Fundamentalist Atheists

[LuisDantas]

I am not attacking atheists. I am specifically targeting anti-theists. I am not doing so based on bigotry, but based on their behavior. Again, if you have a problem with that, tough.

I do. Because it makes no sense, has no discernible justification in actual facts or their consequences, and does not quite fit the mindset I used to see in you.

What is wrong with anti-theism anyway? How is it significantly different from opposition to any other idea that we find harmful?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Wow. No, I've never seen any of those. Wasn't even aware that Greenpeace put up billboards. I just don't like those billboards that feel like they were taken from posts on a debate forum and are mocking or try to scare people, no matter what religion or non-religion it is.

If an organization's billboards are truthful, I don't see what the issue is. Sure, some of the FFRF billboards are aesthetically clunky, but I chalk this up to them not making graphic design as high a priority as I would, not some sign that they're closed-minded reactionaries.

What do you think about FFRF's non-advertising activities (i.e. most of what they do)? Do you also consider legal defense of the First Amendment and church-state separation to be a mark of closed-mindedness?

 

[9Westy9]

A question to all of you: the OP talked about mainstream atheist and fundamentalist atheists. Are you talking about mainstream atheists, or "fundamentalist" atheists?

Or do you think that mainstream atheists are "fundamentalist" so it's a distinction without difference?

when I think of fundamentalist atheists I think of the aggressive anti-theists who use sweeping generalisations to attack religion. I haven't seen many on this forum mainly in other areas of the internet.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is a significant difference between being irrational and being fideist, 9-10ths. One can be fideist and be completely rational ... within that framework of preconceptions.

I'm not interested in this semantic argument. I'd like you to defend your description of Dawins and Hitchens:

there is no arguing with them, their minds are made up, and they do not allow themselves to be confused with such picayune concerns like facts or logic.

What reason do you have to say that Dawkins and Hitchens are such people?

Keep in mind that in the case of Hitchens, you're talking about someone who chose to test his belief that waterboarding isn't torture by being waterboarded himself... and changed his mind as a result. This does not sound to me like the sort of person you describe.

 

[illykitty]

What is wrong with anti-theism anyway?

Speaking for myself, I don't like having opinions/information shoved down my throat. I don't care if it's fact or not, it's just rude and unappealing.

If you want me to listen to you, it's really not the way to proceed, regardless of whether you're Christian, Atheist or Pastafarian.

And that's what anti-theists often do, shove it down your throat and if you don't accept, you're an idiot. That is, imo, wrong. It's also wrong to assume that everyone who has a religion is or thinks the same as a Christian extremist.

Honestly I don't think these sort of tactics ever work. It's probably giving even more reason for Fundies to "combat" anti-theists and cling to their misconceptions. It gives rise to an "us vs them" mentality.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

Anyone else bothered by the existence of what I call either fundamentalist or mainstream atheists? To be honest, these guys and gals annoy me more than almost any other group. I'm talking about these outspoken atheist who'll literally result to fideism in their hate for religion or fallacy to attack religion. Pretty much 99% of r/atheism.

Anyone else see these folks?

Sorry... I had to!

 

[LuisDantas]

Speaking for myself, I don't like having opinions/information shoved down my throat. I don't care if it's fact or not, it's just rude and unappealing.

If you want me to listen to you, it's really not the way to proceed, regardless of whether you're Christian, Atheist or Pastafarian.

And that's what anti-theists often do, shove it down your throat and if you don't accept, you're an idiot. That is, imo, wrong. It's also wrong to assume that everyone who has a religion is or thinks the same as a Christian extremist.

Honestly I don't think these sort of tactics ever work. It's probably giving even more reason for Fundies to "combat" anti-theists and cling to their misconceptions. It gives rise to an "us vs them" mentality.

Isn't that a criticism of a certain form of discourse as opposed to of anti-theism proper, though?

One, I want to add, that does not even correlate particularly well with anti-theism?

Maybe people have an exagerated perception of anti-theism because it is usually dismissed so casually, and therefore only perceived when it shocks.

I don't know.

 

[Thief]

This thread could be heading in so many directions.

And like some participants, I can't see the line drawn.

Sure there are nonbelievers that won't concede an argument for God.
Some do so with a history book in their grip.
Some do so with a science book.
Some do so with a bible.

So...is the focus on those who have no book at all?
They just don't WANT to believe.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Attacking a generalised group is just bigotry.

Why not address the behaviour of a specific person, and give examples - rather than attacking and insulting a broad group? Otherwise it is just rather hateful and insulting.

Yeah, that's my impression of the OP. Just another let's-all-hate-the-bogeyman-together kind of thread.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Anti-theists. Examples include Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. These are the folks who insist that ALL religions are bad for EVERYONE.

I don't know anything about Hitchens and Dawkins, so could you post the quotes where they've claimed that all religions are bad for everyone... or however they phrased it?

 

[Revoltingest]

If an organization's billboards are truthful, I don't see what the issue is.

The "truth" in "truthful" is generally a perspective. If a billboard showed an aborted fetus with
a claim of murder, it could be quite offensive while being every bit as truthful as the best of'm.

The problem here is that "fundamentalist" has become an insult to describe anyone full of in-your-face fervor.
I'll continue to reclaim it as a neutral description of one who believes in a religion hook line & sinker.
It's not bad....just how they are relative to those who see their scripture as more inspired than factual.
Some fundies, some non-fundies, & some atheists are annoying jerks. Call'm that. "Anti-theist" is good too.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

What is wrong with anti-theism anyway? How is it significantly different from opposition to any other idea that we find harmful?

If we can believe the OP, anti-atheism seems just fine. So why bash anti-theism?

 

[Koldo]

For the record, I can easily conceive of a scientific explanation for the evolution of religious behavior. (Just as a thought experiment ...) If that turned out to be true, and religion is a powerful adaptation which serves humanity in some crucial way (perhaps because nihilism and depression can easily overwhelm sentient beings for example), it would be ironic indeed if scientific debate was employed to disable that adaptation and render us all less fit to survive. Wouldn't it ?

No.
Is it science's duty to increase our survival chances?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The "truth" in "truthful" is generally a perspective. If a billboard showed an aborted fetus with
a claim of murder, it could be quite offensive while being every bit as truthful as the best of'm.

I was specifically talking about the FFRF's billboards, which (as far as I've seen) don't have any images or content that's inherently offensive. As an example, unless they've misquoted Butterfly McQueen, I don't see any problem with this billboard:

 

[Willamena]

I was specifically talking about the FFRF's billboards, which (as far as I've seen) don't have any images or content that's inherently offensive. As an example, unless they've misquoted Butterfly McQueen, I don't see any problem with this billboard:

Comparing religion to slavery isn't offensive?


(As an aside, I suspect and I'm sure that Ms. Butterfly's quote was made in the context of a larger, very interesting presentation that began by building up and then delivering the comparison to make a point. But taken out of context, that point is lost and all you're left with is the blunt comparison.)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Comparing religion to slavery isn't offensive?

I said that it's not inherently offensive: it doesn't violate any normal standards of decency. It has no images or words that in and of themselves are disturbing or vulgar. It has no images of corpses, profanity, or the like.

The implications of the quote could certainly be taken as offensive by some, but since religion really can often be oppressive, I see no problem with pointing this fact out.

(As an aside, I suspect and I'm sure that Ms. Butterfly's quote was made in the context of a larger, very interesting presentation that began by building up and then delivering the comparison to make a point. But taken out of context, that point is lost and all you're left with is the blunt comparison.)

It was said to a reporter in 1989. I can't find the article it came from online, but in my experience, interviews with journalists don't tend to be "larger presentations". Other information I've read about her suggests to me that the quote accurately reflects what her views were.

Her

 

[Willamena]

Maybe their criticisms have too much truth in them for you?

*smacks her knee*

That's got to be it!

 

[Willamena]

I said that it's not inherently offensive: it doesn't violate any normal standards of decency. It has no images or words that in and of themselves are disturbing or vulgar. It has no images of corpses, profanity, or the like.

The implications of the quote could certainly be taken as offensive by some, but since religion really can often be oppressive, I see no problem with pointing this fact out.

The comparison itself, of something ostensibly oppressive to something cruelly so, by modern standards, is arguably inherently offensive.

It was said to a reporter in 1989. I can't find the article it came from online, but in my experience, interviews with journalists don't tend to be "larger presentations". Other information I've read about her suggests to me that the quote accurately reflects what her views were.

Her

Cool, thanks.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The comparison itself, of something ostensibly oppressive to something cruelly so, by modern standards, is arguably inherently offensive.

I think we're getting sidetracked into a debate over my choice of words. My point is that while I can appreciate an argument that a profanity-laced public billboard should be considered inappropriate, I reject arguments that imply that this message doesn't have a valid place in the marketplace of ideas... even if some people find it offensive.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Question: would it be an unfair generalization to use the phrase "the slavery of the pre-Civil War South"? After all, many (most?) Southerners didn't own slaves themselves, and the South did contain some abolitionists.

Would use of that phrase imply that the speaker was claiming that every Southerner of that era owned slaves and supported slavery?