Athiest fundamentalists

Has anyone else noticed a greater number of over-enthusiastic athiests in the real world these days? A few of the non-believers out there are no longer content to deny the existence of god and his pals, they now feel they have the right to ram their opinions down your throat.

For the record I dont believe in god and I used to think that made me an athiest but ever since the recent wave of athiest fundamentalism emerged I no longer wish to be associated with these nutters. I've managed to live my life in a state of blissful apathy so far and as far as I'm concerned people can believe in whatever the hell they like. The most annoying thing I've had to put up with from christians/muslims/scientologists is being handed a leaflet by a well meaning man or woman in the street but athiests seem to think that they have the god-given right (okay so tht's a bad choice of words) to bore me rigid with their stories about spaghetti monsters or whatever it is they don't believe in.

Hs anyone else noticed an increase in these dull people or am I just getting old and I've found something new to moan about?

Unfortunately there are more of them.  Probably encouraged by the likes of Richard Dawkins, who is religious about being an atheist.  I find it all a bit weird given that either side doesn't have a "100%" truth, and has to take a leap of  "faith" as to what is more probable for them.

I love the South Park episode where Richard Dawkins marries Mrs Garrison and both turn the entire world atheist.
Problem is that there are 2 atheist sects fighting and waging war against each other. It was hilarious!

Personally I'm getting fed up with fundamentalist atheists as much as religious nuts.
I fuckin' hate how extremely religious people think that they are the moral and ethical authority everyone should follow, but I also hate the condescending attitude of certain atheists who think that everyone who believes (or even wonders) if there might be some sort of higher power is mentally retarded.

While we are on the subject, will the hippie generation for once shut the fuck up about how truthful John Lennon's "Imagine" is? (Yes, that includes Mr. Roger Taylor). Seriously, if there was no religion we will still find other reasons to kill each other. The Soviet Union tried to get rid of religion to apparently make the world a better place, and that only fucked things up even more.

[QUOTE]





[b]Richard Orchard wrote: [/b]



I find it all a bit weird given that either side doesn't have a "100%" truth, and has to take a leap of  "faith" as to what is more probable for them. 

[/QUOTE]
In terms of physical truth, atheists are closer to it, as it does not require testable measures to prove (or even suggest) that there isn't a metaphysical monothestic being up in the sky.  But I do agree that fundamentalist atheists have crossed the line as well, albeit in a completely different way than the religious ones do.  At least they don't threaten you with eternal damnation.

[QUOTE]

[b]Mr.Jingles wrote:[/b]

Seriously, if there was no religion we will still find other reasons to kill each other.[/QUOTE]
Absolutely right.  There would be some other way to attempt to explain the unexplainable and control people with it.

Want to team up to fight the spaghetti monsters?

[QUOTE]

[b]Holly2003 wrote: [/b]

Want to team up to fight the spaghetti monsters?

[/QUOTE] i would prefer it if the world united to fight the 'honey monster' first and then 'tony the tiger'.

[QUOTE]

[b]JoxerTheDeityPirate wrote: [/b]

[QUOTE]

 



[b]Holly2003 wrote: [/b]



Want to team up to fight the spaghetti monsters?


[/QUOTE] i would prefer it if the world united to fight the 'honey monster' first and then 'tony the tiger'.






[/QUOTE]
Didn't we defeat Tony the Tiger in the Grrrrrrrrrreat war. Hahahahahahahaha...............

I'll get me coat
fatty.

[QUOTE]

[b]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/b]


While we are on the subject, will the hippie generation for once shut the fuck up about how truthful John Lennon's "Imagine" is? (Yes, that includes Mr. Roger Taylor). Seriously, if there was no religion we will still find other reasons to kill each other. The Soviet Union tried to get rid of religion to apparently make the world a better place, and that only fucked things up even more.
[/QUOTE]

That´s true to some extend, but religion is a major reason for most of the wars and injustice on this planet.

[QUOTE]

[b]Mr.Jingles wrote:[/b]



The Soviet Union tried to get rid of religion to apparently make the world a better place, and that only fucked things up even more.

[/QUOTE]
That is not technically true. It was official policy to rid the Soviet Union of religion in every form, but it was feared that there would be so much opposition to that amongst the common people, especially in the countryside, where the party was never very strong, that the policy was never really put in practice.

[QUOTE]

[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]

[QUOTE]













[b]Richard Orchard wrote: [/b]







I find it all a bit weird given that either side doesn't have a "100%" truth, and has to take a leap of  "faith" as to what is more probable for them. 





[/QUOTE]
In terms of physical truth, atheists are closer to it, as it does not require testable measures to prove (or even suggest) that there isn't a metaphysical monothestic being up in the sky.  But I do agree that fundamentalist atheists have crossed the line as well, albeit in a completely different way than the religious ones do.  At least they don't threaten you with eternal damnation.[/QUOTE]

To remain quite technical here, no, you're wrong, from a purely logical point of view.

The religious argument goes like this - (a) God was there first; he/she/it then created the universe and all things in it (all at the same time or in a specific order, depending on the religion). In a very small number of religions, the God then disappears, or is at least no longer discussed, but in most religions, the deity in question remains, exerting influence on his/her/its creation.

The logical necessity if we accept the above is then that God exists *outside* the Universe, for the simple reason that he/she/it created that universe, and cannot be part of what he/she/it created (or, at the very least, cannot *wholly* be part of what he/she/it created).

Science cannot explain anything outside the universe, for the simple reason that from science's point of view, the universe is all that is (and all that is outside it therefore "is not", though not in the vulgar sense of nothingness). Thus, both atheists and religiosos have the same impossible task if they wish to prove their point. Whichever way you turn it, both are based on faith.
[/QUOTE]
Having said all that, I, too, find myself in increasing numbers of discussions with atheist fundamentalists (a term I've recently started using, too), who, to my intense displeasure, use the same kinds of arguments as religious fundamentalists. And, like religious fundamentalists, they have an "if you're not with us you're against us" attitude, which they believe makes my IMHO enlightened agnostic standpoint synonymous with religion.

The bottom line being, you don't need religion to have religious fanatics...

`Science
cannot explain anything outside the universe, for the simple reason
that from science's point of view, the universe is all that is (and all
that is outside it therefore "is not", though not in the vulgar sense
of nothingness). Thus, both atheists and religiosos have the same
impossible task if they wish to prove their point. Whichever way you
turn it, both are based on faith.`



True, but to bring a fairly good Richard Dawkins argument. We can also not prove that there aren´t fairies. I think he does make a pretty good point there. If someone claims something absurd (i.e the existence of something or someone nobody can see) isn't it the task of that group of people to come with the facts, and prove that it DOES excist, and not the task of the other group to find prove that it doesn't?

at least that's how it works in science. Scientists come up with a theory, they test it, and can predict future evidence. They don't think of a theory and say: "You know folks, this is the truth, I don't have any evidence, but I believe it's the truth, and if you don't believe it you'd better find prove that it doesn't." That just doesn't make sense!

And I agree that some atheists go to far, but when you compare it to religious zealots it could be much much worse.

You are right, FriedChicken, that is the scientific method, and it is the only method we know of that allows more or less objective testing of a hypothesis. But the problem is, if science cannot establish that something IS there, it does not automatically mean that it is not. For instance, until quite recently, the exitence of sub-atomic particles could not be empirically demonstrated, and thus any theory stating that the atom was not indivisible was not supported by scientific evidence. Thus, said the fundamentalists of that day and age, anyone saying the atom isn't indivisible is an idiot, unscientific, a metaphysicist, etc. But then we did establish that there are subatomic particles.

The point is: the scientific method is a very useful system to work with, and it has greatly accelerated (and made more accurate) the growth of man's knowledge. But it is not infallible nor absolute.

Incidentally, the scientific method is based on the *falsification* of theories, not the *verification* thereof, for the simple reason that absolute proof does not exist. Therefore, we accept a theory as true so long as no theory that explains the available evidence better than the previous one exists. Thus, it would be up to the people who say that there aren't fairies to prove that they are right (providing those who say there are wrote up their theory in a way that does allow for testing and falsification). The falsification principle is the very thing that makes religion and science dwell in different domains, as statements of a theological or philosophical type (like those of historical, psychological, sociological, anthropological, etc.) are incompatible with the falsification principle.

[QUOTE]

[b]-fatty- wrote: [/b]

Has anyone else noticed a greater number of over-enthusiastic athiests in the real world these days? A few of the non-believers out there are no longer content to deny the existence of god and his pals, they now feel they have the right to ram their opinions down your throat.

For the record I dont believe in god and I used to think that made me an athiest but ever since the recent wave of athiest fundamentalism emerged I no longer wish to be associated with these nutters. I've managed to live my life in a state of blissful apathy so far and as far as I'm concerned people can believe in whatever the hell they like. The most annoying thing I've had to put up with from christians/muslims/scientologists is being handed a leaflet by a well meaning man or woman in the street but athiests seem to think that they have the god-given right (okay so tht's a bad choice of words) to bore me rigid with their stories about spaghetti monsters or whatever it is they don't believe in.

Hs anyone else noticed an increase in these dull people or am I just getting old and I've found something new to moan about?[/QUOTE]



The way round that is to talk to them about "Fannies". They might immediately think that you are being facetious towards them, but when you explain that it actually stands for "Fanatics Against Non-believing Non-ideologist Icons, Especially Scientologists" they might take the hint and go away.

Or you could simply waste as much of their time as they have done with you by getting them to repeat themselves (by pretending not to understand what they are saying) or by asking as many stupid questions as you could possibly think of.

[QUOTE]

[b]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/b]

You are right, FriedChicken, that is the scientific method, and it is the only method we know of that allows more or less objective testing of a hypothesis. But the problem is, if science cannot establish that something IS there, it does not automatically mean that it is not. For instance, until quite recently, the exitence of sub-atomic particles could not be empirically demonstrated, and thus any theory stating that the atom was not indivisible was not supported by scientific evidence. Thus, said the fundamentalists of that day and age, anyone saying the atom isn't indivisible is an idiot, unscientific, a metaphysicist, etc. But then we did establish that there are subatomic particles.

The point is: the scientific method is a very useful system to work with, and it has greatly accelerated (and made more accurate) the growth of man's knowledge. But it is not infallible nor absolute.

Incidentally, the scientific method is based on the *falsification* of theories, not the *verification* thereof, for the simple reason that absolute proof does not exist. Therefore, we accept a theory as true so long as no theory that explains the available evidence better than the previous one exists. Thus, it would be up to the people who say that there aren't fairies to prove that they are right (providing those who say there are wrote up their theory in a way that does allow for testing and falsification). The falsification principle is the very thing that makes religion and science dwell in different domains, as statements of a theological or philosophical type (like those of historical, psychological, sociological, anthropological, etc.) are incompatible with the falsification principle.
[/QUOTE]


True, but I think there's a major difference between a man in the clouds who knows no time and space, and has always been there and performs miracles (or not, depending on your vision of the deity) and sub atomic particles.
And I know it's not infallible nor absolute. That's why science evolves, in contrast to religious dogma, who still have  the same ideas as the believes in the bronze age.

From now on I'm going to devote my life to the teachings of apathy. If I can be bothered, that is.



fatty.