What does "atheist fundamentalism" mean?

[Debater Slayer]

No offense but many of you all might as well just go ahead and build a church. For those of you who do not see your religious bigotry, please allow me to enlighten you. If any of your comments are addressed to a whole religion or group of people instead of just the offending parties that you disapprove of, you might be a bigot.

The anti-theist might hide behind the fact that they have no supreme being to hold in high regard, but their dogma is stronger than many other religions and their number of missionaries are great not to mention their fervor and devoutness.

You all quack louder than any other duck in the pond.

Sometimes the very basic tenets of certain religious sects are objectionable. If an "offending party" consists of many people, that's not the fault of the person pointing out the flaws of its beliefs; it just means people are generally accustomed to certain objectionable ideas because of how common they are.

Don't blame the critic for trying to climb the pedestal so they can reach the ideas they want to criticize; blame whoever raised those ideas up on the pedestal in the first place.

 

[Reverend Rick]

That's how I see it, too.

For example, I doubt anyone would consider a pastor to be an extremist just because they delivered an invocation before a sporting event. I've yet to see an atheist who has argued for that level of imposition of atheist beliefs on society.

Why no, you just insulted a very open minded religious leader in this thread putting words into his mouth and debated him dishonestly.

Demonise the opponent till you're the last man standing right? If I am quacking loudly it is because I am outnumbered because my side of the debate left in disgust with your tactics.

If the winner of this debate has to have the thickest skin you all may be in trouble.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Here's a question for those who want to answer: if you think that Dawkins and friends are fundamentalists, which are you basing this on:

- what they actually say (in which case, can you give some examples?)

- your assessment of their future plans or ulterior motives (in which case, how do you know what they are?)

 

[crossfire]

I'm an apatheist. Does it help?

Really? I must have mistaken your apathy as passion! My bad.

Maybe I should just go immerse myself in some Nagarjuna and make good use of this headache, instead.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why no, you just insulted a very open minded religious leader in this thread putting words into his mouth and debated him dishonestly.

Demonise the opponent till you're the last man standing right? If I am quacking loudly it is because I am outnumbered because my side of the debate left in disgust with your tactics.

If the winner of this debate has to have the thickest skin you all may be in trouble.

If you're going to accuse me of dishonesty, you'd better be prepared to back up your claim with specifics. Are you?

 

[Reverend Rick]

If you're going to accuse me of dishonesty, you'd better be prepared to back up your claim with specifics. Are you?

I think Levite did a fine job of shining the light on your misrepresentations of his position. I suggest you go back and read what is painfully obvious. :yes:

 

[Reverend Rick]

Here's a question for those who want to answer: if you think that Dawkins and friends are fundamentalists, which are you basing this on

LOL when you build your Atheist Church you should elect him as your Pope.

He is no different than an Ann Coulter or a Rush Limbaugh IMO. Making money fanning the flames of the opposition. Stilted commentary with a dash of condescension is the basic recipe employed. :yes:

 

[Alceste]

That's how I see it, too.

For example, I doubt anyone would consider a pastor to be an extremist just because they delivered an invocation before a sporting event. I've yet to see an atheist who has argued for that level of imposition of atheist beliefs on society.

I agree with you. I think many theists confuse the concept of secularism with the concept of atheism, and muddle up the concept of science with both.

Here's a fun fact: In 1842, George Holyoake, who coined the term "secularism", was the last person to be convicted of blasphemy in the UK.

Hello, irony!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think Levite did a fine job of shining the light on your misrepresentations of his position. I suggest you go back and read what is painfully obvious. :yes:

You're the one making the accusation. I'm asking you.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is so very refreshing to see this thread finally happen.

Dangerous as the raising spirits can be, it takes dealing with these matters to actually solve them.

We all should have faith (yep, faith. It is not a curse word for me) on our own potentials for good will and learning, from our own experiences and from the examples of each other.

To the extent that any of us may be holding misguided views of any kind, it is ultimately to our personal benefit to have those views challenged and exposed.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Here's a question for those who want to answer: if you think that Dawkins and friends are fundamentalists, which are you basing this on:

I don't think anyone is really a fundamentalist. There are just aspects of their beliefs which they hold with fundamentalist fervor, though sometimes their whole view is fundamentalist.

Don't know anything about Dawkins, et al. Never read any of them.

 

[Alceste]

LOL when you build your Atheist Church you should elect him as your Pope.

He is no different than an Ann Coulter or a Rush Limbaugh IMO. Making money fanning the flames of the opposition. Stilted commentary with a dash of condescension is the basic recipe employed. :yes:

I actually agree, to some extent. Dawkins makes an excellent living from stirring up controversy, but he is operating on a whole different level from your average TV blowhard. He has actually written some significant works that contributed greatly to the public understanding of biology. OTOH, I've only read his books on biology. Polemics are a genre I do my best to avoid.

 

[outhouse]

I have had some good debates and discussions with Atheists. Some have got very real and honest with me before. They are really looking forward to the day when they can futher their agenda without resistance.
.
.

If you mean further knowledge and education for all, by removing religious bias then that would be true.

The problem I see it is the religious cross the line of reality, and then they whine like children when educated people try and tell them they are wrong.


Its not agenda, its scientific facts and the religious refusal to accept realty in my opinion.

How many people secretly believe the whole planet would be better off without the Muslim religion?

I do.

Glad you brought it up.

It probably wouldn't stop the violence, but it would be a good start.

The gloves are off, I believe many Atheists are intollerant and want to expand their bigotry

Intolerant to those that willfully pervert realty? Yes.

Bigotry? No



Quit messing with science and women's bodies , and watch the heat you call intolerance, vanish.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

LOL when you build your Atheist Church you should elect him as your Pope.

He is no different than an Ann Coulter or a Rush Limbaugh IMO. Making money fanning the flames of the opposition. Stilted commentary with a dash of condescension is the basic recipe employed. :yes:

So rhetoric and polemic distinguish fundamentalism? It seems like, in this context, "fundamentalism" just means whatever it would take for those you disagree with to count as fundamentalists.

 

[outhouse]

It is so very refreshing to see this thread finally happen.

Dangerous as the raising spirits can be, it takes dealing with these matters to actually solve them.

We all should have faith (yep, faith. It is not a curse word for me) on our own potentials for good will and learning, from our own experiences and from the examples of each other.

To the extent that any of us may be holding misguided views of any kind, it is ultimately to our personal benefit to have those views challenged and exposed.

Agreed.


Sweeping garbage under the rug is something I like to avoid.


Its funny what atheist are accused of, while having a love of theism. Fighting for unbiased science, better education. yet were perverted as the boogie man.


We don't even advocate you stop living mythology, just have a handle on it is all we ask.

 

[outhouse]

So rhetoric and polemic distinguish fundamentalism? It seems like, in this context, "fundamentalism" just means whatever it would take for those you disagree with to count as fundamentalists.

You know how scientific knowledge is a very terrible thing when it shines a light on known mythology!!!


And because Dawkins light is the brightest, he is now a boogie man.



heaven help the modern educated man as he wants to shed his primitive ways.

 

[Debater Slayer]

You know how scientific knowledge is a very terrible thing when it shines a light on known mythology!!!


And because Dawkins light is the brightest, he is now a boogie man.



heaven help the modern educated man as he wants to shed his primitive ways.

... now this kind of blanket labeling, on the other hand, is what I consider intolerant anti-theism, as it is neither productive nor precise as to what it is criticizing.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

..., I doubt anyone would consider a pastor to be an extremist just because they delivered an invocation before a sporting event. I've yet to see an atheist who has argued for that level of imposition of atheist beliefs on society.

Would atheist adds serve as an example?

 

[Alceste]

Would atheist adds serve as an example?

No. Religious groups also have ads. The push to incorporate mandatory prayer at public, non-religious events and institutions is an additional imposition. One that atheists do not indulge in.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Before we dismiss some of the silly claims being made here, let's just call attention to a rather glaring inconsistency between all of this-

No offense but many of you all might as well just go ahead and build a church. For those of you who do not see your religious bigotry, please allow me to enlighten you. If any of your comments are addressed to a whole religion or group of people instead of just the offending parties that you disapprove of, you might be a bigot.

The anti-theist might hide behind the fact that they have no supreme being to hold in high regard, but their dogma is stronger than many other religions and their number of missionaries are great not to mention their fervor and devoutness.

You all quack louder than any other duck in the pond.

Seriously, practice what you preach- at the very least, if you're going to contradict yourself, don't do it in the very same post! (and for those not especially quick on the uptake, here's a paraphrase of the above post: "Making sweeping comments about whole religions or religious groups is bigotry. Oh, and anti-theists and atheists do/say/are XY and/or Z. " Um, oopsies, eh?

In any case, I might advise that Reverand Rick investigate the meanings of the words "dogma" and "bigotry", as he is using them in a highly peculiar (a diplomatic way of saying incorrect) manner here. How does atheism have dogma, since there is no authority or canon in atheism? And what, exactly, is the dogma supposed to be, anyways? That God doesn't exist? Not only does that not fit the usual definition of dogma in that it has no official or authoritative sanction, this piece of "dogma" exhausts the entirety of atheism- so it is not that atheism is dogmatic about God not existing, it is that atheism is, by definition, the belief that God doesn't exist.

Also, the above claims about religious bigotry are obviously false. Making claims about a religion as a whole does not constitute bigotry, that's just ludicrous.