Mythology and Belief of Anti-Theism

Thus it appears that fearandloathing believes in no distinction between A1 and A2. Either that or he wonders which subcategory you classify him as. Yes.
Thus agnosticism is probably the most logical position to take. Who declared such a position as a default? The default position should logically be that such a claim can not yet be scientifically investigated... Thats refreshingly honest! Two equally valid beliefs, at any rate.Neither can be examined scientifically. Absence of evidence equals simply that. No further hypothesis can be made. Thats my belief as well. What exactly is "religious thought"? Does it have characteristics that differ from your personal beliefs? Can you assert anything apart from observational differences? Quite a broad indictment. The only reasonable explanation....? And so we continue....

Yeah. Supposed that Jesus Christ existed, except that his name wasn't "Jesus Christ", he didn't have twelve disciples, he didn't give the Sermon on the Mount, he didn't perform any miracles, he wasn't captured and executed by the Romans, and he didn't rise from the dead three days later. Can you really say then that there was such a person as "Jesus Christ"?

The problem with "fundamentalist" is that it comes with too much baggage. It is often a pejorative that is used without any historical context or knowledge of the theologies it refers to. One common thread amongst fundamentalist theologies is a rejection of Modernism and Secularism. I don't see "fundamentalist atheism" adhering to these doctrines.Perhaps "strident" or "dogmatic" would be closer to what you are looking for?More to the point, atheists do agree that claims of theism need to be backed by evidence. Cynical atheists may very well point to the thousands of years that theists have failed to do just this and then conclude that there probably isn't a deity of any kind. "Weak" atheists may be open to the idea that such evidence could still exist, even though it appears quite unlikely. However, the fundamental argument is a lack of evidence for theistic claims. Is this the fundamental argument you are talking about?

I'd suggest the fact atheism, in general, may be rightly termed as a belief system is a given - it doesn't seem debatable.However, I am taking issue with the way in which the term 'anti-theism' is being employed within this statement. In current form, it's an intentional jab at worst and causes confusion in the OP at best. Anti-theism is simply a way of saying atheism.A generalized view of atheism among many people in general is 'not believing in god(s)'. Your line of reasoning begins to fail in this sense, as the majority of atheists/anti-theists fail to meet the qualifiers (ie. extreme, religious hatred, etc.).Let's consider what atheism is and how is it defined ...

quote:

---

The more common understanding of atheism among atheists is not believing in any gods.

---

Link - atheism.about.comThis is the primary limitation implicated within any sect of the syncretic atheistic world belief system.One may also compare this to the similiar theological premise found within Buddhism, etc.. Continuing from that source ...

quote:

---

No claims or denials are made - an atheist is a person who is not a theist.

---

Here we seem to lean into agnostic territories, but then again, they are often confused amongst each other, no? A difference can be noted in that the typical atheist claims nothing to discuss or ponder, while the agnostic does.This is the average sort of atheism where no claims or denials are ever made and an atheist can simply maintain their status as one who's not a theist, and so, certainly not a fundamentalist. Furthermore, there is reason to suppose one of these would accept God within their belief system or world view if presented with compelling evidence to that end.However, this 'no claim' atheism is not at all the brand of atheism often found roaming the interwebz or here at EvC, being a debate forum and all, and much less the sect traditionally applauded and held in high regard amongst YouTube followers.A little further & we get to the meat of this ...

quote:

---

Sometimes this broader understanding is called weak or implicit atheism.

---

Consider, there is much theology - or theory, alleged to be ‘based on the bible', but - as we both know, in actual practice it is based on selective quotations. This, of course, necessitates the obvious requirement of selective nullification.It's this dynamic which, imho, best explains why there are hundreds of denominations and divisions in what is refered to as 'the church' - no canon is consistent and this leads to inconsistent selection and differences in opinion concerning what should and should not be nullified, resulting in schisms and sectarianism.Likewise, variant perceptions of life itself are not always consistent, and so, this has lead to inconsistent selection and differences in opinion concerning what should and should not be nullified as reality itself, resulting in schisms and sectarianism forming a society with definitively pluralistic world views.This dynamic is in no way spared on the variant traditions associated within atheism.So then, a sectarian division of atheist's which may be commonly referred to as practitioners within the 'weak atheism' movement or practitioners within the 'implicit atheism' movement result through selectively nullifying variant perceptions.

quote:

---

There is also a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called strong or explicit atheism. Here, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods - making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point.

---

Conversely, through this type of schism, we're likewise confronted by another sect of atheist's which may commonly be referred to as practitioners within the 'strong atheism' movement or practitioners within the 'explicit atheism' movement.These are those on the fringe who are willing to make claims and defend them in battle. A dynamic presenting itself is the use of implicit and explicit within these variant atheistic belief systems. As well, we find the terms weak and strong, with their hierarchical overtones ringing as only church bells do.Ultimately, as far as one can tell, these dogmatic implications naturally wreak of religious orthodoxy.Indeed, many atheists actually oppose those your threads wishes to examine, yet theses types aren't advertised well due in large part to their lack of activism, which defines them, in support of their preferred syncretic belief system.Work of this nature is reserved for strong or explicit atheists - a group more in line with your OP, and so your conclusion, with regards to those who may be more rightly termed militant or fundamental atheists.Nonetheless, typical atheists are - by definition, not found making claims. For this reason, the fundamental atheist begins exposing their mythology through the claims they choose to make, as they separate themselves from the typical atheist.In Message 3 Paulk noted, 'The Jesus Myth hypothesis is a fringe idea, but not one that can be conclusively disproven.'.The implications encapsulated within this statement evidently describe an activist fringe group and it's activism of this nature which ultimately separates the explicit/ fundamental/militant/ strong atheist from the average and typical atheist.Of course that doesn't address the fact various religious practioners maintain involvment with jesus myth traditions.

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Since atheists tend to enjoy being the fly in the ointment, the real deal is why do these two questions have more importance than "does an invisible dragon live in my garage, or do invisible garage dragons not exist?". Why is the God Question given more importance than every other imagined creature from myth and human imagination for which there is equal evidence? Does your rejection of invisible garage dragons make you a fundamentalist atheist?IOW, why is the God Question given special treatment?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

From my experience, the only difference between agnosticism and atheism is that there is less perceived social stigma with calling yourself an agnostic. As far as arguments, there is no difference between the two. If a 100 foot tall Zeus came down from Mt. Olympus and walked the breadth of the Earth for a period of 5 years no agnostic would be indecisive about whether or not there is a god, and neither would the atheist. Just ask an agnostic if they have a positive belief in any of the gods described by man. If they answer no then tell them to join the atheists.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Well, we're not looking at generalized. Specifically, I'm looking at the atheist equivalent of religious fundamentalists.I think I've made this clear in numerous replies to objections just like yours.

---

Love your enemies!

One issue is your feeble attempt to categorize this atheist equivalent has been shown to be ridiculous. Maybe if you can actually show an atheist that is the equivalent you can get this discussion to actually begin.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

I suppose you can call it what you'd like. I think you certainly seem to understand what I am talking about, so I'm not too concerned about a miscommunication between you and I. One thing I wanted to avoid in this thread was a worn-out discussion of whether or not there are any gods and whether or not any position on the propositions related to gods are reasonable or not. I wanted to stick to verifiable/falsifiable claims. This is why I used real-world examples: the existence of historical figures, the statements made in books, etc. My thesis, according to the OP, is that there are fundamentalist (strident, fanatic, or dogmatic) atheists making claims about the real world that are demonstrably unreasonable, unrealistic, and illogical.Nevertheless, under a false assumption that the adoption of atheism automatically makes one reasonable, realistic, and logical (or something like that), these fundamentalist atheists maintain their positions to be reasonable, realistic, and logical. And so it is as impossible to have a discussion with them on their position as it is to have a discussion with any other fundy.We can spot these folk when we find them using the same kind of shitty arguments as other fundieswith whom we're more familiar: logical fallacies, arguments based on false/nonsensical information, etc.My main question is: If these claims are so ridiculous, why do these people make and cling to them? What is the mindset(s) fostering the irrationality of irrational (fundamentalist, strident, fanatic, or dogmatic) atheism?Jon

---

Love your enemies!

No. First of all there are members of many religions that could conceivably hold that opinion, Jews being the least of them.But run of the mill atheists can hold that position too. The arguments in favour of a historical Jesus are hardly cast iron. They are basically of the form 'it would be unusual to include x in the gospel accounts unless it really happened'.But I suppose the if you refer to a strong statement that Jesus absolutely did not exist, then if you were to find that opinion it would likely be from 'extreme atheists'.However, I wouldn't necessarily characterise Robert M Price as an extreme atheist. Although his position is a negative one on the existence of Jesus, he does suggest there is a historical basis for the religion and he isn't necessarily fanatical or dogmatic about the non-existence of Jesus:

quote:

---

There might have been an historical Jesus, but unless someone discovers his diary or his skeleton we'll never know.

---

Please show us some of these ridiculous claims. So far you have not shown any ridiculous claims that would make someone an extremist. Give an example of irrational atheism.It still seems to me that the only purpose you have for this thread is to bash atheist. Maybe can present an argument that shows that this is a false impression.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

The Volcano idea I think comes from the Exodus description of God as being a cloud filled with fire that likes to hang around the tops of mountains.Exodus 24:

quote:

---

And the glory of the LORD abode upon mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days: and the seventh day he called unto Moses out of the midst of the cloud.
And the sight of the glory of the LORD was like devouring fire on the top of the mount in the eyes of the children of Israel.

---

And earlier in Exodus 13:

quote:

---

And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night:

---

There are other descriptions of the mountain shaking as the top was covered in smoke and fire.That said - I don't think the geology actually supports this notion at all.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

If he presents Robert Price as an extremist atheist it is obvious he has an axe to grind. Price is in no way an extremist and is not an atheist. I guess in Jon's world anyone not his type of Christian is an atheist, and any questioning of the historicity of Jesus is right out.About Robert Price

quote:

---

A self-described humanist, he is a member of the Episcopal Church

---

Source
I didn't realize that Episcopalian's were a bastion for Atheism. I should thank Jon for pointing that out.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

What type of Christian would that be?

---

Love your enemies!

Hope all is well .. Exactly.So, if you're not trying to intentionally offend the average and typical anti-theist/athiest, who by definition does not make any claims - much less extreme ones, nor demonstrates hatred towards those of variant faith, why the poor wording?I guess I'm at a loss as to how conflating an average atheist with the fundie type will help further any dialogue in this vein.Care to explain? Message 49 plainly identifies them by demonstrating a fairly brief and concise breakdown of the syncretic atheist construct. Perhaps you could avoid repeated and further miscommunication by taking a moment to refine the OP.Or you could simply continue to sabotage your topic through lackadaisical terminology.Your thread jon ..One Love

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary