Athiest fundamentalists

[QUOTE]

[b]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/b]

Technically, a fundamentalist would be one who lives according to the fundamentals of his religion (which *can* be a holy scripture, as in protestantism, or an authority figure, as in Catholicism, or a judicial orthodocy, as in Islam, depending on the basis of a religion), i.e. who complies with his religion to the strictest extreme, including the outlawing of everything that is not literally covered by their religious beliefs.
[/QUOTE]
Fair enough, Mr Webster. :-)

Sorry, it's a contagious disease one gets at Arts faculties at university...

If some very good evidence of a god turns up, which of the religions are going to claim him?


What I'm trying to say is, I know we can't disprove the absence of a god, but that doesn't mean +1 for Christianity. It also means we can't disprove Allah (yeah I know it's the same jerk), Vishnu, Mithras, Hercules, Aphrodites, Russel's Teapot, the dragon in my garage, giants and barbapapa's.

Come on, ThomasQuinn. You're a smart guy. You can't seriously think that if you can't prove the absence of something, it is a point for the losing team.

[QUOTE]

[b]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/b]

Evangelical Christianity means Christianity with a missionary drive. You don't really seem to match that profile.
[/QUOTE]

Hehe, that's to lull you into a false sense of security so I can hit you really hard over the head with it when you least expect it! 
I do feel strongly that Christ is real and is who he said he is.  But I don't think he's necessarily like we/Christians often portray him.  He was accused of being a glutton and alcoholic and associating too much with sinners (incl. prostitutes and other social outcasts)!  Not the image that jumps to mind when thinking about him, but its in the Bible.  So he was presumably a nice guy.  When asked to comment on the judgment (seemingly legally it would have been death) of 'woman caught in adultry' he said something to the effect that whoever of the accusing group was innocent could throw the first stone to kill her, eventually releasing her and saying to 'sin no more' or something like that.  He went around healing and helping people and had a big following. 
And I'm starting to rant, sorry about that!  It's frustrating to me when Christians become so narrowly focused on their own ideas and whats right and wrong that they forget to live, and forget that people with different viewpoints are also human, and are the same as us.  We all (or most of us!) want to find meaning and fulfillment in life, and we are going to follow whatever seems to provide that.  I guess even though I believe strongly in Christ, I feel that that should give me more empathy and respect for people who were made in God's image.  There is something sadly wrong when people are seen as 'projects' to be 'converted' to a particular belief system. 
And I'm ranting again!  Have I scared you yet?   This is something I feel so strongly about, I really hope I'm not offending anyone, and I'm very sorry if I am.

I am a champion horse.

[QUOTE]

[b]FriedChicken wrote: [/b]

If some very good evidence of a god turns up, which of the religions are going to claim him?


What I'm trying to say is, I know we can't disprove the absence of a god, but that doesn't mean +1 for Christianity. It also means we can't disprove Allah (yeah I know it's the same jerk), Vishnu, Mithras, Hercules, Aphrodites, Russel's Teapot, the dragon in my garage, giants and barbapapa's.

Come on, ThomasQuinn. You're a smart guy. You can't seriously think that if you can't prove the absence of something, it is a point for the losing team. [/QUOTE]
That's not what I'm arguing; my whole point is that the match will remain undecided.

[QUOTE]

[b]catqueen wrote: [/b]

It's frustrating to me when Christians become so narrowly focused on their own ideas and whats right and wrong that they forget to live, and forget that people with different viewpoints are also human, and are the same as us.  We all (or most of us!) want to find meaning and fulfillment in life, and we are going to follow whatever seems to provide that.  I guess even though I believe strongly in Christ, I feel that that should give me more empathy and respect for people who were made in God's image.  There is something sadly wrong when people are seen as 'projects' to be 'converted' to a particular belief system. 

[/QUOTE]
I think that is very admirable of you. I do not mind religion at all (even though I have none myself), but I do object to closed-mindedness (which is not limited to religious folk), and you are certainly not guilty of that. If you ask me, the point of religion is not to provide people with rules and ready-made answers, but to point their attention to questions they should think about. The answers aren't important, but thinking is, I'd say.

[QUOTE]

[b]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/b]

I think that is very admirable of you. I do not mind religion at all (even though I have none myself), but I do object to closed-mindedness (which is not limited to religious folk), and you are certainly not guilty of that. If you ask me, the point of religion is not to provide people with rules and ready-made answers, but to point their attention to questions they should think about. The answers aren't important, but thinking is, I'd say.
[/QUOTE]



Thanks so much! That's the nicest thing I've been told for a while!  :)

I think you're right that the most important thing is to think and ask, rather then try to boil down a comprehensive set of rigid answers which have to be twisted so that they apply to real life.  So many people have been hurt by other people forcing their beliefs at them and refusing to listen and hear things from the other point of view.  Although I believe in the Bible, (in my opinion), it is damaging to take random pieces out of context and use them to make people conform to MY point of view.  Religion can unfortunately be used as a particularly effective way to control others, as you can claim 'God's' authority to make people do what you want, with a fear of punishment if people don't want to comply - which is completely wrong according to the Bible (and presumably other religious books also).

I think it's also a problem that it's hard to know the right context. What IS the right context? The content of the Bible has been written, rewritten, translated, translated again and again and revised over the course of 2 thousand years+.

I think it's hard to say what is symbolic and what isn't.





As to ThomasQuinn (Sorry... I forgot your real name..):
I understand what you mean, but I don't seem to agree that something which is not provable makes the match a tie. If its not provable that there is, or isn't a god doesn't make it 50/50.


The chances of the existance of Leprechauns... Either they exist, or they don't. They have never been spotted by scientist, although some people believe they exist, and some people actually saw some, or had conversations with them. That surely doesn't make it 50/50.


In the court of law you're innocent untill you're proven guilty. That's why it's the task of believes in god(s) to prove it's existence, and not the task of the rest.

Fired Chicken, you have a point - you can argue over what is literal and what's symbolic in the Bible until the cows come home and never agree.  And the arguements over stuff like that tend to get fairly nasty and personal, unfortunatly.  I listened to about half a podcast months ago about who has the 'burden of proof' and needs to prove their side of whether there is life outside the universe or not, and gave up in disgust because neither side would give an inch, and the athiest side of the argument was winning handsdown while the intelligent life side got very angry and defensive and refused to listen to them, but now I'm kind of wishing I would have listened to the rest of it! 
One thing I would wonder about the whole 'proof' thing - as you said, people have spoken to leprechauns, etc.  This makes me wonder what kind of 'proof' would be given and or accepted universally to prove existance of something 'other'.  There is a lot of anecdotal evidence (people telling that something happened to them) and many religions have holy books, which claim to be inspired.  The existance of the universe is given as 'proof', but is obviously not universally accepted.  I'm not trying to start a fight here, I just wonder if the whole proving or disproving thing is even possible.  I mean, someone I know was miraculously cured of cancer - was it a miracle or a twist of nature?  Because I believe in God, I would say it's a miracle, if I didn't believe in God, I'd say it was an accident of nature or the scans were switched in the hospital or something.  I agree that generally we don't set out to prove that things are not there, we prove and study things that are there, but what constitutes proof depends, to some extent, on your point of view.
I'm really, really enjoying this thread, I don't usually get the chance to hash stuff like this around!
And now I'm off to prove that there are no monsters in the kitchen!

I don't think the universe as a proof is a very good one. That's the same as saying Smurfs exists because we can see their houses all over the forest.

You don't have to see the things you're trying to prove to prove them. That's the whole thing in science. You can't see black holes. But still, there are thousands of things that point to the excistence of them. When it's a good hypothesis the results of a test can be predicted and will be the same as the outcome. Then the theory will be accepted by most of the scientific world.

If the god hypothesis would be a good one, you could predict the outcome of tests. For example, if you pray for the return of a severed limb, the limb would return. Unless the god you're testing happens to work in mysterious ways.

Ah, but that all depends on what you define as your Gods function.

If you simply go for the Deist interpretation of a 'Great Clockmaker' who designs the universe, 'presses the start-button' (big bang) and disappears from the scene, your hypothesis will consist of entirely metaphysical arguments, and is thus a matter of philosophy and not of 'hard science'.

That's why I think most philosophy is useless and outdated

I also think the chain rection god doesn't solve a problem, it just adds one link to the problem.

[QUOTE]

[b]FriedChicken wrote: [/b]

That's why I think most philosophy is useless and outdated


[/QUOTE]
I recommend you become familiar with philosophy before making silly remarks like this. The philosophical branches Logic and Epistemology, for instance, are the very foundation of the science you so adore. Not just in the past, but as we speak.