What does "atheist fundamentalism" mean?

[Reverend Rick]

I have to leave for a while, I actually have something fun to do IRL. Before I leave, let me expand this premise that anti-theists are the newest religion. Science is their religious dogma. The thing is they refuse to admit that all things are not explained completely or verified so there is an element of belief involved as well.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

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

Really?

Well, only in discussions like these where we get to redefine our terms whenever we like.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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.

Petty smear campaigns do little to improve either your image or your argument.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I have to leave for a while, I actually have something fun to do IRL. Before I leave, let me expand this premise that anti-theists are the newest religion. Science is their religious dogma. The thing is they refuse to admit that all things are not explained completely or verified so there is an element of belief involved as well.

Yeah, once again you're just giving us personal trivia. You think "anti-theists are the newest religion" (ignoring the silly category mistake here), and that "science is their dogma"- that's great, very informative. If you'd like anyone to do anything with that, however, you're going to need to substantiate it somehow. Oh, and it probably wouldn't hurt for you to address the glaring holes in the things you've already said as well.

 

[LuisDantas]

I have to leave for a while, I actually have something fun to do IRL. Before I leave, let me expand this premise that anti-theists are the newest religion. Science is their religious dogma. The thing is they refuse to admit that all things are not explained completely or verified so there is an element of belief involved as well.

If you truly believe in that, you are simply wrong. Far too wrong for me to feel offended, in fact.

You might as well accuse us of secretly being steelworkers, or myself personally of having long blond hair.

Hey, it makes just as much sense.

 

[LuisDantas]

Petty smear campaigns do little to improve either your image or your argument.

Honest question: where is the smear? I just don't see any.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Its the sort of thing that is so laughably confused, you have to wonder whether it wasn't intended as a joke. In fact, I think that the principle of charity demands we assume it was meant in a spirit of humor, lest we be guilty of fallaciously strawmanning his view.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Petty smear campaigns do little to improve either your image or your argument.

"Petty smear campaigns". Lol.

 

[LuisDantas]

Well, only in discussions like these where we get to redefine our terms whenever we like.

I wonder how that works.

Are Hindus imposing when they think of themselves as reasonable and of the Abrahamic Faiths as myths?

Are Christians imposing when they disbelieve the Quran?

Are Shintoists imposing when they have their own ideas about other faiths?

Apparently one can not help but impose their ideas...

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I wonder how that works.

Are Hindus imposing when they think of themselves as reasonable and of the Abrahamic Faiths as myths?

Are Christians imposing when they disbelieve the Quran?

Are Shintoists imposing when they have their own ideas about other faiths?

Apparently one can not help but impose their ideas...

Its only imposing when atheists do it, duh. When we talk about everyone else, we use the normal English meaning of "impose". Just like with the word "fundamentalism".

 

[Alceste]

Honest question: where is the smear? I just don't see any.

There isn't any. I'm only insisting on comparing apples to apples. I have noticed lots of people stop making sense when they're struggling against the realization that I'm right.

 

[outhouse]

... 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.

BY avoiding reality?

What was anti theistic? scientific avoidance? willful ignorance? Please.

 

[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?

Well, yes, it is. ...

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.

Petty smear campaigns do little to improve either your image or your argument.

Honest question: where is the smear? I just don't see any.

You're right. Perhaps "snotty ridicule" would have been more accurate than "smear". Furthermore, given your "yes, it is" in the dialogue above, the "guy" she's ridiculing might well be you and not me. But my guess is that she is attacking the person and not the position.

 

[LuisDantas]

Jay, you truly do not understand our side, now do you?

Because if you think Alceste and me - who have our differences on other matters, no doubt - are not on the same page and at ease with each other on this one, then I can come to no other conclusion.

 

[outhouse]

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.

Me too.


The issue has turned from atheist all being anti theist, to anyone who discounts YEC is the devil and a fundy.


Anyone wants to be a YEC fine, I have no problem as long as they keep their beliefs to their selves. And there in lies the problem, they don't.

 

[Alceste]

You're right. Perhaps "snotty ridicule" would have been more accurate than "smear". Furthermore, given your "yes, it is" in the dialogue above, the "guy" she's ridiculing might well be you and not me. But my guess is that she is attacking the person and not the position.

Are you referring to my reference to "quacking"? If that's the "snotty ridicule" you mean, you might want to be addressing Rick. I'm only using his own choice of phrasing. And far more kindly than in his original duck-related musings vis a vis atheists, IMO.

Double standards everywhere!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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

I think so as well.

At the same time, I think the thread is instructive:

• an invocation before a sports event is framed as 'mandatory' prayer despite the likelihood that prayer was not mandate, while
• a billboard that says "You KNOW it's a Myth" is framed as no more than a caring effort on the part of the atheists to let fellow atheists know that they're not alone, despite that the fact that the "You" does not differentiate and the overwhelming majority of those who saw the billboard might easily interpret it as a crude taunt.

 

[LuisDantas]

You're right. Perhaps "snotty ridicule" would have been more accurate than "smear". Furthermore, given your "yes, it is" in the dialogue above, the "guy" she's ridiculing might well be you and not me. But my guess is that she is attacking the person and not the position.

Then you failed utterly to understand both her post and mine (which you cut early, making it appear the opposite of what it is).

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

J
Because if you think Alceste and me - who have our differences on other matters, no doubt - are not on the same page and at ease with each other on this one, then I can come to no other conclusion.

I'm fully aware that you are "on the same page".

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Then you failed utterly to understand both her post and mine (which you cut early, making it appear the opposite of what it is).

As you wish ...