What does "atheist fundamentalism" mean?

[Enai de a lukal]

Discounting opposing viewpoints or downright demonization of religion or better yet portraying anyone who believes in a sky daddy as ignorant mythologists seems to be the method commonly applied.

Maybe on internet message boards, but not in general.

How many Atheists want to indoctrinate our children so in another generation they can rule the world after the last Theist dies?

Indoctrinate? Rule the world? Lol. Is your case really that weak that you need these dramatic flourishes?

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

Alot, and many of them not so secretly. Its also hard to say they are mistaken. Same for those who feel the planet would be better off without the Christian religion, or even religion in general.

Some have gone as so far to admit this belief. It is religious bigotry plain and simple.

Nope. Or rather, only if "bigotry" means something different here than what it normally does in the English language.

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

That's great. Unfortunately, without some substantiation of that belief, this remains merely a bit of personal trivia, such as if I told you that I own a german sheppard or like chocolate ice cream.

 

[Reverend Rick]

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

Of course you are, you're making it personal once again. I never accused you of being dishonest, I said your debate tactics were dishonest. You ran Levite off because you did not debate him on what he said and he made plenty of posts further explaining his position which you twisted into something completely different. Instead of being honored that a Rabbi would take this much time with you, a man obviously stating his position quite clear you insulted him with your dishonest tactics. He left because he refused to get into the gutter with you. If that is what you want, I am your Huckleberry.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

... 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.

If calling things that quack and waddle "ducks" (as regarding creationism as primitive superstitious mythology most certainly is) is "intolerant anti-theism", then I'm guilty as charged.

 

[Alceste]

Of course you are, you're making it personal once again. I never accused you of being dishonest, I said your debate tactics were dishonest. You ran Levite off because you did not debate him on what he said and he made plenty of posts further explaining his position which you twisted into something completely different. Instead of being honored that a Rabbi would take this much time with you, a man obviously stating his position quite clear you insulted him with your dishonest tactics. He left because he refused to get into the gutter with you. If that is what you want, I am your Huckleberry.

Honest question, sincerely asked. (So prepare yourself!)

Why should anyone consider it an honour to be addressed by a rabbi? I mean, we've all got jobs, haven't we? Isn't it just as much of an honour to be addressed by a civil engineer, a local construction magnate or a musician?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Would Atheist adds serve as an example?

No, they wouldn't. No billboard attempts to exert social pressure to comply the way a public call to prayer does. Did you have a particular billboard in mind?

Interesting that you bring up advertising, because that's another area where I see a huge double standard. After the CoR's "don't believe in God? You are not alone" ads got refused by several transit agencies, there was a semi-serious campaign to create the most inoffensive atheist ad ever. A group (in Pennsylvania, IIRC) applied to their local transit agency to get an ad that simply said "ATHEISTS" on some buses. The ad was turned down because it was "too controversial."

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Would atheist adds serve as an example?

It's interesting to me that someone apparently distorted the message by cutting off the punctuation.

The sign reads: DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD?

But the photo shows: DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD

I doubt that was an accident. I'm guessing it's another dishonest theist trying to discredit atheism.

 

[LuisDantas]

Would atheist adds serve as an example?

Well, yes, it is.

It is an example of both how unusual it is for Atheists to openly flaunt their atheism and of how much of a problem some people have with it.

Which goes to underscore how there is indeed a double standard in use, and how it is biased against atheists.

 

[Alceste]

It's interesting to me that someone apparently distorted the message by cutting off the punctuation.

The sign reads: DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD?

But the photo shows: DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD

I doubt that was an accident. I'm guessing it's another dishonest theist trying to discredit atheism.

Or maybe it's your browser. Mine shows the whole billboard.

 

[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?

No. Religious groups also have ads.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Not an imposition?

​

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Or maybe it's your browser. Mine shows the whole billboard.

Ah. That could be. I have to reduce the page down to almost unreadable to get the whole sign, but I do get it. Thanks.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Well, yes, it is.

It is an example of both how unusual it is for Atheists to openly flaunt their atheism and of how much of a problem some people have with it.

Which goes to underscore how there is indeed a double standard in use, and how it is biased against atheists.

I agree.

 

[Alceste]

You could try addressing my point if you feel so inclined. Atheists and religious groups both have ads (when the atheists are allowed to, anyway), but only theists ALSO attempt to impose their religious observances on the general public at non-religious events and institutions.

The counterpart of an atheist billboard is a religious billboard.

The religious penchant for imposing specific, mandatory religious observances on the general public has no atheist counterpart.

Edit: or wait, were you being sarcastic / ironic?

 

[LuisDantas]

Someone claiming to be reasonable and to know that something is a myth is an imposition?

Really?

 

[LuisDantas]

I agree.

You do?!?

I thought you had just disagreed?!?

 

[Reverend Rick]

I feel you pain Jay. If you point out the obvious, they deflect to something the other side does like two wrongs cancel each other out or something.

No responsibility taken here. It is good that you mention the Atheist advertisements though. Another example of their quacking like a duck.

 

[Alceste]

Ah. That could be. I have to reduce the page down to almost unreadable to get the whole sign, but I do get it. Thanks.

No worries. It's these darn phones...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I thought you had just disagreed?!?

Then I've communicated poorly. Where have I argued against the proposition that it is relatively unusual ...

... for Atheists to openly flaunt their atheism and of how much of a problem some people have with it.

Which goes to underscore how there is indeed a double standard in use, and how it is biased against atheists.

 

[Alceste]

I feel you pain Jay. If you point out the obvious, they deflect to something the other side does like two wrongs cancel each other out or something.

No responsibility taken here. It is good that you mention the Atheist advertisements though. Another example of their quacking like a duck.

Here you go. Good example of the double standard we're talking about. Here's a guy who in completely convinced that an atheist billboard designed to let doubters and non-theists know they are not alone makes a louder "quacking" sound than mandatory Christian prayer in public schools, government proceedings, sporting events and even military service. The mind boggles.

 

[LuisDantas]

Then I've communicated poorly. Where have I argued against the proposition that it is relatively unusual ...

​

In posts #178 (the one I was replying to) and #190, just before your agreement.

I just don't see how to reconcile these posts of yours with this surprising agreement. Surely there is some confusion happening.