John Oliver Rakes Televangelists over the Coals

[Bunyip]

I do not agree with this. Many atheists really act no differently from fundamental theists when it comes to applying their views on the world, which includes mocking and ridiculing those who don't believe the same, using the "no true Scotsman" argument to define other atheists, and to define themselves within the confines of their own little bubble.

Mocking and ridiculing is nothing at all to do with fundamentalism.

 

[gsa]

I do not agree with this. Many atheists really act no differently from fundamental theists when it comes to applying their views on the world, which includes mocking and ridiculing those who don't believe the same, using the "no true Scotsman" argument to define other atheists, and to define themselves within the confines of their own little bubble.

Then we just disagree. Christians and Muslims and Jews are religiously affiliated, in a way that atheists and theists are not. Without doctrine, there is no fundamentalism. You are looking for a different term I think.

 

[Thana]

Fundamentalism is fairly well defined, in such a way that it is inapplicable to atheism. You mean, I suppose, honest or unapologetic atheism. Fair enough.

If Christians care about these lost causes, they should be out front convincing their flock not to give money to these charlatans and frauds. Yet strangely, they are not.

It must be nice, You know, feeling comfortable making such blatant statements. I mean I'd never have the guts to generalize over a billion people but you just go for it.

Plenty of Christians denounce televangelists, Heck even evangelism itself.

And no, I don't mean honest or unapologetic. I mean Militant and/or extremist.

 

[Bunyip]

It must be nice, You know, feeling comfortable making such blatant statements. I mean I'd never have the guts to generalize over a billion people but you just go for it.

Plenty of Christians denounce televangelists, Heck even evanglism itself.

And no, I don't mean honest or unapologetic. I mean Militant and/or extremist.

Wow, what an enormous generalisation. Where do atheists even enter into this subject? John was attacking televangelists - how are you connecting this to atheism?

 

[Thana]

Ok, what is 'militant atheism' then? You seem intent on delivering an incredibly judgemental generalisation on all atheists - and at the same time protesting that John is alienating Christians. What does atheism even have to do with this thread? Why attack atheists when they are not the topic?

No, I'm not generalizing Atheists. There's Atheists and then there's militant Atheists or Militant Anti-Theists etc.
And I'm not attacking Atheists, Good Lord where do you pull that out from? I just said that what John said more likely did more harm than good to everyone, especially the Extremists on both sides.

 

[Bunyip]

No, I'm not generalizing Atheists. There's Atheists and then there's militant Atheists or Militant Anti-Theists etc.
And I'm not attacking Atheists, Good Lord where do you pull that out from? I just said that what John said more likely did more harm than good to everyone, especially the Extremists on both sides.

What extremists? There is no such thing as atheist extremism, militant atheism, fundamentalist atheism - what has what John said got to do with atheism?

John Oliver is not representing atheism.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Mocking and ridiculing is nothing at all to do with fundamentalism.

That was one of the things I mentioned. It's not inherent to fundamentalism, but "nu-uh, you're wrong" goes hand-in-hand with fundamentalism.

Without doctrine, there is no fundamentalism. You are looking for a different term I think.

An established doctrine is not necessary; adherence is, and many atheists do place a fundamentalist sort of faith in their beliefs. For example, some atheists resort to current scientific understandings as the building blocks of their beliefs, even though the very nature and essence of science is change and discovery, which renders all atheistic views established purely upon science illogical, as it is a given that what we think we know today can be changed tomorrow given a new discovery.

 

[Thana]

What extremists? There is no such thing as atheist extremism, militant atheism, fundamentalist atheism - what has what John said got to do with atheism?

John Oliver is not representing atheism.

Your desire to pretend aside, I didn't say John had anything to do with Atheism.

Here's a thought, Go back, read my first post, realize that I wasn't talking specifically about Atheism, then come back and we can go from there.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What extremists? There is no such thing as atheist extremism, militant atheism, fundamentalist atheism - what has what John said got to do with atheism?

Then what of some of states that have been militant atheistic states, up to the point of persecuting, prosecuting, imprisoning, and executing non-atheists?

 

[LuisDantas]

Then what of some of states that have been militant atheistic states, up to the point of persecuting, prosecuting, imprisoning, and executing non-atheists?

I think you are mistaking things and, particularly, motivations.

Atheism is simply not passible of abuses comparable to those of theism. It can't very well ask for faith in that what does not exist to over-rule reason.

 

[Bunyip]

Then what of some of states that have been militant atheistic states, up to the point of persecuting, prosecuting, imprisoning, and executing non-atheists?

What states and what of them?

 

[Bunyip]

Your desire to pretend aside, I didn't say John had anything to do with Atheism.

Here's a thought, Go back, read my first post, realize that I wasn't talking specifically about Atheism, then come back and we can go from there.

Maybe re read your own post - you specifically refer to atheism in it. So read it yourself.

 

[Bunyip]

That was one of the things I mentioned. It's not inherent to fundamentalism, but "nu-uh, you're wrong" goes hand-in-hand with fundamentalism.

Sorry, but I have no idea what you mean by that. Being rude is nothing to do with fundamentalism.

An established doctrine is not necessary; adherence is, and many atheists do place a fundamentalist sort of faith in their beliefs. For example, some atheists resort to current scientific understandings as the building blocks of their beliefs, even though the very nature and essence of science is change and discovery, which renders all atheistic views established purely upon science illogical, as it is a given that what we think we know today can be changed tomorrow given a new discovery.

 

[Thana]

Maybe re read your own post - you specifically refer to atheism in it. So read it yourself.

I mentioned Militant Atheism, off-hand and as an example of what I thought the negative effects of John's segment could be on extremists, Theist and Atheist alike. But my point was about fundamentalist Christians.

Do you see your mistake or are you too embarrassed to admit you jumped the gun?

 

[Bunyip]

That was one of the things I mentioned. It's not inherent to fundamentalism, but "nu-uh, you're wrong" goes hand-in-hand with fundamentalism.

An established doctrine is not necessary; adherence is, and many atheists do place a fundamentalist sort of faith in their beliefs. For example, some atheists resort to current scientific understandings as the building blocks of their beliefs, even though the very nature and essence of science is change and discovery, which renders all atheistic views established purely upon science illogical, as it is a given that what we think we know today can be changed tomorrow given a new discovery.

But atheism does not even have a position on the origin of life, the atheistic view is to disbelieve in God - nothing to do with science.

 

[Bunyip]

I mentioned Militant Atheism, off-hand and as an example of what I thought the negative effects of John's segment could be on extremists, Theist and Atheist alike. But my point was about fundamentalist Christians.

Do you see your mistake or are you too embarrassed to admit you jumped the gun?

What mistake? You made the mistake. Why so combative?

 

[Thana]

What mistake? You made the mistake. Why so combative?

You're the one who accused me of generalizing Atheism and making the argument about Atheism when I barely mentioned it and only off-hand as an example.

But sure, turn it around on me? I'm not combative, Confrontational maybe, because I didn't appreciate your misguided attack.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What states and what of them?

What states? The evidence is abundant. The first thing that comes to my mind is that the USA adopted "under God" in the pledge to distinguish itself from the atheist USSR.

 

[Bunyip]

You're the one who accused me of generalizing Atheism and making the argument about Atheism when I barely mentioned it and only off-hand as an example.

But sure, turn it around on me? I'm not combative, Confrontational maybe, because I didn't appreciate your misguided attack.

What is the issue? I gave an honest response to your comment. What attack?

 

[Bunyip]

What states? The evidence is abundant. The first thing that comes to my mind is that the USA adopted "under God" in the pledge to distinguish itself from the atheist USSR.

How is that relevant? The USSR was statist, Stalin sought to destroy the power of the established church before rebuilding it. What has that go to do with modern atheists or John's comments on TV evangelists?

The USSR was statism, the worship of the state.