Christ almighty, yes. I saw it advertised in the Radio Times, read the blurb and the blurb on the 'Choices' page, and immediately my blood pressure soared!
There's also the Spurlock one -- an atheist woman spends some time with a theist family. Will & Iris debated the programme in their podcast a few months back. I've been looking forward to it.
Err, slight, yet important difference: If evidence came to light that indisputably proved that there was a God, in any form the human imagination has or has not conceived one, then I would believe it. I base my judgements on proof and evidence, and in some cases 'logical deduction', and so far nothing has ever been presented to me that would convince me in the existence of a god. A 'Fundamentalist' is a product of 'interpretation': one who makes a 'fundamentalist' interpretation of biblical texts (which presupposes the possibility and existence of 'more than one' interpretation of the same text. I've yet to encounter arguments over the interpretation of The Origin of Species that would lead to competing interpretations where a 'fundamentalist' interpretation of the text has the possibility of arising.
Anyway - got to go to work.
_____________________________ “I am, thank God, an atheist” - Luis Buñuel
Originally posted by Flooper: Err, slight, yet important difference: If evidence came to light that indisputably proved that there was a God, in any form the human imagination has or has not conceived.....
Sorry for suggesting that you could be self-righteous.
Rod Liddle talks bollox about why he thinks atheists are as bad as fundamentalists.
Whether or not I would really pay attention to the fish-lipped fornicator, Liddle, is a moot point, but I've seen this 'argument' become more prevalent in recent times. It comes about when that special brand of lilly-livered liberalism demands appeasement of abhorent views by a variety of guilt-complexes, of which this kind of 'debate' is an example of.
Of course, there are people who could be described as 'evangelical athiests', but there is always just one slight difference which stands out for me.
Although the athiest can be steadfast on evolution and the lack of any form of deity, it's due to trying to ascertain facts through intellectual rigour, not taking the hocus-pocus words of various religious scriptures as 'gospel'. They are quite prepared to admit they're wrong if, beyond all reasonable doubt they are proven so, and finally, don't insist that one is going to spend a fiery existence if one doesn't believe in science and objective truth..
We're all judgemental to a certain extent, but I find it very rare to meet a Godbotherer who doesn't believe that my soul needs to be saved as I'm a Heathen of the highest order. What did God say? Judge lest you be judged? Or was it, England should have played Monty Panesar? I forget.......
well he'll be talking about what i call 'active atheists' rather than the majority of people who don't believe in god but give it no more thought than that...
still you can't even comnpare 'active atheists' to fundamentalists... they couldn't be more polarised...
dubs
>>>>>>>>>> I am happy to purchase a wife for £20 but only if she has plough experience, 5 fingers, and no history of retardation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Name me a theory that has no experimental proof of any of its claims. Any takers?
Although the athiest can be steadfast on evolution and the lack of any form of deity, it's due to trying to ascertain facts through intellectual rigour, not taking the hocus-pocus words of various religious scriptures as 'gospel'. They are quite prepared to admit they're wrong if, beyond all reasonable doubt they are proven so, and finally, don't insist that one is going to spend a fiery existence if one doesn't believe in science and objective truth..
It would be highly erroneous to believe in 'objective truth' as no such concept can logically be said to exist. You're a fan of 'proof', so if you think absolute, objective truth exists, prove it.
P.S. It might also be a good idea to learn how to spell 'atheist'.
Originally posted by postmodern tease: It would be highly erroneous to believe in 'objective truth' as no such concept can logically be said to exist. You're a fan of 'proof', so if you think absolute, objective truth exists, prove it.
It would also be highly pedantic of you to point this out. Given that perfect facts don't exist, we can only analyse the world in terms of what we see, feel, smell etc. Hence we can talk about facts and proof 'beyond all reasonable doubt.'
Now, we can add this caveat to everything, or we could just not bother and call things facts and proof and only make the qualification if challenged. The premise that we cannot prove something perfectly renders talk of perfection utterly meaningless, so the dropping of the caveat is 'perfectly' reasonable.
It would be highly erroneous to believe in 'objective truth' as no such concept can logically be said to exist. You're a fan of 'proof', so if you think absolute, objective truth exists, prove it.
P.S. It might also be a good idea to learn how to spell 'atheist'.
And if you're going to be that pedantic, you should have realised Syd did not say that he believed in objective truth, only that atheists tend not to judge people for all eternity for not agreeing with them.
It would be highly erroneous to believe in 'objective truth' as no such concept can logically be said to exist. You're a fan of 'proof', so if you think absolute, objective truth exists, prove it.
That sounds suspiciously like a philosophical technicality designed to obfuscate the fact that there is, in reality, an objective truth to be had.
The truth of some things (1 = 1, The Earth is a Sphere, pi is irrational) does not depend on one's perspective. If you believe contrary to any of these things, you are wrong.
I realise that in the pure philosophical sense there is no objective truth, but pure philosophy is rather abstract and our existance is not.
------ "The lack of flying kangaroos patently proves that Darwinism is false." - blast99
Although the athiest can be steadfast on evolution and the lack of any form of deity, it's due to trying to ascertain facts through intellectual rigour, not taking the hocus-pocus words of various religious scriptures as 'gospel'. They are quite prepared to admit they're wrong if, beyond all reasonable doubt they are proven so, and finally, don't insist that one is going to spend a fiery existence if one doesn't believe in science and objective truth..
It would be highly erroneous to believe in 'objective truth' as no such concept can logically be said to exist. You're a fan of 'proof', so if you think absolute, objective truth exists, prove it.
P.S. It might also be a good idea to learn how to spell 'atheist'.
Oh, sorry, yes. It's one of 'those words' which I continue to spell as I did as a child, but hardly a cogent argument. And you registered to point that out? I'm honoured, but by 'objective truth', I mean scientific provable 'facts' about the nature of the universe. The difference, as has been pointed out, is that I (and the majority of atheists) can admit to the fact that we may be wrong in our assumptions if they are proved to be thus. Nothing is truly ever an 'objective truth' (what is perfection?), but it is in the nature of our species (rightly so) to attempt to search for these 'answers', and I'll take science's word over 'God's' any day (until the day God shows up and let's us all in on the joke, of course).
It's just the judgemental thing I have a problem with. Like judging a post and it's ideas based on spelling errors.
yeah that's the problem with philosphy- 'there is no wrong' and equally useful statements... whilst true it's also esepcially unhelpful in debates when people like to flick between arguments grounded in reality and arguments grounded in theory-
it's a common technique theists often use when their reality-based arguments run out or fall down...
dubs
>>>>>>>>>> I am happy to purchase a wife for £20 but only if she has plough experience, 5 fingers, and no history of retardation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Name me a theory that has no experimental proof of any of its claims. Any takers?
The spelling correction was a post script, hence the abbreviation 'P.S.' And no need to be flattered in any way - I certainly didn't 'register' (you mean come online, I take it??) to read anything you'd written... What I was pointing out was the fallacious nature of your previous reference to 'objective truth', which you spoke about as if it was a given (much in the same way that I presume you would say theists speak about God). However, you now concede that that was incorrect, so progress of sorts has been made at least. The 'judgement' of your ideas was based on that inaccuracy, not on your spelling mistake(s). However, I do love that you admit to spelling like a child!
