Forums | MacLife

Just so long as he isn't in charge of foreign policy.

Metacell wrote:

StaticAge wrote:

He intimated that someone who believes religiously in a prophecy is the sort of mindset that perpetuates violence. I can assume that there will be racial hatred because I read it in the tea leaves, but whether the hatred continues or not has little to do with me or my belief in the predictions of tea leaves, unless I am actively contributing to it by some other activity that has nothing to do with tea leaves necessarily.

The spreading of delusion is an evil act regardless of one's intentions.  There are many soldiers of God who believe they are active participants in God's prophecies and are quite happy to kill for them and train their kid's to as well.  And it's all about who God loves the most.

Who is spreading delusions now? Are you seriously going to say Res or me or any other person who has some form of faith or other interest in prophecy is on the same level as killers or that thought is the same thing as action? It smacks of someone drawing an arbitrary line in the dirt so as to say "well at least its not me" and pretending you are on a superior plane to all the other lunkheads living on this rock. Except we all are lunkheads and we're all down here the same, and drawing lines isnt that far from forming them up and marching into battle.

I find it fascinating that this fundamentalist atheism has become so hip overnight.

Tallgeese wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I find it fascinating that this fundamentalist atheism has become so hip overnight.

I find it tired.

Wouldn't it be ironic if it wound up feeding an anti-religious kick that makes a reality of the oft-stated paranoiac fears of the Christian fundamentalists?

"Fundamentalist atheist" is just a label being applied to any atheist who speaks up against religion. It's a nonsense label. All atheism is is a lack of belief in gods. How could that ever be called fundamentalist in the same sense that biblical literalists are?

Tallgeese, if you're tired of it, expect to be tired for a long time. This is not just a passing fad. This isn't something people do to be "hip". If you're sincere about it, de-converting from religion is one of the hardest things you'll ever do. Calling outspoken atheists "fundamentalists" is similar to calling Iraqi war critics "hippies". It's just a way to delegitimize the message by attacking the messenger.

This seems like something new to you guys (I'm not singling out Tallgeese) because it's been pretty much underground for so long. There have always been atheists. For much of humanity's history we have had to keep quiet out of fear for our lives. In many parts of the world that is still true. Many people who question religion never do so openly, so there are more of us out there than the general populace realizes.

We're here, we're infidels, get used to it!

Last edited by user (2007-06-21 8:43 am)

Sure, like Tallie said, there is a smaller segment of atheists who would like to ban religion. However, most of us don't care if other people practice superstitions, knowing that if it goes away at all, it will do it in time as fewer people believe.

But some of us are still going to give our opinion on how nutty it is.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I find it fascinating that this fundamentalist atheism has become so hip overnight.

I am not an atheist, nor am I anti-religious.  I am, however, anti-prophetic.  Prophecy is the nicotine of superstition.

robco wrote:

There's atheism and there's antitheism.  Bit of a difference.

Definitions seem to have changed.

Old Definitions -

Theist - someone who knows there is a god (or gods).
Athiest - someone who knows there is no god (or gods).
agnostic - someone who doesn't know if there is a god (or gods).

by the old definition, an athiest is really by definition anti-thiest.
They may keep it to themselves sometimes - just as some theists do (sometimes).

But todays athiests who call themselves athiests want to have the appearance of being well learned people who don't need no stinkin' religion. Unfortunately, being well learned means they have at least had a rudimentary introduction to logic, and understand that you can not logically prove there is no god, logically it can only be axiom - and a weak axiom as it does not lead to demonstratable truths.

So rather than undermine their desire to appear as well learned logical people - modern athiests are usually closer to agnostic, in that they do not claim to *know* there is no god or gods, but rather doubt there is one.

They are not true athiests in the classic sense of the word, but rather agnostic with a leaning towards athiesm.

Theists don't need to be able to defend their position completely by logic - because theists don't have a problem with faith. But since athiests mock faith, they can no longer have a position based on an axiom that is no better that faith.

Last edited by resedit (2007-06-21 5:13 pm)

btw - I don't have a problem with definition of athiest changing.
It did cause me a lot of confusion though in my college philosophy class, when statements about (and by) athiests in older works seemed at odds with newer works.

The philosophy prof straightened it out for me, explaining the shift that had taken place (and he did a better job than my attempt here).

I didn't see Thomas stick his fingers into the wounds, nor did I see Saul stoned off his ass.  There is no reproducible, empirical proof.  You either believe what the Torah/Bible/Koran/Book of Mormon/et. al. says or you don't.  There is no conclusive proof that the events transpired the way the books state.  You either believe certain events are <insert deity here>'s way of revealing him/herself to us, or you believe that there is a scientific explanation for it, even if we don't yet understand the science behind it.

Well hell, if you want to go there, I can't prove that any of you exist really.  MAF could be a really sick manifestation of my own twisted mind... 

robco wrote:

nor did I see Saul stoned off his ass.

Quit bogarting the good smurf and you could see a mod.

user wrote:

resedit wrote:

But todays athiests who call themselves athiests want to have the appearance of being well learned people who don't need no stinkin' religion. Unfortunately, being well learned means they have at least had a rudimentary introduction to logic, and understand that you can not logically prove there is no god, logically it can only be axiom - and a weak axiom as it does not lead to demonstratable truths.

You guys just love to try to cram that shoe on our foot!

It's not our job to prove that there is no god, it's your job to prove that there is. You are the ones making the wild claims. Since the theist is unable to do that, the atheist has no reason to think god exists.

You are wrong. If a theist claims that there is a god, it is up to him to prove it. If an atheist claims that there is no god, it is up to him to prove it. The one who makes the assertion has the burden of proof. Only the agnostic position requires no proof, as it is not asserting any certainty.