Atheist fundamentalism

Zombrex

Sangre wrote:

I have no idea how 'science' could be used as a guiding book. If it does prove religion untrue then what? It gives no guidance beyond that.

I was about to say the same thing.

Comparing religion with atheism doesn't really work, because you are not comparing like with like. Atheism is neither a religion or belief system. The term atheism doesn't describe what someone believes in.

When discussing "fundamentalists atheist" you have to first define what they are actually fundamentalists about, what do they believe in. Banning religion? Secular society? Abandonment of anything not scientific? Atheists may certainly believe these things, but not aways, and the term "atheist" won't help you determine this.

This thread would be better if it was discussing a belief compared to a belief. Say secularists vs people who believe the state should reflect the religion.

Schuhart

joe_chicken wrote:

But there's not enough drinking of blood,violent killings or massive ecological miracles for me

Here we should leverage the multimedia capabilities of the technology at our disposal. I suggest building in links to episodes of the “World at War” hosted on youtube.com. The sombre title music and narration give the right biblical feel to the whole thing.

bonkey wrote:

These Eight words the Rede fulfill:

"An Ye Harm None, Do What Ye Will"

I’m having an Alice in Wonderland moment, as in that bit where she tries to work out the difference between ‘I say what I mean’ and ‘I mean what I say’.

Does ‘harm nobody, whatever you do’ mean the same as ‘whatever you do, harm nobody’? Either way, have we now got the Rede down to five words?

Also, presumably doing no harm does not preclude doing good things for others. But is there any obligation to do good for others? Or does it just come back to the idea of treat others the way you would want to be treated? Which again, is slightly different to any of the variants above.

I think its a case of knowing what we want to say, but not quite having the right set of words yet to catch it all.

stevejazzx

Wicknight wrote:

I was about to say the same thing.

Comparing religion with atheism doesn't really work, because you are not comparing like with like. Atheism is neither a religion or belief system. The term atheism doesn't describe what someone believes in.

When discussing "fundamentalists atheist" you have to first define what they are actually fundamentalists about, what do they believe in. Banning religion? Secular society? Abandonment of anything not scientific? Atheists may certainly believe these things, but not aways, and the term "atheist" won't help you determine this.

This thread would be better if it was discussing a belief compared to a belief. Say secularists vs people who believe the state should reflect the religion.

Firstly the words 'guiding book' were not used until 'sangre' posted it phrased as thus, secondly the idea of science as some kind book, any kind of book to steer our moral code in the abscence of the religon was not what I was suggesting at all. The original idea was that if an extreme atheist sect was to start actively discouraging mainstreams religons would they have any justification in using a science or other accpeted worldly truths/facts as an means of defence for thier actions, just as various religons use thier holy books as thier excuse in times of criticism. So perhaps a careful examination of the original post might reveal that what I was actually talking about is something along the lines of what your suggesting, how valid is one belief against the next in consideration that one set will be without the backing of a diety.

Scofflaw

Schuhart wrote:

tries to work out the difference between ‘I say what I mean’ and ‘I mean what I say’.

Does ‘harm nobody, whatever you do’ mean the same as ‘whatever you do, harm nobody’? Either way, have we now got the Rede down to five words?

Also, presumably doing no harm does not preclude doing good things for others. But is there any obligation to do good for others? Or does it just come back to the idea of treat others the way you would want to be treated? Which again, is slightly different to any of the variants above.

I think its a case of knowing what we want to say, but not quite having the right set of words yet to catch it all.

"The greatest good of the greatest number" is the usual pithy formulation - which leaves you free to argue about what 'good' is. "Do as you would be done by" and "do as you will, but harm no-one" are good rules, but are encompassed in the overall concept of utilitarianism.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Asiaprod

bonkey wrote:

It might be...but its also probably a derivative of something much older:

These Eight words the Rede fulfill:

"An Ye Harm None, Do What Ye Will"

Probably not quite for this discussion, but I find the first verse of this Rede to be inspiring.

"Bide within the Law you must, in perfect Love and perfect Trust.
Live you must and let to live, fairly take and fairly give."

That kind of sums it all up for me at least.

*not sure of the correct protocol to follow when quoting from the Rede, it is not my intention to offend*

Zombrex

stevejazzx wrote:

The original idea was that if an extreme atheist sect was to start actively discouraging mainstreams religons would they have any justification in using a science or other accpeted worldly truths/facts as an means of defence for thier actions, just as various religons use thier holy books as thier excuse in times of criticism.

Ok, that is clearer.

I suppose it would depend on what you mean by discouraging.

I don't think anyone has the right to tell others what they can or cannot believe. That doesn't matter if science shows that what you believe is complete nonsense.

Having said that there are limits to how far this can be take. The right of Creationists to believe the world was made in 6 days some 6000 years ago doesn't extend to them having the right to having this belief taught in a public science classroom.

From their point of view they would probably view this restriction as "fundamentalist atheism" gone nuts. A lot of Creationists seem to genuinely believe that science is on their side but this is being ignored by fundamentalists atheists

stevejazzx wrote:

how valid is one belief against the next in consideration that one set will be without the backing of a diety.

I think the backing of a deity only matters if you believe in that deity. To a Christian the Bible is proof of Gods love. To a Hindu or an atheists it is a book written by a group of men in the Middle East.

If you are asking does society tolerate religious fundamentalist points of view more than "extreme" atheists points of view, then I would have to say yes it appears that it does. I think that has to do with the perception that atheism is an act on religion, where as other religions are just differences of opinion or circumstance.

While a Hindu will undoubtedly believe that a Christian is wrong in his beliefs, the fact that a Hindu exists seems to cause less offence that an atheists existing. I think religious humans put value in spiritual belief, even if it isn't the same believe as theirs. Atheism is seen therefore as lacking in a fundamental human trait. It is also seem as an attack on that trait.

Zillah

I've always had a problem with the notion of "fundamentalist X". Its pretty much the same as "x" but more crazy and evil. Is there an actual definition for fundamentalism or is everyone buying into the subtle "crazy and evil" notion?

If its to do with intolerance and literal belief in texts, then surely its a spectrum rather than a binary situation? "Moderate" Christians, are to me, insane. However, they're less crazy and evil, so they piss me off less, so I can stand them. But to imply there is some objective difference between the nature of their belief and that of fundamentalist Christians would be foolish. As said, they just happen to piss me off less, which is very much my own subjective point of view. They still believe in magic for no good reason. Thats as absurd a position to me as a Muslim who wants to kill me, it just happens to be less offensive.

stevejazzx

Wicknight wrote:

Ok, that is clearer.

I suppose it would depend on what you mean by discouraging.

I don't think anyone has the right to tell others what they can or cannot believe. That doesn't matter if science shows that what you believe is complete nonsense.

Ok, this is exactly where I was intending to go on this...As you say in you're next point this needs to be capped(the extent that people can believe whatever they want irrespective of science). People believing the world is 6000 thousand years old is insanity. Isn't it unhealthy for people to be believing in myths when greater truths are available?

wicknight wrote:

Having said that there are limits to how far this can be take. The right of Creationists to believe the world was made in 6 days some 6000 years ago doesn't extend to them having the right to having this belief taught in a public science classroom.

I couldn't agree more on the general point here about creationism trying to impose itself as a serious subject upon the educational curricula, however i don't think we can simply turn a blind to those who want to believe in this for it stands then that they have the opportunity to teach (in schoools or not) this misinformation and spread it upon the most vulnerable in our society, childern.

wicknight wrote:

From their point of view they would probably view this restriction as "fundamentalist atheism" gone nuts. A lot of Creationists seem to genuinely believe that science is on their side but this is being ignored by fundamentalists atheists

Then I suppose the only thing for this scenario would be to settle things using science, real independant testing and analyisis of all faiths. Involving thousands of reasearchers and scientists across the globe (all Independantly slected by Richard dawkins, Carl sagan, Dan dennet) and faith by faith each one is accredited incrementally based the amount of independantly verifiable evidence which can be attributed to it. Like a kind of premier league for mainstream religons. There could be weekly play offs for e.g

Commentator: this week Atheism VS Islam. It's gonna be a tough match. Neither side likes to give away anything. Of course after last weeks triumphant win over Christianity, Atheism is feeling very confident but It'll find Islam a much tougher competitor.

wicknight wrote:

If you are asking does society tolerate religious fundamentalist points of view more than "extreme" atheists points of view, then I would have to say yes it appears that it does. I think that has to do with the perception that atheism is an act on religion, where as other religions are just differences of opinion or circumstance.

So essentially society is more tolerable on the side which is least likely to to true.?

wicknight wrote:

While a Hindu will undoubtedly believe that a Christian is wrong in his beliefs, the fact that a Hindu exists seems to cause less offence that an atheists existing. I think religious humans put value in spiritual belief, even if it isn't the same believe as theirs. Atheism is seen therefore as lacking in a fundamental human trait. It is also seem as an attack on that trait.

That is my belief also: that Atheism is aprreciated less for being more real.

Dades

stevejazzx wrote:

So essentially society is more tolerable on the side which is least likely to to true?

Fundamentalism may be the ugly step-child of religion - but if you're religious - it's still family. Atheism is the smug brat from next door who thinks he has all the answers.

stevejazzx wrote:

Involving thousands of reasearchers and scientists across the globe (all Independantly slected by Richard dawkins, Carl sagan, Dan dennet)

If Carl Sagan starts selecting scholars for research boards that raises a whole bunch of new questions.

stevejazzx

The Atheist wrote:

Fundamentalism may be the ugly step-child of religion - but if you're religious - it's still family. Atheism is the smug brat from next door who thinks he has all the answers.

I don't follow your logic, in this case no matter what by product religon produces it is somehow more acceptable because it came from religon in the first place?


And i know this sounds cheesy but i've never thought of Athiesm as 'having all the answers' but rather a search for answers, a search beginning with the disaccreditation of all kinds of mumbo jumbo!

atheist wrote:

If Carl Sagan starts selecting scholars for research boards that raises a whole bunch of new questions.

I was being very 'tongue in cheek' in that paragraph...

interestinguser

And i know this sounds cheesy but i've never thought of Athiesm as 'having all the answers' but rather a search for answers, a search beginning with the disaccreditation of all kinds of mumbo jumbo!

Yes, as would I, religous types won't see it like that however. A common misconception of atheist is that they think they have all the answers. Another is that they are arrogant. What I don't get is how is someone says that there absolutely is no god and I know that for fact, they are branded arrogant, think you know it all etc etc, but if you just take out the 'no' in the sentance and say the same thing then you aren't.

Dades

stevejazzx wrote:

I don't follow your logic, in this case no what what by product religon produces it is somehow more acceptable that it came from in the first place from religon?

I'm a bit confused now myself.

Perhaps the main point is it's not my logic - it was my take on the logic that allows fundamentalism to be accepted ahead of atheism.

And as interestinguser (!) says - atheism is oft wrongly accused of claiming to know all the answers, when we all know that to be rubbish.

stevejazzx

I've edited that sentence now...yes, with a few typos and poor wording I made it very confusing, it should (hopefully) make a bit more sense now.

It should of read:

stevejazzx wrote:

I don't follow your logic, in this case no matter what by product religon produces it is somehow more acceptable because it came from religon in the first place?

Dades

stevejazzx wrote:

I don't follow your logic, in this case no matter what by product religon produces it is somehow more acceptable because it came from religon in the first place?

I guess that's what I was suggesting. But again, not my logic - just a suggestion of how the logic of others might be working.

Remember the fundie muslim guy in The Root of All Evil? He hated Jews and Christians, but when he heard Dawkins was an atheist he nearly lost it.