Anyone get the feeling lately that the fundamentalist voices (on both sides of the 'theism' debate) have drowned out any other kind of discourse in this forum?
It sometimes feels like a time warp. I could go back 3-5 years and it'd be the same posters making the same arguments.
Originally posted by BigDoggProblem Anyone get the feeling lately that the fundamentalist voices (on both sides of the 'theism' debate) have drowned out any other kind of discourse in this forum?
It sometimes feels like a time warp. I could go back 3-5 years and it'd be the same posters making the same arguments.
Any particular topics that you would like discussed in a less fundamentalist manner?
I had wanted to discuss the historicity of Jesus, but nobody wanted to take it on.
I do think that we should all stop responding to RJ. (edit: and whodey)
Originally posted by BigDoggProblem Anyone get the feeling lately that the fundamentalist voices (on both sides of the 'theism' debate) have drowned out any other kind of discourse in this forum?
It sometimes feels like a time warp. I could go back 3-5 years and it'd be the same posters making the same arguments.
I'm aware that I end up arguing over repeated issues, but this is because they are of interest and importance to me. I don't my posting reflects a fundamentalist attitude, however I'm open to honest feedback.
Originally posted by BigDoggProblem Anyone get the feeling lately that the fundamentalist voices (on both sides of the 'theism' debate) have drowned out any other kind of discourse in this forum?
It sometimes feels like a time warp. I could go back 3-5 years and it'd be the same posters making the same arguments.
Are there "fundamentalist" atheists?
If not, what do you mean by "both sides of the 'theism' debate"?
Originally posted by BigDoggProblem Anyone get the feeling lately that the fundamentalist voices (on both sides of the 'theism' debate) have drowned out any other kind of discourse in this forum?
Originally posted by Suzianne Are there "fundamentalist" atheists?
Absolutely. They seem to want to make atheism into a sort of Bizarro-religion; a dark parody of what they despise. They are the ones who actually debate questions like, "are babies atheists?" They pay their tithe to the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science and recite the Scientific Method 3 times a day while facing Christopher Hitchens' grave.
Originally posted by divegeester I'm aware that I end up arguing over repeated issues, but this is because they are of interest and importance to me. I don't my posting reflects a fundamentalist attitude, however I'm open to honest feedback.
You yourself aren't fundamentalist, but you do seem to like to argue with certain notorious ones here.
Look, I'm not trying to judge overly, because I have done my fair share of the same in the past. It was good fun for awhile. But at times I step back from this and wonder what might be possible if the temptation to re-launch a more stereotypical line of debate was resisted.
Originally posted by BigDoggProblem Absolutely. They seem to want to make atheism into a sort of Bizarro-religion; a dark parody of what they despise. They are the ones who actually debate questions like, "are babies atheists?" They pay their tithe to the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science and recite the Scientific Method 3 times a day while facing Christopher Hitchens' grave.
Originally posted by BigDoggProblem Absolutely. They seem to want to make atheism into a sort of Bizarro-religion; a dark parody of what they despise. They are the ones who actually debate questions like, "are babies atheists?" They pay their tithe to the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science and recite the Scientific Method 3 times a day while facing Christopher Hitchens' grave.
If understand you correctly, you're bothered by atheists who make a mockery of atheism by how they go about conducting themselves as atheists? That sounds strangely familiar...
If you're bothered by how the same arguments and questions (and accusations) are regurgitated after those same arguments and questions (and accusations) have been dealt with, then all I can say is welcome to my world... you are not alone.
Originally posted by lemon lime If understand you correctly, you're bothered by atheists who make a mockery of atheism by how they go about conducting themselves as atheists? That sounds strangely familiar...
If you're bothered by how the same arguments and questions (and accusations) are regurgitated after those same arguments and questions (and accusations) have been dealt with, then all I can say is welcome to my world... you are not alone.
Atheism to me is simply the state of not believing in gods. It should not be a 'movement' with an 'image' any more that people who share a lack of belief in Sasquatches should be. Perhaps the best response to people who identify foremost as atheists is, "Great, but what do you believe?"
Originally posted by BigDoggProblem Atheism to me is simply the state of not believing in gods. It should not be a 'movement' with an 'image' any more that people who share a lack of belief in Sasquatches should be. Perhaps the best response to people who identify foremost as atheists is, "Great, but what do you believe?"
Mere Atheism
I couldn't resist
'Atheist' is simply a word people use to identify what they and others like themselves believe is not true. It's a 'belief' that necessarily relies on (not believing) something other people believe. If religion in any form did not exist then neither would atheism, because atheism is not a belief... it's a disbelief.
Oddly enough though, many atheists (even those who know better) will discuss their disbelief as though it were a belief.
'Atheist' is simply a word people use to identify what they and others like themselves believe is not true. It's a 'belief' that necessarily relies on (not believing) something other people believe. If religion in any form did not exist then neither would atheism, because atheism is not a belief. ...[text shortened]... y atheists (even those who know better) will discuss their disbelief as though it were a belief.[/b]
I think for some people it IS a belief. They are convinced there are no gods. Others take a more cautious stance of 'there isn't any evidence" or even "there isn't enough compelling evidence."
To me, it makes no difference whether you call it 'disbelief' or 'belief in not-G'. In both cases, G has been negated in the person's worldview.
28 May '15 13:571 edit
YouTube
Fundamentalist overload
Back to Top