| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Atheistic fundamentalism | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 22 2007, 09:02 AM (4,617 Views) | |
| John D'Oh | Dec 22 2007, 09:02 AM Post #1 |
|
MAMIL
|
Link 'The Archbishop of Wales, Dr Barry Morgan, has described a rise in "fundamentalism" as one of the great problems facing the world. He focused on what he described as "atheistic fundamentalism". He said it led to situations such as councils calling Christmas "Winterval", schools refusing to put on nativity plays and crosses removed from chapels. In his Christmas message, he said: "Any kind of fundamentalism, be it Biblical, atheistic or Islamic, is dangerous." The archbishop said "atheistic fundamentalism" was a new phenomenon. He said it advocated that religion in general and Christianity in particular have no substance, and that some view the faith as "superstitious nonsense". God is not exclusive, he is on the side of the whole of humanity with all its variety Archbishop of Wales, Dr Barry Morgan As well as leading to Christmas being called "Winterval," the archbishop said "virulent, almost irrational" attacks on Christianity led to hospitals removing all Christian symbols from their chapels, and schools refusing to allow children to send Christmas cards with a Christian message. He also said it led to things like "airlines refusing staff the freedom to wear a cross round their necks" in a reference to the row in which British Airways (BA) suspended an employee who insisted on wearing a cross necklace. Dr Morgan said: "All of this is what I would call the new "fundamentalism" of our age. It allows no room for disagreement, for doubt, for debate, for discussion. Children's nativity play Only one in five schools perform a traditional nativity, say bishops "It leads to the language of expulsion and exclusivity, of extremism and polarisation, and the claim that because God is on our side, he is not on yours." He said the nativity story in St Luke's Gospel, in contrast, had a "message of joy and good news for everyone". He said: "God is not exclusive, he is on the side of the whole of humanity with all its variety." Dr Morgan said it was "perfectly natural" to have a "coherent and rational debate about the tenets of the Christianity". But he said "virulent, almost irrational" attacks on it were "dangerous" because they refused to allow any contrary viewpoint and also affected the public perception of religion. Dr Morgan's Christmas message comes after the general director of the Evangelical Alliance, the Rev Joel Edwards, compared militant atheists to King Herod in their intolerance of religious faith. Their remarks follow the rise of outspoken atheists such as Oxford University scientist Richard Dawkins, whose book The God Delusion, has been a bestseller.' |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Dec 22 2007, 09:13 AM Post #2 |
|
Senior Carp
|
What hypocrites!! |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Dec 22 2007, 09:19 AM Post #3 |
|
MAMIL
|
Why? I don't really see the Archbishop of Wales or his church as stifling religious debate and alternative views. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| TomK | Dec 22 2007, 09:24 AM Post #4 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Jeffery is a bitter little man.
|
![]() |
|
| Larry | Dec 22 2007, 09:25 AM Post #5 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Exactly the response one would expect from an atheist fundamentalist...... |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Dec 22 2007, 10:29 AM Post #6 |
|
MAMIL
|
I think that 'fundamentalist' is the wrong word - isn't what he really means 'extremism'? |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Dec 22 2007, 10:52 AM Post #7 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
I like Christmas, nativity plays are quite nice i have no real issue with them, i like carols are very much. As an evangelical atheist i have no truck with any of that. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Dec 22 2007, 10:59 AM Post #8 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Could be, since the word used to describe a person who doesn't believe in God but is tolerant is "agnostic", and the word used to describe a person who doesn't believe in God and is extremist about it is "atheist".... |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Dec 22 2007, 11:46 AM Post #9 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
Gibberish. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Dec 22 2007, 11:52 AM Post #10 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
That's *always* what one hears when they don't understand what they're hearing... |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| TomK | Dec 22 2007, 11:53 AM Post #11 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
An agnostic is someone who doesn't know for certain if there is a God or not--a reasonable defalt position, if I do say so myself. And atheist is someone with a "faith" that God doesn't exist, because in atheism is a positive belief in (this case) the nonexistance of a thing. |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Dec 22 2007, 11:57 AM Post #12 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
So, atheism is a religion. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| TomK | Dec 22 2007, 12:01 PM Post #13 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Hallelujah! You found it brother!
|
![]() |
|
| sue | Dec 22 2007, 12:06 PM Post #14 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Good grief boys. Why this need to put a label on a non-belief? Do you have a word for someone who doesn't think Santa is real? Or the tooth fairy? Not believing in something that seems pretty imaginary is hardly a 'religion'. |
![]() |
|
| TomK | Dec 22 2007, 12:08 PM Post #15 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Because a lack of proof cannot constitute disproof, and a lack of belief is vastly different from a state of active disbelief. It wouldn't hurt to hone down EXACTLY what belief really is. Rather than disbelieving in God, based on the lack of evidence, wouldn't it be more reasonable to recognize that we cannot be certain that new evidence won't turn up in the future, and so it's best to intentionally remain tentative and always continue one's inquiry? Maybe any dogmatism as a disease of the mind. Agnositicism is logically superior to atheism. |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Dec 22 2007, 01:31 PM Post #16 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
Yeah but it's also what one hears when listening to a drivelling nonsense like this:
|
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | Dec 22 2007, 01:41 PM Post #17 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
[size=14]TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO![/size]
|
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Dec 22 2007, 01:54 PM Post #18 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
Tom your use of the term is quite extreme and if you are going to think of "atheism" in that way then you have to bear in mind that by your definitions Richard Dawkins is an agnostic, so is Daniel Dennet, so is Sam Harris, so is Christopher Hitchens, so was Betrand Russel, so are almost all "evangelical" or "fundamentalist" "atheists". Different people use these terms in slightly different ways - some people like me, think of atheism, simply as not-theism. Thus there only two kinds of people there are theists and not-theists. The term agnostic then is a subcategory of not-theism. Using this definition I'm an agnostic atheist. By contrast Dawkins goes along with the slightly more common conception of atheism with regards to likelyhood/probability/certainity , so theists are at the end the scale regarding God as very probable, atheists are at the other end of the scale believing God is very improbable and agnostics sit somewhere in the middle a kind of 50:50 position. Using this definition i'm an atheist. You are presenting a more extreme version where "atheism" then equates to 100% belief or complete certainty in 'no God', which involves necessarily discounting the possibility of future information challenging that hypothesis. (A position that i would agree with you constitutes faith). Presumably you place "theism" as the opposite number equating to 100% beliefs, discounting possibility of error and hence constituting also faith. Then you place everything else into the agnostic category. Using this terminology i'm an agnostic and i would agree it is the only sensible position. The key of course is that it doesn't matter what words one uses, which ever of these various definitions one happens to use and hence whether one considers people like me or Dawkins as "atheists" or "agnostics" or whatever makes no difference. The ideas, the actual views about the world are unchanged by what words one uses to describe them. Edit: I suppose i should actually address Larry's inane comment.... no i'm sorry it was too stupid for words and anyone who can't see that is probably beyond help anyway. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| TomK | Dec 22 2007, 02:34 PM Post #19 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Maybe so. But it won't hurt to define what we really mean when we bandy words around. And Moon you're are going in to the semantics of the words--not my meaning at all. You can't "know" there is no God. Just because your senses don't "report" to you some supreme creature does or doesn't is in no way a sign that he exists or doesn't exist. You can't honestly take a real position of the existance of God without any clear evidence one way or other. The fact that you have no sensory data tells you nothing--and I mean "nothing." To be completely rational you would have to withhold judgment untill you had proof one way or the other. That would put you as an agnostic (correct?--don't mean to put words in your mouth. ) And realisticly--you have no more information about God's existance than I do. I just "choose" on a 50-50 wager to go one way and you another. You are as right in you "belief" about the existance of God as I am. |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Dec 22 2007, 02:37 PM Post #20 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Moonie, after that addled post of your's, it's obvious why you think what I said is inane and "too stupid for words". You have redefined the commonly accepted definitions of the words atheist and agnostic, and then as is typical for you, tortured the subject to death through extreme bloviation and mental masturbation which I can only surmise is an attempt to show us all how "intellectual" you are. As you have already informed us that Wiki is a credible source for all our research needs, let me give you their definition of "agnostic": "Agnosticism (from the Greek a, meaning "without", and gnosticism or gnosis, meaning "knowledge") is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims—particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of God, gods, deities, or even ultimate reality—is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently unknowable due to the nature of subjective experience. Agnostics claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of God or gods; or, alternatively, that while individual certainty may be possible, they personally have no knowledge. Agnosticism in both cases involves some form of skepticism. Some agnostics are termed agnostic theists since, while they do not claim to know any deity exists, they do believe (with varying degrees on skepticism) in, at least, one." Now Moonie, unless you would like to confess to some sort of recent epiphany in regards to your own personal views on God where you have come to the realization that God *may* exist, you just don't know, absent of that revelation on your part you have consistently made it quite clear that you do not doubt God's existence, you know for a *fact* God doesn't exist. That makes you an atheist, Moonie. No amount of tortured redefining of words will allow you to consider yourself an agnostic in any form or fashion. You see Moonie, an agnostic can actually believe in God. Again, citing from your favored source of information: "Agnostic theism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. An agnostic theist is one who views that the truth value of certain claims, in particular the existence of god(s) is unknown or inherently unknowable but chooses to believe in god(s) in spite of this. There are contrasting views of the term." Then Moonie, one can be an agnostic atheist by saying (once again quotiing from your favored source for research: "Agnostic atheism—the view of those who do not know of the existence or nonexistence of God or gods, and do not believe in them. An agnostic atheist would say "I don't know, but I don't think so." Now Moonie, you don't say "I don't know, but I don't think so." You say "I know, and there is no God." That makes you an atheist, Moonie. Not an agnostic theist, not an agnostic atheist, just an atheist. And atheism is a faith based belief, Moonie. It is a belief in nothing, based on faith, not facts. You cannot prove God doesn't exist any more than I can prove he does. That makes you a fundamentalist, Moonie. It makes you a follower of a religion. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Dec 22 2007, 02:37 PM Post #21 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Moonbat - An additional point to be made is that no one calls themselves "agnostics" about Santa Claus, or the tooth fairy, or wood sprites and elves and the like, constantly searching for more information on these issues, over the age of about 3 or 4. It is interesting that as science has made religious belief increasingly untenable, religious believers have retreated from claiming that their views are objectively true, to a sort of weird epistemic relativism. |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Dec 22 2007, 02:45 PM Post #22 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Well Jeffrey, that's just about the silliest thing I've read in awhile.
The notion that science has made religious belief increasingly untenable is wishful thinking on your part, Jeffrey. It's done nothing of the sort. In fact, the deeper science delves into the complexities of our existence, the more obvious it becomes that we're looking not at evidence that God isn't, but of how God accomplished it. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Jack Frost | Dec 22 2007, 03:25 PM Post #23 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Yes, exactly. There is a huge difference. jf |
| |
![]() |
|
| TomK | Dec 22 2007, 03:27 PM Post #24 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
No relativism at all. I for one am not claiming objctive truth and I have a problem with athiests claiming truth also--all in the face of that which is at this time unknown. I am looking for a greater understanding of what we can and cannot claim as "true." If we have no experience of a thing for good or ill--we can't claim to have any knowledge of that thing. As far as Santa Claus goes--people have been to the North Pole, the things expected of Santa Claus are not delivered. He's somthing of a known quantity. On the other hand--God may or may not deliver on his promises--but unlike Santa Claus--people think he does deliver. No proof again, but no disproof either. |
![]() |
|
| Jack Frost | Dec 22 2007, 03:30 PM Post #25 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Larry, I think the Wiki definition is a good one but it is a far cry from your original definitions, which I find just wrong:
jf |
| |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |









6:29 AM Jul 11