Atheists and fundamentalists - two sides of the same coin

I have hung out on forums like this one and I have hung out on so-called "Christian" forums and I am thoroughly convinced that both atheists and fundamentalists are two sides of the same coin. They are both uninformed, opinionated, and unable to accept correction or criticism. They both distort the truth to further their own agenda, and sometimes they outright lie.

Trying to reason with either of them is a total waste of time.

 

You mean fundamentalist atheists are no better than fundamentalist theists. Most atheists (like most theists) don’t even engage on these kind of forums, let alone play around in the gutter end. Some atheists don’t even consciously identify as atheist, they just happen to not believe in any gods but it doesn’t have any major impact on their daily lives.

In general terms, atheists and theists are no different in any way other than the one the terms refer to. Both groupings include extremist idiots and respectful geniuses plus the massive range in-between.

 

Atheism is a conclusion that only demands people give us sufficient evidence to change the position there is a lack of evidence for divine beings. However since that evidence would have to be based on Foundational Epistemology for me to consider it and meet the sensible scientific method that's a necessarily high bar. I point out even if lets say the god Vishnu appeared to me I would assume upon doing wonders it was an advanced alien life form or some other more rational option than a divinity since we now have the conception of extra terrestrials and science fiction this is not the dark ages.

But when I die I'll find out once I get past its not a dream or delusion but I'm dead that will be the only proof I can see happening that could prove theist claims for the time being.

 

Why do you even care? I don't believe in the Loch Ness Monster or UFO's, but I don't demand proof to the contrary. Neither do I concern myself with having to argue with people who do believe these things.

 

You might if people were directly presenting you with such beliefs though, especially if it was on the basis of them saying laws, school curriculums, government funding or the direction of scientific research should be changed as a consequence or that by not believing you were demonstrating some moral failing and were explicitly hating and attacking those who did.

 

Give me examples of all of those things, from within the past year. I, on the other hand, am constantly confronted with atheists attempting to sway public opinion and law. One need look no further than this bunch.

 

Which only goes to prove my point that questions on the existence of gods have more practical implications than those about the Loch Ness Monster or UFOs.

 

So you totally ignore nearly the entire Republican Party and its social conservative agenda???

 

Not to get too meta here, but why do you care that he cares? I don't concern myself with arguing with Loch Ness debunkers. What's the point of arguing with people who believe that they should debate against Nessie's existence?

Honestly, basing your entire opinion of a large group of people based on nothing more than the way that you have seen some of them argue on the internet is pretty flimsy. Most of the atheists I know don't debate with theists; hell, they are normally extremely selective about who even knows they are atheist to begin with. I'm not sure I've met a group that is less obsessed with making a public spectacle of their beliefs/disbeliefs, except maybe Unitarians and Quakers.

 

It's not true. Studies have shown that the average atheist knows more about religion, especially religions in general, than the average theist does. This post of yours is like a carbon copy of countless others I have seen on religious forums over the years. The argument though obviously not based in reality wants to paint all atheists as fundamentalists and will eventually if not right from the start try to suggest that atheism itself is a religion.

I assume that eventually in this thread we will hear you asking why atheists care about religion. This one question will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

How much time do you have? Gay marriage, abortion, God in science education, constant attempts to insert God into our government, publicly-funded religious monuments, the fight against sex ed, etc.

Because you are counting attempts to combat theist influence as an attempt "to sway public opinion and law."

. . . um, this bunch wouldn't exist if it weren't for the fact that theists were trying to sway public opinion and law. That's the whole point of "this bunch."

 

Lol and here it is. Second post of yours in, I think that might be a record. If you haven't spent enough time with atheists to know why they care you haven't spent enough time with them to make the claim in the OP.

Or perhaps you know and don't find the reasons valid in which case your idea of twisting the truth must only apply to those who disagree with you which would place you firmly in the category of fundamentalist by your own standards.

If you are unable to accept correction or criticism you'll be 5 for 5.

 

There are both tolerant and intolerant whether you are theists or atheists. The basic thing is character that determine who you are

 

Why shouldn't somebody who is ideologically opposed to something, not engage the other side, especially when one side attempts to impose their beliefs on those that do not share them? Be it religion or politics, its human nature.

 

Engaging the other side is fine, PROVIDING, you do not show open hostility and insult and deny the other's beliefs. Otherwise it is bigotry.

 

Not really. I think it comes down to people who need evidence to believe something and people who, for whatever reason, do not need evidence and have faith. Though I'd argue that a deeper analysis of this reveals who is correct. It's fine to be fundamentalist about adhering to basic logic and internal consistency, isn't it?

It'd all be a matter of personal philosophy if it wasn't for the fact that the sides are competing for influence where religion has been losing ground but is still dominant in most places. Religion has been very central to controlling how people value (or do not value) things, view the world, each other, and "others." I'd argue the net effect of this has been detrimental because we trade allegiance to the real for the imaginary, which is actually just an echo of the outdated morals of people in the past.

That might be going too far. Pretty hard to have any kind of meaningful engagement with somebody of an opposing view if you aren't going to deny that their beliefs are true.

 

Of course I will deny their beliefs as long as its based on anything but actual evidence and not dusty books, faith claims and dubious subjective support. Why should I respect faith its dubious and dangerous as an applied epistemology from my perspective? Faith to me is not special or any different than any other dangerous idea and should be treated as we do racists as something to be marginalized. As for hurting peoples feelings etc. its not my job to make other people comfortable I do respect people but ideas shouldn't get respect. I'm not apologizing for demanding beliefs based on some basis of evidence.

 

I have lost track of the times I have heard this BS, the reality is that atheists only think they know more about religion than theists. When questioned, they have a tendency to substitute their opinion for fact, then claim victory. This post of yours proves that.

 

I prefer to blame, infidels, protestants, and renegades.

 

If this post of yours was meant to be ironic it succeeded.


http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey/

Edited to say, you are now 5 for 5.

 

Yet another leftist who thinks "Christian" = Republican.

- - - Updated - - -

I asked for specifics, and you don't have them, just the same old whine.

 

I gave you several. Just the same old dodge.

The fight against gay marriage (In every state . . . how have you not heard of this?)
The fight to make abortion illegal and restrict access to it (ever hear of the pro-life movement?)
The fight to introduce God into science education (have you never heard of the intelligent design movement? I mean, seriously?)
Publicly-funded religious monuments (I find it hard to believe that you have also never heard of battles over 10 C monuments)
The fight against sex ed (Have you heard of the abstinence only movement?)

 

I don't know where they got those questions (or the people they got to answer them) but it sounds like BS to me. But just to show you my heart's in the right place, here's your chance to show me how much you know. What will it be? Systematics, Liturgics, (I'll bet you had to look that one up), how about Church history?

 

Two Words....KIM DAVIS.

There can be no clearer example of Christianity attempting to direct government activity.

 

Here's one the atheists screw up every time: are the followers of the Jehovah's Witness cult Christian? Why or why not. (Because they say they are is not an answer).