumstances have destroyed that legacy, and now many Muslims are fighting Evolution alongside conservative Christians.

QUOTE

If more atheists could avoid the pushy, self-righteous tactics of the religious on the subject of God, and perhaps learn more about religion other than only a way to refute it like so many religious people do with science, they could actually help to bridge the gap in the understanding of the religious.

Scientists do not make up the majority of atheists. The only thing that atheists can be relied upon to do is tell people that they don't believe in god. There are no atheist commandments and there is no atheist authority. "Herding cats" I believe is the term.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

If more atheists could avoid the pushy, self-righteous tactics of the religious on the subject of God, and perhaps learn more about religion other than only a way to refute it like so many religious people do with science, they could actually help to bridge the gap in the understanding of the religious.

Scientists do not make up the majority of atheists. The only thing that atheists can be relied upon to do is tell people that they don't believe in god. There are no atheist commandments and there is no atheist authority. "Herding cats" I believe is the term.
For example, the age of the Earth. If one day to God is as a million years to man, then there is ample time for evolution within the story of Genesis. But no, most atheists would much rather just go on the attack and remove any possibility of encouraging more trust and understanding of science.

Retroactively fitting scientific theories into the Bible is a waste of time. If Christians feel that it's worth their time, then good for them. The Bible is not a scientific document, and most intelligent people won't try to mash the two together.

synthsin75

27th July 2011 - 11:08 PM

QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jul 27 2011, 04:06 PM)

Scientists do not make up the majority of atheists. The only thing that atheists can be relied upon to do is tell people that they don't believe in god. There are no atheist commandments and there is no atheist authority. "Herding cats" I believe is the term.

Never said they did. But atheists do like to claim science as justification for their views, which definitely make science seem antipathetic to a religious view, albeit fallaciously.

QUOTE

Retroactively fitting scientific theories into the Bible is a waste of time. If Christians feel that it's worth their time, then good for them. The Bible is not a scientific document, and most intelligent people won't try to mash the two together.

Christians would have to trust science before any of them would be interested or willing to do so. As long as atheists are on the attack, they are not going to encourage trust and understanding which should be their stock in trade as professed students of science. Making such comparisons to "intelligent people" is as useful as saying "you people". It only serves to further widen an already significant gulf.

I wonder if some people just enjoy the conflict to such an extent that they can't be bothered to avoid it, even to accomplish their own professed goals.

synthsin75

27th July 2011 - 11:50 PM

RC,

Such threats have always existed, whether religious, secular, political, etc. Madness and insanity exist independently of religion. You're simply telling ghost stories about your favored target to demonize.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism#North_Korea

Does the state imposed atheism of North Korea make every atheist a threat? Of course not, it would be hysterical paranoia to think so. The exact same goes for making any similar comparison to any other ideology. The insane will adopt just about any ideology that exists.

flyingbuttressman

27th July 2011 - 11:54 PM

QUOTE (synthsin75+Jul 27 2011, 07:08 PM)

Never said they did. But atheists do like to claim science as justification for their views, which definitely make science seem antipathetic to a religious view, albeit fallaciously.

Science would be a stumbling block for religion with or without atheists. I'm just curious, how much experience do you have with religious people? Have you ever met a fundamentalist?

QUOTE

Christians would have to trust science before any of them would be interested or willing to do so. As long as atheists are on the attack, they are not going to encourage trust and understanding which should be their stock in trade as professed students of science. Making such comparisons to "intelligent people" is as useful as saying "you people". It only serves to further widen an already significant gulf.

There are plenty of Christians who acknowledge that the Bible is not a scientific document, and that its "truths" are independent of scientific fact. That is an "intelligent" point of view. Literal interpretation of the bible is willfully ignorant. Am I wrong?

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Christians would have to trust science before any of them would be interested or willing to do so. As long as atheists are on the attack, they are not going to encourage trust and understanding which should be their stock in trade as professed students of science. Making such comparisons to "intelligent people" is as useful as saying "you people". It only serves to further widen an already significant gulf.

There are plenty of Christians who acknowledge that the Bible is not a scientific document, and that its "truths" are independent of scientific fact. That is an "intelligent" point of view. Literal interpretation of the bible is willfully ignorant. Am I wrong?
I wonder if some people just enjoy the conflict to such an extent that they can't be bothered to avoid it, even to accomplish their own professed goals.

I'm not sure "roll over and shut up" is a good strategy here. Fundamentalists aren't going to stop if their opponents disappear. Their goal really IS to completely dominate culture and government. I can say that from first-hand experience.

synthsin75

28th July 2011 - 12:29 AM

FBM,

I have plenty of experience with religious people, and fundamentalists. I would agree though, that being too literal-minded in general is not conductive to intelligence. I never said "roll over and shut up". I said to pick you battles more wisely. Do you really want to raise the general level of eduction, or are you satisfied to just rub a Christian's nose in their own ignorance? You cannot do both simultaneously.

RC,

North Korea is a threat, which is what you have been going on about, i.e. "(and in some cases your or your loved ones' physical body) actual harm". North Korea, if it had its way, would be just as happy to restrict your freedom and harm you to do so, just from an atheistic ideology.

It is childishly simplistic to make a one for one comparison between religion and insanity. The only threat is the general human fear and resistance to change, and the more forcefully that change is pushed, then more threatening and the greater the reaction.

The US has already had a significant period of almost utterly complete domination by religious culture and ideals. Democracy has survived.

You are just your own brand of paranoid and fear-mongering ideologue.

flyingbuttressman

28th July 2011 - 12:31 AM

QUOTE (synthsin75+Jul 27 2011, 08:29 PM)

I have plenty of experience with religious people, and fundamentalists. I would agree though, that being too literal-minded in general is not conductive to intelligence. I never said "roll over and shut up". I said to pick you battles more wisely.

Which battles are you referring to? Which should we not be fighting?

synthsin75

28th July 2011 - 03:22 AM

QUOTE (FBM+)

Which battles are you referring to? Which should we not be fighting?

If you've have bothered to quote one more sentence, it would have answered that question.

QUOTE (RC+)

The forces of ignorance and religious power and political self-interest are mobilising ignorance and fear and self-interest and science denial very effectively so far to sabotage every reasonable effort to repair the economy and do something about global action on climate change.

"Forces of ignorance" do not work concertedly and politically to protect commercial interests. All they do is provide an easy and pliable tool to help accomplish the goals of much more devious and self-serving individuals and interests.

It's all a dumb show, and if it keeps these two quarters at each others throats instead of working to accomplish goals that may infringe upon special interests, then it is serving its intended purpose. Do you really think that Christians have the most to lose in economic reform?! BS They are a dumb pawn, and your fear-mongering is just playing right into that, making you no smarter a pawn yourself.

Just because you wish to view the world with a simple two-valued logic which clumps everyone into groups of either them or us, doesn't make insanity, Republican, and religion synonymous. Actually, that sort of identity thinking as a very poor sign of healthy reasoning.

Your reality is skewed by boogie men of the "religious masters". I mean seriously, you fall for that kind of thinking? If so, you're just as foolish as many a Christian. You're easily duped into seeing demons where the true demons want you to. Nothing more.

soundhertz

28th July 2011 - 03:36 AM

Some polling statistics relevant to the discussions:

http://www.pollingreport.com/religion.htm

It's good to remember that religion is utilized as a tool by powermongers to gain their goals. These are specious people, interested not in the faith but only the power one can wield with it. This is merely one of the political/social dangers of religion when it metastisizes to arenas outside it's proper place of function, and it's something being attempted endlessly. The greater the political hold of religion in any society, the greater the discrimination, intolerance and strife will be, especially in today's growing multicultural nations.

The question of whether Deity exists is a nonsequitur in the necessary attention that must be focused on keeping religion out of everything political. The more of a melting pot nations become, so much ever the more that all the religions being represented should have no political influence. Morality, benevolence, altruism, brotherhood - none of these are the exclusive domain of the religious, let alone the specious charlatans that utilize Faith's solidarity to effect their agendas.

It's not about atheists versus theists, else we wouldn't have plenty of secular nations in an 86% religious world. It's still about the encroachment of religion in government, because government dictates the living code, something that crucially affects everyone. It's about keeping at bay those that would use religion to force all to comply to their own self-righteous pov, ie the Texas ruling just handed down. It's NOT about telling people that their faith is escapist fantasy, it's about educating people to understand that religion is a very powerful weapon, and attractive to those of self-righteousness and zeal, who would not hesitate to use it against them if it suited the objective.

Grumpy

28th July 2011 - 04:25 AM

Pardon my interjection, but the topic caught my eye.

First, hi to RC, long time no see. Hope all is well Down Under, we're frying up north(Carolina, that is).

As to Atheistic Fundamentalism, the concept is rather silly IMO. How is one fundamental about NOT believing? What precepts(which you don't have)are you promoting in a fundy fashion? Or what philosophy does atheism have? To me atheism is simply the unbelief in the philosophy or dogma OTHERS promote. There are no fundamental beliefs, strictures, dogmas, philosophies or narratives that atheism has, it is simply the rejection of a subset of beliefs characterized by superstition, ignorance and lack of cognitive ability(again, IMO).

And this subset of concepts is far from the only ones I reject, for example I do not accept that tax cuts create jobs(eight years of W's tax cuts is my evidence), that the Universe is eternal(CMB ditto)or that wisdom comes with age(I am evidence of the falsity of that bon mot).

If I am fundamentalist about anything it is rationalism, it is that rationalism that informs my atheism, not the other way round. I reject anything that does not strike me as rational, I refuse to accept the imposition of irrationality by others and when that irrationality involves religious or superstitious beliefs then, and only then, I am an atheist. But that is only a small part of what I accept(or don't), it is not even a very important part of my world outlook.

Anyway, my two cents.

Grumpy

Goofus A Gallant

28th July 2011 - 04:31 AM

I used to think that if we ignored them, they would go away. Unfortunately, the problem is real. You can see it in the science textbook debates in Texas.

AlexG

28th July 2011 - 04:46 AM

QUOTE (Grumpy+Jul 27 2011, 11:25 PM)

As to Atheistic Fundamentalism, the concept is rather silly IMO. How is one fundamental about NOT believing? What precepts(which you don't have)are you promoting in a fundy fashion? Or what philosophy does atheism have? To me atheism is simply the unbelief in the philosophy or dogma OTHERS promote. There are no fundamental beliefs, strictures, dogmas, philosophies or narratives that atheism has, it is simply the rejection of a subset of beliefs characterized by superstition, ignorance and lack of cognitive ability(again, IMO).

Grumpy, you've got to realize that to a believer, everything is a matter of belief. They are unable to see the world in any other fashion.

synthsin75

28th July 2011 - 08:30 AM

Nice post, soundhertz.

Generally, I agree that religion shouldn't be mixed with politics any more than finance should, but considering that people in a democracy have both the freedom to believe what they like and to allow such belief to inform their voting, I'd say the villains are, as you say, the manipulators with no special interest in faith itself, i.e. politicians and the special interests who fund them. As long as "God bless America" gets votes, politicians will continue to affect such facades.

I'd hazard that if you removed the money from politics, including the awarding of government contracts and such, you'd also remove the incentive to artificially energizing certain quarters in the increasingly polarizing way.

Religion will have an effect on government as long as it is a view held by the majority, but that is not worrisome in itself. The only thing to fear are those who would seek to use that to serve their own purposes, and these are not your average religious people.

_____________________________________________________

QUOTE (RC+)

And the end there is NOT 'commercial' per se, but to sow commercial chaos and economic dysfunction so that they can fool the voters to vote the present incumbents OUT claiming that the incumbents brought the ruin and not the saboteurs! You CAN fool the people, you know. It's easy when you don't care for them or anything but your own nefarious ends.

Silly and paranoid. Who do you think has the power to orchestrate such nefarious things? Commercial interests. You just can't see past the religious smoke screen. Like I said, you've been fully duped, and seem perfectly happy to play the part intended for you with great relish.

It is fully intended to catch both of these two quarters up in in-fighting. It galvanizes the polarization of the two-party system and ensures business as usual. Please, you really think that which of the two parties is in power really makes any real difference? Talk about naive.

You seem to simply believe whatever your own favored politicos tell you, just like your opposition. You've allowed yourself to be fully polarized to such an extent that you can no long differentiate individuals from this boogie man you've been told ghost stories about.

_____________________________________________________

QUOTE (GAG+)

I used to think that if we ignored them, they would go away. Unfortunately, the problem is real. You can see it in the science textbook debates in Texas.

I'll reiterate this. I do not advise ignoring the problem. It is a common trait of fundamentalists to consistently characterize the truly moderate as a weaker position than it is. By all means, fight and win such battles. But as I've said, there's no need to be more confrontational than necessary. Simply refrain from all the talk of myth, fantasy, ignorance, superstition, etc.

For one, not too much detail about evolution really needs to be included in primary and secondary school. Hell, just covering DNA and the heritage of traits gets much of the mechanism taught. There's no real reason to hammer on "man from ape" other than to forward a specific agenda. Evolution can be taught through many, even modern, examples.

Secondly, advocating mandatory religious studies would go a long way toward placating those who wish it included. Quite aside from it just being wise to foster greater understanding both ways.

Goofus A Gallant

28th July 2011 - 01:01 PM

From my observations, the ones who "hammer on man from ape" are those who fear the idea of common descent. And their agenda is obvious.

To those who believe that humans are a special creation, separate from and above all other creation, the idea of common descent threatens their entire world view.

If you have never attended a fundamentalist Christian service in the rural south, I recommend checking one out sometime. While I seldom get confrontational with individuals (I believe in live and let live) there's something about being "informed" that I am going to burn in hell that makes me want to remove the kid gloves.

Also, if you haven't seen it, I recommend the movie "Inherit The Wind".

flyingbuttressman

28th July 2011 - 01:34 PM

QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Jul 28 2011, 09:01 AM)

If you have never attended a fundamentalist Christian service in the rural south, I recommend checking one out sometime. While I seldom get confrontational with individuals (I believe in live and let live) there's something about being "informed" that I am going to burn in hell that makes me want to remove the kid gloves.

It's not just the rural south. Fundys are everywhere.

soundhertz

28th July 2011 - 04:45 PM

QUOTE (soundhertz 7/3/11 edited+)

Last week I had to do a recording of an event at a Pentecostal parish. 3 days of this. Money flowed in the Temple at least six times. Eventually the traveling evangelists got tired of the single dollars flowing from the exceedingly poor parishioners and they began to TELL their congregation how much money to pull out. I thought it was bad when they started demanding $20, but then they started demanding $100.00 from each...with the rabble actually applauding the evangelist's admission that he had his own jeweler...as we could see from the gold he was wearing...

Anybody, go to one Sunday service at a church to verify this - it takes just one time. The evangelist guaranteed that greater offerings result in more grace from Jesus. The people rushed to procure their salvation installment lay-away plan.

A follow-up:

Nobody got paid. All checks bounced. The church was an even greater victim than the production company by the traveling dog-and-pony snake-oil salesman show. These people lost money, their church lost money, the church was forbidden by the travengelists to sell the DVDs of the event, which is why we were brought in - to record it, and this is how the church was to recoup the losses incurred by the extremely pricey travengelists. As I said, powermongers who utilize religion to stuff their bank accounts do it on the backs of the parishes and their members as well. They dressed the part, they knew and sang all the hymns, they lathered the parish with expertly delivered scriptural melodrama, complete with band and giant loud PA system - all part of the traveling show - yeah they did their homework well, and the parishioners swallowed hook line and sinker. This church is now reeling financially, which is why we have their bounced checks, and the dog and pony show is far away, perpetrating similar in another poor parish in another poor town. This is legion, and representative of the ilk that is dedicated to encroaching on government.

flyingbuttressman

28th July 2011 - 05:22 PM

QUOTE (soundhertz+Jul 28 2011, 12:45 PM)

The church was an even greater victim than the production company by the traveling dog-and-pony snake-oil salesman show.

Somehow I read this as "Pony oil snake show."

synthsin75

28th July 2011 - 06:35 PM

I've attended fundamentalist Christian services. I find it odd that someone who doesn't believe in hell should get reactionary about being condemned to a fictitious place. That's what I'm talking about. I don't think we can reasonably expect a Christian to refrain from reaction when their belief, nurtured from childhood in many cases, is attacked. But I would expect an intellectual atheist to have nothing to react to.

It's RC! Just as unreasonably paranoid.

Resistance to change is a natural process, just like inertia.

Good example, soundhertz. Obviously the shysters will don any cloak that suits their purpose. This doesn't reflect any more on the victims than any other scam. People can be duped, and there are always people looking to take advantage of that. If anyone thinks such people are actual believers they are sadly mistaken.

But it serves a reactionary purpose to paint all of a group with the brush of its worst minority. How many atheists actually like being judged solely on people like Dawkins, or better yet Stalin or Kim Jong Il? Do people who may use atheism for their own purposes define what it is to be an atheist?

boit

28th July 2011 - 07:10 PM

QUOTE (synthsin75+Jul 27 2011, 09:12 PM)

RC,

You still miss my point.

Religion in the public School Curriculum
Notice the sponsors.

It only persists to go "beyond nice" because the purported intellectually superior atheists* can't evolve from a tit for tat mentality.

* The more intelligent always carry the burden of more responsibility. IOW, you don't expect the ignorant to be capable of seeing the detriment of their ways, but you do expect the intelligent to see and correct their own, so as not to exacerbate an otherwise unavoidable confrontation with the ignorant.

I say both sides should show more maturity, but more so the one which claims to be more intelligent. It should be realized that the more tit for tat tactics are employed, the more tit for tat will be the only tactics to employ. It's a self-defeating trap.

If atheists didn't erroneously claim science to support their ideology of no God, the religious wouldn't have half the reason for distrusting science they do now. Guess what, when an atheist says science supports their view, they are directly telling the religious that science is wrong, as the atheist view contradicts what they "know" and they trust the atheist to know the science better. Atheists dug their own hole, and by making that argument they've discredited science in general.

The ignorant can always be expected to react irrationally, so it's no surprise what lengths the religious will go to to protect their ideology. Like I said, atheists are the ones who erroneously made the debate about science, and now that has come home to roost.

So just because atheists have to be so vocal about a non-existent God, they've cut their own throats on fronts such as climate change. That's the causation. The religious wouldn't have any reason to disbelieve climate change unless they previously disbelieved science because it had been so clearly told them that science contradicts what they "know".

A majority is made up of the greatest vocal number, and whatever uncaring majority may exist remains mute. There very well may be the overwhelming numbers to topple the Taliban and the religious right, but until they decide to become an active majority, they give tactic consent with their silence. Simple as that. There are no unseen majorities, as what makes it a true majority is its visible magnitude.

And this attitude only reciprocates the religious attitude of your "lost" soul. It's just childish tit for tat.

But by all means, win your court battles. Most definitely. This is something all atheists should examine personally. How hard do you really want to have to fight? Is it worth arrogantly pitting the religious against science? Or should you relax your argument about no God in order to forward much more useful and productive goals?

Time constraints are only an excuse for your own reactionary behavior, and these do not help your cause.

I wholly agree with synthisin here. The scientist, and here I mean the true scientist and not the atheist who sees himself as The Scientist or has big brother syndrome by fronting science for expediency sake in channeling his narrow ideology, will say three things concerning god's existance or non-existance.
1) We currently lack the tools to establish his existance or confirm atheist insistance of his non-existance.
2) No one has yet undertaken a satisfactory comprehensive retrospective study to establish the fact either way.
3) Such a huge endeavour is impractical if not impossible and and quite unnecessary as it will not possibly improve the status of mankind.
The two fundamentalist from either camp can try all they can to say science 'proofs' their ideologies. One who's true to religion should hinge on believ and a true scientist base himself or herself on facts. Those outside this are fundamentalist whatever their ideology.

Goofus A Gallant

28th July 2011 - 07:24 PM

QUOTE (synthsin75+Jul 28 2011, 01:35 PM)

I find it odd that someone who doesn't believe in hell should get reactionary about being condemned to a fictitious place.

It's not the being "condemned to a fictitous place" that's bothersome. It's the inherent attitude of superiority and judgment that I find offensive. I have seen it in action for well over 40 years, and it's getting worse.

And you still haven't commented on the level of success these ignorant bigots are having in undermining the ciriculum of the public school systems.

NymphaeaAlba

28th July 2011 - 07:40 PM

What’s wrong with you people? Where in the hell do you live? Pull your head out!

So far, I’ve been labeled as a bigot and a fundie. You have a legitimate point, which I’ve addressed here before. I agree that generalizing is technically incorrect. However…

QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+)

A number of moderates even create their own idea of a God, one that they can believe in, because the depiction from the scriptures don’t seem logical, or reasonable to them. In their minds, they are in a different class of religious believers, ones that are harmless, and reasonable, and do not infringe upon anyone else’s rights. Therefore, they feel that our criticism does not apply to them. We have to ask ourselves, can moderate religion be shown to be harmful? Most atheists feel that even moderate religious beliefs provide the conditions, and support for the basic ideas that lead to harmful acts, but the moderate believers rarely themselves evolve into extremists.

Think about gay rights, women’s rights, or racism. WΤF, is this “You'll catch more flies with honey”, bullѕhit? Even the silent majority help perpetuate the problem.

When anyone is reluctant or afraid to express his or her disagreement on any aspect of this issue for fear of being called a fundie, then that is a major problem.

synthsin75

28th July 2011 - 08:02 PM

QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Jul 28 2011, 01:24 PM)

It's not the being "condemned to a fictitous place" that's bothersome. It's the inherent attitude of superiority and judgment that I find offensive. I have seen it in action for well over 40 years, and it's getting worse.

And you still haven't commented on the level of success these ignorant bigots are having in undermining the ciriculum of the public school systems.

By taking offense, you imply that you lend such judgment some validity. If it is completely fictitious, you shouldn't regard such an attitude of superiority as anything more than delusion. I mean, would you be offended if someone you knew had delusions of grandeur thought themselves better than you? If so, I'd hazard that is more a sign of insecurity than anything else.

Or perhaps a better example. If someone said you were an idiot because you could not see that what was clearly a table to you was actually an elephant, how would you react? Would you take that obvious insanity personally, or would you be able to blow it off for what it is?

With the more recent success of Texas to get a proper science curriculum, it seems that resistance to change will inevitably be overcome. There's just thousands of years of inertia behind some thinking. No reason to think that this should be overcome overnight.

Jesuit

28th July 2011 - 08:21 PM

QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Jul 27 2011, 07:38 PM)

I have to disagree. When I was in elementary school in the 1960s (in Texas) it was the children of the religious fundies telling me that science was atheistic... I didn't even know what atheist meant. I just knew that there was a lot of dispute over the age of the Earth.

See, the problem is that these people believe their mythology is literally true. They CAN NOT keep the two separate.

I can keep the two separate. The bible isn't to be taken literaly on many areas. A Christian will have less trouble if she limits herself to the New Testament. I am not just creating a separate class of 'religious' as someone will want to say here, it is true. If you draw a new contract with another party the other one is automaticaly abrogated. The old testament (Bible's) got so mixed up with Jewish history and mythology to serve man's spiritual need. The New Testament is a refined, distilled covenant that is specificaly targeted to the human soul. It is to prepare us for the heavenly reign. History and others are best left to historians and others who are tasked with fixing matters of this kingdom. The earthly kingdom. You may not belief it but I understand if one chooses not to belief only I'll say that it is an uniformed choice. Thats just my humble opinion (helped by deep belief quite frankly speaking).

NymphaeaAlba

28th July 2011 - 08:25 PM

QUOTE (synthsin75+Jul 28 2011, 12:02 PM)

By taking offense, you imply that you lend such judgment some validity. If it is completely fictitious, you shouldn't regard such an attitude of superiority as anything more than delusion. I mean, would you be offended if someone you knew had delusions of grandeur thought themselves better than you? If so, I'd hazard that is more a sign of insecurity than anything else.

Not offended but concerned. Megalomania can be a dangerous psychological disorder.

BTW, I think God qualifies as a megalomaniac?

synthsin75

28th July 2011 - 08:29 PM

QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Jul 28 2011, 01:40 PM)

Think about gay rights, women’s rights, or racism. WΤF, is this “You'll catch more flies with honey”, bullѕhit? Even the silent majority help perpetuate the problem.

You'll notice that those causes didn't need to tear down or constrain the rights of others to accomplish their goals. Significant distinction. They were all about broadening rights, not limiting the rights of others to vote and act as they believe. As much as you may like to whine about it, majority rules. The only sensible options is to attempt to change that majority, and that means appealing to those you oppose.

I mean, how likely is it that someone calling you a sinner is likely to sway you. Same goes for calling people ignorant.

QUOTE

When anyone is reluctant or afraid to express his or her disagreement on any aspect of this issue for fear of being called a fundie, then that is a major problem.

Try this on for a hypothetical example. [example] I don't think women have any place discussing science. It is way beyond their irrational nature. They should stick to more nurturing undertakings. [/example]

How does that make you feel? How would you like it if everyone with such views had no compunction with explaining them to you, complete unprovoked and at every opportunity, the second you even broach such subjects. This is not about expressing yourself, it's about refuting someone else with impunity.

You don't expect people to stand up for their own beliefs? Denying your opposition from expressing their views is just as bad as you feeling yours are suppressed. Instead of going on the attack about there being no God, you could just make a simple statement of your beliefs and ask them to respect that you are not ready to reconsider.

If they continue, you still maintain the higher ground. And guess what, that kind of example has a greater impact than any amount of counter-attack.

Come on. Make an effort to perform a prolonged experiment on the matter. You already know that their tactics don't work on you, so why should they work on them?

boit

28th July 2011 - 08:47 PM

Synthisin, you do put across good points. I'll be surprised if you don't win the majority to your side. Well, I know this is not about winning or losing a debate but with all honesty the inertia to acceptance of your pov will perfectly prove your point. It's nothing new but good old RC (Resistance to Change).
On a good note, I am happy we all accept that fundamentalism is a real threat that needs to be actively fought and it's not unique to so called revealed religions.

synthsin75

28th July 2011 - 08:57 PM

RC,

The specific religious zealotry you use to support your paranoia is the exact same sort of social pressures that led to the rise of Hitler. Dangerous yes, but it has very much less to do with religion in general and more to do with a culture that is in a specific frame of mind. That you then generalize this association, from one religion in a specific part of the world to all other religious people, is a sure sign of paranoia.

If you were as observant as you believe, you'd notice that, in such cultures, a vast majority is highly dedicated to such religion, to an exclusion of any real secular society. This is an indication of a cultures mentality, not religion in general.

In our society there is a more than sufficient secular buffer. Media tends to have greater impact than a lot of other things.

You know what, never you mind. You just go right ahead and create your own problems.

NymphaeaAlba

28th July 2011 - 08:59 PM

Some people can’t speak for themselves. It’s not about me. I see people being hurt by this ancient concept, even today. I’m passionate about it because I have sympathy.

I could provide plenty of examples and you know it.

OMG, Boit!

I’ll give him this, he is a master debater.

Jesuit

28th July 2011 - 09:06 PM

QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jul 28 2011, 08:41 PM)

.
Hi Jesuit.

Can you indicate whether you think the testaments were inspired by your/any god, or whether they were only the work of men over the centuries?

If they were inspired by god, and were 'the word of god', then the old testament was allowed by that god to be corrupted as you described. No?

See the difficulty regarding consistency/continuity of any 'sacred texts' purporting to be 'the word of god' expressed through man-made artifacts/testaments?

Good luck in your PERSONAL spiritual journey, Jesuit....but beware the organised interpretation of ANY 'testament' or 'sacred' scripts. Let the objective reality and humane social justice inform your underlying humanity and decency. Cheers!

.

Reality Check. Books are not immune to corruption. Someone has also asked why merciful God can allow war and suffering on earth? Know what? I don't claim to have the answer. Who are we mortal to try to unravell the mind of God? To borrow from a fellow poster, we have neither the tools nor the know how. On a side note we need the scientist and historians to authenticate some religious texts. See? We can have symbiotic relationship

synthsin75

28th July 2011 - 09:07 PM

NA,

I'm not debating. If my thoughts hold any water, it is because they are consistent with reason.

Like any ideology, it is the responsibility of those who agree with it to summon the wherewithal to stand up for it. Lacking such, you concede to making yourself a victim. Victims have already conceded the loss.

_________________________________________________

RC,

You obviously lack the human behavior tools with which to make a full evaluation of the history of social pressures. I won't fault you for that, but you should be aware of that deficiency.

Be alarmed all you like. I'd be surprised if you aren't alarmed quite regularly.

NymphaeaAlba

28th July 2011 - 09:16 PM

QUOTE (synthsin75+Jul 28 2011, 01:07 PM)

NA,

I'm not debating. If my thoughts hold any water, it is because they are consistent with reason.

It was a joke. Get it? Master debater.

QUOTE

Like any ideology, it is the responsibility of those who agree with it to summon the wherewithal to stand up for it. Lacking such, you concede to making yourself a victim. Victims have already conceded the loss.

Maybe, I just want to run for office. I may not be able to see Russia but I know a little about foreign policy.

Seriously though, you don't believe in standing up for anyone? What about children?

synthsin75

28th July 2011 - 09:22 PM

NA,

Perhaps you missed this:

QUOTE (me+)

Try this on for a hypothetical example. [example] I don't think women have any place discussing science. It is way beyond their irrational nature. They should stick to more nurturing undertakings. [/example]

How does that make you feel? How would you like it if everyone with such views had no compunction with explaining them to you, complete unprovoked and at every opportunity, the second you even broach such subjects. This is not about expressing yourself, it's about refuting someone else with impunity.

Any comment?

NymphaeaAlba

28th July 2011 - 09:30 PM

QUOTE (synthsin75+Jul 28 2011, 01:22 PM)

NA,

Perhaps you missed this:

QUOTE (me+)

Try this on for a hypothetical example. [example] I don't think women have any place discussing science. It is way beyond their irrational nature. They should stick to more nurturing undertakings. [/example]

How does that make you feel? How would you like it if everyone with such views had no compunction with explaining them to you, complete unprovoked and at every opportunity, the second you even broach such subjects. This is not about expressing yourself, it's about refuting someone else with impunity.

Any comment?

It makes me feel like countering it, like I do with religion.

How does this make you feel?

synthsin75

28th July 2011 - 09:32 PM

QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jul 28 2011, 03:22 PM)

So, how long do you think it will take for your 'sensitive' approach to fear, superstition, religious malfeasance, science denial and the general damage done by those religious institutions and their crooked/gullible footsoldiers?

You still don't get it. How exactly do you expect to educate people who you insist upon being completely confrontational with? It won't happen. Given enough pressure, without trying to build some bridges, they will simply resort to home/private schooling, putting them forever beyond the reach of secular education. Even if not, do you really think that a couple of science classes in public school can have that great an impact? Silly idealism.

If you want to reach into their homes, you have to engender mutual understanding.

Anything else is short-sighted, overly idealistic, and self-defeating.

synthsin75

28th July 2011 - 09:41 PM

QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Jul 28 2011, 03:30 PM)

It makes me feel like countering it, like I do with religion.

How does this make you feel?

Yes, you counter, they counter, it never f'ing ends. If you like conflict that much, you'll have a good ole time. Enjoy, but for Christ's sake quit whining about confrontations you egg on.

And don't take my example personally. Just an example. And I'm not surprised at all that women outnumber men in higher education, as they do so throughout the world as well. Makes sense to me.

flyingbuttressman

28th July 2011 - 09:43 PM

QUOTE (synthsin75+Jul 28 2011, 05:32 PM)

You still don't get it. How exactly do you expect to educate people who you insist upon being completely confrontational with? It won't happen. Given enough pressure, without trying to build some bridges, they will simply resort to home/private schooling, putting them forever beyond the reach of secular education. Even if not, do you really think that a couple of science classes in public school can have that great an impact? Silly idealism.

If you want to reach into their homes, you have to engender mutual understanding.

Some people are just not reachable. They view the scientific institution itself as an enemy to be destroyed. These people must be confronted and discredited in the eyes of their peers.

PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.

To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.