Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 104

Thread: Open-mindedness

  1. #71
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Brisbane, QLD, Australia
    Age
    30
    Posts
    6,476
    Quote Originally Posted by Twinkle View Post
    Words mean stuff.

    Fundamentalist has a specific meaning...a definition which NA put forward and has not been disputed.

    Atheism has a specific meaning, that others would like to have subsets to (strong, weak, blah, blah, blah)...but at the same time acknowledging that atheism means lack of belief in deity.

    If we know that fundamentalism means adhering to a set of principals, and we also know that not all atheists adhere to one set of principals - *how on earth* can there be fundamentalist atheists?

    The word fundamental simply cannot apply.

    Correct me if I got this wrong, NA...but I don't think I did.
    You're spot on.

    I just think that people need to put a whole lot more on atheism than there is because it makes them more comfortable.
    They lack the internal metaphors necessary to imagine that someone can merely not believe in deities, and the fact that you can not be fundamental about a lack of something.

    ETA: People keep confusing materialism, skepticism and antitheism with atheism because most of these people are atheists. But just because they are atheists does not mean that their personal principles are adaptable to be atheist principles. Just like there are atheist Jews, atheist Pagans, atheist witches, atheist shamans, atheist Buddhists...
    *shrugs*
    Last edited by Aeon Flux; February 10th, 2011 at 08:38 PM.
    Previously known as Njorun Alma


    "A mind of the calibre of mine cannot derive its nutriment from cows." - George Bernard Shaw


  2. #72
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Brisbane, QLD, Australia
    Age
    30
    Posts
    6,476
    Quote Originally Posted by Proteus View Post
    I haven't read anything by Dawkins other than short bites I've found online but he doesn't strike me as a dogmatic sort. Forceful and combative, yes. Dogmatic, I dunno.
    He's barely even forceful and combative.

    He's a member of new atheism, though. Which is of the opinion that spiritual and religious claims should be forced to stand up to the scientific method in order to be considered valid.
    I don't agree or disagree at this point, but people tend to use the principles of Dawkins, just because Dawkins is a well-known atheist, to plaster all over atheism. Not all atheists even like Dawkins. And new atheism is not synonymous with atheism, which is where the problems begin.

    I've always felt that Dawkins is a very well-spoken, and fairly polite man. He's just straight-forward.
    Previously known as Njorun Alma


    "A mind of the calibre of mine cannot derive its nutriment from cows." - George Bernard Shaw


  3. #73
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,075
    Quote Originally Posted by Njorun Alma View Post
    He's barely even forceful and combative.

    He's a member of new atheism, though. Which is of the opinion that spiritual and religious claims should be forced to stand up to the scientific method in order to be considered valid.
    I don't agree or disagree at this point, but people tend to use the principles of Dawkins, just because Dawkins is a well-known atheist, to plaster all over atheism. Not all atheists even like Dawkins. And new atheism is not synonymous with atheism, which is where the problems begin.

    I've always felt that Dawkins is a very well-spoken, and fairly polite man. He's just straight-forward.

    I hope I don't take this really too far off point...but it seems to me that what we are seeing in Atheism is a sort of schism...where people veer away from atheism, create new terms like strong atheism or New Atheism, and still want to be considered Atheist.

    It creates a sort of infighting where those that want to hold on to the integrity of Atheism are taking umbrage with those who want to create a whole new thing and hijack a well established term, and redefine it to their pov.

    Is this what's happening within Atheism?
    "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."


  4. #74
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    In Love
    Age
    40
    Posts
    5,593
    Quote Originally Posted by Njorun Alma View Post
    New atheism is a movement that uses the word atheism, it is not synonymous with atheism. Dawkins is a new atheist.
    I'm going to have to brush up on the difference.

    Q. How can there be different flavors of disbelief?
    Last edited by HetHert; February 10th, 2011 at 08:53 PM.





    "Keep away from small people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people always do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can become great." --Mark Twain


    If having a deep disdain for entertaining the cerebrally challenged in politics makes one a bigot than the Queen Bigot am I.


    If you search for the laws of harmony, you will find knowledge
    ~temple wall in Luxor~





  5. #75
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    BC, Canada
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by Njorun Alma View Post
    He's a member of new atheism, though. Which is of the opinion that spiritual and religious claims should be forced to stand up to the scientific method in order to be considered valid.
    Ah. I see why that might cause some tension.

    Is it OK if you don't make spiritual or religious claims but sort of want to believe anyway? I have a lot of those.

    [edit: Stupid question. No one is going to object to a belief I don't express!]
    Last edited by Proteus; February 10th, 2011 at 08:56 PM.

  6. #76
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Brisbane, QLD, Australia
    Age
    30
    Posts
    6,476
    Quote Originally Posted by HetHert View Post
    I'm going to have to brush up on the difference.

    Q. How can there be different flavors of disbelief?
    New atheism goes in direct opposition.
    Atheism is passive in itself, there is nothing aggressive about simple disbelief.
    New atheism shares the disbelief but is also naturally aggressive in that they openly oppose religion, it's a part of their "agenda" you could call it. New atheism thinks that we should not be passive with it but force it to be subjected to the scientific method and scientific testing.
    It's more of a movement that has sprung out of disbelief.

    Gah, it's tricky to explain, especially since I am trying to get 5 things done at the same time. I might post later on again when I am done with all these things. Perhaps I could post a thread about it in the Non-Theistic forum later on today? It seems as though it could be a good resource.



    Quote Originally Posted by Twinkle View Post
    I hope I don't take this really too far off point...but it seems to me that what we are seeing in Atheism is a sort of schism...where people veer away from atheism, create new terms like strong atheism or New Atheism, and still want to be considered Atheist.

    It creates a sort of infighting where those that want to hold on to the integrity of Atheism are taking umbrage with those who want to create a whole new thing and hijack a well established term, and redefine it to their pov.

    Is this what's happening within Atheism?
    What's happening in atheism is that a lot of people are breaking off because they don't think we should settle for disbelief and then just let it be. They are still atheists, but they also add other things to it, new atheism being one path, and strong atheism being another.
    The strong, and the new are additions that not all atheists agree on, and not all strong atheists agree with new atheists either.
    This is a perfect example of how atheists are different from most other groups, because the only thing that they have in common is the disbelief or non-belief we argue constantly about EVERYTHING else. Some say there might be a God, sure, but right now they can't believe in him because there is no logical reason or any evidence to move them to. Some people just don't believe and don't think that there could be a God. Some people don't believe and they feel there IS no God, because all evidence seems to suggest there isn't.
    Some atheists are materialists, some are secular humanists... They're all over the place, and because religion is making a lot of noise as of late, a lot of the atheists that feel religion is harmful are wanting to make equal noise. Atheists really don't have much care for what other atheists say or think, it's not like a congregation.

    Does that explain it, a little? Or did I just confuse you more? Cause it's confusing me now. LOL
    Previously known as Njorun Alma


    "A mind of the calibre of mine cannot derive its nutriment from cows." - George Bernard Shaw


  7. #77
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    California
    Age
    51
    Posts
    752
    Quote Originally Posted by Njorun Alma View Post
    New atheism shares the disbelief but is also naturally aggressive in that they openly oppose religion, it's a part of their "agenda" you could call it.

    What's so freakin' new about that?
    Tobias



    Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its labourers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

    -Dwight D Eisenhower

  8. #78
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Brisbane, QLD, Australia
    Age
    30
    Posts
    6,476
    Quote Originally Posted by Tobias View Post
    What's so freakin' new about that?
    It is a movement called New Atheism. Dawkins is the founder of it. I had no freakin' say in the name, Dawkins named it.
    Previously known as Njorun Alma


    "A mind of the calibre of mine cannot derive its nutriment from cows." - George Bernard Shaw


  9. #79
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    4,356
    Quote Originally Posted by Njorun Alma View Post
    New atheism goes in direct opposition.
    Atheism is passive in itself, there is nothing aggressive about simple disbelief.
    New atheism shares the disbelief but is also naturally aggressive in that they openly oppose religion, it's a part of their "agenda" you could call it. New atheism thinks that we should not be passive with it but force it to be subjected to the scientific method and scientific testing.
    It's more of a movement that has sprung out of disbelief.

    Gah, it's tricky to explain, especially since I am trying to get 5 things done at the same time. I might post later on again when I am done with all these things. Perhaps I could post a thread about it in the Non-Theistic forum later on today? It seems as though it could be a good resource.





    What's happening in atheism is that a lot of people are breaking off because they don't think we should settle for disbelief and then just let it be. They are still atheists, but they also add other things to it, new atheism being one path, and strong atheism being another.
    The strong, and the new are additions that not all atheists agree on, and not all strong atheists agree with new atheists either.
    This is a perfect example of how atheists are different from most other groups, because the only thing that they have in common is the disbelief or non-belief we argue constantly about EVERYTHING else. Some say there might be a God, sure, but right now they can't believe in him because there is no logical reason or any evidence to move them to. Some people just don't believe and don't think that there could be a God. Some people don't believe and they feel there IS no God, because all evidence seems to suggest there isn't.
    Some atheists are materialists, some are secular humanists... They're all over the place, and because religion is making a lot of noise as of late, a lot of the atheists that feel religion is harmful are wanting to make equal noise. Atheists really don't have much care for what other atheists say or think, it's not like a congregation.

    Does that explain it, a little? Or did I just confuse you more? Cause it's confusing me now. LOL

    lets see if i can make it less confusing or the very least understand it myself.

    Atheism is now an umbrella term which means the belief of no Deity or Deities. among them you have different forms.

    Wikipedia:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism

    New Atheists share is a belief that religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises
    again from Wikipedia:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativ...sitive_atheism

    which i got this info. But i am trying to make it less confusing.
    for this discussion i am only including the types of atheism which involves this discussion.

    Strong Atheists is another name for positive atheists (as well as hard atheism) which has a strong opinion that Deities do not exist.

    Weak atheists also does not believe in Deities but will not hold it as fact. also they are termed negative and soft atheists.

    Agnostics are not sure if a Deity or Deities exist. and are sometimes placed in as weak atheists.


    also from
    http://newatheists.org/

    the New Atheists feel organized religion specifically fundamentalism went too far in causing problems in the social and intellectual aspects of society and has to be stopped. sort of a counter balance.

    So other types of atheists do not want to go the path of the fundamentalists. so here's where the fighting is going.


    one of the things from what I am seeing is that part of the confusion is that they keep changing the name of certain view points like Strong and weak atheists.
    MYSTIC WICKS Needs your help!Please donate or subscribe!



    Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.

  10. #80
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Northeastern PA, USA
    Age
    45
    Posts
    365
    Sweet Jeebus! Talk about missing the forest for the trees or straining for a gnat.

    There certainly can be a fundamentalism to atheism perhaps not merely as atheism=lack of belief but in regards to the a priori assumptions that lead to one's atheism.


    *Materialistic Reductionism - Simply put, nothing exists outside the physical world and that there is nothing that cannot be reduced to some fundamental physical process even if we haven't yet discovered it.

    *Empiricism - Only that which can be quantified and tested for exists.

    *Rationalism - The belief that reason is the highest of human faculties and that through reason humanity will transcend the need for silly superstitions like religious faith and the compelling drives of human instinct.


    In interacting with folks who are atheists, these seem to be, broadly speaking, the fundamental assumptions about reality that leads one to be an atheist. It is these fundamental assumptions that can be held in a fundamentalistic manner. In other words, these assumptions can become one's ideology. And in regards to any ideology, one who is a true believer can become a zealot.

    If an atheist is arguing with people about how superstitious, silly or even potentially dangerous they are because they have a spiritual belief system then they are fundamentalistic about their atheism. They are the equivalent of atheist Bible thumpers who attempt to convince anyone who will listen about the evils of religion and the awesome benefits to be had if everyone in society adopted a materialist point of view.

    So even if there isn't something that can be officially called Fundamentalist Atheism, in practice fundamentalistic atheism does exist. And even if the fundamentalism lies, most accurately, not with the atheism itself but the underlying ideological slant, it is easier to simply call someone a Fundy Athiest than it would be to call them An Ideologically Fundamentalistic Materialistic Reductionist Rational Empiricist.

    Now lets continue this without parsing words here as that simply serves to cloud the waters.


    )o( Blessed Be,

    Sundragon

    *(Note that there are not Mirriam Webster Definitions, they are simply my way of attempting to articulate certain core principles)
    Last edited by Sundragon; February 11th, 2011 at 09:07 AM.
    Come visit my blog

    Sorcery and Spirit

    where I discuss Magick, Mystical Spirituality and whatever else comes to mind.

    " Wherever you are is home
    And the earth is paradise
    Wherever you set your feet is holy land . . .
    You don't live off it like a parasite.
    You live in it, and it in you,
    Or you don't survive.
    And that is the only worship of God there is."

    - Wilfred Pelletier and Ted Poole

Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 LastLast

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
  •