fundamentalist Atheists?

Originally posted by telerion
Yep. Just one of an infinite number of solutions at this point.

Or in other words, its just humans making everything up as they go along, changing the power structure as the centuries stumble on but trying to stick with the main theme as the modern humans have not the imagination to come up with anything truly original, godwise.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Or in other words, its just humans making everything up as they go along, changing the power structure as the centuries stumble on but trying to stick with the main theme as the modern humans have not the imagination to come up with anything truly original, godwise.

Yeah, I think you might be right.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Looking around these threads and seeing various responses has suggested to me that there might be something out there called Atheist fundamentalism (lol).I don't want to slag anyone off because I can understand some of the bile but some Atheists seem to be very dogmatic and rigid saying things like "belief in god can never be rational" , or " the supe ...[text shortened]... or Atheist , it's dogma that we need to watch out for. Watch out for that monkey poop!

"I find myself speculating about what kind of Theists these Atheists would be in a parallel universe"

What fundamentalist clap trap!
There is no such thing as a parallel universe.
Such monkey poop.

Originally posted by howardgee
"I find myself speculating about what kind of Theists these Atheists would be in a parallel universe"

What fundamentalist clap trap!
There is no such thing as a parallel universe.
Such monkey poop.

QED

Originally posted by lucifershammer
QED

Yes, it was a good demonstration of irony.

Originally posted by telerion
Accepting that a particular god exists on faith is not rational, and every claim that I've heard about the supernatural (and they are as many and varied as the stars) has seemed to me little more than one person's make believe.

Now I think I can hold these views and not be what you call a "Fundamentalist Atheist." Unlike fundie monotheists, I do not l ...[text shortened]... bit insensitive on internet forums, but all in all we're pretty decent peeps.

Telerion , The thing is you don't sound like a 'fundy atheist' and you make some good points. You're right to say that any excesses of dogma and bile from Atheists are not in the same league as the hellfire preachers and their like. You are also right to go toe-to-toe with people on the subject of the supernatural. Infact , we Theists shouldn't be frightened of this , but welcome it.
However , I am very conscious of the fact that there are many different types of Atheist over a whole spectrum. On one hand you have those who debate sensibly from a philosophical/inquiring point of view , on the other hand you get those who have maybe had a very bad experience of religion and carry an unconscious chip on their shoulder. They love nothing more than to paint an extreme, stereotypical view of 'religious types' so that they can knock them down like skittles. This they seem to find very emotionally satisfying. After this they retreat behind a veil of rationality to claim the moral/intellectual high ground once again whilst not realising the gross assumptions they have made.

All I'm saying is listen to the silent majority of us not the bible bashers

Originally posted by knightmeister
Telerion , The thing is you don't sound like a 'fundy atheist' and you make some good points. You're right to say that any excesses of dogma and bile from Atheists are not in the same league as the hellfire preachers and their like. You are also right to go toe-to-toe with people on the subject of the supernatural. Infact , we Theists shouldn't be fr ...[text shortened]... ve made.

All I'm saying is listen to the silent majority of us not the bible bashers

Huh? If ever there was a fundy atheist, it is Telly!

"those who have maybe had a very bad experience of religion and carry an unconscious chip on their shoulder."

That statement fits Telly to a, a, well, a T.

Originally posted by Palynka
Yes, it was a good demonstration of irony.

I'm sure hg would be pleased to know it could be interpreted that way.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
"those who have maybe had a very bad experience of religion and carry an unconscious chip on their shoulder."

That statement fits Telly to a, a, well, a T.

It does - and I think tel would be first to agree (he makes the point about how he was once a foolish, young, zealous Christian evangelist often enough).

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
Fundies are fundies because they believe in the fundamental truth of the bible. Atheists have no equivelent text therefore cannot be fundies.

We can be bigots, intolerant and down right nasty but not in a fundamentalist way.

I'm going to disappear up my own fundament

Ya know, I used to think that was true...until I encountered one in person.

The atheist fundamentalist believes in the fundamental truth of the statement, "God does not exist." They then take that statement to ridiculous extremes. For example, they claim that parents who teach their children a religion are 'violating their human rights'.

In short, their antics are frighteningly similar to the worst of religious fundamentalists.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
It does - and I think tel would be first to agree (he makes the point about how he was once a foolish, young, zealous Christian evangelist often enough).

Weren't we all?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Huh? If ever there was a fundy atheist, it is Telly!

"those who have maybe had a very bad experience of religion and carry an unconscious chip on their shoulder."

That statement fits Telly to a, a, well, a T.

Maybe you know him better than I do. I'm trying to give the guy a chance in the hope he will offer me a similar open mindedness. If he slags off religion then I will probably agree with him a lot of the time. If he starts saying that a belief in God is 'totally irrational' and can 'never make sense' then I will go toe to toe with him myself. Until then I will reserve judgement. Where have you gone Telly ? Are you a fundy? Or can you be reasoned with?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Maybe you know him better than I do. I'm trying to give the guy a chance in the hope he will offer me a similar open mindedness. If he slags off religion then I will probably agree with him a lot of the time. If he starts saying that a belief in God is 'totally irrational' and can 'never make sense' then I will go toe to toe with him myself. Until the ...[text shortened]... eserve judgement. Where have you gone Telly ? Are you a fundy? Or can you be reasoned with?

Getcher toes ready.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Maybe you know him better than I do. I'm trying to give the guy a chance in the hope he will offer me a similar open mindedness. If he slags off religion then I will probably agree with him a lot of the time. If he starts saying that a belief in God is 'totally irrational' and can 'never make sense' then I will go toe to toe with him myself. Until the ...[text shortened]... eserve judgement. Where have you gone Telly ? Are you a fundy? Or can you be reasoned with?

Actually I've been working on my research and teaching all afternoon.

Well, I believe that I laid out my position on fundamentalism on the first page of this thread. Essentially, I think a supernatural belief, be it monotheistic, polytheistic, or atheistic, is arbitrary or at least can be (and most often is) made so.

I typically save my insults and accusations of "irrationality" for those who try to support a particular supernatural belief by appeal to the natural without recognizing that generally (counterexamples are easy enough to construct) the natural is uninformative regard the veracity of those beliefs, or for those who selectively twist our learning to tear down knowledge they veiw as a threat.

You will not find me here authoring threads with titles like "There is no god" or "Theists are morons." I do enter into threads with those titles(or, more often than not, ones with exactly the opposite sorts of titles) and usually will have something to say. I am perfectly capable of constructing a thoughtful post, however, such posts cost me in terms of effort and time. Given that I have learned during my time here not to waste these resources on members who cannot offer the same courtesy, either from lack of integrity or from repeatedly demonstrated lack of ability, I will on occasion offer the fun jab instead.

Case in point with Freaky. He made some C&P some discussion about probabilities in the thread "What's wrong with evolution? " Now as no1 was so kind to point out, I have demonstrated on a number of occasions why probability constructions of the sort linked by Freaky are red herrings. I have also addressed why placing ex ante probabilities on events such as "the universe possesses constants such that life can exist" is fundamentally flawed. I have built these posts from mathematical principles, and for quite some time probability arguments nearly disappeared from the spirituality forum.

Now with Freaky, I could have repeated myself yet again. I could have easily pointed out (with or without the relevant math) that the exercise he linked only shows us what we already know: the development of these biological sequences did not result from a mechanism analogous to taking random, independent draws from a set of completed chains. Nevertheless, I remained silent, and my discretion paid off. No1 replied to Freaky with a very brief summary of why such probability measures are ridiculous and mentioned my efforts in the past. Freaky's response? "It figures."

Now why should I waste my time on an individual whose response will inevitably be so shallow? That it is so, is obvious to all but a few of the most fervent evangelicals. There's no one worth persuading, so why expend all that effort? (Note that I did not mock him in that thread either.)

The real problem with Freaky, as I pointed out earlier, is that he really fancies himself to be quite brilliant. Either he's botching a poor imitation of no1's ingenious caustic attacks, mocking an insignificant error in spelling or grammar, or boasting yet another silver bullet argument for destroying atheism. Unfortunately, what is to Freaky a novelty is almost never anything other than naked fallacy dressed up with fatuously smug verbosity.

I do admit that I offer the snide jab at such foolishness more often than I should. Perhaps I should always ignore the blatant shortcomings of dj2, Arby Hill, Freakshow, Darfius, and their lot; but with the exception of vistedes, I have not encountered another member on this forum that has managed such restraint.

Finally, even if I continue to take joy in having a good laugh at the obstinantly weak-minded among us, it may at most make me a jerk, but it does not me a fundamentalist. I am willing to have reasoned discussion with those who will reciprocate, however I explicitly reserve the right to the following:
1) abstain from mental circle-jerks (i.e. Freaky's "Attributes of God" challenge)
2) call out what I think is poor reasoning without compromise
3) find and label anyone's favorite supernatural claim "unimpressive" if it flies in the face of everything we know about the natural world or is it is just one of an infinite number of other arbitrary pet beliefs.

Well, that's the best I can put it for now. Gotta run.

Originally posted by telerion
Actually I've been working on my research and teaching all afternoon.

Well, I believe that I laid out my position on fundamentalism on the first page of this thread. Essentially, I think a supernatural belief, be it monotheistic, polytheistic, or atheistic, is arbitrary or at least can be (and most often is) made so.

I typically save my insults a pet beliefs.

Well, that's the best I can put it for now. Gotta run.

Cute. It's almost enough to make one say, "Where to start?" But, as you've taken a great many words to say very little, a better response would be, "Are you through yet?"

Not only were you wrong in your quotation--- in and of itself, a small thing--- you are wrong on practically every other point. You are not reasoned, you are not articulate, you have not shown probabilities to support evolution (otherwise your stuff would be printed, not spooged upon some no-account forum such as this), and you are not one who can be reasoned with, etc., etc.

Were you able to argue against actual scholars in the field (I care little of what you claim for your job title), you would have a solid argument against the claims of the folks cited. But then again, these are peer-reviewed works, not the random bullsh!t buzzwords and differential equations what-what that you throw into every other conversation in a vain attempt to impress people with your esteemed knowledge.

But, of course, this only belies my shallowness, your inability to raise an adequate defense to this charge. How could it possibly be otherwise? As with any reasoned worldview which acknowledges God, the genius of you and other non-Godbotherers is not to be taken lightly.

Duly noted.