Thread: Who gives a f**** about fundies?

Originally Posted by mysterious dreamer

With that comment, you're just being a fundie atheist.

Oh my science.

Originally Posted by mysterious dreamer

With that comment, you're just being a fundie atheist.

Fundie atheist > Religious fundie.

Why? Because these 'fundie atheists' have arrived at a logical conclusion based on good evidence, not someone telling them this or that is correct. That they should believe even though the evidence is stacked against said belief. After all, Satan created this evidence to try and dissuade believers, didn't he?

Oh my science indeed.

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

Why? Because these 'fundie atheists' have arrived at a logical conclusion based on good evidence, not someone telling them this or that is correct.

So says every fundie that is a fundie about anything. Fundamentalism is inherently flawed because it assumes a statement or a certain set of statements are undeniable truths, when in fact there is no such thing as objective truth that can be grasped by the human mind. Everything is subjective to us in reality, but there are varying levels of this subjective truth which we attempt to filter through with logic, and thus we create worldviews.

Are you any better than a theist fundie by being an atheist fundie? No, sir, you are not. The truth about god is inherently unknowable, because the evidence we use to weigh the possibility of his existence is not within this universe. We are left with a question that has no answer. Stop arguing about you arguing. It's an infinite reflection of the human ego and expands the illusion that we know what is and what isn't.

It is a waste of breath, as neatly put by so many on either side of the argument. Maybe you should take your own advice.

Originally Posted by Daniel Danciu

So says every fundie that is a fundie about anything. Fundamentalism is inherently flawed because it assumes a statement or a certain set of statements are undeniable truths, when in fact there is no such thing as objective truth that can be grasped by the human mind. Everything is subjective to us in reality, but there are varying levels of this subjective truth which we attempt to filter through with logic, and thus we create worldviews.

Are you any better than a theist fundie by being an atheist fundie? No, sir, you are not. The truth about god is inherently unknowable, because the evidence we use to weigh the possibility of his existence is not within this universe. We are left with a question that has no answer. Stop arguing about you arguing. It's an infinite reflection of the human ego and expands the illusion that we know what is and what isn't.

It is a waste of breath, as neatly put by so many on either side of the argument. Maybe you should take your own advice.

But if they would set aside their upbringing and their current beliefs and look at all the evidence lain before them with the objective of finding knowledge they would realize that the religious beliefs they once took as truth are probably not so.

I am not a fundie atheist; I acknowledge that god is a possibility. I understand why some people still believe in god. I just don't think, based on all the evidence, that he exists. Nonetheless, I still favor the fundie atheist over the religious fundamentalist due to the very fact that atheists do have science and facts instead of hollow promises as backing.

Atheism is not a position that positively asserts anything. You can't be a fundie about it.

Originally Posted by Serkat

There's no need to back that up. Given that religious belief is stupid and wrong, being a fundie is fundamentally stupid and wrong.

If there is no need to back it up? Well then you're just making speculation in same fashion that the OP has done. Just because "you" say it's fundamenatally wrong doesn't make it fact.

I believe that no one here had the chance to live in a communist country. If you did, you'd realise what real fundie atheists are. Cause they went around burning churches and sending priests to the "naked island". And for that reason there are more religious people in those countries cause the religion has been repressed and with the lift of the repression, people had a much better opinion about it (if it wasn't good, they wouldn't ban it).

And in the west it's the opposite. Atheism was repressed with silly priests telling that you'll go to hell if you don't give him money and show up in church each sunday. As soon as the repression was eased and people had the choice, they started trashing religion and telling how atheism is logical and smart (again, if it wasn't good, they wouldn't ban it).

It doesn't really have much to do with being logical and smart, just with the general perception of the society. And it has absolutely nothing to do with Satan, he's a lame argument the catholics use for every thing they can't explain.

What you're describing is more like an atheist extremeist, mysterious dreamer.

It doesn't really have much to do with being logical and smart

Yes it does. Otherwise many people would not be atheists including myself. If anything, I was repressed by atheists telling me I was wrong. One day I thought about it and realized I was just holding on to my belief as some beacon of hope that God would help me. Once I accepted that god probably wasn't real and definitely wasn't going to help me, my life began improving.

Is it posssible that, in these communist countries, there were already many religious people to begin with and once persecution stopped they were allowed to practice their religion freely once again?

Anybody who makes their decision on what feels right, whether it be by social pressures or glorification, would be considered a fool by many half-intelligent atheists.

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

Anybody who makes their decision on what feels right, whether it be by social pressures or glorification, would be considered a fool by many half-intelligent atheists.

And your decision to believe that in-animate molecules spontaneously reacted to bring fourth all of life as we know it is based off of what exactly?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

And your decision to believe that in-animate molecules spontaneously reacted to bring fourth all of life as we know it is based off of what exactly?

general lol.


You don't really get science do you?

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

general lol.


You don't really get science do you?

lol.. Okay explain to me what I'm missing.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

lol.. Okay explain to me what I'm missing.

Well, the reason elements react spontaneously to create different compounds and such is because they can become more stable by doing so. Some reactions require energy (endergonic) and some which give off energy (exergonic). Based on this, I assume that all life on Earth, no matter how mind-bogglingly complex, sprang forth from these same rules of action and reaction.

lol.. Okay explain to me what I'm missing.

An organism is a set of inanimate molecules spontaneously reacting.

How did set of inanimate molecules spontaneously reacting become a set of inanimate molecules spontaneously reacting?

Hmm good question.

you know what I do? I leave them be. More power to people like you and me. The only reason religions still exists today is because the people in power know it's one of the biggest distractions from the truth. It's one more mode of control. Fuck it, I know I'm smarter than that.

geez why does anyone bother getting into a religious argument, Atheists will never concede that there is a god and vice versa! Massive waste of time.

Originally Posted by Xei

An organism is a set of inanimate molecules spontaneously reacting.

How did set of inanimate molecules spontaneously reacting become a set of inanimate molecules spontaneously reacting?

Hmm good question.

This.

Now, the stupid discussions can all end.

Okay.

What I meant was, the Religious Fundies, more specifically the ones who don't accept evolution, and even more specifically, the ones who generate all of this nonsense, are wrong, simply. I don't intend to get into a big argument about it here, but if you have a question as to why that is I will certainly elaborate, but, these people just do this to cause trouble and be 'controversial' and it's all bullshit, so why do people still feed these trolls? That's what I was asking.

Sorry if that doesn't make sense, it's late.

Originally Posted by AnDUHrew

Atheists will never concede that there is a god and vice versa! Massive waste of time.

Again, this isn't true.

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

Well, the reason elements react spontaneously to create different compounds and such is because they can become more stable by doing so. Some reactions require energy (endergonic) and some which give off energy (exergonic). Based on this, I assume that all life on Earth, no matter how mind-bogglingly complex, sprang forth from these same rules of action and reaction.

That’s not mind boggling it’s actually quite accurate for “existing” life. Here’s the mind-boggling part. I'm curious to know what prebiotically plausible mechanism was in play for channeling the available prebiotic energy into performing “biological” work resulting in an endergonic reaction? I ask this question because, for existing life and even evolution we can give a full account of how energy enters organisms and how it is then used to maintain the high degree of order of the organisms, and to even increase the organism’s complexity, however I don’t understand what mechanism guided the channeling of available prebiotic energy to perform spontaneous reactions.

Originally Posted by Xei

How did the first set of inanimate molecules spontaneously reacting become a set of inanimate molecules spontaneously reacting?

Hmm good question.

--Fixed-- That actually is a good question. Got an answer?

Science explains the universe, life and everying as a chain of highly improbable and mostly unprovable events (I'm not saying that they are impossible and that they didn't happen). So how did so many one in a bajillion chances happened? To say by accident is not less crazy than to say by God.

Originally Posted by mysterious dreamer

Science explains the universe, life and everying as a chain of highly improbable and mostly unprovable events (I'm not saying that they are impossible and that they didn't happen). So how did so many one in a bajillion chances happened? To say by accident is not less crazy than to say by God.

When I was on my way home a brown cat got hit by a red fotball 15 meters from my house. The chance of that happening is one in a bajillion. However when it happens the probability is 1/1.

My point is, the chance of anything you do is going to happen exactly the way it does is 1 in a bajillion. But it happend, so the probability is 1/1.

Originally Posted by JustSoSick

When I was on my way home a brown cat got hit by a red fotball 15 meters from my house. The chance of that happening is one in a bajillion. However when it happens the probability is 1/1.

My point is, the chance of anything you do is going to happen exactly the way it does is 1 in a bajillion. But it happend, so the probability is 1/1.

That's true, but only when you know it happened. Not when you assume and theorise about the beggining of universe or life.

--Fixed-- That actually is a good question. Got an answer?

What the hell?

No it isn't. I don't even know what you're talking about, the first set of chemical reactions won't have been organic at all, they would probably have been something like the burning of hydrogen after the first generation of stars had created oxygen.

The first set of reactions didn't need to 'do' anything to 'become' a set of reactions. There is no problem here...

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

[FONT=Times New Roman][FONT=Verdana]That’s not mind boggling it’s actually quite accurate for “existing” life. Here’s the mind-boggling part. I'm curious to know what prebiotically plausible mechanism was in play for channeling the available prebiotic energy into performing “biological” work resulting in an endergonic reaction? I ask this question because, for existing life and even evolution we can give a full account of how energy enters organisms and how it is then used to maintain the high degree of order of the organisms, and to even increase the organism’s complexity, however I don’t understand what mechanism guided the channeling of available prebiotic energy to perform spontaneous reactions.

Perhaps life began out as individual nucleotides. Ones that would come together and build on themselves over time and form complex life-forms. Though we certainly don't know for sure, all it would take to create an amino acid from these bases is the correct set of reactions.

Have you heard of Viroids? These are little infectious strings of RNA that attack plants. In comparison to DNA, they are quite small. I say they are proof for the above statement.

Science explains the universe, life and everying as a chain of highly improbable and mostly unprovable events (I'm not saying that they are impossible and that they didn't happen). So how did so many one in a bajillion chances happened? To say by accident is not less crazy than to say by God.

It actually is less crazy because to say it was done by god assumes that god, a completely omniscient, highly intelligent, sentient presence came into play and made all the decisions by himself. Religion never describes what created god if god created us. It always funnels down to science.

Also, given the sheer scale of the universe and time (there are more stars than all the sand on all the beaches in the entire world. Seeing as space is flippin huge, it isn't out of possibility that there are more galaxies than sand on all the beaches in the entire world), I'd say a one in a bajillion chance is pretty darn good.

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

It actually is less crazy because to say it was done by god assumes that god, a completely omniscient, highly intelligent, sentient presence came into play and made all the decisions by himself. Religion never describes what created god if god created us. It always funnels down to science.

Actually, religion tries to explain that God was always there and that nothing created a God. Now that's quite a problem cause it's usually beyond normal human way of thinking, humans then ask how did God came to be if nothing created Him. But officially, God is timeless and is the beginning.

Also, given the sheer scale of the universe and time (there are more stars than all the sand on all the beaches in the entire world. Seeing as space is flippin huge, it isn't out of possibility that there are more galaxies than sand on all the beaches in the entire world), I'd say a one in a bajillion chance is pretty darn good.

In the end it comes to the fact that people believe into something, cause different people find different things more logical, more probable, or were under different influence. I think that discussing weither your right or wrong for being a fan of Man U or Man City would be the same as any religious discussion.