Atheists to protect ATS - Fight the Fundies!

Originally posted by TarzanBeta
reply to post by Parallex

 

However, Christianity, in its true form, has its purpose in realizing that God is The Creator and that He wants us to be saved from our arrogance and foolishness. If you have something against that, then you are against the very thing for which you fight.

A true atheist, in a nutshell, is someone who doesn't like the idea that someone knows their heart and mind. It's kind of ironic, because that means that the person realizes that they do bad things or think bad things. For that to be possible, the atheist must have a moral sense. Yet, atheists will say, "What is good" or "What is bad" or "What is right" or "What is wrong?" as if the grey area is the only area that exists.

The ultimate irony of atheism and the "pursuit of truth" which they claim is their goal is that anything that is not completely empirical must not be accepted as science or knowledge. However, these same atheists will claim that there is no God and He did not create the universe. Interesting, because last I checked there is no empirical way of ascertaining that information.

Nothing you have stated has any redeeming value. All of it is false. If God is the creator of everything, including us, and he wants to "save us from our arrogance and foolishness, why did he make us arrogant and foolish in the first place? That makes absolutely no sense. Moreover, you've classified all atheists as foolish and arrogant. The fact that you think anyone who doesn't believe what you believe is a fool seems pretty arrogant to me. Also, thinking you know the will of an invisible wizard whom you've never spoken to seems quite arrogant as well.

An atheist doesn't need the Bible or a religion to know the difference between right and wrong. An atheist doesn't refuse to believe in God because they are evil and afraid of being judged. Rather, they don't believe in God because there is no evidence whatsoever that God exists.

Your "empirical evidence" section is a textbook example of the fallacy of demanding negative proof.
Source

The fallacy of demanding negative proof
Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this." Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, and especially a positive claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it. In short, X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven

The existence of an invisible wizard that created the universe is probably the boldest claim ever made by anyone. It has absolutely no proof to support it. Atheists aren't arguing anything about the creation of the universe other than the fact that there is no evidence that it was created by an invisible wizard. They don't have anything to prove because they made no assertion in that regard. They don't have the burden of disproving your unsupported premise anymore than you have the burden to disproving the idea that the universe was created by Mr. Potatohead.




[edit on 2-12-2009 by andrewh7]

LOL - protect the atheists from the fundies? Look, I believe in something, but far from it for me to enforce my views upon anyone else. You must be rubbing up against the wrong people.

Sounds like your out to control others by promoting some fictional fear. Like any forum you will get all kinds of view points. Some views are "scientific" and "empirical" and dead wrong others are "faith", "belief" based and dead wrong and either may have a valid and accurate point. You appear to be desperate to adhere to your education as your savior. That's just find but it's not the only way.

i agree with this thread...i dont believe in god and imo the sooner religion is erased the better. i think everything in this universe can be explained with science and maths

S&F

I really hope the moderators pay some heed to all of this. The slogan of this website is 'deny ignorance'.

How can ATS permit religionists to assert their religion on others and still embody the sentiment of such a slogan?




[edit on 2-12-2009 by rexusdiablos]

reply to post by rexusdiablos


Well, let's say religion truly is ignorance. Or let's say all religious posts display ignorance.

The site's motto is 'deny ignorance,' as you point out. It is not 'delete ignorance' or 'censor ignorance.' Therefore, it is up to the members to 'deny ignorance' by intellectually debating those religious posts- not rallying to get them deleted (as long as they are on topic and not violating the T&C's in any way). Also, by your standards, this thread would have to go as well due to the fact it involves asserting one's [a]-religious beliefs and 'preaches' Dawkins.

Originally posted by Parallex
reply to post by Anamnesis

 

Nope, not censorship or suppression - more a defence against both of them. Declaring a thread a religious-free zone would encourage empirical, and rational debate and contributions.

This would allow the FACTS and GENUINE THEORIES in any subjective matter to come to the surface.

The main problem is the 'wash-through' effect that fundies are using to drown secular / atheist threads with 'their' threads. They effectively spam flags and stars on threads that are pro-Christianity or religion / mysticism in general.

Religion is irrelevant to ATS subject matter, and as such should be stopped from interfering with the search for the truth.

The Para.

Your statement that religion is irrelevant to ATS subject matter is just your opinion. I find it contrary to what ATS is about to want to ban people from posting because they do not think like you do. This site is all about free thinking and sharing ideas.

I did not read most of this thread but I would like to say that a fight against "Fundies" would be pretty pointless.

A belief in a higher power is something that can be neither proven or prover false. You will never debate somebody out of their beliefs which are religious based on a forum. Someones beliefs are deeply ingrained into their lives therefore they will sometimes come out in their writings. The best thing to do is just disagree quietly in your head and move on.

For the most part religious belief is harmless and really benefits peoples lives. I have no interest in attempting to talk someone out of their faith.

I am not sure why anyone of even moderate character or intelligence would move to suggest they are different then the rest of us.

Atheists are creatures of belief, just as theists are. To suggest there are some of us who are religious, and some that are not, is ridiculously short sighted.

Any attempt to suggest otherwise is plain stupid, because the act of suggesting otherwise would simply further the point.

Fundamentalists are all the same, no matter what religion, or lack there of.

The TS is what he claims to hate, which is true with most of us.

I am just completely taken aback, and appalled that more people don't see through this garbage.

The control of perceived "truth" that "science" searches for is the same dues ex machina the fundie Christians want to control. It is pathetic. Really, really quite pathetic.

I say to those out there who wish to further the pursuit of truth, in humility, to believe in their God, or not, but to do so with respect, and integrity. Let the fools who try and control truth, get their wish, and watch them die under its weight.

They are not fooling anyone but themselves.

Of course, I am just a stupid, uneducated man, far below the standards of science, unlike these brilliant ones before us.


[edit on 2-12-2009 by deinonychus]

Meh, anything you dont believe in that I do can be considered insane religious or cultist talk to me...

Point and case...you (OPs) are a athiest...a athiest is defined by the belief that all things of religion and paranormal are based in mundane answers and it is all completely untrue. This is a faith based belief to my agnostic views and therefore athiesm is just like any other religion out there demanding they have the answers (albeit a more plausable mindset when they theorize).

So, a non-religious view (or non belief based) threading system would be rather quiet...

As far as christianity being the thorn in the side of reason...after seeing what else is on here, a few quotes by people from a old book is hardly the pinnicle of crazy talk when compared to some of the unfounded opinions on this board.

Think I will simply let them prattle on...besides, the more you try to censor any group, the more interesting they become anyhow...let people decide and combat their posts with reasonable and intellectual counterpoints...or ignore them.

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by rexusdiablos

 

Well, let's say religion truly is ignorance. Or let's say all religious posts display ignorance.

The site's motto is 'deny ignorance,' as you point out. It is not 'delete ignorance' or 'censor ignorance.' Therefore, it is up to the members to 'deny ignorance' by intellectually debating those religious posts- not rallying to get them deleted (as long as they are on topic and not violating the T&C's in any way). Also, by your standards, this thread would have to go as well due to the fact it involves asserting one's [a]-religious beliefs and 'preaches' Dawkins.

Exactly.

Religion is a belief, a viewpoint and often strongly held.

Why not just ask for a fight against all other strongly held beliefs that often spawn long, flame filled threads here on ATS? Really its the same thing - and if what is suggested were allowed then basically any belief could be banned from these boards.

See where I'm going? Let me give some examples. Given your logic all of the thread titles below would be acceptable depending on one's beliefs.

"Fundies to protect ATS - Fight the Atheists!"
"Liberals to protect ATS - Fight the Conservatives!"
"Conservatives to protect ATS - Fight the Liberals!"
"Pro-Gun to protect ATS - Fight the Anti-Gun!"
"Anti-Gun to protect ATS - Fight the Pro-Gun!"
"UFO & Crypto Belivers to protect ATS - Fight Skeptics!"
"Skeptics to protect ATS - Fight UFO & Crypto Belivers!"
"Pro-Iseral to protect ATS - Fight Anti-Iseral!"
"Anti-Iseral to protect ATS - Fight Pro-Iseral!"
etc, etc, etc,

Is this really what you want? Should we just decide on one allowable viewpoint for every subject here on ATS and delete all other viewpoints?

In my opinion that would make for some pretty dull threads...

OP - "X is good, Y is bad. X is right, Y is wrong."
Poster1 - "Yup"
Poster2 - "Agreed"
Poster3 - "I love X!!"
Poster4 - I don't know - I think Y might have a few valid points..."
Poster5 - "Poster 4 - you are on ignore and I'm calling a mod right now!!"

reply to post by AshleyD


And therein lies my grand faux pas, Ashley. I enter into these communities with a naive hope that I might enter into a dialog with individuals who actually want to act rather than cyclically debate the same old tired arguments that are forever perpetual in nature ergo extraneous and contraceptive to the very concept of action! Conspiracy theories are eclectic in nature but there no less exists a hierarchy in terms of those which are a) more imminent and b) of scientific verity.

An endeavor to combat an elitist faction of sociopathic globalists all the while adhering to the indoctrinations of an array of scriptures that they themsleves (the elites) have doctored and engineered to subdue the masses is COMPLETELY REDUNDANT!

But again, the faux pas is mine. ATS is more a place of frivolous discussion that a facility for it's members to tackle some very real world issues. ATS's attempts to be RC (religiously correct) ultimately serves only to propagate the issues it contests. Analogically speaking, it is as meritorious as a coc aine addict skirmishing with his addiction all the while in cohabitation with a coc aine pusher.

[edit on 2-12-2009 by rexusdiablos]

I think this thread would be a good fit for the "Rant" Forum. There's nothing wrong with a rant and I'm not trying to demean this thread by saying so.

I just don't see a religious conspiracy in the spirit of this thread. The OP apparently believes that religious opinions or those that resonate to him/her as religious should be excluded from otherwise useful discussions and debates that don't pertain to religion. Fine, I agree with that, and if a post is made that is nothing more than a religious/faith endorsement in a thread that is not about that, then I "alert" it and note that it is off-topic. Pretty simple really.

This "Call to Arms", while I realize is not meant to be taken literally -- at least from the OP's point-of-view, seems an attempt to coalesce athiests as a group to "combat" the religious view. Let's suppose for the sake of arguement that you were sucessful. What would your realized goals be?

Would you find that no mention of religion, faith, sprituality or nonscientific belief be expressed outside of religion forums?

Would you extend that thought process towards those who also believe that ETs form or formed a basis for human beliefs?

Would you set up a panel of like-minded individuals to monitor posts and judge what was allowable and what was not?

Would you have exercised parity and quashed all theories that are not grounded firmly in previously-accepted scientific study or principles?

My point, if I haven't been clear, is that we are all dealing with our own perceptions, and by identifying the "enemy", the OP, in my opinion, has created a generalization for which there is not a measurable variable. That seems somewhat akin to defining the word "quality". We know quality when we see it, don't we? BUT, can we choose the finite point at which it branches off from poor quality without prejuidicing that point with our own subjective beliefs and values?

I think also, that those that rally around either a religious dogma, OR AN ABSENCE of same, would be lost without the other, particularly on these forums where the essence of free thought and exchange of ideas is debate and discussion.

Put another way, let X=the set of all ATS members. Let a = the subset of all who identify themselves as "athiest". Let f = the subset of all those who identify themselves as "people of faith". Whose thoughts and postings should be controlled? Either? Neither? a + f = X, and if what you are attempting to do is to factor out either expression(a or f), they must be divided into X.

I'm interested in your identified goals and how you would ideally measure them.

Support free-thinking and freedom of expression/Deny generalizations and persecution of those we ironically call "other".

Originally posted by Parallex
"I agree completely. However, I'm using exactly the same tactic as the fundies do - I'm talking about the subject, and applying it on ATS, against the wished of many. If ATS wants integrity and a TRULY inquiring populace, the religious ingress must be controlled."

"I completely agree. Massively agree. However, awareness of it, and accounting for it, are worlds away from enacting it. Is ATS a Christian organisation? I think not. Therefore the Christian scourge, along with all religious conviction must be removed."

The Para.

you talk a lot of supression and censorship. o, but im sure you are against the Govt. doing it to U.S. citizens right...

why should religious folk have to keep their thoughts and beliefs to themselves when no one else does? why does it matter if ATS is or isnt a christian organization. lets not forget they created a religious forum. i cant imagine why they would create one then remove all religious content.

someone said earlier the purpose of this website is to deny ignorance. why argue with the very people who are on your side in most other topics outside of religion and beliefs. and if you dont agree with them on certain things then debate them on those things. dont get mad and go on a rally because you feel threatened by it. if you were strong and firm in your beliefs what anyone else says or does shouldnt matter.

these are things the timid and fearful do. (oh, it disagrees with me or i dont like it so get rid of it)

you are scared my friend



[edit on 12/2/2009 by Bean328]

Originally posted by rexusdiablos
S&F

I really hope the moderators pay some heed to all of this. The slogan of this website is 'deny ignorance'.

How can ATS permit religionists to assert their religion on others and still embody the sentiment of such a slogan?

[edit on 2-12-2009 by rexusdiablos]

Yeah, cause you believe they shouldn't. To deny ignorance, is to assert that there is such a thing as "not ignorance". This must be an achievable state, and if it is achievable, then it has due process.

Welcome to the "religionists" my friend. I am guessing you will disagree (ironically, I might add), to which you are free.

However, I would never question your right to do so. You have freedom of religion, after all.

I personally think any religious institution is silly, illogical and unhealthy.

And I'm loving this thread. Flag and STAR!

Originally posted by onlylonely
funny you should post this. I am pagan but am shocked that thread owner in this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

was banned and my source says without warning or reason. This appears to be because it questioned faith. When trying to question it my post was removed. As an open minded pagan I believe ATS is without doubt under seige. It might be time to move on. please u2u me your email address so I can be in touch after you get banned from this thread.

I am an atheist in that I am non-religious, and if the person that started that thread got banned then good. It was nothing more than an attack/challenge/troll, and was inappropriate on many levels. Here's the thing... if you push fundies, or any other human for that matter, they will push back. The post was nothing more than "your stupid, ha-ha", and approached being fundamentalist in and of itself. It was a post of cowardice in that it focused on christianity instead of religion at large... even paganism. The poster simply took the easy route of assaulting christians since he/she knows that christians won't kick his/her butt. You don't see the same sort of attitude against paganism, wiccans, islamics, buddhists, hindus, etc. from the fundamental atheists.

It's agreed that religious is stupid, and only a moron follows one, but there's nothing to gain in attacks. All this fundie fighting is nothing more than the equivelent of a 'holy war' in attitude, and nothing good has ever come from one.

reply to post by Parallex


You're laughable really, this type of attitude yields nothing good. On the contrary it makes everything worse since what you're basically asking for members that follow a religion -- other than Atheism which basically the same crap with a different packaging -- to switch over to intolerance mode and attack.

This is bad, really bad.

And bringing Bill Maher's Religulous to the table was just the cherry on the top of the cake really. The only difference is that he knows how to approach things and even speak with the most extreme fundamentalists of all religions one can find and make them go "What did I said?" making those "WTF!" moments that are priceless without picking a nasty fight.

Be smart, if you think you have a better argument then disarm them instead of playing stupid and saying "all you talk makes no sense I don't want you here!"

And please be specific when you refer to catholics, they aren't a single thing and certainly not all of them think alike. You should know that since that is very clear on that very same documentary you've used as argument to your wage of war in your post.

You didn't realized this yet, but you are just another shape/form of fundamentalist.

ATS should stop denying ignorance and start denying intolerance, which is something even worst and goes hand in hand with ignorance in it's worst form.


cheers!

Well here's really what it boils down to, for me.

ATS = Conspiracy site. Right? I mean, we're here to talk about UFOs, NWO, Unexplained Pheomenena, and so forth, right? From that, we sort of spill into politics and world affairs and yes, even into religion.

BUT.

This isn't a place where we come to, to talk about religion. EXCEPT, where it related to the above.

And yet, and this is what bothers me and is my complaint, that there is proselytizing and preaching and just this general inclusion in almost any topic here, and YES, it does feel very much like a concerted effort on the parts of religious fanactics or 'fundies'.

Even in this forum, rarely are the threads about religious CONSPIRACIES, but instead are just these general theology topics (I think jesus wore pants! Don't you? If not, tell me why!) or they are concerted efforts at 'showing the way' etc.

And honestly I'm sick of it. You can say, don't read the threads, but unless there's a better way to navigate the site than the options we're given, the thread titles litter the lists.

I don't even get why in the world that there's so much of it here, why, if you're wanting to talk about religion, do you come to a site about UFOs and conspiracies?

reply to post by Jadette


Certainly not, but as soon you enter a topic which might go against what some people believe, people will and should argue using their own arguments which can and probably will include faith/belief systems.

And this is not exclusive to religion talk, but to any talk. If you block people that follow the Bible by the letter to use/expose their own arguments you should also do the same to every extremist that are here to preach anything (science, math, you name it) instead of questioning and reaching new conclusions.

And trust me there are plenty of them.

In my opinion all this fuss is about ego and nothing more, when some people realize that not everyone shares their POV or agrees with them and they don't find a way to break their opposition's argument they become stupid and go offensive which is the next best/smart thing they can think of.

Really... intolerance is ignorance, no matter from where or whom it comes.

[edit on 2-12-2009 by thomas_]