Penn & Teller on Creationism

[Mr Stabby]

The main issue is however, there are atheists who are zealously anti-religion, and they are making other atheists look bad.

 

[Tyguy]

The main issue is however, there are atheists who are zealously anti-religion, and they are making other atheists look bad.

But they arent starting wars over the fact, so besides annoying religious people, i dont see a big deal

 

[Gray Fox]

That passage is totally devoid of argument there.

I'll restate, the OED states you need to advocate the return to fundamental principles to be a fundamentalist.
Tell me, what principle do all atheist fundamentalists have in common.

BTW who's the guy in your avatar.

 

[Mr Stabby]

But they arent starting wars over the fact, so besides annoying religious people, i dont see a big deal

Here is the problem.

 

[Solaris]

BTW who's the guy in your avatar.

James Conolly, he led the army that defended the provisional government of Ireland in Dublin 1916 against British attack.

 

[Tyguy]

Here is the problem.

i dont see it as a problem. The problem is people dying for other peoples beliefs...

 

[Kadayi]

That passage is totally devoid of argument there.

No need to argue when you're all present and correct. The insistence that something is not, is as much a point/principle, as the insistence that it is in the realm of the intangible. There is no third option as you purport. You either believe in a godhead or you do not (agnosticism aside). If one can be classed as a fundamentalist for believing vehemently in the existence of a deity, it is logical that the same must be true if you vehemently believe the opposite. :dozey:

i dont see it as a problem. The problem is people dying for other peoples beliefs...

I think you'll find it's politics that's killing people these days. Al Quaeda might purport some religious views, but principally they are motivated to fight in Iraq against the Americans against what they see as US imperialism in the middle east.

 

[Solaris]

No need to argue when you're all present and correct. The insistence that something is not, is as much a point/principle, as the insistence that it is in the realm of the intangible. There is no third option as you purport. You either believe in a godhead or you do not (agnosticism aside). If one can be classed as a fundamentalist for believing vehemently in the existence of a deity, it is logical that the same must be true if you vehemently believe the opposite. :dozey:

No, you don't get to say "I don't need to put up an argument because I am right".

No-body is saying that fundamentalists believe in the existance of a god, the requirements for fundamentalism are more than that. They require the retreat to fundamental (and in this case religious) principles in spite of reason and evidence.

People like myself and Mr.Dawkins do not do this, because we simply believe in the power of Science and reasoning, if there was evidence to suggest there is a god, we would believe it. However, we have overwhelming evidence that tells us we evolved over a period of millions of years and so this is the belief we hold.

I think you'll find it's politics that's killing people these days. Al Quaeda might purport some religious views, but principally they are motivated to fight in Iraq against the Americans against what they see as US imperialism in the middle east.

That's completely wrong. Why do Al-Queida blow up iraqi school children and hospitals then? They want to establish an Islamist totalitarian regime and kill every-one who doesn't follow their religion.

 

[Mr Stabby]

That's completely wrong. Why do Al-Queida blow up iraqi school children and hospitals then? They want to establish an Islamist totalitarian regime and kill every-one who doesn't follow their religion.

Islam is a problem in what it can make people do, ie blowing themselves up in martyrdom, but it's still only a tool, the reason Al-Queda exists is political not theological. The Koran doesn't mention western imperialism.

 

[Pesmerga]

Oh please, you think Christianity starts any of the real wars anymore? It's all business. I got that epiphone a while ago. The Muslims and Jews fight for power, nothing more. Their rally cry might be a religious one, but the real blood is spilt over signatures for political warfare.

Islam is a problem in what it can make people do, ie blowing themselves up in martyrdom, but it's still only a tool, the reason Al-Queda exists is political not theological.

Exactly.

 

[Solaris]

Islam is a problem in what it can make people do, ie blowing themselves up in martyrdom, but it's still only a tool, the reason Al-Queda exists is political not theological. The Koran doesn't mention western imperialism.

Tell me, what secular poltical motivation is there for blowing up a school full of children?

 

[Eejit]

Tell me, what secular poltical motivation is there for blowing up a school full of children?

Extreme nationalism, potentially.

The Nazis weren't very nice.

 

[Pesmerga]

Tell me, what secular poltical motivation is there for blowing up a school full of children?

It's a political motivation in that it's a military strategy. As long as extremists groups like that are feared, their cause will appeal to more. This generates more recruits, more power and more money for a cause that is political in nature. It also destabilizes a country (in which a group like al qaeda thrives in), and will eventually send the American military back home.

Whether it's control over oil, territory, or just power, it's all political. There is no theological base for their actions, only that their religion is a good way to get people to do stupid shit.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Well as a PIRA supporter maybe you could tell us the rational behind blowing up civilians. The rational is probably that the chaos it causes will be bad for the American occupation.

 

[Solaris]

Well as a PIRA supporter maybe you could tell us the rational behind blowing up civilians. The rational is probably that the chaos it causes will be bad for the American occupation.

There is no defense for deliberately targeting civilians.

There are other anti-coallition groups that do not target civilians and have recently been known to co-operate with the Coallition to fight al-quedia.

 

[Pesmerga]

There is no defense for deliberately targeting civilians.

Who is saying there is?

 

[Solaris]

Stabby is saying I am.

 

[Pesmerga]

Oh, well, there's not. Subjectively, of course.

 

[Kadayi]

No, you don't get to say "I don't need to put up an argument because I am right".

I'm merely the conduit for the facts. If you can't handle them that's your problem.

No-body is saying that fundamentalists believe in the existence of a god, the requirements for fundamentalism are more than that. They require the retreat to fundamental (and in this case religious) principles in spite of reason and evidence.

But that statement doesn't hold up to real scrutiny Solaris, because the word fundamentalism is far more widely used than your singular definition/criteria (something the dictionaries acknowledge), so I really don't see why you're continuing to try and argue otherwise. Words evolve in their meaning all the time (it's a cultural thing). Smorgsbord original meant 'a buffet of meats & cheeses', but nowadays it's used a lot to describe a 'ensemble of differing elements' in a range of contexts.

It's a political motivation in that it's a military strategy. As long as extremists groups like that are feared, their cause will appeal to more. This generates more recruits, more power and more money for a cause that is political in nature. It also destabilizes a country (in which a group like al qaeda thrives in), and will eventually send the American military back home.

Whether it's control over oil, territory, or just power, it's all political. There is no theological base for their actions, only that their religion is a good way to get people to do stupid shit.

Well said.

 

[Solaris]

I'm merely the conduit for the facts. If you can't handle them that's your problem.



But that statement doesn't hold up to real scrutiny Solaris, because the word fundamentalism is far more widely used than your singular definition/criteria (something the dictionaries acknowledge), so I really don't see why you're continuing to try and argue otherwise. Words evolve in their meaning all the time (it's a cultural thing). Smorgsbord original meant 'a buffet of meats & cheeses', but nowadays it's used a lot to describe a 'ensemble of differing elements' in a range of contexts.

My definition? I'm just going on what you quoted from the OED.

I don't really care what you call these people, the issue is that you recognize the difference between basing your beliefs on reason and on fundamental principles. And how the two are not 'as bad as each other'.

 

[theotherguy]

My definition? I'm just going on what you quoted from the OED.

I don't really care what you call these people, the issue is that you recognize the difference between basing your beliefs on reason and on fundamental principles. And how the two are not 'as bad as each other'.

Exactly. In spite of Polokov's smug assertion to the contrary, the one and only requirement for being a fundamentalist is to demand adherence to traditional, fundamental principles. It has nothing to do with debating people over religious belief. And anyone who says otherwise, including the archbishop are simply being dishonest or ignorant of the definition. Our culture, (or more specifically, the religious right) may have made "fundamentalist" the new buzzword they can throw on people who are not fundamentalists, but it doesn't make their use of the word any more correct, any more than there exists a "war on Christmas" or "the New Atheism".

 

[jverne]

No, I'm literate, what's your excuse? :dozey:

ohh...look your penis just got a milliliter bigger...measuring a whole centimeter. congratulations!

Your probably right on that score.

MY GOD, IT'S 1.1 cm!!!!!

 

[Mr Stabby]

There is no defense for deliberately targeting civilians.

Except in the name of a united Ireland...

There are other anti-coallition groups that do not target civilians and have recently been known to co-operate with the Coallition to fight al-quedia.

They been known to co-operate if it benefits them, the enemy of my enemy.., Shi'a and Sunni militias have been carrying out plenty of sectarian killings on civilians.

 

[Nemesis6]

The ironic thing is, at this point, only God can get this thing back on topic! :/

 

[Kadayi]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fundamentalist

strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist

a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

In order to refute something there has to be a rationale in operation, it is not enough to simply deny it without justification when cross examined, or build a case for it. To deny that Atheist thinking (whether collectively or individually) is not built upon ideas or principles is patently absurd. Behind every no (slavery, abortion, freedom of speech, etc), there has to be a why. Unless you can refute that, I think we are done here.:dozey:

 

[Llama]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fundamentalist



http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist



In order to refute something there has to be a rationale in operation, it is not enough to simply deny it without justification when cross examined, or build a case for it. To deny that Atheist thinking (whether collectively or individually) is not built upon ideas or principles is patently absurd. Behind every no (slavery, abortion, freedom of speech, etc), there has to be a why. Unless you can refute that, I think we are done here.:dozey:

Sorry, at what point did you have to strictly adhere to the principal of not believing in a deity to by Atheist? Oh, wait, you don't. You just don't have to have a total belief in a god / gods. How can you strictly adhere to a lack of certainty?

 

[Kadayi]

Sorry, at what point did you have to strictly adhere to the principal of not believing in a deity to by Atheist? Oh, wait, you don't. You just don't have to have a total belief in a god / gods. How can you strictly adhere to a lack of certainty?

If you don't have a firm belief/rationale that there isn't a God then you are classed as an agnostic, not an atheist. This is a discussion about atheists, not agnostics. Stay on point if you wish to discuss.

 

[Llama]

I was under the mipression that an Agnostic is still an aetheist. Since he/she is not sure of the existance of a god, he/she is not a Theist, therefore, he/she is Atheist in his/her beliefs to a certain degree.

 

[Kadayi]

I was under the mipression that an Agnostic is still an aetheist. Since he/she is not sure of the existance of a god, he/she is not a Theist, therefore, he/she is Atheist in his/her beliefs to a certain degree.

That's a common misconception. An Agnostic is certainly someone who is skeptical of the existence of god/gods but isn't definitive on it, and might still believe in them. An Atheist is someone who asserts and rejects the notion of a God/Gods wholesale. Half these idiots arguing with me are probably agnostics when it comes down to it.

 

[Eejit]

I was under the mipression that an Agnostic is still an aetheist. Since he/she is not sure of the existance of a god, he/she is not a Theist, therefore, he/she is Atheist in his/her beliefs to a certain degree.

You can have agnostic theists. They believe that there is a God, but they don't pretend to know for certain.
Many scientists who believe in a God would be agnostic theists.

 

[Solaris]

That's a common misconception. An Agnostic is certainly someone who is skeptical of the existence of god/gods but isn't definitive on it, and might still believe in them. An Atheist is someone who asserts and rejects the notion of a God/Gods wholesale. Half these idiots arguing with me are probably agnostics when it comes down to it.

My god. We have debated this so many times and it has been shown, without doubt that agnostics are atheists.

Must you bring it up AGAIN? It's been discussed to death.

 

[Eejit]

Agnostics are not necessarily atheists. You failing to be convinced of that doesn't mean it isn't true.

 

[Solaris]

Look, you either believe in something, or you do not.

If you believe in a deity you are a theist, if not an 'atheist'.

 

[Eejit]

Look, you either believe in something, or you do not.

If you believe in a deity you are a theist, if not an 'atheist'.

/sigh
Still not getting it?

Agnostic theism—the view of those who do not claim to know existence of God or gods, but still believe in such an existence.

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.

Atheistic agnosticism—the view that god does not exist unless he exists outside of space and time. However, one cannot reasonably assume that outside of space and time even exists. Nor can one assume that outside of space and time doesn't exist. Therefore the god claim can never be asserted outside of logic. But based on logic god does not exist.