It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology
As far as your comments about Dawkins I couldn't disagree more. Just go to ABC news forum and see the posts regarding his speeches. He has a cult like following, groupies, fans whatever you want to call them. They are Hostile and they are angry and they have a plan. Dawkins is too smart to make an agenda like that public but whether he ever does or not Atheism HAS an agenda and that is un deniable. I get Dawkins new letters myself and have read all his books.


Atheism has no agenda, it is the description of the philosophical position of a group of people with no belief in deities. It is not a real homogenous organisation, with a head group of people who determine 'fundamentals'.

I think the few things Dawkins would like is that people in the US can be openly atheist without having the prejudicial responses common in this apparently free country, hence his 'out' campaign and his upcoming bible-belt tour - this is an important move in a country were many of the faithful have organised to have a vice-like grip on politics, leading to a position where an atheist president is less likely than a muslim one. This is not an issue in the vast majority of europe. Secondly, he's attempting a bit of consciousness raising, he wants people to cringe when they hear 'christian/muslim child', and so they should. I see nowt wrong with either.

And, of course, like most atheists, he would like to see more people move away from faith-based reasoning and rituals. Again, that's never going to be a forced issue. Like myself, he even supports religious education in UK schools - as long as it is comparative.


How you can say Atheists don't want to ban xmas is as argumentative as are the many posts in that very thread called "Take christ out of christmas" I don't know what is is named exactly but it's words to that effect. Fundamentalist, extremists, militant, makes no difference, a rose is a rose by any other name. We just all know that anyone that has a agenda that endangers our right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a threat .


I actually think that fundamentalism and extremism can be distinct. And I have yet to see an atheist who is endangering your right to liberty and pursuit of happiness. As I said, if you can't handle atheists criticising your faith, and even becoming more visible, your faith deserves a short lifespan from this point on. I won't put your faith on a pedestal because you think it is special. It is just another belief to me. I will respect, and even defend, your right to hold such beliefs though.

But, who cares what we call these holidays? If you want to call this time of year christmas, that's up to you. No-one is going to ban that. Likewise, if I want to call it yuletide, mythmas, etc, that's my perogative.

I will defend your right to celebrate christmas, and hopefully you will defend my right to celebrate mythmas. Both of us likely appreciate the chance to spend time with loved ones and spread goodwill to each other over this holiday period. So, we have the important stuff in common.

In the UK, few people really care. About 10% go to church. It is a dying hobby


And so this yearly whinge is an orchestrated campaign by the purveyors of the goods underlying this hobby, along with other people scared of the contamination from immigrants with their funny beliefs.

[edit on 23-12-2007 by melatonin]




posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 06:03 PM
link   
You make some very valid points, well said

good post

- Con



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Bah there used to be tolerance for different religions but a select few from each religion abuse it.

Stupid things like having to take down christmas trees from airports/shops, or renaming the festive season over and over just so as not to be politically correct and not offend anyone... these are the sort of things that p*ss people off and reduce general tolerance of anything.

And i'll tell you, it's not the Atheists' fault, they couldn't give a toss what people want to do with their lives. It's the religious idiots that get 'offended' by stupid little things and so create little rules here and there to try and ruin things for the other religions. All the political correctness and silly unnecessary arguments that they cause just p*ss off the Atheists who are trying to get on with their lives normally, and that's why there is no tolerance anymore.

But as someone said before; there are no Atheists fundamentalists, Atheists just want to get on with their lives without all the religious arguments and PC affecting them.



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by watch_the_rocks
 


I wonder perhapse if the Archbishop classes "motivated aitheists" under the "fundamentalists" group?



Religion Must Be Destroyed, Atheist Alliance Declares
By Matt Purple
CNSNews.com Correspondent
October 03, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - Science must ultimately destroy organized religion, according to some of the leading atheist writers and intellectuals who spoke at a recent atheist conference in Northern Virginia. God is a myth, and children must not be schooled in any faith, they said, at the "Crystal Clear Atheism" event, sponsored by the Atheist Alliance International.

www.cnsnews.com

Im sure he wouldn't want to see his flock deminishing because the aitheists are starting to become more confident and vocal in their opinions, would he view them as putting his religion under threat?


[edit on 23-12-2007 by freeradical]



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by freeradical
 


See, that's the kinda atheism that I'd call extremist. Science and spiritualism do not have to be mutually exclusive. When you state that your goal is to destroy an organization simply because you don't agree with it, you've crossed the line over to fanaticism.

When a scientist states that there is not God(s) as if it were a provable fact, they've become just as bad as the creationists. You cannot disprove the existence of the spiritual and attempting to do so is un-scientific.

This is why I refer to myself as neo-druidic. The Druids accepted a long time ago that science and spiritualism are the same thing; the study of the world around you.



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 06:56 PM
link   




Yeah I had said they had an agenda but apparently,, atheists have different "denominations" too just like religion. When melatonin said they don't ,, I figured he must be one of the "un homogenized" that doesn't see the same Christians that give Religion a bad name is a phenomena seen in atheism as well. I know I never made a law suit over anyone teaching evolution in my school.

I get his point but the resistance to believe in such ideas that a Atheist organization exists and that it is getting more and more to look like the very thing they dislike about religion.

Dawkins doesn't understand human nature whatsoever. Saying Science has to destroy Religion as he says in www.cnsnews.com...
is what will make any moderate Christian sing Onward Chistian soldiers marching as to war. It will make Science the enemy of Christianity and then ALL of them will pool thier money and political clout and stomp science right out of school.

That is just one of the many scenarios I can just imagine knowing them as I do. They have tolerated evolution being taught to our kids but when he talks like that,, they'll yank the class out of the school or yank the kid one or the other. THE LAST THING THEY WILL DO IS ENTERTAIN AN IOTA OF THAT "STUFF" That was being raised in Dawkins traveling salvation of the world science fair circus.

I see the writing on the wall

wow

[edit on 23-12-2007 by Conspiriology]



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Wow I just read that www.cnsnews.com.../Culture/archive/200710/CUL20071003a.html

Dawkins sounds like he is trying to pick a fight in that thing and causing an uprising all predicated on his failure to see that LIFE HAS A POINT and a Legacy meaning more then simply to die.

www.trueorigin.org...

His last essay about being totally stumped by interviewers and explaining his way out was just as lame as was his suggestion how we should bring up our kids without church. www.trueorigin.org...

All he ever does is describe us as if we are all in a dungeonesque basement of some gothic cathedral planing our next abortion clinic burn. If we are all imperfect BECAUSE of the way evolution works, then I guess he should EXPECT as much moreover that legislating ourselves out of religion won't help. I can see it now atheists burning abortion clinic defending the right for a baby to evolve.





[edit on 23-12-2007 by Conspiriology]



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 07:55 PM
link   
But this is where I see a lot of misrepresentation of atheists and dawkins in particular.

He doesn't say 'there is no god', he says there is 'almost certainly no god'. Thus, there is no 100% certainty on such questions. We can assess the evidence and make a baysian type judgement, but that's all really. I know very few atheists who do go as far as saying '100% there is no god'. There is a great discussion on videogoogle between Dawkins and Bishop Harries (ex now), and he isn't as militant as some would portray him.

When people talk about the mythical nature of god, I tend to think this is in response to our common man-made conceptions of such a phenomena. So, I'm quite happy to state that 99.99% the biblical personal YEC type god does not exist, the type of god who spreads plagues for fun, punishes bedroom deeds, grants wishes etc. Probably not so certain for the more philosophical Oom type of deity.

I think organising as atheists has got to be a good thing for the US atheists at this point in time. We don't need it so much in the UK, and most of europe. I would like to think it would also be a temporary thing anyway. I dislike immensely organised religion (although I have a soft-spot for much of CofE), and I would probably feel the same if any atheist organisation took on much of their nature. I know there is someone here who talks about 'spiritual anarchy', and it sounds good to me. Not that it's anything that floats my boat, of course.

But the beauty of the UK and religion, is that it's just not that much of an issue in everyday life. It's barely talked about, more a personal thing. But what I don't like is the new move towards faith schools in the UK. We don't need such divisions consolidated between children.

[edit on 23-12-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology

Originally posted by 123143
This place gets more ridiculous by the day. The theists are just ticked because people are finally recognizing organized religion for what it is - a con job.

I'm an atheist. I don't care about nativity scenes or "In God We Trust" on the money or any of that other crap. Just don't try to recruit me. You leave me alone, I leave you alone, everybody happy.

Live and let live.




The theists are just ticked because people are finally recognizing organized religion for what it is - a con job.
This is exactly my point. Invariably I have to have my sensibilities questioned by none other then an atheist with an attitude. You see thats the kind of posts I see all over this place. People who live in a country where its very constitution has the word "Creator" and its currency has the words "in GOD we trust" who lable these things silly, or ignorant, some even claiming to be "offended" by it as if they were black and we had a noose on the coins. It simply isn't necessary to make derogatory aspersions about people or voice opinions they are all con artists and victims of a con job. If you can't see that as "asking for an argument" then don't ask them to understand your request not to be recruited.
I have yet to see a Christian get angry because someone slammed a door in ther face when they came knocking. Believe me I have done it to many myself. It's the intolerance that the threads creator is bringing to the forefront and that ambiguety between the tolerance and sensibilities of what is reasonably justifiably inappropriate (hanging a noose) and that which is nothing more then splitting hairs using the excuse someones feelings get hurt as a frivolous law suit because an atheist saw a cross in a candidates christmas commercial suing them to take it off the air.
It gets really ridiculous because it is so hard to imagine it could really be about someones sensibilities and not about anything other then someones bent about a Chrsitian god they cannot tolerate the mere sight of anything that remotely reminds them of.
It's your last sentence that is the most powerful most simple and as fathoms deep as it should be appreciated down to the core of our multicultural beliefs. "Live and Let Live" it IS really THAT simple.
[edit on 23-12-2007 by Conspiriology]



Give you a little explanation, not from the so called "Multitudes of Atheists" It is from my own beliefs of nothing, which in turn tells you that it can't be a religion. It is a "Self proclomation of acceptance of the understanding." No lucky charms , no special people , no significant other's to have belief in. You are soooooo full of your self with your analogies. You have "No Idea' what an atheist is or what it stands for.
I am an atheist and I wasn't that way from the begining, "It just turned out that way." I have talked to friends that have taken "Ancient / World Religions" and have a Sister that is taking "World Religion and Theology" and I will garauntee you one thing for sure, "You have no I dea what you are speaking about." and it is clearly relevant in your post.
I had createde a whole pre-empted thread for a post , but decided against it because people have a right to have their own point's of views, but there has to be a limit on "Posting" and "Having Logical Knowledge of Posting a Thread" such as this.

Atheism comes from the very people you support in a belief system. We, you or they can't reflect without the recognition of "Atheism" as a bad thing, because there is not another word for it too compare us, we people to. The word that you speak of is the word your religion's acquired for the individuals that "Chose" not to follow the same concept's you have chosen as a religious believer or follower of some sort of "God" or other "Deities".
I am going to reconcile for the displacement of this catagory for the simple fact of discrimination and lack of understanding that we have "Nothing" to "Want" too belive in, and by the way,"It usually comes from the likes of the 'Faith Followers" such as this thread.


fundamentalist n. & adj.
Modern Christian fundamentalism arose from American millenarian sects of the 19th century, and has become associated with reaction against social and political liberalism and rejection of the theory of evolution. Islamic fundamentalism appeared in the 18th and 19th centuries as a reaction to the disintegration of Islamic political and economic power, asserting that Islam is central to both state and society and advocating strict adherence to the Koran (Qur'an) and to Islamic law (sharia), supported if need be by jihad or holy war.



In Protestantism, religious movement that arose among conservative members of various Protestant denominations early in the 20th cent., with the object of maintaining traditional interpretations of the Bible and of the doctrines of the Christian faith in the face of Darwinian evolution, secularism, and the emergence of liberal theology.



The greatest and most important problems of life are all fundamentally insoluble. They can never be solved but only outgrown. — Carl Jung (1875-1961)


Read some more about your agreement to "Fundementalism" before you start throwing stones in a very penetratible "Glass House".

Source:

www.answers.com...&r=67

And as far as "Atheism goes, "Try this read before you reinterrate your thought's."


atheism
Either the lack of belief that there exists a god, or the belief that there exists none. Sometimes thought itself to be more dogmatic than mere agnosticism, although atheists retort that everyone is an atheist about most gods, so they merely advance one step further.


Sorce:

www.answers.com...

Not all "Atheists" are the way this particular story depicts them. it is kind of like the "Christian, Mormon, Catholic or any other religious community" they have their very bad "People" which reverts to the simple thing I am trying to get acrossed, "It is a lot easier being ME, than it is being you, as a believer in something that only has , at most, "Self interpretation and acceptance."

So, there you have it, "We are all bleeders living in the same world with the same social problems as our neighbor."



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 10:50 PM
link   
Excellent posts from both of you allred and Melatonin. I may not agree much less understand many things but I DO appreciate the care, time and diplomacy you both have taken to explain what it is I may not understand and for that I thank you both

I am not sure we will ever have a perfect world and I understand much more how organised religion meddles in the affairs of state down to ones own personal life and to that extent Dawkins makes much sense.

Thanks again

- Con



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 04:30 AM
link   
reply to post by FredT
 





This is exactly what I have said numerous times here on ATS: Extremism IN any form is the root cause of most evil.


You seem to forget that whatever you think maybe evil could in itself be considered extreme. So then could your thoughts be considered evil? I doubt they are but I suppose from someone else's perspective anything could be jotted down on the evil list, including using our computers to communicate with one another. I would venture that a cause of evil maybe the thought of such a thing as evil. Without a symbolic representation of what maybe "evil" we all are left groping in the dark for solutions. We may say that it would be "evil" to murder but most of us seem to not have problems with doing so to survive. THere are so many conditions and possibilities that one would have to put a rope around one's mind to understand what maybe even meant by the term "extreme".

"the furthest or highest degree of something"

or "far beyond a norm in quantity or amount or degree"

What may we call normal? Besides "normal" maybe considered in it's latin root as meaning "square". So in that sense it might mean beyond measurement, well most of creation functions in a state "beyond measurement". I know we all love to focus on particular peculiarities but we tend to ignore anomalies. Most people that are considered fundamentalist probably are not such, but if we mean violence then fundamentalist violence exists in those whom choose to carry out that behavior, that also includes the military, police or anybody that dischages a weapon at someone. Should we ban all these extremes? I don't really understand how God or Atheists or whatever you call yourselfs could actually be so overgeneralized as a "extreme". Once you start making rules for behavior then you might as well get the gas chambers warmed up, cause then I'm sure somebody will find something wrong with most of us. Maybe not having such certainty allows for freedom, freedom means that things can happen that we might not like, therefore I accept the possibility of that state of existence, and don't lose sleep worrying about "extremists" that tend to rarely succeed in their endeavors. Why should the pope even begin to understand or know what constitutes his use of the term "extreme", it maybe not just absurd, but completely overgeneralizing a complex matter that derserves more scrutiny and awareness. He merely puffs a cloud of verbiage into the mist of some certain threat from something out there that maybe closed minded to his view of the world. That would be an extreme view in many minds I would think, at least he appears so to me. Sounds like fodder for Inquisition nostaglia on that man's part. Maybe evil can be quatified and measured, I sure would like to know how.

[edit on 24-12-2007 by bubbabuddha]



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 04:50 AM
link   
Extremism is not evil, but foolish, as anything outside the Golden Mean. Evil is a conscious act of harming a person or people whether or not predicated on a belief that it is for a greater "good".

Fundamentalism isn't the problem, it's brainwashing with a specific doctrine that immunizes people against any sense of mercy or respect for life which is engendered in the idea that there is some sort of life after death.

Atheists tend to fall prey to Nietzchean nihilism wherein: We are all going to die anyway so what's the difference if it is now or later? We might believe it would be in the greater good if fundamentalists died sooner.

Mind you this is properly nihilism not atheism. Atheism is a disbelief in god and the afterlife is associative of specific religions. It is possible for atheists to belief in reincarnation, ascension, or any non-deity-based afterlife concepts.

So technically I am an atheist, but I do not consider atheism to be a word which effectively defines my philosophy or the philosophy of the present so-called New Atheist movement, since this would not include any fantasy beliefs of any kind, not just Bible God.

C



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 08:31 AM
link   
Blind dogmatism is the bane to ALL religions, as well as ideologies including philosophic and political and economic ones.

If anything the most morally honest approach is one of agnosticism... I do not know hence I reserve judgement.

Of course there are those, including many on here, Christian, Jewish and Muslim (among the greatest offenders) who will insist heatedly that their version of fanatism is perfectly acceptable indeed truly spiritual and morally just.... and it is all the others who are in the wrong...

...proving once again their blindness.

[edit on 24-12-2007 by grover]



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Blind dogmatism is the bane to ALL religions, as well as ideologies including philosophic and political and economic ones.

If anything the most morally honest approach is one of agnosticism... I do not know hence I reserve judgement.

The objective should be to seek genuine understanding. Ideologies succeed because of pre-existing hatreds and fears. Understanding allays fears, dogmatism amplifies them.

Dogmatism is simply a directive to not understand or try to learn anymore. That is what Creationism and Intelligent Design are all about. Not science, but saying God did it, now shut up and stop doing any more science, because it might offend, yeah hurt even destroy god. If god couldn't be harmed nothing could offend him.

Agnosticism is NOT the best approach however, as it, like Creationism is an apathetic do nothing approach rooted in the idea that nothing more could be known and therefore stop trying.

No, the evidence is in. We have the answer regarding God. Agnosticism is just as much living in fear and blind ignorance as theism.

C



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by grover
 


Its true that whenever you have multiple groups of people, each with a differing but unshakably set mindset natural conflict occurs and due to all the ranting and raving its the people who are not a part of any group that never get their opinions heard.

Nobody should be afraid of openly calling themselves an atheist but isn't it odd that in today's "free" society that some are indeed scared to do so be it for personal reasons or for fear of being attacked?

What is it about religion in particular that leads people to violence, do these fanatics feel like their very existence is being threatened giving them no other option? The greatest design flaw of most religions that I am aware of is that they don't give any room for free thought or judgement, there is only one way and its the only way!



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Columbus
 


all these posts are as dogmatic as it gets my friend and if you can't see that then you are just as blind as they say we are.

- Con

[edit on 24-12-2007 by Conspiriology]



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 07:26 PM
link   
The problem with all this apparent disconfort with the individuals that continually dig for the "Bigger, Better Answer" there is no end.
Accept it for what it is and leave it at that. If you look to hard, you become blind to the truth, you feel if you don't look hard enough, there is something your going to miss? What is that all about? If you are truly going down a road of no affirmation, maybe it is time to rely on one's self interpretations and run with the thought's.
"Atheism" is not a "Bad Thing" it is viewed as a bad thing from all the religious or folowers of other faiths. I am an "Atheist" because of the fact I am not allowed to leave my beliefs at "I am not a believer of a God or Deity." I was titled by the exact thing you are trying to defend.
If you look back at Ancient or ancient biblical histories, you will find they can only compare what they are seeing by the thing's they have experienced or have seen and taught. Err go , you have me in a nut shell. I don't deny peoples beliefs for my own gain, I am simply open minded for all who have an opinion.
"I have no regrett's, I have no order to show cause and I definately feel as if the 'Religious' community is reading way, way too deep to the acceptances of "Atheism".

IMHO >>>>>>>



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


A few of these posts are dogmatic in the sense that they repeat the doctrines accepted by some individuals, but a dogma is an assertion that is not to be questioned or tested. No one here is saying stop trying to understand these "atheists" and just hate them. That kind of attitude is reserved for pedophiles.

C



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join