Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: The Intelligence Debate Atheism is the New Fundamentalism

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Under your bed!
    Posts
    12,141

    The Intelligence Debate Atheism is the New Fundamentalism


    The Intelligence Debate Atheism is the New Fundamentalism 1 of 10
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xrCktVxUiU

    The Intelligence² Debate: Atheism is the New Fundamentalism?

    Dawkins/Grayling vs. Harries/Moore - November 29, 2009 at Wellington College -

    From http://www.IntelligenceSquared.com


    I mirrored the entire 10 part series from

    http://www.youtube.com/user/AtheistMe...


    A Channel I highly reccomend.
    You might consider subscribing to that channel



    The motion proposes that "atheism is the new fundamentalism", i.e., atheism has replaced religion as the new faith of the secular age, exploring the notion that modern atheism is itself guilty of the very dogma and belief in its own infallibility which it scorns in the religious community.

    Speaking for the motion are Richard Harries and Charles Moore.

    Richard Harries outlines the features and the history of fundamentalism, arguing that many of the criteria required for it are in fact apparent in today's atheists. He portrays a set of people with narrow views, arguing against a specific view of God, who forget that some of the greatest philosophy, art, poetry and music has been inspired and supported by Christianity the very belief system that is accused of restricting the creative process by its refusal to allow for the grand perhaps (Browning).

    Charles Moore insists that his opponents cannot see the true complexity of the argument, and that they emphasise the physical and the scientific aspect of humanity at the cost of any spiritual understanding. He criticises Richard Dawkins for embodying this crude and narrow pursuit of literal truth above all else.

    Opposing the motion are A.C. Grayling and Richard Dawkins.

    Professor Grayling maintains that since 9/11, the nature of the debate on religious commitment has become far more serious. He distinguishes between atheism, secularism and humanism. He refutes Moore's suggestion that atheists cannot fully understand the complexity of the religious experience, insisting that many atheists understand it all too well, having been brought up in a religious family or community.




    Richard Dawkins defines fundamentalism as the following: blind obedience to scripture regardless of evidence, allied to extremism. He argues that far from being entrenched fundamentalists, atheists have a commitment to exploring evidence, and a readiness to embrace change, and that we should not mistake the passion of their arguments or their refusal to remain silent for fundamentalism.

    Our ignorance is not so vast as our failure to use what we know. ~ M. King Hubbert

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Under your bed!
    Posts
    12,141

    The Intelligence Debate Atheism is the New Fundamentalism 2 of 10.flv
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcUr0XZwF3Y

    This one is very good.

    Our ignorance is not so vast as our failure to use what we know. ~ M. King Hubbert

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New York State, USA
    Age
    28
    Posts
    1,087
    Richard Harris didn't make his case too well at all.

    A. C. grayling Really made his case on many things, though I am not so sure he answered the charge of fundamentalism too much.

    Is atheism the new fundamentalism? Well I am a hedonist fundamentalist, nothing wrong with that. As long as its not a religion/belief/nonbelief that calls on you to kill people and act all insane, its perfectly fine by me.
    ......with liberty and justice for all;
    For all means for all without exceptions!

    What is more valuable than liberty? Nothing, not even my own life. As without liberty, is life really worth living?

    "those who would give up a little liberty, to gain a little security, deserve neither, and will lose both." -Benjamin Franklin

    "Don't Tread on Me" - Forgot

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Under your bed!
    Posts
    12,141
    Quote Originally Posted by ninurta2008 View Post
    Richard Harris didn't make his case too well at all.

    A. C. grayling Really made his case on many things, though I am not so sure he answered the charge of fundamentalism too much.

    Is atheism the new fundamentalism? Well I am a hedonist fundamentalist, nothing wrong with that. As long as its not a religion/belief/nonbelief that calls on you to kill people and act all insane, its perfectly fine by me.
    Well in video 4 Dawkins touches on that in his opening, conceding that the word fundamentalism means different things to different people - and then went on to address the most common definitions.

    Last edited by Infinite Grey; December 5th, 2009 at 08:50 AM.

    Our ignorance is not so vast as our failure to use what we know. ~ M. King Hubbert

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Minnesota
    Age
    33
    Posts
    2,273
    I lost interest at "Dawkins". Sorry.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Bay Area, CA, USA
    Posts
    67
    Holding any convictions about anything at all is fundamentalism and extremism in our culture. A diverse people with strong beliefs are difficult to advertise to, campaign to, and govern, thus it is not in the interest of society to allow such things.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    michigan
    Age
    45
    Posts
    1,297
    It's almost if anytime an atheist dares to speak up and not be quiet in the face of religion.All of sudden they are branded a fundamentalist atheist. This is ridiculous !

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,075
    Quote Originally Posted by thepuck View Post
    Holding any convictions about anything at all is fundamentalism and extremism in our culture. A diverse people with strong beliefs are difficult to advertise to, campaign to, and govern, thus it is not in the interest of society to allow such things.

    I would agree with this. It seems to me that being able to articulate what you believe (or don't believe) and demand that others do the same in a discussion makes one a fundie and an extremist.

    Let's just all dumb ourselves down so that we have no opinion on anything, can't articulate anything, and remain ignorant. But dammit, we'll all love each other.

    Group hug!
    "The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common:
    instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views,
    which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering."


Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •