my problem with atheists

I think that fundamentalism as a thought process should be recognized as something different from religion. In many ways, Fundamentalism is like a cancer of religion, growing out of control and corrupting its host.

absolutely, i don't think fundamentalism can allow people to coexist, and it's not my intention to make any case at all for fundamentalism. i think a case can possibly be made for orthodoxy (sometimes), particularly if orthodoxy doesn't require finding converts, but that's another discussion. i'm not a big big fan of orthodoxy either, i think of it occasionally as arrested development. (but that's another discussion.)

anyway, thanks for sticking around guys, ashers, that thing you and i have both seen -is- the problem i wrote this thread about.

as long as we agnostics, theists, and atheists can learn to move forward together (even if we remain agnostics, theists, and atheists respectively,) i have NO PROBLEM with atheism itself.

i don't even have a problem with the thought that it's more logical, nor the preaching of atheism provided that it's considerate to other considerate people. (let loose on the arrogant fundie bastards if you must.)




as do i! i think reasonable atheists are the rule. i just hate it when some of them tell people they're stupid for not being atheist. i think of that as fundamentalist atheism... well, anyway, enough said on my part, i think. thanks guys-

ramen.


(p.s. i realize that technically, believers in the spaghetti monster are theists, thus it's not a very appropriate closing to atheists. on the other hand, i have a feeling that many people that claim a belief in the spaghetti monster are closeted atheists! so this is just a nod to you guys out there. ARRR!)

The whole agnostic thing is unneccessary.

I am an atheist, which means I believe (not know) that there is no God, and I support the atheistic side of arguments, BUT I have never said that I know that there is no God.

Someone recently presented an argument on how the statement "I know there is no God" is contridictory and therefore atheism is contridictory. I explained to him that this was stupid - I don't think I know that there is no God, and neither does any half-brained atheist.

agnostics feel a need for it. you don't, i get that.



that makes you a "weak atheist." this isn't intended as an insult, it's purely technical. in my own opinion, weak atheism is stronger intellectually than strong atheism. actually i would assume most atheists that mention being atheists in the first place are strong atheists... but i haven't conducted a formal survey. most of the arguments i hear in favor of atheism denote strong atheism.



i agree, it sounds pretty stupid.

TinyG, like Aperson, I am what you call a "weak athiest." I prefer the distinction: passive vs. agressive atheism. Madeline O'Hare was an agressive atheist: she believed in a No-God and worshipped Him. To me, the theistic thesis simply makes no sense so I ignore it; it do not waste my time repudiating it.

tinyg,

Next time you get hassled by "extra security" at the airport you might consider whether your neutral stance on theism has contrbuted to the situation. Questions about "existence of God" are futile....but questions about the social consequences of "belief" are not !

Good point, Fresco: religious belief is a sociological, more than it is a theological, matter.

mixed quotes- who said what? no one knows...




please, do phrase it however you want to, i didn't invent the terms, other than finding them descriptive i'm not attached to them.




absolutely- if you believe the qod question is truly a waste of time, you're better off setting the example by not going on about it

i'm half kidding. people should talk about whatever they want.




not if you want to understand history, social anthropology, or be in dialogue with the billions of people that believe in such a thing.



be assured, if there are any negative social consequences of belief, there are as many negative social consequences of atheism. but this isn't what i'd stress, i'd stress the following:




b.s. the main impetus behind the nonsense in airports isn't terrorists, nor religion, not even extremism. the main impetus is good old fashioned secular greed. it's about money. the defense contractors and the politicians pushing the police state are making a fortune.

religion <-> violence is a chicken and egg thing. if we had no religion, we'd make up some other stupid excuse.

if you take god out of the equation, there's nothing in that which would stop humans from doing dangerous illogical things. do you think adolf hitler needed god to be a monster? he talked about doing god's work, but it looks to me like what he really cared about was power and restoring germany to glory. if god and genocide wanted to come along for the ride, well you know, those are smaller things than what hitler obviously thought of himself.

let's say saddam hussein was the monster we made him out to be. (oh he was a monster, but so is tipper gore. i don't think tipper gore is saddam hussein, and i don't think saddam is the worst dictator the world ever had.)

okay, but saddam was a secular leader. you don't have to believe in a god to justify killing and torturing civilians, using biological weapons, and living in a gold-covered palace while picking off your personal enemies as casually as many of us pick our nose. logic and facts are very nice of course, but they're no substitute for getting some perspective.

god may not be an important question to you, that's fine with me. if there's a god, i can't imagine how it/they/s/he cares about it either. but if you can understand the question, you can understand humanity. you don't show any promise just yet of understanding that- but you think you do, you think you're logical, and therefore... let's be honest, a bit superior.

this feeling of superiority is the sort of thing that leads to mistreatment among humans, whether it's superiority for believing or superiority for not bothering with gods.

arrogance is the only thing getting people murdered, and both theists and atheists have got enough of it to keep going forever. i wish it was impossible for agnostics to get it too, but i know better than to think so. it would help a lot of both sides stopped acting like the other side is to blame for everything.

but here's a question that's not important to ontology but important to philosophy and ethics: would you pretend there was a god, claim a god, if it meant that humanity would suffer less? i'm not implying anything, just answer the question.

i think if we're being honest, the answer is that you wouldn't, because it isn't honest, and because it goes against your beliefs and quest for scientific truth. i'm not saying science is "only a theory" or any crap like that, i'm saying it's just as important to you. or that i suspect it is just as important. you wouldn't take on a god any sooner than a theist would give up one, in the end, you'd probably be willing to die for your belief.

and unless you would pretend to convert to save your life, (or the world, for a more dramatic example) how is dying for your belief any more or less noble or practical than the other way around? you're dead for your beliefs either way.

don't get me wrong, if you think integrity is important, i totally agree. the difference here is i don't think my beliefs make me a superior man. like you, like theists, i'm just trying to evolve so that maybe we can all become better suited to existance. i only hope my methods are helpful in that.

but let's face it- to stop people fighting for what they believe, getting rid of religion wouldn't do it. you'd have to get rid of thought altogether. let's be honest enough to admit that much. fighting fundamentalism will help, on the other hand. i'm all for it. but you don't fight fundamentalism by saying "you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong!" and starting wars. martyrs fuel fundamentalism, if you're making them, you might as well be scoring on the wrong goal. if you're going on about being superior, you're only fueling their arrogance.

that sounds like a practical, worldy, logical concern to me. it's one the premises for everything else i've mentioned.

My problem is with the use of the word "belief". People use belief as a form of knowing. It is not.

That is why agnosticism is unneccessary. Just because I believe there is no God, it doesn't mean I know or think I know there is no God.

And my friend actually provided a valid argument on why the statement "I know there is no God" is contradictory, but the point is, it doesn't apply to me, or any other "weak atheist" as it were.

Belief is a base for action. But a normal person only believes something that is proven to be true. Science goes about proving something to be true so that it can accepted as a base for action. Religion wants to skip this process of testing and proving. Instead it uses fear and intimidation to create a belief.

"The world is going to end!" sound familiar?
"How can you save your soul?" another fear mongering cry?
"Will you go to heaven?" another one of those fear of the unknown messages?

There are so many assumptions made with those questions. Those are loaded questions to induce fear.

I've posted on this subject myriad times over six years. If anyone cares, please review some of the early questions on this subject.

I'm always bemused that each poster sees him or her self anew. Look stuff up, good grief.

fair play to you osso.

regarding ancient posts outside this thread: i had my own points i wanted to make (and organize) my own way.

regarding posts within this thread: one of the interesting things about a2k is that some of the threads can have tens of thousands of posts. the bigger it gets the more impossible your request becomes.

regarding redundancy: okay, but the sentiments that oppose the ones on this thread come up even more often. as long as that's true you can't fault them being readdressed and reresponded to.

every poster is new, by the way. just not as new as he may usually think