Is RF as a Forum Focused too Narrowly on Fundamentalist Ideas and Notions?

[Sunstone]

It seems to me that threads espousing or criticizing fundamentalist ideas and notions are ridiculously prevalent on RF in comparison to threads espousing or criticizing other and far more sophisticated expressions of human religiosity. Would you agree or disagree with me? Why or why not?


BONUS QUESTION: Does @SalixIncendium 's fall fashion collection of florescent paisley men's suits and accessories strike you as perhaps excessively reliant on contrasting "lime green" with "passionate pink" in order to make an aesthetic statement?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I think there might be a small cadre of fellow atheists who like to think young-earth-creationist-fundamentalist-literalists are the majority because it's a handy strawman to beat up but the reality is a lot more nuanced and the belief they focus on makes up a vanishingly small minority.
To such an extent that, failing to find any in a debate, they will inform those Christians who are not that 'the bible expresses a fundamentalist, literalist narrative so you should take that or nothing at all' which aside from being highly obtuse, is just as arrogant as any other 'my interpretation is the only correct one.'

Tbh I would throw my hands up and shout 'finally' if we could get one day with a stream of posts about religion which weren't about fundamentalist christianity. Or, if I'm honest, christianity at all.

 

[ChristineM]

It seems to me that threads espousing or criticizing fundamentalist ideas and notions are ridiculously prevalent on RF in comparison to threads espousing or criticizing other and far more sophisticated expressions of human religiosity. Would you agree or disagree with me? Why or why not?


BONUS QUESTION: Does @SalixIncendium 's fall fashion collection of florescent paisley men's suits and accessories strike you as perhaps excessively reliant on contrasting "lime green" with "passionate pink" in order to make an aesthetic statement?

There are quite varied threads, you yourself are recently prolific in creating many.

Re bonus question, he makes a statement. Not sure about aesthetic

 

[Sunstone]

Tbh I would throw my hands up and shout 'finally' if we could get one day with a stream of posts about religion which weren't about fundamentalist christianity. Or, if I'm honest, christianity at all.

YES!​

 

[SalixIncendium]

It seems to me that threads espousing or criticizing fundamentalist ideas and notions are ridiculously prevalent on RF in comparison to threads espousing or criticizing other and far more sophisticated expressions of human religiosity. Would you agree or disagree with me? Why or why not?

Given I choose to read about 10% of the material posted here and choose to respond to less than 25% of that, the reason for my agreement is self-evident.

BONUS QUESTION: Does @SalixIncendium 's fall fashion collection of florescent paisley men's suits and accessories strike you as perhaps excessively reliant on contrasting "lime green" with "passionate pink" in order to make an aesthetic statement?

That’s not a fair question.

I’ve agreed to tone down the pinks to a soothing iridescent mauve.

And lime green is the color of the new generation. Just you wait and see!

 

[Desert Snake]

Strawman arguments, too many. Nonsense argue against premise noone said, too many. Obscure 'incorrect contextually', without any explanation as to why in comparison to anything, too many. Etc.

Its nothing new on the forums, though many if not most discussions are generally a hodge podge of nothingisms.

Doesnt bother me, though it does show how few people are actually capable of having an entirely straightforward, 'word meaning' discussion. Again, no surprise, people are driven by emotions and illusory ideas, and this a hobby for many, ie they like to type etc.


[Contextually, yes, in other words

 

[Vinayaka]

I'm bored with it (the constant I'm right, you're wrong movie) now. Thank you, Sunstone, for starting more introspective threads that actually make me ponder for awhile to clarify my own thinking. I would start such threads but life is so simple here now, and I actually have little to ponder that gets generated from the inside. That's what stability does.

 

[crossfire]

It seems to me that threads espousing or criticizing fundamentalist ideas and notions are ridiculously prevalent on RF in comparison to threads espousing or criticizing other and far more sophisticated expressions of human religiosity. Would you agree or disagree with me? Why or why not?

Yes. It is one of the main reasons why I don't wander out of the DIRs more often.

BONUS QUESTION: Does @SalixIncendium 's fall fashion collection of florescent paisley men's suits and accessories strike you as perhaps excessively reliant on contrasting "lime green" with "passionate pink" in order to make an aesthetic statement?

No, I want a passionate pink and lime green paisley shirt! (Where else am I going to find one with pockets, a collar, and SLEEVES? Certainly not in the women's department!)

 

[sun rise]

I'm not sure if I agree with the OP or not. I don't trust my cognitive bias here.

Perhaps someone will list the past, say, 25 threads and put them in a black/grey/white list depending on whether or not they are fundamentalist, sophisticated or somewhere in the middle.

Or instead @Sunstone could, as a demonstration, stand forth in full sartorial splendor as only someone who employs an ace couturier could.

 

[danieldemol]

It seems to me that threads espousing or criticizing fundamentalist ideas and notions are ridiculously prevalent on RF in comparison to threads espousing or criticizing other and far more sophisticated expressions of human religiosity. Would you agree or disagree with me? Why or why not?


BONUS QUESTION: Does @SalixIncendium 's fall fashion collection of florescent paisley men's suits and accessories strike you as perhaps excessively reliant on contrasting "lime green" with "passionate pink" in order to make an aesthetic statement?

I just think it makes sense to fry the biggest fish first.

In other words if it is not killing or imprisoning people your sophisticated philosophy probably flies under my radar.

 

[SomeRandom]

It seems to me that threads espousing or criticizing fundamentalist ideas and notions are ridiculously prevalent on RF in comparison to threads espousing or criticizing other and far more sophisticated expressions of human religiosity. Would you agree or disagree with me? Why or why not?


BONUS QUESTION: Does @SalixIncendium 's fall fashion collection of florescent paisley men's suits and accessories strike you as perhaps excessively reliant on contrasting "lime green" with "passionate pink" in order to make an aesthetic statement?

I suspect this is merely a Western bias.
Though this site is international and there are people from all over the world, it is still an English speaking site.
Therefore the most prominent and known “target” of you will, will be fundamental Christianity. And maybe a few digs at Judaism and Islam here and there. This is because Judeo-Christian tradition is the religious expression Westerners have the most experience with and will therefore be the primary focus for a lot of the criticism. It’s like on YouTube. The vast majority of the Skeptics will focus their criticisms on Christianity, despite it being a literal international platform. Most are simply too unfamiliar with say Eastern religious traditions and culture to truly wade into such waters.

And I, for one, appreciate the stark contrast between Lime Green and Passionate pink.

 

[Skwim]

Is RF as a Forum Focused too Narrowly on Fundamentalist Ideas and Notions?

It isn't RF per se, but the interests of its members. If there's such a thing as a narrow focus on fundamentalism it's only because that's what the membership want's. If RF members didn't want such a focus they wouldn't support it.

.

 

[LuisDantas]

It seems to me that threads espousing or criticizing fundamentalist ideas and notions are ridiculously prevalent on RF in comparison to threads espousing or criticizing other and far more sophisticated expressions of human religiosity. Would you agree or disagree with me? Why or why not?

I agree... to a point. The more interesting threads exist, but they do not attract quite so much involvement.

That is perhaps to be expected. At the end of the day, it is simply a bigger challenge to engage in more ambitious forms of discussion. There is a need for something of a nurturing environment for that to happen, and maintaining that environment is harder the more ambitious the parameters become.

It is no coincidence that fundamentalism keeps being both heavily criticized (fairly) and enormously influential at the same time. To paraphrase, fundamentalism's reach definitely exceeds its depth, perhaps even at the expense of same.

Fora such as RF can help fulfill the much necessary role of healing creeds from that trap, as all creeds must continuously pursue doing. But it will always require honest and continous effort, for that is not the natural tendency anywhere.

Also, rant time: DIRs are not help whatsoever there. Their very existence is a tribute to fundamentalist ideas, after all.

BONUS QUESTION: Does @SalixIncendium 's fall fashion collection of florescent paisley men's suits and accessories strike you as perhaps excessively reliant on contrasting "lime green" with "passionate pink" in order to make an aesthetic statement?

Perish the thought. That contrast is the way for truth and light. Don't you remember the memo?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Question: What is “fundamentalist ideas and notions” versus “far more sophisticated expressions of human religiosity”

Can you give some examples?

 

[Dawnofhope]

It seems to me that threads espousing or criticizing fundamentalist ideas and notions are ridiculously prevalent on RF in comparison to threads espousing or criticizing other and far more sophisticated expressions of human religiosity. Would you agree or disagree with me? Why or why not?


BONUS QUESTION: Does @SalixIncendium 's fall fashion collection of florescent paisley men's suits and accessories strike you as perhaps excessively reliant on contrasting "lime green" with "passionate pink" in order to make an aesthetic statement?

It is human nature to engage in tribalism and vigorously promote agendas of a divisive nature extolling one set of values over another. We’re right and you’re wrong. We’re the good guys and those who don’t think like us are less moral or reasonable. These are common distinctions as atheists debate theists, scientists battle creationists and Muslims take on Christians. Yet within the cacophony of discordant voices there are plenty here who are willing to have a more civil, reasoned and nuanced discussion.

 

[Sunstone]

Question: What is “fundamentalist ideas and notions” versus “far more sophisticated expressions of human religiosity”

Can you give some examples?

Fair question. For example: Broadly speaking, fundamentalist ideas in any religion tend to be reactions against modernity. One of the most noticeable features of modernity is an acceptance of the sciences as largely reliable in establishing truths. One of the most noticeable features of fundamentalism -- regardless of which religion it appears in -- is a substantial rejection of the reliability of the sciences for establishing truths. Fundamentalsm, even those versions that accept the technological spin offs of the sciences, tend to reject the efficacy of the sciences as largely reliable paths or ways to truths.

 

[We Never Know]

It seems to me that threads espousing or criticizing fundamentalist ideas and notions are ridiculously prevalent on RF in comparison to threads espousing or criticizing other and far more sophisticated expressions of human religiosity. Would you agree or disagree with me? Why or why not?


BONUS QUESTION: Does @SalixIncendium 's fall fashion collection of florescent paisley men's suits and accessories strike you as perhaps excessively reliant on contrasting "lime green" with "passionate pink" in order to make an aesthetic statement?

As a staff member maybe you can answer a question.
A person can post a thread about near anything, have 5 pages of comments and it will hardly ever get featured, but post a thread envolving religion and any kind of dispute about religion, it's featured with in 20 comments.
As a staff member will you take the time to tell us why and or what criteria the staff uses to pick a thread to make it a featured thread?
Answer that and you might find the answer that you are seeking here in this thread.

 

[Sunstone]

As a staff member maybe you can answer a question.
A person can post a thread about near anything, have 5 pages of comments and it will hardly ever get featured, but post a thread envolving religion and any kind of dispute about religion, it's featured with in 20 comments.
As a staff member will you take the time to tell us why and or what criteria the staff uses to pick a thread to make it a featured thread?
Answer that and you might find the answer that you are seeking here in this thread.

The only threads that are featured are threads that are posted in the religious debates section of the Forum -- and all such threads that go more than 20 posts are featured. The decision is not made by the staff, but was instead programmed into the Forum software by the previous forum owner. That is, the decision to feature a thread is automatic. Threads, however, can be unfeatured on an individual basis by the staff.

I doubt my answer sheds any meaningful light at all on the issue of whether the Forum's threads are too much oriented to fundamentalism.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Fair question. For example: Broadly speaking, fundamentalist ideas in any religion tend to be reactions against modernity. One of the most noticeable features of modernity is an acceptance of the sciences as largely reliable in establishing truths. One of the most noticeable features of fundamentalism -- regardless of which religion it appears in -- is a substantial rejection of the reliability of the sciences for establishing truths. Fundamentalsm, even those versions that accept the technological spin offs of the sciences, tend to reject the efficacy of the sciences as largely reliable paths or ways to truths.

I appreciate your reply, thanks. But you really did not provide any comparison with a ‘far more sophisticated expression of human religiosity.’

Can you give an example of a religious concept that is “more sophisticated” than fundamentalist ideas?

I find the Ransom, to be an intelligently-conceived and elegant idea, that even Christ’s Apostles didn’t at first understand.

 

[Sunstone]

Can you give an example of a religious concept that is “more sophisticated” than fundamentalist ideas?

The Catholic Church's acceptance of evolution as an established fact combined with its view that evolution is a means whereby God worked to bring about the world as it is, and man's role in it.