Open letter to Thunderf00t

[Laurens]

Whilst I don't particularly have much against the guy, I wouldn't use thunderf00t or his views as a yardstick for what other atheists think. Not because of anything personal against him, but because not all atheists agree with each other. There is no atheist's creed that states we should view science and religion as being in a permanent state of conflict. Sure some might adhere to this view, but not all. I certainly don't.

There are some beliefs such as creationism that are in conflict with science, but as a general rule I don't see a great deal of conflict, religious people can go about their business without affecting the progress of science and scientists can go about their business without affecting the beliefs of the religious. One can also be a religious scientist, so they can't be that deep in conflict otherwise the cognitive dissonance would be too much for people to take.

That is not to say that I view each as having equal value. I think science is perhaps the most valuable thing we are aware of, whilst religion is essentially worthless. However, I see no great conflict between the two aside from a few groups of rabid fanatics snapping at the heels of science. So yeah, I'm not sure where I'm going with this, other than to say that not everyone agrees with thunderf00t. I also might add that I'm not quite sure why you think you can reach him here, I've never seen him post, and I highly doubt he reads the forums, but never mind.

 

[Prolescum]

I wouldn't use thunderf00t or his views as a yardstick for what other atheists think.

VyckRo will never accept the simple truth behind this statement, that atheists have only their disbelief in common; he's convinced himself of "atheist myths", as if at some point in "atheist school" you learn "atheist history" while having "atheist music" class on Wednesday after "atheist lunch"; that place where kids who play "atheist football" are mocked by the cooler "atheist science" students.

He goes after Thunderf00t (and OMGicantbebotheredtolookuphername) because he's working under the delusion that these people have some sort of sway, as if showing how wrong a single person can be about something or other somehow invalidates all disbelief in gods.

Best to let him waffle on on his own until he gets bored and pisses off back to YouTube to start a fight with Pat Condell. He's unlikely to concede that his "atheist myths" are barely "myths" and not "atheist" at all, Thunderf00t is likely already ignoring him on YouTube, so really, what's the point in giving him the time of day? Besides having something to laugh at, I mean...

 

[australopithecus]

He goes after Thunderf00t (and OMGicantbebotheredtolookuphername) because he's working under the delusion that these people have some sort of sway, as if showing how wrong a single person can be about something or other somehow invalidates all disbelief in gods.

It's the "If it's an -ism, then all -ists must be the same" nonsense.

Just so there're no misunderstanding I'd just like to reiterate to Vyck that I think thunderf00t is a fucking idiot, and other than a lack of faith in gods we are not the same person. Ideologically or otherwise.

 

[Prolescum]

Just so there're no misunderstanding I'd just like to reiterate to Vyck that I think thunderf00t is a fucking idiot, and other than a lack of faith in gods we are not the same person. Ideologically or otherwise.

I would like to second this reiteration to Vyck that I think Thunderf00t is a fucking idiot, and other than a lack of faith in gods we are not the same person. Ideologically or otherwise.

 

[DepricatedZero]

Just so there're no misunderstanding I'd just like to reiterate to Vyck that I think thunderf00t is a fucking idiot, and other than a lack of faith in gods we are not the same person. Ideologically or otherwise.

I would like to second this reiteration to Vyck that I think Thunderf00t is a fucking idiot, and other than a lack of faith in gods we are not the same person. Ideologically or otherwise.

I would simply like to echo this sentiment.

 

[Prolescum]

I would simply like to echo this sentiment.

I'm Prolescum, and I approve (of) this message.

 

[another_mutant]

Obvious, an Atheist myths is a myth generally held by atheists, and that originated from a priori idea designed to discredit religion.

Okay, but you gave a few examples in your earlier post. One of those being that Galileo was savagely tortured by the Inquisition. I have never heard this before. Galileo was held under house arrest. Can you please cite a source that promotes this idea?

Another myth you attribute to atheism is that Columbus wanted to prove that the earth was round. I must admit that this was what I believed because it was what I was taught in elementary school. However, I learned the truth behind Columbus's voyage, namely finding a quicker path to the Indies, after I became an atheist.

This is why I wanted you to contrast your definition of atheist myth with general ignorance. Because it seems that one of your atheist myths is a fabrication and the other is a general misnomer with no ties to atheism.

Similar to your own story, I got the "Columbus proved the earth was round" myth in school. The "new trade route to Asia" was presented as a conclusion he reached from believing the earth was round. I also got the "Galileo was tortured" myth in school... and I don't appear to be the only one. It appears to be prevalent enough to show up in independent music.

Long ago when torture broke the remnant of his will - Galileo recanted but the earth is moving still.

None of that makes it an atheistic myth though... my elementary school was Lutheran, and my middle school was run by a fundamentalist evangelical Christian church. I haven't looked into the religion of that filk singer, but the wording of the song fits in with deist & liberal Christian theology. So it appears to be an "urban legend" rather than a specifically atheistic myth.

 

[theyounghistorian77]

I wouldn't use thunderf00t or his views as a yardstick for what other atheists think.

VyckRo will never accept the simple truth behind this statement, that atheists have only their disbelief in common; he's convinced himself of "atheist myths", as if at some point in "atheist school" you learn "atheist history" while having "atheist music" class on Wednesday after "atheist lunch"; that place where kids who play "atheist football" are mocked by the cooler "atheist science" students.

I guess it would interest you that hes turned the whole "atheist myth" concept into a video

 

[SirYeen]

I would like to second this reiteration to Vyck that I think Thunderf00t is a fucking idiot, and other than a lack of faith in gods we are not the same person. Ideologically or otherwise.

I would simply like to echo this sentiment.

I'm Ian and I jump on the bandwagon approve this message.

 

[australopithecus]

....and predictably Vyck has now abandoned this thread because his M.O (tarring all atheists with the same brush) cannot be employed if we all think tf00t is a dick.

 

[Dogma's Demise]

"Atheist myth" - a dishonest phrase used by VyckRo, considering you will find Christians who also believe in these "myths".

However there is one case in particular that is NOT a myth: Galileo WAS punished (not tortured, but put on house arrest) and there is no denying that religion played a role in achieving this, no matter how many attenuating circumstances you can find in the Catholic Church's favor (there are some but ultimately what the church did was wrong). You can all read the Papal Condemnation of 1633 (Galileo had been warned before in 1616 also): http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html

And I quote:

"This Holy Tribunal being therefore of intention to proceed against the disorder and mischief thence resulting, which went on increasing to the prejudice of the Holy Faith, by command of His Holiness and of the Most Eminent Lords Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition, the two propositions of the stability of the Sun and the motion of the Earth were by the theological Qualifiers qualified as follows:

The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.

The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is [/b]equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith[/b]."

Also:

"But whereas it was desired at that time to deal leniently with you, it was decreed at the Holy Congregation held before His Holiness on the twenty-fifth of February, 1616, that his Eminence the Lord Cardinal Bellarmine should order you to abandon altogether the said false doctrine and, in the event of your refusal, that an injunction should be imposed upon you by the Commissary of the Holy Office to give up the said doctrine and not to teach it to others, not to defend it, nor even to discuss it; and your failing your acquiescence in this injunction, that you should be imprisoned."

Now about this Bellarmine fellow, James Hannam (an author that VyckRo recommends) had this to say:

First, he was a Bible literalist:

"Bellarmine's opinion about the Bible was completely different from Galileo's and quite unusual among Catholics at the time. He believed that the Bible should always be treated as literally true unless there were ironclad reasons not to do so. Official Catholic doctrine laid down by the recent Council of Trent said that the Bible was only without error in matters of faith or morals. The clear implication was that incidental details might occasionally be wrong. Bellarmine disagreed. As the whole Bible was the word of God, then for him it was a matter of faith that it was completely without error."

He also was very dogmatic in approaching science, putting scripture before evidence, unless the evidence adhered to some super high standards (i.e. more than usual).

"He did concede that if Copernicus was ever proven to be correct, then he would just have to accept that the Bible was being figurative on this point. This attitude might sound commendably moderate, but this would mistake Bellarmine's meaning. As far as he was concerned, there was absolutely no chance that Copernicanism would be shown to be demonstrably true. Irrefutable proof in science is a rare enough thing and Bellarmine was insisting on complete certainty before he would reconsider what the Bible seemed to say. Clearly, science cannot operate in such an environment.

In March 1616, the Congregation of the Index of Forbidden Books made its decision on Copernicus: that to assert that the earth orbited the sun was scientifically 'foolish and absurd' as well as being contrary to scripture. Foscarini's book was banned outright and Copernicus's Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres suspended until corrected.15 As for Galileo, he was officially warned by Bellarmine that he could not defend, hold or teach the views of Copernicus."


So can anyone really say that religion did NOT play a significant role in the censorship of his books, that he did NOT spend the rest of his days a prisoner in his own home because of religion? I don't think so. Even the Pope apologized on behalf of the Church a while ago for the unjust sentence of Galileo, why would he do that if he thought the Church was justified in what it did?

And don't say "oh it was really just the Pope Urban abusing his power because Galileo made fun of him in his book", basically that's saying the church committed perjury when it wrote the Papal Condemnation, which doesn't improve its situation and only serves to prove that religion has NO PLACE, none whatsoever, in public matters.