Why do you do this?

[crossfire]

Crossfire, one thing that makes this talk difficult is what I believe to be a conflaction between religion and theism.

Fundamentalism happens when religious conviction gets out of control. Not theistic conviction in and of itself, and certainly not atheistic conviction, but religious conviction, involving some degree of disconnect to reality and dogmatism.

Fundamentalism is not limited to religion. One can be a fundamentalist vegetarian, for instance.

Theism encourages fundamentalism, because it proposes the existence of a higher authority that may make otherwise absurd views appear legitimate.

Higher authority, as in beyond questioning?

Atheism, quite simply, does not. Religious fanaticism and fundamentalism may still exist on an atheist. But not due to atheism. Atheism, being a lack of belief, is quite unsuitable as a justification for those illnesses. Other causes may exist, and certainly do sometimes.

This is one major, significant difference between theism and atheism. One is suitable to kinds of misuse, the other simply lacks substance for that.

Are you making the claim that atheists have a special immunity from expounding & glorifying their own views, while depreciating and showing contempt for the views of others? Are atheists immune to greed, hatred, or delusion?

Back to the Kalama Sutta:

As they sat there, the Kalamas of Kesaputta said to the Blessed One, "Lord, there are some brahmans & contemplatives who come to Kesaputta. They expound & glorify their own doctrines, but as for the doctrines of others, they deprecate them, revile them, show contempt for them, & disparage them. And then other brahmans & contemplatives come to Kesaputta. They expound & glorify their own doctrines, but as for the doctrines of others, they deprecate them, revile them, show contempt for them, & disparage them. They leave us absolutely uncertain & in doubt: Which of these venerable brahmans & contemplatives are speaking the truth, and which ones are lying?"​

Judge by doctrines which promote an absence of greed, hatred, or delusion--don't go by specious reasoning, etc, when you know that doctrines teaching greed hatred or delusion lead to long term harm.


repeating for emphasis:

Atheism, quite simply, does not. Religious fanaticism and fundamentalism may still exist on an atheist. But not due to atheism. Atheism, being a lack of belief, is quite unsuitable as a justification for those illnesses. Other causes may exist, and certainly do sometimes.

This is one major, significant difference between theism and atheism. One is suitable to kinds of misuse, the other simply lacks substance for that.

Don't go by logical conjecture, by inference, by agreement through pondering views....as you know for yourself that these things (greed hatred or delusion) are unskillful, are blameworthy, etc.

 

[LuisDantas]

Fundamentalism is not limited to religion. One can be a fundamentalist vegetarian, for instance.

I think of that as misuse of the word, personally. It confuses and dilutes its meaning.

Higher authority, as in beyond questioning?

Precisely.

Are you aware that this smiley of yours tells me that you are hoping for some sort of reaction from me - and I am pretty certain that it will not and could not possibly come, because I have no idea whatsoever of what motivated you to put that smiley in there?

Logically, it should mean that you are hoping to shake me off some sort of attachment to an unquestionable tenet, supposedly tied to atheism.

But in this context, that is nonsensical, so what am I to make of that smiley?

 

[LuisDantas]

Are you making the claim that atheists have a special immunity from expounding & glorifying their own views, while depreciating and showing contempt for the views of others? Are atheists immune to greed, hatred, or delusion?

Not quite, but something close to that. Not all of those mental poisons are fundamentalism, but we are discussing fundamentalism specifically, are we not?

 

[crossfire]

Not quite, but something close to that. Not all of those mental poisons are fundamentalism, but we are discussing fundamentalism specifically, are we not?

Let me tell you a story.

Several years ago, my ex and I were travelling Christmas morning 30 miles to his parents' house for Christmas. Along that drive, every church that we passed that had a nativity scene displayed was vandalized. Let me repeat: every single one was vandalized along that 30 mile stretch. Even the ones on the side roads we travelled. (We turned down some side roads to do some more investigating of this, to see how widespred it was.)

Do you think that this was the work of one person, or do you think it was a group effort?

Kalama Sutta:

"What do you think, Kalamas? Does greed {or hate or delusion} appear in a man for his benefit or harm?" — "For his harm, venerable sir." — "Kalamas, being given to greed {or hate, or delusion} and being overwhelmed and vanquished mentally by greed {or hate, or delusion} this man takes life, steals, commits adultery, and tells lies; he prompts another too, to do likewise. Will that be long for his harm and ill?" — "Yes, venerable sir."​

I would say that this obvious group effort was an obvious sign of fundamentalism. Your mileage may vary.

 

[crossfire]

Are you aware that this smiley of yours tells me that you are hoping for some sort of reaction from me - and I am pretty certain that it will not and could not possibly come, because I have no idea whatsoever of what motivated you to put that smiley in there?

Are not assumptions something that is beyond questioning? Is your assumption (that atheism grants a special immunity) beyond questioning?

Logically, it should mean that you are hoping to shake me off some sort of attachment to an unquestionable tenet, supposedly tied to atheism.

But in this context, that is nonsensical, so what am I to make of that smiley?

It was a marker to denote the need for deeper examination.

 

[Northern Lights]

It's a brilliant point, Tarheeler. Great thread.

I think it just comes down to how human nature tends to cause us to dislike that which is different to us, or our outlook.

In other words, ignorance.

 

[Caladan]

Apparently not. You have just mentioned three defining characteristics of fundamentalism, and the first two are not even possible to reconcile with Atheism.

Actually I did not. They apply very well to any worldview. Lets see what oxforddictionaries com says: strict adherence to the basic principles of any subject or discipline.

Intolerance of other views is certainly possible in Atheists. But it makes no sense to confuse it with Fundamentalism.

Of course it does. Intolerance of other views is a byproduct of a narrow minded and intolerant worldview. An adherence to fundamentalism of this specific narrow minded world view, which excludes pluralism.

What would a "fundamental principle of Atheism" even be?

Which type of atheism are you talking about? There are many denominations.

It seems to me that you are treating what may or may not be actual fundamentalism present in people that may or may not be atheists (I have to use the hypotheticals because no clear actual example has been presented yet) as if it were atheism-motivated fundamentalism.

Many discussions about subects which are related to world religion have been derailed and utterly destroyed because fundamentalist atheists have jumped into the discussion and literalized the subject in the exact same pattern religious fundamentalists literalize it, and therefore rendered literally hundreds of topics as useless. Many atheists just as many believers have their dogmas which keep them ignorant about various topics and disables them from discussing such topics as adults.
And since you insist on examples, I'll illustrate one. Many members here are capable of discussing Biblical topics in their contemporary Ancient Near Eastern context. Meaning discussing a subject for its literary, etymological, or historical merit. However many fundamentalist atheists would jump into such discussion failing to realize such a level of discussion and simply render whatever topic into face value level and ergo as 'fairy tale', 'fantasy' or 'delusion'. Even in those many occasions when no one actually attributed literal meaning to the subject.

That, I feel, is a grave mistake, and one that harms attempts at communication and understanding. Albeit probably an appealing one under certain circunstances.

Atheism should no more be casually accused of being capable of sustaining fundamentalism than theism should be denounced as undesirable because it demonstrably is. Both statements would be grossly unfair, albeit for slightly different reasons.

No one is accusing atheism of anything. We are discussing fundamentalism, narrow mindedness, ignorance. Which may be atheist, theist, or even economic.

The actual nature and consequences of both atheism and theism must be considered in judging them, despite the natural tendency to treat them as somehow opposite and equivalent that comes from the similar names and from cultural conditioning.

That is exactly what I and I believe also crossfire are saying, so I find it weird that you try to make this spin.

The fact of the matter is that atheism is an absence of claim, while theism is a bold proposition. And many significant consequences come from that core difference and make their dangers and advantages very unsimilar when contrasted.

And here shines your bias which completely contradicts your politically correct paragraph above. I find it especially very telling since at least I, did not to present theism or any form of religion as a factor here. In fact I'm doing my best to illustrate that discussion of religion can be done with neither religious or atheistic bias.

 

[Windwalker]

I guess this is something that I still need to understand: what would atheist fundamentalism be like and how come people swear to have found it in existence.

Dogmatic beliefs of any kind that see all others who don't think like them as lost, deceived, delusional, etc, are fundamentalist. You can have eco-fundamentalists, atheist fundamentalist, etc. The defining characteristics include this driving need to convert others to your faith/worldview while being unable to see any alternative view but your own as being valid for them.

A friend of mine some years ago said to me as he became an atheist, "I'm so glad I know the truth now!" I responded saying, "I remember you saying the exact same words when you were in Bible College". To which he responded, "But the difference is now I really DO have the truth!".

You see? It's not what you believe, but how you believe it.

As far as evidence, yikes! I'd be an active moderator at a different religious site for nearly 8 years. It was a constant battle keeping the atheist evangelists at bay trying to dissuade others of their religious beliefs, ridiculing them, calling it "woo woo", etc, etc, etc. It was like the same people who ran around with Bible's in their hands bringing the word of God to people by slamming it over their heads, preaching how they're lost and deceived, but now with Richard Dawkins The God Delusion in their hands instead preaching how they're delusion and living in darkness, etc. This site is so refreshing to me by comparison.

 

[LuisDantas]

Now that a few hours have passed, I managed to put this together. Hopefully it will be useful.

1. Fundamentalism as I define it (and I assume many if not most atheists will understand it) is a disturbance with social and psychological effects. It not necessarily worse than other kinds of disturbances, but it is distinguished from them due to its sustentation in attachment to dogma.

2. Therefore, it is encouraged by certain forms of theism and made considerably harder if not impossible to happen in skeptics and atheists. Which does not at all mean that those groups are completely safe, and certainly does not deny that they may have troubles of their own.

3. It is important to clearly address whether people are fundamentalists or not. Specifically, it is important not to criticize atheists for being fundamentalists when they can prove to their own satisfaction that it is just not so. People can hardly take to heart advise that they find to hold no meaning.

4. It is also important for theists to acknowledge and understand that fundamentalism is faith-specific, because to properly ward against its dangers they must understand its origin and the nature of its lure.

 

[LuisDantas]

Are not assumptions something that is beyond questioning? Is your assumption (that atheism grants a special immunity) beyond questioning?

By circunstance it indeed is. For no one, and certainly not you so far, gave me the means to question it.

It was a marker to denote the need for deeper examination.

It failed. Utterly, I am sad to say.

Except that it gave me reason to question your perspective and attempt to put myself into your shoes and reconstitute your reasons for saying things that are devoid of meaning far as I can tell.

Maybe that will make it worth it after all. I can not say.

 

[LuisDantas]

Let me tell you a story.

Several years ago, my ex and I were travelling Christmas morning 30 miles to his parents' house for Christmas. Along that drive, every church that we passed that had a nativity scene displayed was vandalized. Let me repeat: every single one was vandalized along that 30 mile stretch. Even the ones on the side roads we travelled. (We turned down some side roads to do some more investigating of this, to see how widespred it was.)

Do you think that this was the work of one person, or do you think it was a group effort?

Kalama Sutta:

"What do you think, Kalamas? Does greed {or hate or delusion} appear in a man for his benefit or harm?" — "For his harm, venerable sir." — "Kalamas, being given to greed {or hate, or delusion} and being overwhelmed and vanquished mentally by greed {or hate, or delusion} this man takes life, steals, commits adultery, and tells lies; he prompts another too, to do likewise. Will that be long for his harm and ill?" — "Yes, venerable sir."​

I would say that this obvious group effort was an obvious sign of fundamentalism. Your mileage may vary.

I will just admit my obvious ignorance of the circunstances and consequent lack of means to opine on the matter.

Of course, it does seem to be a group effort. I have no idea of what motivates them, though. It is not even a priori obvious that the perpetrators are not themselves theists; stranger things have been known to happen.

 

[crossfire]

By circunstance it indeed is. For no one, and certainly not you so far, gave me the means to question it.




It failed. Utterly, I am sad to say.

Except that it gave me reason to question your perspective and attempt to put myself into your shoes and reconstitute your reasons for saying things that are devoid of meaning far as I can tell.

Maybe that will make it worth it after all. I can not say.

Alright, let me walk you through it.

Theism encourages fundamentalism, because it proposes the existence of a higher authority that may make otherwise absurd views appear legitimate.

Higher authority, as in beyond questioning?

As for making absurd views appear legitimate, beyond question:

You seem to be taking a secondary sign and confusing it with the disease itself. Madalyn may have been unpleasant and insistent, but she was not delusional. She may have sounded somewhat similar to many fundamentalists, but she did not have - and, in fact, was all-out impervious to - fundamentalism, mainly because she was so insistently atheistic.

How is making the claim that atheists have the superpower of being inherently impervious to fundamentalism not an absurd statement?

This is one major, significant difference between theism and atheism. One is suitable to kinds of misuse, the other simply lacks substance for that.

I disagree. Being an atheist does not automatically make you immune to the greed, hatred, delusion, or narrow-mindedness that can lead to fundamentalist behavior. Examples demonstrating this have been given in this thread. Now, let's look at the definition of delusion from dictionary.com:

de·lu·sion
[dih-loo-zhuhn]
noun
1.
an act or instance of deluding.
2.
the state of being deluded.
3.
a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
4.
Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.​

 

[Jainarayan]

What did she say that you object to so much? From where I sit, this seems to be a good example of the double standard I mentioned before:

I'm not objecting to anything she ever said, or judging her, so I don't think I've made a double standard. I'm simply pointing out that in her zeal she could be called a fundamentalist... no tolerance for (non)beliefs but her own. I did say it's a matter of p.o.v.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm not objecting to anything she ever said, or judging her, so I don't think I've made a double standard. I'm simply pointing out that in her zeal she could be called a fundamentalist... no tolerance for (non)beliefs but her own. I did say it's a matter of p.o.v.

Again: what did she say? Can you give an example of the intolerance you're describing?

 

[Jainarayan]

Again: what did she say? Can you give an example of the intolerance you're describing?

No, because I'm done. I didn't say she said anything specific, I said it is an overall impression and opinion I have of her. I am entitled to that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, because I'm done. I didn't say she said anything specific, I said it is an overall impression and opinion I have of her. I am entitled to that.

Similarly, I'm entitled to point out that you haven't given any support for your claim. I'm also entitled to point out that when I've heard heard other people put forward similar positions in the past, they've proven to be hypocritical.

But yes, if you want to leave it there, that's your prerogative.

 

[metis]

So, why do you come here and do this?

Do you see it as chance to attack religions you see as being wrong and act as a champion of your faith?
Do you see it as a chance to proselytize?
Do you see it as a chance to learn and to teach?
Or is it something else?

I select door #3, namely to learn and to teach. Over the many years on various message boards, there's much that I have picked up from people that I didn't know or consider before.

 

[ametist]

What you have inside is what you will have outside as well, what is seen outside has an equavalent inside. Thats why. A stiff rod will break if you try to bend it. They will resist bending if you insist and you will feel the resistance yourself. why bother having two pieces of broken stiff rods? Just recognize a stiff rod when you see one and recognize the equavalent inside of you. Acknowledge that it is your own. So you want to change from being a stiff rod..but not to break yourself.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

BTW - I started a new thread:

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...-atheist-fundamentalism-mean.html#post3645675

 

[Repox]

If you have no strong beliefs about God or religion, you should just try to learn about other faiths. On the other hand, if you have strong religious convictions, it is an opportunity to strengthen your faith, but that may lead to argument or conflict. On such a large forum as this, it seems pantheism is the best belief system. That way, you won't offend someone, or better yet, you may be liked. I have learned the hard way to keep my beliefs to myself. In that way, I won't be sanctioned for expressing beliefs that may offend someone. Even if you know some basic truth about God or religion, it's best to keep quiet.