Yep....we can't prove there are no gods.
And we don't cotton to the idea of sky fairies.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Religious Fundamentalism Could Soon be Treated as a Mental Illness
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
And we don't cotton to the idea of sky fairies.
As a lifelong atheist fundamentalist (one who is unwaveringly attached to our
singular "irreducible belief" in the non-existence of gods), I must be mentally ill.
(No surprise to many, eh?)
Is the compulsion to continually chat about religion & politics one of the symptoms?
It's a perfectly cromulent statement.
When the subject of gods comes up, especially with believers & their
many unprovable myths, atheists are often asked why they disbelieve.
What reasons can we offer?
We cannot prove there are no gods....no evidence or reasoning to offer.
All we have is the lack of good reason to believe.
Is this so simple that it seems too simple?
What definition of "fundamentalism" do you use?
It's neither the one I posted, nor is it the one Windwalker posted.
I begin to think that "fundamentalist" means.....
A pejorative term to call an obnoxious person on the other side of a religious argument.
If we're to make up our own definitions, then I propose that "squat cobbler" means theist.
This definition simply cannot apply to atheism.
We don't have "irreducible beliefs".
We don't have "scriptures, dogmas, or ideologies".
We don't have "ingroup & outgroup distinctions".
We don't emphasize "purity & the desire to return to a previous ideal".
- Irreducible beliefs: Philosophical Materialism.
- Literalism: Black and White, All or nothing, True or False binary thinking. No metaphors, in other words. No nuance, no symbolism.
- Scriptures: Treating science as though it were the new authority on Truth with a capital T, replacing Church authority with Science authority, with a capital S
- Dogmas: Insistence that all truth has to be empirically verifiable "Where's your evidence!" insisted upon the same way a religious fundamentalist insists you show him the supporting scriptures for your thoughts and ideas. Current scientific thought is tantamount to "The Word of God" and cannot be challenged lest you be deemed a heretic, scorned and ridiculed and chased down the street with torches and cries of "Woo!" as they purge the evil from amongst them.
- Ideologies: That they have the "Real truth" because they have "Science" to support them. That "God" is a pink unicorn and only they know the truth now because they've come to see the "light" and must spread the word, share the gospel of truth with others who are living in delusions because they believe otherwise.
No, actually fundamentalism doesn't require good supporting evidence. Fundamentalism will grip its beliefs tightly and block out any reasoned dialog that challenges those beliefs. It leads to irrational thought. I've seen atheist thought be just as anti-rational, anti-intellectual, and even anti-science as any good religious fundamentalist is. The reason for that is because it's not truly about being open to knowledge and evolving truth. Rather it's about being right and finding their sense of security in not being wrong. People mistake that because they "believe in evolution", that they must be on the right track because evolution is in fact valid science. But in reality, it's like people who in religion who see the religious fundamentalist claim to believe in God and assume they think like themselves about it.
As I said, HOW they believe something, whether that thing is strictly "true" or not is not the same thing as how healthy thought approaches things like belief and articles of faith. It's unhealthy form, pathological, diseased. To answer the "how do you know" question, I think of how Jesus himself might be used to answer that. His response was "By their fruits you shall know them". Look at their behaviors, look and how they act towards others, look at how open or closed they are, how dogmatic, how militant, how intolerant, how bigoted, how hateful, or the opposite, how graceful, how open, how loving, how patient, how kind, etc.
Oh goodness, that would put me at the head of the list if "they" were to target mystics!
In actuality though mystics are the utter opposite of fundamentalist, and we barely fit into a lot of mainstream religions either when we begin to talk about how we hold the symbols of faith others do. The fundamentalist holds beliefs with tight grips, squeezing so hard blood starts to ooze from their clenched hands. Mainstream followers lean upon their beliefs as supports and will cling to them as they need to as the weather arises and they struggle to find ground. The mystic on the other hand sits and looks at all beliefs and says "none of these is where truth is found, I must work to rid myself of my own ideas and the things I believe in to find what simply is, beyond beliefs. I cannot trust what others say is true, nor lean upon my own reasoning mind to penetrate truth. I must learn to simply be". As I said the mystic in no way shape or form fits being called fundamentalist.As far as the mystic being labeled mentally ill, well that already happens!
If you go to those who follow Freudian thought, they see all forms of mysticism as a regression to an infantile state of oceanic bliss. It's considered infantilism by them. They also may equate it with a type of schizophrenia, as schizophrenics may have similar experiences of the transcendent, albeight in dysfunctional and unhealthy ways as they are out of control with what is exposed in them. There are of course solid reasons why these comparisons don't hold up, which I won't get into here, but the point is a mystic being called a fundamentalist is not a concern. There is no comparision to be made at all. None of the definitions of fundamentalism fit the mystic, even remotely.
Last edited:
Palehorse
Active Member
I think fundamentalists would be great judges in the courts...but all the taverns are being converted to bars.
Colonial America to 1800
Taverns in the colonies closely followed the ordinaries of the mother country. Taverns, along with inns, at first were mostly known as ordinaries, which were constructed throughout most of New England.[11] These institutions were influential in the development of new settlements, serving as gathering spaces for the community. Taverns here though served many purposes such as courtrooms, religious meetings, trading posts, inns, post offices, and convenience stores.
I don't know, but you don't exactly impress me as a fundamentalist atheist. Again, simply believing something is true and be true to that does not a fundamentalist one make! I'd be a fundamentalist by that definition too, which I'm not.
Not of fundamentalism, but maybe just good old obsessions.
No, as far as that goes, I think it's really just a form of healthy passion for certain areas of life that we find interesting and important to us. If it overtakes your life where you have no life but the forum, then it could become an unhealthy form of passion becoming obsessive behaviors. There are fine lines we all walk.
First mistake is you referring to "atheism" as "we", as if you all speak with one voice and say the same thing. Atheism has a wide spectrum of those who identify with it, just as you have a wide spectrum of those who identify with belief in God. Not all of them are fundamentalists either, but SOME of them certainly are. It's the same in atheism as a whole. Please see my post #205 in this thread where I give examples of that I've seen countless times by SOME atheists. It mirrors what is seen in religious fundamentalism.
Tis no error to use the word "we" when referring to a group which includes me.
This is notwithstanding the fact that "we" have so little in common, & are a group in concept only (no meetings, no enclaves, no countries).
We disbelieve in gods.
Other than that, we range from commies to capitalists, drooling to genius, Kalamazoo to Timbuktu, dreary to droll, peevish to pleasant, angelic to criminal, etc, etc.
Believers have much more in common with each other though.
Looking at the larger faiths, many regularly meet at their church or equivalent.
Adherents to particular faiths have many beliefs in common about morality, the supernatural, purpose, prohibitions, etc.
Since we atheists have one singular thing (disbelief) in common,
how is one more fundamentalist than another, using either your definition or mine?
I think you're looking at what some atheists believe about things unrelated to atheism.
If some atheists are "fundamentalist communists", then this is not about atheism, but rather communism,
ie, they're not "fundamentalist atheists", but rather "fundamentalist communists" who happen to be atheists.
Shad
Veteran Member
There is no basis within atheism for one to embrace any of the ideas in the video. The conclusion is flawed as external influences led to people embracing such ideas. At best atheism dismisses a specific idea about metaphysics which in include a God concept and the associated ideas such as revelation, creation, etc.
The issue here is assuming religions are the cause rather than amplifying and/or exposing someone's obsessive behavior they already had.
Personally I don't do it with groups I identify with. I realize the diversity and wouldn't wish to appear to speak for others, nor they for me.
Except for the fact there are many atheist groups, meetup groups, official organizations, forum communities, political groups, and all those other actual organizations you don't think exist.
I've been told it's nothing more than just a mere "lack of belief", which is different than an active denial. I guess I've been told wrong.
Add to that diverse list, fundamentalists.
They do??? How do you figure that? Last I look there seems quite a wide, and factious, divide amongst believers, far, far, far more than amongst atheists. You aren't aware of this somehow? You've been a member of this site for how many years now???
All 2.2 billion Christians meet at the same church and sing kumbaya together? Last I checked they mostly argue how each of each other are wrong. Add to that list many atheists who think all the Christians are wrong. Just one of the same bunch imagining they're different somehow by believing in the "no-God" version of God, in how I see it.
Same thing in atheist groups. Don't kid yourself. It's all the same thing.
Well you could reduce all religions to one singular thing like this "belief", but like the thing with atheism it's equally meaningless. Fundamentalism does not, for the 28th time in this thread, have a damn thing to do with the object of belief. It has to do with how they believe, not what they believe.
It's what many, a very large number, generally accept as core to their worldviews. Do you know many atheists who reject philosophical materialism? I know a few, but they aren't many, to be sure.
Of course I've heard of them.Except for the fact there are many atheist groups, meetup groups, official organizations, forum communities, political groups, and all those other actual organizations you don't think exist.
Ever been to a meeting?
They're few, far between, & barely attended.
Getting atheists together is like herding cats.
We just don't organize the way religions do.
There are some strong atheists, who assert as fact there are no gods.I've been told it's nothing more than just a mere "lack of belief", which is different than an active denial. I guess I've been told wrong.
I don't know many of them....just a few.
The word doesn't apply, by either of our definitions.
I listed the ways in which they have commonality.
Outside of those, they are as diverse as we non-believers.
According to my profile, for a little over 6 years.You've been a member of this site for how many years now???
I thought that by context, it'd be clear that they generally meet at a church, but not all at the same one.
I'm presuming too much, eh?
It's late, & I'm not groking your point here.Last I checked they mostly argue how each of each other are wrong. Add to that list many atheists who think all the Christians are wrong. Just one of the same bunch imagining they're different somehow by believing in the "no-God" version of God, in how I see it.
This is to miss my point that atheism confers no uniform beliefs upon us.
But religions do.
I think I'm not getting thru at all.
Xianity is not a single belief.
The Bible has many many details to believe.
Atheism doesn't have this.
And now I'm repeating myself.
Diversity of belief among atheists is not a consequence of atheism.
Dang....I'm repeating again.
Caution:
If any of the above is nonsensical, that's cuz it's late, & I'm running out of gas.
Yes, regularly. I was part of one.
Not in my experience.
Not in my experience. Not in my area.
Not in your experience.
Other way around for me.
I certainly does, by most definitions. Denial is not a just a river in Egypt, as they say.
It's late. I need to go to bed. Been fun...
Agondonter
Active Member
Interesting. You're saying atheism uses metaphysics to dismiss metaphysics.
I don't understand this. If one truly believes in one central control, that is one divine control, then how can the notion of 'conspiracy ' creep in?
Because in mythological thinking there is the opposing force of evil. Everything is seen in terms of good and evil, God and Satan. Conspiracies are the mythological version of evil, unseen forces outside our control choosing our fates for us for our destruction, rather than for our good, like God would do.
What he is describing isn't by default fundamentalism by the way, but just plain old mythological thought. Mythic thought sees things in terms of external forces of good versus evil. Fundamentalists in religion are at the mythological stage largely (but not necessarily), and as a result take these thoughts into extreme dysfunction. This is why you see conspiracy theories running amok in them. Dark, mysterious forces that are out to get them. It's all battles being waged for your soul. They have no power in themselves against such things and must call upon the angels to do battle for them. The myth of good and evil being taken to extremes. Yet another symptom of the fundamentalist disease.
Last edited:
Your experience with both atheists & fundies is vastly different from mine.Yes, regularly. I was part of one.
Not in my experience.
Not in my experience. Not in my area.
Not in your experience.
Other way around for me.
I certainly does, by most definitions. Denial is not a just a river in Egypt, as they say.
It's late. I need to go to bed. Been fun...
Here's the list you provided:
- many regularly meet at their church or equivalent
- morality
- the supernatural
- purpose
- prohibitions, etc.
Though it's obvious that term will not be received well by most, it is a valid statement if you honestly think about it in the light that we all are part of the general Western ethos which has been informed through Christianity in the West. No one escapes it. Even atheists, in their rejection of God, still have the same basic moralities within the common ranges of conservative to liberal. They still see the world through the same sorts of general frameworks, not launching off into some truly foreign modes of thoughts such as you would find in cultures we did not grow up in, such as Eastern cultures. These are not merely ideas and beliefs, but entire ways of thinking themselves that mark cultures from one another. Therefore, Western atheists are in fact in general part of the Christian heritage of values and modes of thinking, irrespective of specific beliefs about gods and science and whatnot.
Anytime you have people who have relationships with one another, cultures and values become conferred upon those who are part of them. Don't believe for one second this has anything to do with beliefs in the supernatural. It has to do with being humans and social animals. Atheists are that just as much as Christians are. Group dynamics apply to them equally, and you'll see the same things going on, even it it is operating at different levels. It happens in children, it happens with adults, it happens with men, it happens with women, it happens with believers, it happens with atheists, and so on. No escaping it.
You are mistaking Christianity as being only about teachings of the Bible. It most certainly is a whole lot more than that, and in fact that's really incidental to what makes it what it is. What makes it what it is is people in relationships with one another, bringing their values to bear with others and co-creating the religion. The "Bible" then simply becomes reflective of their shared beliefs and values in how they apply their interpretations to it. The exact same thing happens with groups of atheists, and humanists, or Masons, or Lion's club, or Rotary clubs, and so forth.
You seem to assume Christian actually has God telling them what to do and they aren't part of creating what it is for themselves.
It is nothing but what they create for themselves, and the exact same forces are going to be at work with atheists who have any sense of community with other atheists, be that in local gatherings, or here in the Virtual World. Forums are in fact places of social gathering and interactions and cultures. Atheists do have that. You are participating in it right here, right now. It's right in front of you, and all the forces are in play creating shared beliefs and values. There's no escape.
Last edited:
I'll use a friend as an example.....
As a fundie, he believes that God created & guides life.
In things political, he believes there are no spontaneous or grass roots movements,
eg, Soviet agents here created the anti-war movement in the 1960s,
Our country's decline is engineered by Obama & his cohorts (who want to destroy the country).
While I see things like anti-war movements as emergent properties of stochastic processes,
he sees that everything happens for a singular reason, ie, by design & plan carried out.
Oh, & if you wonder how the Soviets became the way they were.....