You atheists are no different to people banging on about how 29ers are stupid without ever having ridden one.

Will we go to hell if we decide not to?

What utter bobbins

Atheism is not a belief.

The belief in the superiority of religious people is absolutely inherent and central to the faith. Otherwise it would be pointless and there would be no drive to convert. All you need to do is read the pronouncements even moderate leaders with an open mind to see this.

“chosen people” “righteous”

Well, another day, another religious thread. These are so predictable and soooo (in my opinion) pointless. A hundred and fifty something posts, and as ever, it goes nowhere. What would some of you people do without this to argue about? As far as I can see, nobody is trying to ‘convert’ anybody, and nobody is using religion on this thread to view anybody as ‘lessor’ than themselves. I’m not going to use the word ‘respect’, as that just seems to give people something else to rear up about, so how about some manners? A lot of people have personal beliefs, which they dont attempt to impose on others, so why would you feel it’s ok to insult them?

What is a fundamentalist atheist? What are the fundamentals of atheism that must be adhered to in order to attain the title?

What would some of you people do without this to argue about?

Work! Anyway if God didnt want us to debate it he wouldnt have given us the Internet!

😀

Mitch, most of us are just engaging in debate.

People from the non belief side are perfectly willing to explain our non belief, in the context of debate.
You’re more than welcome to question my views, laugh at them if you like.
I won’t be offended.

If you wish to justify an opinion, sadly, you have to expect the same in return, from some at least.
It’s just human nature, part of the the ineffable whotsit of thingy, er life.

We’ve luckily reached a stage of evolution in a minority of countries where this kind of game is now possible.
Don’t take your ball in because the other side are now, finally allowed to play by the same rules.

Rusty – I dont, for a single second, have a problem with debate. I enjoy p**s taking as much as the next person, and dont take any offence from it. What I get annoyed about (to be honest, I even think ‘annoyed’ is too strong a term) is the assertion that if you dont want to touch Dawkins where he wees, you’re some kind of moron.

Me and MSP still want to qualify for “fundamentalist” status. Do we get badges?

“A lot of people have personal beliefs, which they dont attempt to impose on others, so why would you feel it’s ok to insult them?”

Couldn’t agree more Mr B Match but more importantly…

Is your wife wearing a woolly jumper today?

is the assertion that if you dont want to touch Dawkins where he wees, you’re some kind of moron.

Its often believers who bring up Dawkins*.

*Other authors exist.

She left for work at about six Ro5ey , and as I recall, she was sporting some sort of suit thing. I do like to imagine there was a jumper under there somewhere though!

Tme for some culture, then:
“The sea is calm to-night.
The tide is full, the moon lies fair
Upon the straits; on the French coast the light
Gleams and is gone; the cliffs of England stand;
Glimmering and vast, out in the tranquil bay.
Come to the window, sweet is the night-air!
Only, from the long line of spray
Where the sea meets the moon-blanched land,
Listen! you hear the grating roar
Of pebbles which the waves draw back, and fling,
At their return, up the high strand,
Begin, and cease, and then again begin,
With tremulous cadence slow, and bring
The eternal note of sadness in.

Sophocles long ago
Heard it on the Aegean, and it brought
Into his mind the turbid ebb and flow
Of human misery; we
Find also in the sound a thought,
Hearing it by this distant northern sea.

The Sea of Faith
Was once, too, at the full, and round earth’s shore
Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furled.
But now I only hear
Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar,
Retreating, to the breath
Of the night-wind, down the vast edges drear
And naked shingles of the world.

Ah, love, let us be true
To one another! for the world, which seems
To lie before us like a land of dreams,
So various, so beautiful, so new,
Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light,
Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;
And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.”

Say hello, wave byebye.

Sorry about that surfer, I was just being lazy, and it wont happen again. 😉

fundamentalist atheist described: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/my-new-years-eve-dream-ab_b_37567.html?

Essentially: The fundamentalist atheists are an active and highly vocal subset of atheists who object to a great many things, not the least of which is being described as ‘fundamentalist atheists.

Sound about right? or are you now trying to say that TJ isn’t highly vocal, who objects to pretty much everything? (including himself when he gets confused).

Happy Days !!

Haven’t read all the thread but just to throw in a thought:
God doesn’t have a religion, we chose to spilt up the teachings of holy men whether it was Jesus, Allah, Krishna, whoever, to serve our own purposes.
The core of all fundamental teachings is the same and they often cross reference each other.
If we took one thing from all these teachings it would have to be:- LOVE ALL.
Somewhere in our interpretation of all these teachings we seem to have forgotten that simple bit.

The fundamentalist atheists are an active and highly vocal subset of atheists who object to a great many things, not the least of which is being described as ‘fundamentalist atheists.

Bit like errr…. Atheists then?

Fromn this point on I will refer to myself as an “extreme fudamentalist atheist” just to give it… you know.. a bit more cred.

that ok, as long as its me,me,me,me,me,me,me,me,me,me et al. your atheist views will be fine.

Well, another day, another religious thread. These are so predictable…..

Most of the posts from the free-thinking, libertarian atheist could in fact just be cut’n’pated from the last thread – nothing new to say, just the same old generalisations and provocations 😆

Somewhere in our interpretation of all these teachings we seem to have forgotten that simple bit.

Really? what about where the “love” is obscured by the killing and smiting bit? or is that just another misinteretation?

Atheism is not a belief.

Not really possible to prove the non-existence of God, so I think I do classify it as a belief.

“chosen people” “righteous”

Have you spent much time with religious people, TJ? They don’t all talk like that. It does say that kind of thing a lot in the Bible, but then you’re onto the subject of how literally one interprets the Bible, which I believe has been discussed at some length already 🙂

The fundamentalist atheists are an active and highly vocal subset of atheists who object to a great many things, not the least of which is being described as ‘fundamentalist atheists.

Bit like errr…. Atheists then?

Not really. I’m an atheist, and I’m arguing for religion, had you noticed?

The fundamentalist atheists are an active and highly vocal subset of atheists who object to a great many things, not the least of which is being described as ‘fundamentalist atheists.

OK so there is no blowing up, crashing into things, general killing and maiming involved. They sound a lot safer to be around than the fundamental religious types.

Not really possible to prove the non-existence of God, so I think I do classify it as a belief.

In the same way as NOT believing in the tooth fairy is a “belief” I like your thinking 😀

The fundamentalist atheists are an active and highly vocal subset of atheists who object to a great many things, not the least of which is being described as ‘fundamentalist atheists.

Bit like errr…. Atheists then?

Not really. I’m an atheist, and I’m arguing for religion, had you noticed?

No. How does that make any sense?

Mitch, for the vast majority of human existance, religion has been forced on to societies as a means of control.

Finally, people are now, in a very small number of places, allowed to question this.
Not surprising that they use a vocal, erudite public figure as a means of shorthand when expressing their views.
Sound familiar?

The big difference is that no one is claiming that Dawkins will give them eternal life or absolve them of their sins.

The fact that when told to think for themselves, some people miss the point by a mile is again a wonderful and ironic example of human falability, or evolution in action, as you prefer.

How could it not make sense?

I don’t believe in God, but I strongly object to the mis-interpretation of religious teachings and beliefs apparently for the sole purpose of insulting people’s intelligence. Not very nice, and also pretty friggin feeble from an intellectual point of view.

How could it not make sense?

I don’t believe in God, but I strongly object to the mis-interpretation of religious teachings and beliefs apparently for the sole purpose of insulting people’s intelligence. Not very nice, and also pretty friggin feeble from an intellectual point of view.

So where does the “fundamentalist atheist” bit come in that you were refering to?

I thought you were saying that all atheists are “an active and highly vocal subset of atheists who object to a great many things”..?

If not, then please accept my apologies and ignore my last few posts.

nasty bunch of zealots determined to force their views on others

I completely agree, anyone who tries to impose their own personal belief on others doesn’t deserve the time of day and shouldn’t be given access to public forums.

If not, then please accept my apologies and ignore my last few posts.

Apology not required 🙂

And I really, really dont have a problem with that rusty – we should question things, that’s healthy. My sole objection is to being labelled as stupid for believing in God. We’re not all fundamentalist, creationist homophobes, and I, for one, dont take the bible literally, and I dont automatically do what the bloke in the pointy hat tells me to do. I’m very much aware that this is ‘cherry picking’ with regards to Catholicism, but I think I can live with that. 🙂

Mitch, for the vast majority of human existance, religion has been forced on to societies as a means of control.

I am sorry that’s bollocks, Homo sapiens emerged around 200,000 years ago. First written word is around 600BC, so how on earth can you say for the majority of human existence religion has been used to control society? As we don’t actually have a clue what happened for the vast majority of our species existence on this planet.

As you are an atheist please provide some facts to backup your statement as without proof nothing can exist.

Or do you want to change that to

for the vast majority of *MY* existance, religion has been forced on to societies as a means of control.

As you seem believe the whole universe revolves around you.

In the same way as NOT believing in the tooth fairy is a “belief” I like your thinking

Of course, so therefore it naturally falls to those who say there’s no tooth fairy to prove that there’s no tooth fairy.

Doesn’t it….

No. In the absence of any means of proof, we are all free to believe as we see fit. And there’s really no point in arguing about it or slagging each other off.

END OF THREAD.

Booyah!

If you don’t like to read it, don’t. The idea that one is supposed to keep ones widely held, mainstream and inoffensive views to oneself just to protect your little mind is quite ridiculous.

Yes you should ram it down our throats and insists that it is not offensive as another person dies of AIDS whilst you wage holy war against the Infidels for your god or gods

read an interesting book on religion, which pointed out that many fundamentalist atheists are so because they can’t believe that there is anyone or anything in the world more important than them …

yes that right anyone who disagrees with god is almost certainly an ego manic who thinks the world resolves around them… Obviously when you have no actual arguments to put forward to support your view you should do the rational thing and slur all those who disagree with your view in an ad hominem attack….i am pretty sure this is what Jesus would do

also pointed out that many fundamentalist atheists justify there beliefs by highlighting the extremists in religions (such as the god hates fags lot) to justify there extreme Ego belief system.

See above this is not even an argument it is just an insult masquerading as a point
So when I say God hates fag is an aspect of religious intolerance what I really mean is I am an ego maniac and I am the most important thing EVER. That is even less credible and rational than your belief in a god. What a terrible argument

From http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/my-new-years-eve-dream-ab_b_37567.html?

They’re dogmatic. Their movement is based on a piece of dogma which can’t be challenged without enraging them.

Has this man read any holy book. ..what an odd argument he seems confused between an atheist and a person of faith

Fundamentalist atheists think they already know, without study.

I did not read any further as that point is BS you cannot reasonably accuse those who don’t adhere to the big sky fairy as the ones who don’t study. To be fair both sides study but neither has any evidence so take your pick have some faith or assume it is not real.

Not really possible to prove the non-existence of God, so I think I do classify it as a belief.

You cannot prove a negative so the list of beliefs you must have is limitless as the set includes everything made up that has no actual evidence to support it
Not a wise way to live your life IMHO

In the absence of any means of proof, we are all free to believe as we see fit.

Its daft to accept everything you cannot disprove as you cannot disprove anything false I just make up.
The invisible spaghetti monster or the earth resting on invisble turtles standing on invisible elephants as not accepting this as true.
Can I go on..I get your point but it a daft principle by which you choose to assimilate information. It makes no sense to accept things which have no evidence but yes you can if you wish.
Ps if these beliefs are not culturally acceptable you are classified as mad – they need the caveat of culturally accepted to stop us saying religious folk were mad

In the absence of any means of proof, we are all free to believe as we see fit

Strange how the religious keep asking the atheists to “prove” the absence of their ridiculous deity thing, then.

A sort of desperate fall-back position.

You atheists are no different to people banging on about how 29ers are stupid without ever having ridden one.

By that argument I’m qualified to say Christians are stupid. (-:

I read an interesting book on religion, which pointed out that many fundamentalist atheists are so because they can’t believe that there is anyone or anything in the world more important than them

Pro-religion text in “making things up” shocker. Does the author provide any evidence for this? Or does she just know that most people reading it will be used to disregarding a need for evidence in favour of “it’s in a book so it must be true.”

The core of all fundamental teachings is the same and they often cross reference each other.
If we took one thing from all these teachings it would have to be:- LOVE ALL.

That’s a lovely thought. It’s a pity that the practice doesn’t seem to quite work like that. Perhaps it’d be more accurate to say “LOVE ALL (so long as they’re like us or we can make them like us)”.

Not really possible to prove the non-existence of God, so I think I do classify it as a belief.

We’ve done this before. It’s not a belief, it’s an absence of belief, which might sound pedantic but it’s an important distinction. For example, do you think that there aren’t tiny pink unicorns in your skirting board? Would you call that a belief?

Strange how the religious keep asking the atheists to “prove” the absence of their ridiculous deity thing, then.

prove it! 😆