Theological Parodies

[Rolling_Stone]

Yes, I understand that, but Ireland is not America in that regard. The fundie Protestants are all up North, and thankfully don't impact the culture down South much @ all. Ian Paisley is the closest thing to James Dobson we have, and though he thunders, he never explicitly mentions Atheism or bothers with the Creationist/Evol debate.

I was once an Atheist too and a strong one @ that, and although certain events changed that, I never considered it an ideology or dogmatic adjunct of something else (like Sciene or Evol) and I never thought it was mandatory to overturn, discredit and destroy theism to achieve some sort of torpid victory for "Reason".

New Atheism, as a movement, is militant; you cannot deny this. Yet when theists recognize this and respond in kind, no criticism or characterization of Atheism is accepted by Atheists, even on the grounds of reason. If they can't agree on what they're supposed to believe and are trying to promote, why is everyone taking them so seriously (not least, themselves...)? Despite this, they most often act like what they accuse religionists, as I illustrated from my POV in the previous post you quoted. This forum is awash with religion bashers, God-haters, professional cynics, and quasi-intellectuals who attack anything they percieve as deviant from the new emergent norms of "Science and Reason", whilst failing mostly to understand those things in depth and believing in them simply as alternatives to the challenges of spirituality. which are too abstract (it seems).

I don't know where all of this is going, I really don't. If atheists won't accept any criticism of their position, then what? Believers who do the same will be criticized, and are! It's just absurd.

For a long time now, I have been saying this forum provides a Box with a ever churning merry-go-round in it.

What is being promoted is -

"Science vs Religion" (When the two are not mutually exclusive by any means).

"Evolution vs Creationism" (When there is no longer any debate in scientific circles about the issue @ all...why then in RF?)

And of course, constant "Theist vs Atheist" pseudo-battles that get nowhere, only lead to hurt feelings and misunderstandings; a playground of pomposity, where the most vicious and uncaring poster can confidently post senseless drivel and have everyone frubal him or her and post support simply because he has "Atheist" in his religion profile, and that's the coolest thing ever. Apparently.

It just goes on and on. I despair of it, maybe it's just me - I don't understand it.

Anyway, peace, I'm outta here to cool off...

Conor

Wish I could give you frubals for this post.

 

[Random]

You underestimate the power of the human mind to justify it's bias towards others. Denial: not just another river in Egypt. It's a way of life for all those of any belief who want to justify their beliefs at the cost of others. It's a vicious cycle and we need to break it.

Yes, I agree.

 

[yossarian22]

I've never read the book but it sounds interesting. What was she right about, Rolling Stone?

You are better off stabbing yourself in the face. You will be more intellectually stimulated.

It's great to see you rely on a highly subjective definition. Let's just try Dictionary.com

1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Nifty. Atheism fails to reach this definition.

2.a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

What is a fundamental belief of atheism please?
Is disbelief in something now a belief?

3.the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

Again, your definition fails to include atheism.
As an atheist, I have no belief in god. That's it. That is all that I must share with another atheist.

While belief in the supernatural can play a role in a religion, it is not essential. Playing fast and loose with words does little to prove your point.

Spoken with much experience. Your words failed to show your point at all.

Sort of like how many atheists portray Christians. Imagine that!

Yep. How about we stop branding them as atheists, and just refer to them as pricks from now on?

I don't know where all of this is going, I really don't. If atheists won't accept any criticism of their position, then what? Believers who do the same will be criticized, and are! It's just absurd.

I have never met an atheist who refused to hear criticism of their position. Of course, any criticism of their particular flavor of atheism tends to get me branded as a theist for some odd reason.

What is being promoted is -

"Science vs Religion" (When the two are not mutually exclusive by any means).

"Evolution vs Creationism" (When there is no longer any debate in scientific circles about the issue @ all...why then in RF?)

Odd how people still keep posting in [those] threads. I don't think that anybody is ever convinced or even interested by what pops up there (save for the occasional discovery]

And of course, constant "Theist vs Atheist" pseudo-battles that get nowhere, only lead to hurt feelings and misunderstandings; a playground of pomposity, where the most vicious and uncaring poster can confidently post senseless drivel and have everyone frubal him or her and post support simply because he has "Atheist" in his religion profile, and that's the coolest thing ever. Apparently.

Replace atheist with <generic description>, and I agree.

Evangelism ("religion is irrational and stupid, join the winning side now!"),

Fanaticism ("theists suffer with delusions and are mentally ill, they need to be locked up away from rational, sane people...like us")

Uncritical acceptance of external authority (eg. Science, Secularism, Democracy, Materialism)

Sounds more like a cult than a religion. Unless you want me to start defining religion with similar criterion...

 

[Rolling_Stone]

I've never read the book but it sounds interesting. What was she right about, Rolling Stone?

Specifically, she compares liberalism with religion, but a lot of it can be applied, and is applied to atheism. For example, proponents of the orthodox view of evolution recognize that epistemological naturalism is essentially an assumption against design and not based on an evidential finding. They should, therefore, agree that it is an assumption derived from a philosophical view rather than an empirical scientific conclusion, but instead dogmatically oppose the free market of ideas. She gives examples in her usual flamboyant way; meant to titillate the reader and upset her critics (which, as you can see in the post directly above, she does quite effectively). It's a fun read.