A taunt?
It is an advertisement, simple as that. People will pay attention to it or not, however they feel inclined to.
Are you saying that a simple statement that we want to reach other atheists is perceived as a taunt?
-
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!
What does "atheist fundamentalism" mean?
- Thread starter 9-10ths_Penguin
- Start date
A taunt?
It is an advertisement, simple as that. People will pay attention to it or not, however they feel inclined to.
Are you saying that a simple statement that we want to reach other atheists is perceived as a taunt?
I didn't mention anything to do with science in my post. What I said was directed at the generalizing tone that seemed to create a dichotomy of "modern" and "primitive" when comparing atheism to theism.
By the way, I'm not even a creationist, so there's no need for the almost automatic mentioning of young-Earth creationism and "scientific avoidance" in relation to my post.
And an invocation is an invocation, simple as that, People join in or not, however they feel inclined to ...
In so doing, they are pressured into either participating, appearing to, or causing some measure of ill feelings by openly refusing to.
It is hardly the same as a billboard.
To be honest, I may well have misunderstood your post. I read it as That is, you were (a) agreeing that it was an imposition, and (b) asserting that it as a highly unusual one. If I misunderstood, it was an honest (and, perhaps, understandable) error.
I suppose it was, although it surprises me that you took such an unlikely reading of it.
You are correct. It is not the same. But the discomfort or hurt felt by Christians may well have been no less acute, and I say this a someone who would not have all appreciated being in the audience during the invocation.
This thread brings to mind things I heard just a couple of days ago: two people I know were talking about Hinduism and how Hindus "worship cows," and they started making derisive comments about the religion, including calling it "disgusting." One of them referred to a Hindu who works in the same building we were in as an "irreligious" person because he doesn't follow an Abrahamic religion.
I have a feeling that such comments would be regarded as "fundamentalist atheism" if they were made by a non-theist. One thing I've noticed, however, is that certain religious groups are more intolerant of the beliefs of other religious people than many atheists could even hope to be... to the point where they deem them "irreligious" like the person I mentioned does (and he's hardly alone in that, too).
I have a feeling that such comments would be regarded as "fundamentalist atheism" if they were made by a non-theist. One thing I've noticed, however, is that certain religious groups are more intolerant of the beliefs of other religious people than many atheists could even hope to be... to the point where they deem them "irreligious" like the person I mentioned does (and he's hardly alone in that, too).
Last edited:
If so, then the conclusion that Christians must learn to deal with diversity of belief better is unavoidable. And apparently so must you.
FWIW, the President of American Atheists is on record saying that the "you know it's a myth" billboard was intended to reach people who disbelieve but still put themselves forward as Christians. I do think it failed in the execution.
Even though some refuse to comply, all are told to bow their heads. Even the "you know it's a myth" billboard still only presents an idea for consideration.
The billboards, even if some are more provocative than I'd compose, are indeed benign. This comparison reminds me of what grade (public) school was like in the 50s & 60s in SE Michigan. Most classes I recall had compulsory prayer, & some had Bible stories. Teachers never gave us the option of not participating. Not going along was discouraged....with some of us spending time sitting under the piano instead of at a desk. You see, I was (am) a fundamentalist atheist. Religious imposition continued clear thru junior high school, until some time a little after MM O'Hair's suit.
Last edited:
I like how you worded that: that those who don't join are refusing to comply, rather than thinking for themselves.
And I asked you to back up your claim. I'm still waiting.
Compulsory religious stories in class? In the 50s and 60s?
You haven't been to my country in the 21st century, then. Not only are there religious stories in class, but religion is a compulsory school subject as well... and it is taught from the viewpoint of a believer rather than an objective one to boot.
Last edited:
Why "rather"? I don't think those are mutually exclusive.
Good grief!Compulsory religious stories in class? In the 50s and 60s?
You haven't been to my country in the 21st century, then. Not only are there religious stories in class, but religion is a compulsory school subject as well... and it is taught from the viewpoint of a believer rather than an objective one to boot.
Where is it that I'm not moving?
Egypt.
I have never seen a single billboard promoting any particular set of beliefs there, by the way. Just goes to show that there are far worse ways to shove stuff down people's throats.
