just fyi: there is no such thing as a fundamentalist atheist

[RainDog]

fundamentalism: The term fundamentalism was originally coined to describe a narrowly defined set of beliefs that developed into a movement within the Protestant community of the United States in the early part of the 20th century, and that had its roots in the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy of that time. Until 1950, there was no entry for fundamentalism in the Oxford English Dictionary;<5> the derivative fundamentalist was added only in its second 1989 edition.<6>

Wiki notes that some try to expand that definition to include strong beliefs that are criticized or unpopular, but the cultural context of the term retains its meaning as a religious-doctrinal position.

"Fundamentalism" has its origins in the attempt to deny the truth that Charles Darwin brought into the western world's conversation about reality, in right wingers' attempts to undermine liberal or liberation theology and, VERY IMPORTANTLY, to state the fundamentalists' opposition to scholarly study of the bible as a text that is subject to historical analysis.

NOTHING about fundamentalism has ANYTHING to do with atheism. The enemies of fundamentalism are the friends of atheists, in other words.

Richard Dawkins has used the term to characterize religious advocates as clinging to a stubborn, entrenched position that defies reasoned argument or contradictory evidence.<9>

In other words, Dawkins' use of the term is consistent with its origin and its goals.

On the other hand, Christian theologian Alister McGrath, has used the term fundamentalism to characterize atheism as dogmatic

This is a misappropriation of the term and, in turn, makes the argument look weak and contrived. If someone knows the characteristics that define fundamentalism, it is obvious that atheism can never fit those parameters.

McGrath has a personal beef with Dawkins and has tried to smear him by assigning a term that is reserved for religious beliefs to those who do not accept arguments for the existence of a deity. however, those who think that there is no deity do not share a systemic belief. anyone can claim there is no god, there is no personal god, there is no god that can be known, etc. and pretty much be an atheist.

people can say to themselves - I don't think there is a god and that's it. they don't have to sit around and think about this statement or develop any programmatic response to that thought.

(oh and McGrath also claimed in 2004, that atheism was in decline. wishful thinking or an example of this inability to correctly parse the world outside of his belief system? or maybe some of both? who knows.

However, those who do not accept religious explanations for the world are becoming more vocal and more outright about their views, so the guy seems to have missed something, or else just wanted to score points against Dawkins. who knows. who cares.)

"Fundamentalist atheist" was a term used to try to FORCE those who do not believe in some form of deity into the mental box that religion creates for those who reside there. it does not in any way describe the variety of opinions of those who would say they are atheists.

Atheists make a lot of people mad as they have become more vocal because atheism, by its existence, challenges others' belief systems as a way to apply the same sorts of reasoning that those fundamentalists opposed from the very start.

have a great day!

[DavidDvorkin]

1. You're right, of course, but I'm afraid many on DU are deaf to this reality

"Fundamentalist atheist" is a convenient, unthinking, kneejerk way to dismiss atheists who speak up.

[RainDog]

3. yep

sometimes it's good to make sure people have an understanding of terms.

what those people object to are vocal and hostile atheists. not the same.

[ironbark]

54. Hypothetically….like…not that it could ever happen…

But if one was to encounter some of these “hostile atheists”…

And if they shared/displayed common behavioural traits…

What would be the acceptable (to atheists) general covering/identifying term?

‘Hostile atheists’?

This issue came up some time ago on the R&T board and the only advice I received
on an alternative to fundamentalist atheist was (from an atheist) – “Just call them jerks”.

I deemed this to be an appropriate but fraught and politically incorrect option.

Any alternatives?

[RainDog]

63. pissed off n/t

[omega minimo]

79. Septics

[omega minimo]

241. Debunkers.

Invested in detracting, distrusting, destroying, disrespecting, derogatory attitudes.

[BrklynLiberal]

2. A perfect example of an oxymoron:"Fundamentalist atheist"

conjoining contradictory terms

[Warpy]

4. There is no atheist dogma

so how can atheists be dogmatic? Perhaps McGrath is having a hissy fit because he can't bully an atheist into giving his beliefs lip service.

Atheists simply lack belief in a god.

Belief seems to require consensus, which is why I suspect believers like McGrath like to hurl epithets like "dogmatic" at people outside his desire for consensus but who possess no dogma to adhere to.

[lapislzi]

5. If believers want to believe, I don't give a crap.

They are entitled to their delusion. I'm not going to interfere with them. I hope they don't interfere with me. I don't recruit.

[RainDog]

6. I'm going to interfere with them when they interfere with me. n/t

[kwenu]

7. I think it refers to those atheists....

who are intolerant of other people who hold views other than the atheist view.

[RainDog]

11. but your interpretation does not fit the history of the term

which is why I wanted to help inform people who want to make such "ignorance-based" claims.

you object to those who challenge religious belief. that's not fundamentalism.

[kwenu]

24. Is it preferable to just create the term Intolerant Atheists?

As opposed to atheists who just happy being atheists and don't particularly care if others have a different view?

[RainDog]

31. if you are referring to atheists who refuse to acknowledge belief systems

and choose to challenge others for reasons that may not have anything at all to do with whether someone is an atheist or not (i.e. you can believe in god and also challenge creationist, etc.) you may call them intolerant if you like. this is a pejorative term based upon your views.

it is certainly a much more honest term than "fundamentalist" because it is an expression of your opinion, not a statement about atheism itself.

i.e. you are saying atheists who are intolerant are intolerant of your or others' religious beliefs.

[kwenu]

34. Yeah. It sounds like we're doing a dance to get around the problem

that it is not cool to not let other people be different. It doesn't matter if we are talking about atheists, the disabled, gays, ethnicity, beliefs,etc.

[Crunchy Frog]

8. Doesn't this belong in the R/T forum?

[RainDog]

9. if atheism isn't a religion...

get it?

this post is in response to an uninformed claim made on this site.

obviously some true believers cannot stand to have reality interfere with their closed minds because they are unreccing this...

this is a post that talks about statements of fact and historical truths.

are there really those of you on this site who are so opposed to reality?

[RainDog]

13. it obviously doesn't matter, as we see. n/t

[Crunchy Frog]

40. Well, I guess the mods agree with me.

:shrug:

[RainDog]

47. obviously.

I never post anything in the religion/theology forum because I do not view atheism as religion or theology.

but I have had a couple of posts moved here recently. no doubt because of the potential for flammable material.

I have been very vocal about my disgust with the Catholic hierarchy lately.

but the thing is, I would NEVER say anything about the catholic church if they did not try to force their belief system on my life via legislation - pending legislation.

however, once that has begun, then it is necessary to respond to their views to prevent them from eroding others' rights.

If their attempts to deny equal rights to women and human rights to homosexuals (I fit the first category but claim solidarity with the second because the experiences of being "the other" are similar) reach into the realm of government then I will attack them in the same way I would attack Bush or Cheney.

they are the same to me, in terms of the harm they hope to do to me and others.

but usually my "intolerance" for religion is focused on fundamentalist protestants - for the same reason that I now focus on the Catholic hierarchy, and because I was personally attacked repeatedly by fundamentalists because I would not subscribe to their belief system.

and I do mean attacked. a minister in my family came to my home uninvited and proceeded to tell me that something was wrong with me because I did not accept his religious stance. I was being polite to him b/c he was somehow related to me, but when he started attacking me personally, that was when the gloves came off and they have never gone back on.

It is my sincere belief that right wing religious beliefs harm this nation and the people in it - because I have seen this harm over and over - oh, including more than one person I know who was sent to "torture camp" to become un-homosexual. This is no different than a modern-day inquisition. It must be opposed - and you don't have to be an atheist to oppose it, obviously.

so, yeah, I am intolerant of religion that SYSTEMATICALLY oppresses others - which is what is happening now with protestant fundamentalists and the catholic hierarchy. (And which is also what is happening within certain politically powerful sects of Islam like Wahhabists.)

I am intolerant because they have made it an issue of existence for me and others by their attempts to force others to conform to their beliefs.

That's an intolerance I will proudly subscribe to.

[Rabrrrrrr]

10. Words change - it's perfectly acceptable to apply "fundamentalist" to any rigid ideological system

doesn't have to apply only to religions any more.

Fundamentalist atheists, fundamentalists Republicans (or Democrats), fundamentalist Keynesian economists, fundamentalist material objectivists, and so on.

Anyone who believes that their ideological system (whatever it is) is THE ONLY system that is true - and not just true, but also has ALL the truth - is a fundamentalist.

There are fundamentalist atheists. Just as there fundamentalist Christians, Muslims, Jews, and also fundamentalist Capitalists, feminists, white supremacists, and aesthetes.

Sure, it's not the original intent of the word 'fundamentalist', but how many words do we have nowadays that have never, ever been adapted to new situations or expanded into new meanings? Not very damn many.

[HeresyLives]

12. Except atheists don't HAVE an ideology.

They have a LACK of ideology.

[darkstar3]

84. Notice how no one's responding to THIS point?

Gee, I wonder why? Could it be because it puts the lie to the idea of a "fundamentalist atheist" by using two very simple sentences?

[omega minimo]

109. An ideology about the lack of ideology

Main Entry: ide·ol·o·gy
Pronunciation: \ˌī-dē-ˈä-lə-jē, ˌi-\
Variant(s): also ide·al·o·gy \-ˈä-lə-jē, -ˈa-\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural ide·ol·o·gies
Etymology: French idéologie, from idéo- ideo- + -logie -logy
Date: 1813
1 : visionary theorizing
2 a : a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture b : a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture c : the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program
— ide·ol·o·gist \-jist\ noun

[laconicsax]

110. !

:rofl:

[beam me up scottie]

111. dupe

Damn fairies must be messing around with my ethernet cable again.

[beam me up scottie]

112. My my my, a Dictionary Fundamentalist. And here I thought they were a myth.

You are what I say you are, you are you are you are!

[omega minimo]

113. Some non believers can't separate themselves from their non beliefs

[beam me up scottie]

114. That was a truly brilliant observation.

:rofl:

[tama]

117. Well

ideal definitions aside, in real world at least, some people who call them atheists or sceptics often have fundamentalist belief that mental processes reduce to brain neurology.

The fundie aspect of their belief system manifests in denying all evidence and logic contrary to their core believes and lying about it.

[RainDog]

125. how are they wrong?

if you want to call it a fundie belief to reduce mental processes to brain neurology...

what other explanation do you have for mental processes?

what evidence and logic exists for this other idea of mental processes?

if you are calling something a belief that is in opposition to something else - what is that something else?

[tama]

136. Many ways

First, I don't call the hypothesis itself a fundie belief, in itself it's just a (poor) hypothesis. But many people regard that poor hypothesis as their core belief and get offended if it's challenged. These are separate issues that you shouldn't mix up.

Falsification of an unsound hypothesis (by anomalous evidence and/or faulted logic) does not require alternative explanation.

Of available alternative explanations the quantum mind approach seems very promising and offers much wider explanatory power.

[darkstar3]

133. In that post, you misused the term fundamentalist twice. n/t

[tama]

138. Maybe you misunderstood?

If in comparative analysis there are observable analogies between behaviour in various groups, certainly it is not misuse of a term to point out those behavioral analogies. Reading anything else in the use of the term is not my problem.

[darkstar3]

161. Words have meaning.

To use a word in a way that is contrary to its meaning is to misuse the word. You don't get to ad hoc redefine terms for your own rhetorical ends. That's not how we debate.

[tama]

169. That's how we talk

language is not limited to rules of debate and dictionary definitions.

My academic background is in general linguistics, I'm also a professional translator and a published poet. I might know a couple things about using words and being used by words.

Have you read Schopenhauers 'The Art of Being Right', btw?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right

[darkstar3]

177. HA!

That, dear tama, is an argument from authority and an incredible claim, given the word salad you've posted into this board lately.

Aside from that, if language is NOT limited to certain rules, than what fucking good is it? How else are we supposed to communicate effectively with each other? TELEPATHY? :eyes:

[tama]

192. Effective communication

is much more than propositional sentences and debate tactics and "rules" in that context. "Grooming" is very important function of linguistic communication.

And if attempting to write in foreign language like English makes me sound stupid, sorry, can't be helped - unless you learn my native language.

[darkstar3]

201. Effective communication can never be achieved when one side continues to redefine words at will. n/t

[beam me up scottie]

180. !

:rofl:

[RainDog]

14. Just because you state "there are fundamentalist atheists"

does not make the claim true.

it means the words mean nothing if anything can apply.

...and "fundamentalist feminist? really? lol.

[laconicsax]

17. I'll take ownership of "fundamentalist feminst."

I believe that women are equal to men. I believe that institutionalized sexism exists in our culture and that it must be dismantled.

I will not budge on that--you could say it's my rigid ideological stance.

[Rabrrrrrr]

25. I wouldn't call that fundamentalist, but you might still wish to continue to do so -

I'd say that your stance is good old standard feminism - that women are equal to men in intrinsic worth; and this also allows for the equal truth that men are also equal to women. That there is actual parity between the two genders, with neither holding a position of superiority, but still allow for the specific instances of "this man is better at leading this company than this woman is" or "This woman is better at welding than this man is" and so on.

Fundamentalist feminism would be (to me, anyway, if I were allowed to be the final definer of it) feminism that moved to an extreme beyond equality and into "in all cases, women are intrinsically of greater value than men" and "in all cases, men are of intrinsically lesser value than women".

As I think of fundamentalist, I think of someone who believes all other belief systems around any particular idea are utterly devoid of value in preference to their own. The closed mind is the hallmark of the fundamentalist.

[laconicsax]

33. Your concept of fundamentalist feminism goes beyond what feminsim means.

Feminism is, and always has been, about equal rights. That's it. I'm fond of the first http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/feminism">dictionary.com definition. It already has the hallmarks of fundamentalism:

fem·i·nism   [fem-uh-niz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun

1. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.

What you describe would be more accurately defined as female chauvinism.

[ironbark]

56. Good Lord!

I'm married to a fundamentalist feminist!

[Rabrrrrrr]

19. Any ideology runs the risk of moving into a fundamentalist viewpoint.

Please note that I am not saying that they ALWAYS do, or that EVERY PERSON who follows an ideology is a fundamentalist. I'm talking specifically of those who cross the line into believing that their ideology is the only one that has validity.

I'd say the majority of people are too nuanced to be fundamentalist. But it does happen.

[RainDog]

27. here is a dictionary definition of fundamentlism

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fundamentalism

1: a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b : the beliefs of this movement c : adherence to such beliefs

2 : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles

what set of principles applies to atheism other than the statement that there is no known deity?

how can atheism be "literal" as opposed to "figurative?"

1 a : according with the letter of the scriptures b : adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression : actual c : free from exaggeration or embellishment d : characterized by a concern mainly with facts

ALL atheism is "literal."

figurative v literal:

In traditional analysis, words in literal expressions denote what they mean according to common or dictionary usage, while the words in figurative expressions connote—they add layers of meaning.

[Rabrrrrrr]

39. To me, the fundamentalist move goes from simply saying "I don't believe in a god/gods"

(which still has the possibility of at least respecting the truth claims of others) to "any system in which the existence of a god or gods is not denied is utterly wrong/dangerous/without value and should be condemned/eliminated/harassed/whatever" or some other similar claim to absolute truth. Looking at definition 2 above, this is a move from asserting a set of values for oneself to asserting that one's set of values should be the imposed universal set of values on everyone else because one's value system is The Only value system with merit.

I don't know - maybe I'm just not explaining it well enough. It seems perfectly clear to me.

Maybe I could put it this way - a fundamentalist position is any position which is too immodest to admit that it might be wrong or insufficient or not the primary worldview. Especially if it wishes to impose its value system on others.

[shimmergal]

44. Exactly.

To me, "fundamentalist atheists" are those who think the world would be better off if everyone shared their belief system.

As opposed to those (whether atheists or deists or something else) who think a diversity of beliefs makes for a more interesting world, and leaves the door open to the discovery of new truths.

Unfortunately, fundamentalist atheists tend to be as boring and dogmatic as their Christian counterparts.

[RainDog]

48. so Dawkins is a fundamentalist atheist because he thinks creationism is bullshit?

Dawkins became outspoken against the idea of god when he observed religion's unearned intrusion into his profession.

He is serving a hugely valuable service for humanity by refusing to "respect" claims that the earth is 6000 years old or that dinosaurs co-existed with Noah.

While it might make the world more "interesting" to make these claims, such claims damage a field that has provided all of humanity with better health care, a better understanding of how the world works and the way to move beyond empty rhetoric posing as value in an area of life in which it has nothing useful to say.

The problem with religion is that it cannot bear too much scrutiny unless it is viewed as an ethical system, not as a history or as an answer to the big problems that governments face with social issues.

Claims made by the religious are subject to scrutiny because that is the basic way the world is understood in the west with its alignment with empiricism - defined as:

...a theory of knowledge that asserts that knowledge arises from sense experience. Empiricism is one of several competing views that predominate in the study of human knowledge, known as epistemology. Empiricism emphasizes the role of experience and evidence, especially sensory perception, in the formation of ideas, while discounting the notion of innate ideas...

In a related sense, empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes those aspects of scientific knowledge that are closely related to evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world, rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation. Hence, science is considered to be methodologically empirical in nature.

In other words, empiricism is the reason we have democracy, universal human rights as a precept of all nations, an ability to correct course and overcome errors in judgment and the capacity to investigate crimes...just for a start.

I don't find that boring at all. I find that liberating.

[tama]

118. That's not the reason

Dawkins is a "fundamentalist atheist" because he is more interested in public debunking of evidence contrary to his believes (e.g. Sheldrake's) without scientific scrutiny, than discussing that "anomalous" evidence scientifically and taking it into consideration when forming hypotheses and theories.

Dawkins is fundie because of his intellectual dishonesty and hypocricy.

[RainDog]

126. please provide further explanation of anomalous evidence

what anomalous evidence are you referring to? I'm not aware of any evidence that Dawkins debunks.

are you claiming that Dawkins debunks scientific evidence without scientific scrutiny?

If so, you are going to the very heart of this person's entire career and its standard operating procedure so this is a VERY important charge you are making against this man.

It's too important not to back it up with concrete examples.

In addition, you need to point out specific statements that show Dawkins' "intellectual dishonesty" or else you are libeling him.

In addition, you need to show evidence in specific statements that demonstrate his hypocrisy.

In other words, you can't just make general claims and walk away and pretend that rises to the level of anything worth consideration.

defend your statements with evidence or they're worthless.

[tama]

137. As requested

"The previous week I had sent Richard copies of some of my papers, published in peer-reviewed journals, so that he could look at the data.

Richard seemed uneasy and said, “I don’t want to discuss evidence”. “Why not?” I asked. “There isn’t time. It’s too complicated. And that’s not what this programme is about.” The camera stopped.

The Director, Russell Barnes, confirmed that he too was not interested in evidence. The film he was making was another Dawkins polemic.

I said to Russell, “If you’re treating telepathy as an irrational belief, surely evidence about whether it exists or not is essential for the discussion. If telepathy occurs, it’s not irrational to believe in it. I thought that’s what we were going to talk about. I made it clear from the outset that I wasn’t interested in taking part in another low grade debunking exercise.”

Richard said, “It’s not a low grade debunking exercise; it’s a high grade debunking exercise.”

In that case, I replied, there had been a serious misunderstanding, because I had been led to believe that this was to be a balanced scientific discussion about evidence. Russell Barnes asked to see the emails I had received from his assistant. He read them with obvious dismay, and said the assurances she had given me were wrong. The team packed up and left."

http://www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/Dawkins.html

[darkstar3]

164. So your defense of your claims on Dawkins is a single quote

from a website whose author is obviously very interested in selling his books on alternative theories?

Did it ever occur to you that the quotes could be fabricated in order to sell more books? He wouldn't be the first author. Where's the corroboration, the sources, Richard's side of the story, and so on?

[tama]

170. Yeah

and so on and so on. Did it ever occur to you that Richard's showmanship could have something to do with his desire to sell his books?

Do you think there is something wrong with desire to sell books and get readers for one's thoughts and that such a desire is direct evidence of readiness to fabricate evidence?

Sure, everything and everybody can be doubted, but it's usually not considered non-partial or objective to doubt the motives of one side and trust 100% the other side.

If Richard objects to Sheldrakes narrative of the events surely he can make his objections public and tell his side of the story. Then the tape can be dug out. And so on and on and on and on.

***

All you got against Sheldrake's evidence is ad hominem attack without any foundation, just nasty speculation and innuendo without any proof what so ever. I expect better from you.

[darkstar3]

176. What I have against Sheldrake is more than ad hom.

It's his lack of credibility, his huckster website, his undocumented/unsubstantiated quotes. I didn't say his statements were bunk because he was a moron, I said I doubt his statements and until I can see evidence from a source that is more credible, I will refuse to believe his side of the story.

It did, in fact, occur to me that Dawkins wants to sell books too and that he may go to annoying lengths to do it. But at this time, the accusations made are against Dawkins, and I want some sort of corroborating evidence.

[tama]

189. Anyway

the experiments have been repeated by other researchers (including "skeptics") showing similar results. That's what should interest the scientifically minded, not argumentatio ad hominem.

[darkstar3]

202. Then quote one of them. Show us the corroboration.

You've obviously done much research into this, so blaze the trail for the rest of us. Show us where these studies are and let us learn about them for ourselves.

[tama]

210. Two meta-analyses

"Conclusion
We conclude that for both data sets that there is a small, but significant effect. This result
corresponds to the recent findings of studies on distant healing and the ‘feeling of being
stared at’. Therefore, the existence of some anomaly related to distant intentions cannot
be ruled out. The lack of methodological rigour in the existing database prohibits final
conclusions and calls for further research, especially for independent replications on
larger data sets. There is no specific theoretical conception we know of that can
incorporate this phenomenon into the current body of scientific knowledge. Thus,
theoretical research allowing for and describing plausible mechanisms for such effects is
necessary."
http://www.uniklinik-freiburg.org/iuk/live/forschung/publikationen/EDA_DMILS_MA_BJP_2004.pdf

(British Journal of Psychology, 1 May 2004, vol. 95, no. 2, pp. 235-247)

[darkstar3]

215. 2 things:

1. In the paragraph you cite, they're already questioning their own method:

The lack of methodological rigour in the existing database prohibits final conclusions

2. Read here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x240415#241149

[tama]

216. By all means

let's not jump to final conclusions.

Small but significant effect is what the experimental data shows, do you give that any validity? Should the research continue or cease, in your opinion?

[darkstar3]

217. I give it no validity because the very people who did the study give it no validity!

You have to understand that the statement they make about further research does not automatically presume that further research with PROPER methodological approaches and sample sizes will find anything. They THINK they found something, but they have no idea whether they did or not, and further research with better controls will be required to suss that out.

This study has done nothing, not one thing, to support the hypothesis of telepathy, and even its creators have admitted that in the quote you showed.

[tama]

218. Strange interpretation

but one that you need to make for your own reasons, I guess.

Sorry to say, but you can hardly expect me to consider your interpretation either skeptical or respectfull to scientific method, as you jump to the conclusion that you prefer even though it is not supported by experimental data.

[darkstar3]

219. Oh, so now that your source has been shredded you turn to projection and sarcastic dismissal?

I thought you were more original than that.

Go back and read it again, tama. You'll find that these researchers flat out admit that their data proves nothing, because their methodology was flawed and their sample size not representative. There's nothing more to say after that.

[omega minimo]

251. you are projecting the sarcasm

"Sorry to say, but you can hardly expect me to consider your interpretation either skeptical or respectfull to scientific method, as you jump to the conclusion that you prefer even though it is not supported by experimental data."

Where is the sarcasm?

The statement is not "sarcastic" and is not "projection;" it appears to be valid.

"You jump to the conclusion that you prefer" which is that no one has ever experienced telepathy and no one has ever studied/tested telepathy to standards that will meet your criteria.

Are you unaware of the fact that people do experience telepathy, it has been studied and tested, using various methods, including by the government of this nation and others. What criteria do you think they used?

The conclusion that you jump to is that telepathy does not exist, with no proof and no real skepticism about the possibility, the experience or the studies that have been done.

With no proof, how can you be so sure that telepathy does not exist?

Reading this thread, it is clear that this hostility to the concept and presupposition -- which is anything but skeptical -- may be one way in which *you* reinforce your "evidence" that telepathy does not exist.

It has also become clear that the attitude here that attempts to domineer these discussions is not one of openminded skepticism or scientific inquiry, but of mere debunking, for its own sake (whatever that may be).

[ironbark]

57. How about, the hallmarks of fundamentalism are

absolute and unwavering certainty regarding their position to the point that no other position will be actually heard or considered.
?

A deaf arrogance of certainty.

?

[RainDog]

94. "the deaf arrogance of certainty"

you find this on all sorts of issues... if you want to call it arrogance, which you do.

atheists can look at arguments made and have certainty because those arguments have already failed as reasonable responses, for them.

I will never vote for people who hold certain beliefs. I will dismiss those beliefs because I have looked at evidence and know that their claims have no validity for me based upon facts that are part of the historical record.

does that make me a "fundamentalist liberal" or merely someone who dismisses right wing political philosophy because I have found it invalid and to have nothing of worth to add to the conversation about how we live in this world?

you call it arrogance because you don't like it that others dismiss your beliefs.

[darkstar3]

96. GAME ON!

:applause:

[ironbark]

100. Response to your #94 is downthread in my #95

Same issues continued in one place.
Let me know if there are any points you feel I missed.

PS. Cute Cheersquad...but can't play a single round for peanuts ;-)

[laconicsax]

15. To whch rigid ideological system do 'fundamentalist atheists' adhere?

:shrug:

[Rabrrrrrr]

16. usually scientism, but I'm sure there are other systems. I doubt that they're monolithic.

[HeresyLives]

18. Many atheists have no interest in religion OR science.

[Rabrrrrrr]

20. I know! Cool, isn't it?

[HeresyLives]

22. It is till people start calling them fundies,

and trying to muddy the waters.

[Rabrrrrrr]

30. Where you are missing the point is reading my definition - nowehere, and nowhen

have I ever said that EVERY atheist is a fundamentalist one. SOME of them are. And not many that I've experienced at that, either.

Just because SOME people in a set deserve a label, doesn't mean that I am implying that EVERY member deserves it.

I think you're getting stuck here because you want it to be that I have lumped ALL atheists (or whatever) into the fundamentalist camp.

Maybe you just don't like the word - fine, then let's use doctrinaire, or rigidly dogmatic, since either of those words can be used for non-religious ideological systems as well. Or dictatorial.

[RainDog]

21. "scientism" is a pejorative term coined by religious believers

it has nothing to say about those who do not believe.

[Rabrrrrrr]

28. No, of course it doesn't say anything about those who do not believe religiously.

But it DOES have a lot to say about those who are in the scientism camp, which, obviously, is not every scientist or even every post-enlightenment thinker.

Please don't imply lumping where am not doing so.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

32. A poster tells you that a word is pejorative

And you use it again. :shakes head:

Some people don't get it. If I dropped N bombs or called someone from the GLBT community a f*ggot, I wouldn't last long on DU. Terms like "Fundamentalist atheist" and "scientism" are deeply offensive to many of us, but DU continues to allow the words to be used. The use of those terms shows a deep ignorance of and disdain for science, atheism and the skeptical community.

[RainDog]

37. I don't care if someone uses the term "scientism"

I was just noting its origin - as a way to create a definition for those who oppose that thing.

the term itself has absolutely no meaning to me or anyone else who is not outside of the supposed "scientism."

[EvolveOrConvolve]

41. It offends me

It provides a caricature for the religious to attack atheists. It's a strawman. If they can find or invent an ideology, then they can accuse atheists of being "fundamentalist" about that ideology.

And it pisses me off.

[RainDog]

43. rabrrrr (sorry if I didn't get that exactly right) isn't trying to offend you

...at least from what I know of this person on du.

I think it's good to debate and clarify terms.

I've never heard of the term "scientism" outside of a religious argument - by the religious.

Its usage is another example of an attempt to put atheism in a context into which it does not fit.

so it's good to know terms and ask if they actually mean anything. unless you are outside of atheism, the term "scientism" has no meaning.

protestant fundamentalists have attempted to do this for decades by trying to claim that "secular humanism" is a religion. it obviously isn't and their attempt to coin the term only has value within the confines of their belief system.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

46. Exactly, and that's why it's offensive to me

The people I know IRL who use the terms are deliberately attempting to redefine ME (and what goes to the very core of who I am), then attack me based on that invalid definition. Since there isn't any other context to the terms, it's offensive ANY time they're used.

It's highly disrespectful, and even if Rabrrrr isn't purposefully trying to be offensive, it's still discourteous to make the accusation of fundamentalism, especially using the term "scientism".

[tama]

120. Why get so emotional

about discussions about world views? Why personalize such matters?

[beam me up scottie]

146. Because you and your fellow believers keep redefining us.

I don't give a shit if you make fun of our non-belief but stop defining our atheism.

[tama]

153. Framing

You seemingly frame discussing these matters into two hostile camps, according "with us or against us" sentiment - or why else would you count me in some mysterious camp of "fellow believers"?

FYI, I havent subscribed into any of the various camps and various definitions of those around - except skepticism. I'm very skeptical about the whole framing of these debates where the only side that I take is general distaste of all 'us against them' -camps engaged in constant battle and abusive language and seeing enemies everywhere.

Should I now get emotional and offended by your attempt to redefine my belief systems or lack of them?

[beam me up scottie]

155. You told one poster he wasn't a real skeptic, as if you were qualified.

It's like having Sylvia Browne lecture us on reality.

:rofl:

[tama]

159. So? n/t

[beam me up scottie]

183. So you're not qualified.

40.) When all else fails, try to redefine what "skeptical", "skeptic" and "skepticism" mean so that you become a 'real' skeptic who accepts your own nonsense at face value.

I shouldn't have had to type that, your spontaneous intuition must be on the fritz.

[tama]

193. Ah

the "skepticism is our in-group intellectual property" -argument? ;)

Indeed, there are many kinds of skepticism - philosophical skepticism, scientific skepticism etc.

The "paranormal phenomena cannot be real no matter what" dogma is not skepticism by any definition, it's purely dogmatic belief. Hence 'pseudoskepticism'.

[omega minimo]

163. You have identified

correctly that poster's greatest investment and contribution to these matters. If it hasn't already occurred, she will claim that it has, in order to foster that sentiment.


"I'm very skeptical about the whole framing of these debates where the only side that I take is general distaste of all 'us against them' -camps engaged in constant battle and abusive language and seeing enemies everywhere."

Well put. :thumbsup:

[ironbark]

196. Because once you have been deemed ‘other/enemy’ you may be treated with contempt.

Your pertinent question…
“You seemingly frame discussing these matters into two hostile camps, according "with us or against us" sentiment - or why else would you count me in some mysterious camp of "fellow believers"?

will receive no answer because you are now deemed ‘enemy/other’

Once the enemy is designated this reinforces the groups esprit de corps

“I havent subscribed into any of the various camps and various definitions of those around”

It doesn’t matter, if you refuse assimilation you receive designation, it’s a binary option.

;-)

[tama]

212. It's not that bad

understanding how these processes work enables us to be freed from such 'us against them' mechanisms, at least to some degree. Of course it might require lot of consciouss effort, patience etc.

[tama]

119. Re scientism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

There's a topic about separating person and his belief system, started by an atheist. On the other hand there is plenty of empirical evidence in these discussions and elsewhere that when certain "scientism" dogmas are being challenged, the discussion quickly degenerates into personal matter with ad hominems, woo-wooing etc. Defending a "rational" self-image with most irrational behaviour speaks of self-deception - for which we all have the talent and infinite resources for.

But when it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

[RainDog]

127. again, you have to provide clear explanations

There's a topic about separating person and his belief system, started by an atheist.

-- where is this topic? I don't know what you mean with this sentence.

On the other hand there is plenty of empirical evidence in these discussions and elsewhere that when certain "scientism" dogmas are being challenged, the discussion quickly degenerates into personal matter with ad hominems, woo-wooing etc.

---what are scientism dogmas? again, concrete examples.

so, you're trying to say that when people argue about an issue online and insult someone else -- that makes those arguments pseudo-religious? --aka "scientism?" -- but arguments about health care or any other subject do not mean that someone is arguing something as a "pseudo-religion?"

what determines the difference? Is it only when religion is directly in question b/c of science, or is all science subject to claims of "scientism."

just because someone decides to appropriate a term (the Skeptic magazine guy) - that doesn't mean it rises to the level of fact. Isaac Asimov called himself a "secular humanist" but that, too, does not mean the term ever meant it was a religious system.

"Defending a "rational" self-image with most irrational behaviour speaks of self-deception - for which we all have the talent and infinite resources for."

--why is this sentence included? what are you calling irrational behavior? Again, you have to provide examples in order to make an argument. If it's a broad statement about others' actions, again, it means nothing. It's a slur, not a statement of any fact.

[tama]

139. Here you go

The topic is here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=240069&mesg_id=240069

Concrete example of scientism dogma is the unskeptical belief that mental processes reduce to brain neurology.

I call strawmen and ad hominems and ridicule instead of discussing rational ideas rationally irrational behaviour.

A concrete example of dogmatic scientism labelling non-belief in that dogma "heresy":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRjQmZLT8bI

[EvolveOrConvolve]

175. Give me an example of "scientism" dogma

And continue to use the terms that I've already told you are offensive to me and a lot of other people.

[beam me up scottie]

179. Don't interrupt her, she's just going through the list.

34. When debating, remember that the best technique to "proving" your hypothesis is to start with a supposition, and when you get to the third point, refer to the supposition as a "fact". This may cause just enough initial confusion to let you escape with a momentary triumph.

40. When all else fails, try to redefine what "skeptical", "skeptic" and "skepticism" mean so that you become a 'real' skeptic who accepts your own nonsense at face value.

Check out the other threads, it's hysterical! :rofl:

[darkstar3]

181. Where are these from? n/t

[beam me up scottie]

182. Check your pm

Ancient Chinese secret, shhhhhhhhhhhhh.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

221. Hey, let me in on the secret!

I wanna know, too. (Although they look vaguely familiar)

[tama]

195. 139 n/t

[EvolveOrConvolve]

222. No, that's not even close

I don't want examples that can only remotely be considered dogma under your distorted and vague definitions of "atheist", "skeptic", and "dogma".

I want REAL examples of dogma that all atheists, skeptics, and "scientismics" (or whatever the hell you call them) adhere to. Or, you could simply point out the grammar mistake in my last sentence and consider the argument over...

[RainDog]

35. I was responding to the term.

again, "scientism" is only a term used by religious groups to define people who do not accept religious explanations.

there is no "scientism" doctrine. no one has to believe in "scientism" to be a scientist, even.

on the other hand, fundamentalism - a "return to fundamentals" was a term those who employed this belief system coined to describe themselves.

iow, if you are outside of something and you claim you have the right to "name it," - you don't. (not you personally, btw.)

"scientism" fails as an explanation because it does not derive from the thing itself. instead it is a form of linguistic manipulation to be able to confine and define an "other."

[tama]

121. Not correct

From the wikipedia article:
"The Skeptics Society founder Michael Shermer self-identifies as "scientistic" and defines the term as "a scientific worldview that encompasses natural explanations for all phenomena, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason as the twin pillars of a philosophy of life appropriate for an Age of Science.""

"The term is used by social scientists like Hayek<1> or Karl Popper to describe what they see as the underlying attitudes and beliefs common to many scientists. They tend to use the term in either of two equally pejorative<2><3> directions:

1. To indicate the improper usage of science or scientific claims<4> in contexts where science might not apply,<5> such as when the topic is perceived to be beyond the scope of scientific inquiry. In this case it is a counter-argument to appeals to scientific authority.
2. To refer to "the belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry,"<3> with a concomitant "elimination of the psychological dimensions of experience."<6><7> It thus expresses a position critical of (at least the more extreme expressions of) positivism.<8><9>

For sociologists in the tradition of Max Weber, such as Jürgen Habermas, the concept of scientism relates significantly to the philosophy of positivism, but also to the cultural "rationalization" of the modern West, to the extent that scientific thinking has become something similar to an ideology in itself. <10>"

So it's not just the dam religionists that use the term. You're wellcome, no need to thank for this correction. :)

[RainDog]

129. It came from religious arguments

as you can note in the wiki article you link to.

It was not a term these people used themselves. They've appropriated it for their uses, just as Asimov did with the term "secular humanist." That doesn't mean it has any meaning or value beyond that person's position or as a response to religious arguments that claim the term for others.

What do you think of Poppers work? And Hayaks? Or Habermas or Weber, for that matter?

While Popper's idea of the open society has been extremely influential, this statement goes to the heart of his use of "scientism" to describe his view... which is, btw, the standard view of the scientific method (iow, he's not saying anything that you wouldn't hear in any freshman year science class in college.)

from Popper:

In All Life is Problem Solving, Popper sought to explain the apparent progress of scientific knowledge—how it is that our understanding of the universe seems to improve over time. This problem arises from his position that the truth content of our theories, even the best of them, cannot be verified by scientific testing, but can only be falsified (again, in this context the word 'falsified' does not refer to something being 'fake'; rather, that something can be shown to be false by observation or experiment). If so, then how is it that the growth of science appears to result in a growth in knowledge? In Popper's view, the advance of scientific knowledge is an evolutionary process

-- so, to be clear, Popper views knowledge based upon science by appropriating scientific terms (knowledge is an evolutionary process... nothing new there, really.)

He's not saying that something other than science offers explanations for science. He's saying that science works because of the scientific method - hypothesis, testing, reproduction of results... in response to the question or questions at hand.

Knowledge evolves because there is an open view of knowledge - it is not constrained by a view of science that comes from outside of the thing itself.

He is not providing a religious definition for science by his conclusion that science and the scientific method are the ways that our world has changed, iow.

What do you think of Weber and Habermas' positions?

I think Notes on Ideology, from Althusser, includes some of the most important explanations of the term ideology and its application.

He said, in paraphrase, that it is difficult if not impossible for people to rise to the level of "production" or maybe to say "describing a thing as it is," because ideological positions are constrained to the level of reproduction.

iow, if you are in the middle of a belief system, you may not be able to see that belief system's lies because you have incorporated that into your mental processes.

science, on the other hand, also deals with and always deals with ideological positions... racism, sexism... and these things, over time, have shown that the scientific method provides a way to correct errors.

how does religion do this and by what method?

[tama]

142. Yeah

Popper, Weber, Habermas etc. are all interesting - and influential - thinkers. As are Feyerabend, Kuhn, Heidegger, Timothy Leary, Derrida, Zizek, and countless others.

I'm very sad and pessimistic about current state of academic world, as the ideals of open society don't materialize there and practice of science is being dictated by asinine economical theory to service of which scientific practice in academic world is largely subjugated to.

Popper's criteria of falsification is good to understand and usefull in many ways, but - also by its own merit - it shouldn't be accepted as universal eternal truth. I prefer Feyerabend to Popper - not least because it really is important to have fun. :)

[laconicsax]

36. And again you contradict your premise.

If "scientism" doesn't say anything about atheists, then it cannot be used as a shared ideology to define "fundamentalist atheists."

[omega minimo]

49. Yes, the preferred term is Scienceyness

[RainDog]

51. lol

[iris27]

52. hahahaha

:)

[MineralMan]

61. I always though that "Scientism" must have come from

Scientology. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

[Odin2005]

87. Yep, it's "Atheists think we are soulless machines, OMG" histrionics.

[omega minimo]

115. do atheists believe in the soul?

[Odin2005]

132. No, I'm talking about the more general, metaphorical meaning of "soul"

What I mean is that people that bash us seem to think that we are emotionless robots that have no humanity.

[laconicsax]

29. "...but I'm sure there are other systems. I doubt they're monolithic."

And thus you have contradicted your premise. You can't have rigid adherence to an ideological system if there's no ideological system that's common to all parties. Atheism itself, is simply not believing in gods. There is no shared ideology or belief, just a common answer to the question, "do you believe in [deity]?" You're likely an atheist when it comes to most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in.

If some atheists rigidly adhere to "scientism" (whatever that is), then they would be fundamentalist scientists.

The fundamentalist label always refers to the group ideology, not some granfalloon.

Example: There are citizens of the United States who rigidly adhere to certain Christian ideologies. This makes them fundamentalist Christians, not fundamentalist Americans/United Statesians.

[tama]

122. Fine

not arguing against that positition of ideal definitions, but the real life fenomenon aka empirical observation of often close links between atheism, "sceptic group" pseudoscepticism and scientism cannot be denied. Nor that these views can be just as dear and important for personal identity and self-image as religious belief systems.

[bridgit]

23. Agreed

[ZombieHorde]

55. Who claims to have "ALL" the truth?

Your definition seems to fit very very few.

[ironbark]

58. That would be my Mom your after.

;-)

[AlecBGreen]

60. +1

I agree. As my cat has just laid down on my arms as I type this, I think that signals his agreement as well. 2 more for Rabrrrrr

[beam me up scottie]

26. k&r

Shields up!

[darkstar3]

38. The very fact that this thread is generating such debate is evidence for its necessity.

k&r

[beam me up scottie]

42. I wonder how many people really believe that nothing is something.

And how many of them have to use a religious term because they can't find anything more offensive to call us...

[darkstar3]

45. Nailed it.

because they can't find anything more offensive to call us...
Bingo.

[ironbark]

62. Nothing is something, nothing is sacred

[beam me up scottie]

66. And every sperm is sacred

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8">"And if a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate!"

They're not making fun of science in that skit, fyi.

[omega minimo]

50. Perhaps

perhaps it's merely an association with fundamentalist behaviors exhibited by some: certitude of one's own point of view as the only correct and corroboratable one; perception that anyone who doesn't share that POV is deluded, ignorant or at least misinformed, unworthy of respect; sense of separation and persecution from those who don't share the POV; bonding with others who share the POV and sense of persecution; self righteous denigration of those who don't accept the same POV; certitude that The Others are ultimately due for whatever it is they "deserve."

[ironbark]

59. +1...and see #57.

;-)

[EvolveOrConvolve]

64. You are doing what you denied doing on another thread

It's a subtle attack, using vague terms, but an attack nonetheless.

[omega minimo]

73. Rather

This is a description of behavior that may resemble "fundamentalism."

[RainDog]

74. "fundamentalist behaviors"

as an explanation, however, does not fit the definition of fundamentalism.

the behaviors you list may be a "thing" but that "thing" is not fundamentalism.

[omega minimo]

75. AH

so exhibiting fundamentalist behaviors does not make one a fundamentalist.

[RainDog]

85. you are assigning the term fundamentalism to behaviors but that is not the correct definition

according to what fundamentalism means as a term.

[ironbark]

90. On a previous occasion when this issue came up

It was virtually impossible to get anyone to look beyond the dictionary definition to examine the common behavioural factors and expressions that had prompted the term in the first place.

It was as if the behaviour could not possibly be true and need not be examined because the definitional terms don’t match up.

I don’t care what the descriptor is, I’ve asked atheists for acceptable alternatives to fundamentalist atheist and so far the list is Jerks, Hostile Atheists and Pissed Off Atheists….which doesn’t look promising or workable.

Meanwhile the hallmarks and behaviours go on without interest, examination or comment-

Absolute and unwavering certainty regarding their position to the point that no other position will be actually heard or considered. A deaf arrogance of certainty.

A preparedness to use assumed psychic insight/guesswork to know the others true (unspoken) intent, purpose, motives and belief/s and argue or attack therefrom.

A propensity to blatantly misrepresent, fabricate, hack, straw man and lie about what the other has actually said and a point blank refusal to acknowledge the forgery when it is exposed.

An aversion to engage in any actual dialogue/discussion in preference to the drive by disingenuous remark (add scathing emoticon)…and a tribal/pack mentality that rides shotgun in support of all of the above.

Countless people have come to the board, experienced and commented upon it and there is no preparedness to discuss or examine it.
Any and all objections to behaviour are deemed ‘hateful’ and/or ‘hatred of atheism’

[RainDog]

91. this is different than...

a thousand other issues that people argue about online?

those same behaviors can be used to describe someone who thinks that there is no value within the DLC, for instance. Or no value in social democracy.

Are these people "fundamentalist DLC'ers", or "fundamentalist social democrats?"

arguments about Israel/Palestine. arguments about the effectiveness of war. Are those who disagree with tactics of war "fundamentalist pacifists?" If someone is a conservative Jew or an orthodox Jew who holds an opinion/view on Is/Pal a "fundamentalist zionist? or "fundamentalist Likkudnik?"

no. these are people with a strong opinion who express that opinion in strong words online. they are unwavering in their beliefs and don't listen to someone else's opinion. welcome to the WWW.

people have been arguing online with far more rudeness, anger, etc. since I can remember, which is 1993, when I got a pine email account.

Atheists, in general, "hear no other opinion" because they have been exposed to arguments already and don't go through the whole step-by-step process that brought them to the point of dismissal.

If you know that the world is round because of the things you have looked at in life and someone wants to argue with you that the world is flat - you generally dismiss that person. Online, people do this with anger because, online, people express their anger more often than irl.

on issue after issue after issue.

in any case, you and anyone else will call things what you will. use of the term fundamentalist atheist aligns you with right wingers. If you want to do so, you will.

but people will, then, make all sorts of assumptions about you, too.

Since religion is a cudgel in American life used, for more than 40 years, to attempt to force people to hold certain views in large portions of the right-wing churches in the U.S. (or fundie protestant, which is THEIR view of themselves... they stick to the "fundamentals" of belief, as they see it, tho not as other denominations see it) people respond to that history of abuse by the religious right with anger.

if someone makes an argument that seems to stem from the thinking of the RR - that's what you hear.

is there any mystery about this, especially considering the right wingers want to deny human rights to entire subsets of the population?

I cannot speak for everyone online who claims to think one way or another. I don't align myself with anyone simply b/c he or she says he or she is an atheist.

I can say what I think might be behind this or that reaction, but ultimately it comes down to the way that people have been arguing issues online for decades....and not just this one.

[ironbark]

95. If you don’t mind

I’ll take #94 and respond to it here as well

“atheists can look at arguments made and have certainty because those arguments have already failed as reasonable responses, for them.’

Atheists can and on this board frequently do assume that they are about to be presented with a particular argument and respond to that in advance. I believe what you describe certainly takes place…problem is that when a new, distinct proposition is put the response is set on auto to the prior arguments.

“you call it arrogance because you don't like it that others dismiss your beliefs”

Now….do you know that on the basis of having seen it take place? If so can you please cite an example. Because I can’t recall any occasion on which I have stated a belief and had it dismissed…but I can cite innumerable occasions on which it is pre assumed that I have a theistic belief that requires dismissal.
Is this another one?

“this is different than… a thousand other issues that people argue about online?”

Yes because at core it’s not a theological/philosophical issue about god/no god… it is essentially a civil rights, legal and social issue about atheists not being discriminated against. And just like the civil rights movement and the gay rights movement the objectives and victories are achieved by dialogue, understanding and alliance. Nobody wins anything by assuming (on prior experience or argument) that whitey or heterosexuals are the enemy…and no ground can be gained or won by assuming “Here comes the theist, same as the last one, I’ve heard it all before, contempt is all their pov deserves”

SNIP all bits regarding argument against the term fundamentalist…I have no investment in the term and on several occasions sought a suitable descriptor.
Perhaps in the light of my previous statement re civil rights atheist might find the descriptor ‘Atheist Panther’ movement acceptable?

“…they are unwavering in their beliefs and don't listen to someone else's opinion.”

Ok, in that case they will frequently find that they have alienated potential allies and converted no enemy.

“Atheists, in general, "hear no other opinion" because they have been exposed to arguments already and don't go through the whole step-by-step process that brought them to the point of dismissal.”

Same point as in #94.
The deafness you confirm and ascribe to prior experience/knowledge now manifests as atheists seeing the enemy everywhere, shooting first and never asking or answering questions.
And frankly, the assumed right to "hear no other opinion" on the basis of having heard it all before is in no way supported by the shallow, narrow, superficial and exclusively literalist arguments put forward.
Any group that assumes it need “hear no other opinion” is…..fundamentally arrogant.

“If you know that the world is round because of the things you have looked at in life and someone wants to argue with you that the world is flat - you generally dismiss that person”

Yes, but if someone approaches me and says- “I have a different perspective on the world to you”
I don’t automatically assume him to be a Flatearther and "hear no other opinion". To do so is the heart of intellectual arrogance and dishonesty and a profound tactical error if I seek change in the shape of the world.

“in any case, you and anyone else will call things what you will. use of the term fundamentalist atheist aligns you with right wingers. If you want to do so, you will. but people will, then, make all sorts of assumptions about you, too.”

Once more and contrary to everything I have said and every effort to seek an alternative descriptor for particular behaviours-‘enemy/flatearther’ status is assumed and projected as a desire to use that term. Mirroring the assumptions and misrepresentations of pov I have described.

“if someone makes an argument that seems to stem from the thinking of the RR - that's what you hear.
is there any mystery about this, especially considering the right wingers want to deny human rights to entire subsets of the population?”

The mystery, and it’s a big one, is the belief that human rights change will be achieved with a- “Don’t hear Whitey, don’t talk to Whitey, show contempt for Whitey because we know ALL about him”.
“seems to stem” is no different than “looks/sounds white to me” and is the beginning and end of a profound tactical error.

You catch more flies with honey than you do with bile, venom or preconceived assumptions.

“it comes down to the way that people have been arguing issues online for decades....and not just this one.”

My point precisely- Learn from history. Observe how others won their human rights battles. It wasn’t by operating from assumptions, refusing to listen or engage in dialogue, treating the other (or their pov) with contempt or offering naught but apologetics when your home team is playing dirty.

“Atheists "hear no other opinion" because they have been exposed to arguments already” and/or this is the lawless WWW explain and justify nothing if you have human rights issues to rectify.

Truth is it looks like its just more fun to kick over the white/heterosexual/flatearth/theists dust bin than it is to dialogue, inform, learn, build alliances, bring change.

[omega minimo]

102. +

"The deafness you confirm and ascribe to prior experience/knowledge now manifests as atheists seeing the enemy everywhere, shooting first and never asking or answering questions.
And frankly, the assumed right to "hear no other opinion" on the basis of having heard it all before is in no way supported by the shallow, narrow, superficial and exclusively literalist arguments put forward.
Any group that assumes it need “hear no other opinion” is…..fundamentally arrogant."

+

"You catch more flies with honey than you do with bile, venom or preconceived assumptions."

+

"Truth is it looks like its just more fun to kick over the white/heterosexual/flatearth/theists dust bin than it is to dialogue, inform, learn, build alliances, bring change."

[RainDog]

116. okay, let's "dialogue"

but, to make clear... you're talking to me, not the entire world of people who call themselves atheists. with that in mind, you're talking to me about these things-

1. I am not here to defend all actions by anyone who calls him or herself and atheist. This is a ridiculous proposition. Just as you do not represent all people of faith.

2. I made a post that talked about the reasons why "fundamentalist" did not fit the idea of atheism - just like it doesn't fit someone who is adamantly "liberation theology," for instance. Others noted that this is used by right wingers in the same way that secular humanism was used (and failed) as a way to round up belief systems that those who want to impose themselves upon others do not like.

---So you asked what name would be okay to call people who do things you don't like.

---I suggested pissed off. You proceeded to tell me that atheists are arrogant. I suggested why you might take their pov as arrogance.

5. I have also repeatedly noted that MY issue with theology is when it interferes with others' rights. You don't find this interference in mainline protestantism. You don't find this with the UU church. You don't find this with Quakers or the Amish or Mennonites or other denominations or whatevers.

so I have nothing to say to those people about the issue of religion. Their beliefs are their beliefs. I don't go to people's homes, unlike evangelicals, to try to convince them to believe something else.

On the other hand, I have been harassed by evangelicals in my home. We "dialogued" until the evangelical was so mad that I would not buy into his woo-woo that he started insulting me. That's just one example that sticks with me because it was so butt-ugly rude, but I grew up in the south and attended a southern baptist church 3x a week so I have lots of others.

I don't try to encourage people to believe it's okay for them to have an abortion. I don't try to encourage people to recognize their homosexuality... but I do say that, if they do, there's nothing wrong with it.

however, those who, say, believe in creationism and try to bring that into the school system - I have something to say to them on a discussion board, or in real life, because this impacts every child in this nation. It is absolute and undeniable bullshit.

The way someone arrives at the belief in creationism is derived purely from literal acceptance of a book that scholars, for hundreds of years, have shown is not a literal document.

The more we learn about the past, the more this has been shown to be true. why do you think it should be necessary to hear the same b.s. over and over?

Those same people do not take every part of that book literally. They pick and choose according to the prejudice or fear du jour. So even the claim to respect for someone's literalism would mean accepting only that literalism that they want to apply.

Where is the logic in that? How does someone deal with the cognitive dissonance of not killing a child for talking back but accepting that god wants to deny homosexuals equals right?

so, again, no. someone pushing this onto others has nothing to say of value.

If it upsets you to hear this, if you think that's arrogant, that's your problem, not mine. You don't like reality. (and that's a general you, not merely a personal one.)

I say that it is wrong to try to deny women equal rights to sovereignty over their bodies because of someone's religious belief.

There are no rights for unborn. There is no such thing as "unborn" except as an anti-choice talking point. There are blastocytes, embryos and fetuses, if you want to talk about pregnancy. but no unborn.

There are laws that have recognized compelling interests at the point of viability and I agree with those laws. Armed with the knowledge that abortions happen whether or not they are legal, I take the position that it is less harmful to society to provide legal, safe access for women to terminate a pregnancy according to the law and in consultation with her physician. Other than that, what is there to discuss about abortion?

Other birth control? No one else's business. People have the right to make such decisions on their own and no one else has the right to tell people whether or not they may use birth control. case closed.

no one has the right to deny others' medical care because someone else's religion doesn't like it.

-- or do you have a compelling argument to deny people the right to make medical choices for themselves? -- or even have those choices?

you say -

problem is that when a new, distinct proposition is put the response is set on auto to the prior arguments.

okay, what new arguments do you have to bring forth that you want to dialog about?

(I'm asking personally because, as I say, I cannot speak for nor am I accountable for what anyone else posts on the web. I'm not part of any group. I don't talk to people on this board privately about atheism or about believers. so I can only assume that you want to personally call me arrogant because you have something you want to bring up that would be a challenge to an atheist position that you think should not be heard.)

so, I'm listening. what do you have to say?

“you call it arrogance because you don't like it that others dismiss your beliefs”

Now….do you know that on the basis of having seen it take place? If so can you please cite an example. Because I can’t recall any occasion on which I have stated a belief and had it dismissed…but I can cite innumerable occasions on which it is pre assumed that I have a theistic belief that requires dismissal.
Is this another one?

I'm assuming this is the case since you found it reasonable to call something "deaf arrogance" and to ask what pejorative you could call someone who disagrees with you on internet forums. If this is my mistake, I apologize. Such assumptions are not only made in regard to issues of religious belief tho, as I'm sure you know, and as I remarked upon more than once.

however, you choose to single out the online fights between atheists and believers and not include this knowledge in your response.

you say this is because it deals with civil rights for atheists and the answer is dialogue - I'm not aware of any civil rights movement for atheists.

can you tell me about it?

The deafness you confirm and ascribe to prior experience/knowledge now manifests as atheists seeing the enemy everywhere, shooting first and never asking or answering questions.

-this is a generalization that has nothing to do with me because I don't speak for all atheists. this is your view of the situation.

my posts that present religion in a negative light deal with legislative issues and issues of cultural importance like science education or censorship, etc. that's why I post them. again, if this weren't about those issues, I wouldn't care what someone does or thinks.

for what purpose am I seeking allies, btw? is this because of that atheist civil rights movement I'm unaware of?

cheap rhetoric:

And frankly, the assumed right to "hear no other opinion" on the basis of having heard it all before is in no way supported by the shallow, narrow, superficial and exclusively literalist arguments put forward.

Please state those arguments by point so that it's clear what is "shallow, narrow and superficial" in order for someone to address them. I have addressed the particular issues that I call out (more than once on this thread.)

you need to do the same.

oh, and explain to me where, in this great nation, there is any stipulation that someone has to listen to someone else's opinion about ANYTHING?

there is no right to ignore someone else? are you forced to listen to opinions on crop circles or do you just walk away or turn off the show or whatever? how about claims of alien abduction?

what "right" are you disallowed because atheists do not want to hear about someone's religious belief?

and you end your post with the call to change other people - but, the point is that I'm not trying to change your beliefs. If you feel offended by someone's opinion of one of your beliefs, defend it.

or is this part of the civil rights movement for atheists that I'm not aware of?

As a student of history, what I have learned from civil rights battles is that racists still exist, long after the civil rights act. What has changed is that they were disempowered. No one I know "dialogues" with racists - tho I'm sure those involved in work that deals with this do.

Prior to that? A war was fought over rights.

What about the history of labor rights? Dialog? Or direct action after laborers were murdered by pinkertons hired by the powers that be?

What I see from history is that rights are fought over. So, if there is some atheists' rights movement that I'm unaware of, that's the lesson I'd take away from history.

[ironbark]

135. For those who have heard it all before...

"I am not here to defend all actions by anyone who calls him or herself and atheist. This is a ridiculous proposition. Just as you do not represent all people of faith."

Well, I have not claimed or identified as a person of faith…so I don’t know how or why it would be presumed I could be representing them.
Nor was there any expectation that you “defend all actions by anyone who calls him or herself and atheist” …but does that preclude generally/broadly examining atheist behaviour on the board?

“You proceeded to tell me that atheists are arrogant.”

I listed a range of hallmarks and board specific behaviours…an “arrogance of certainty”.
A subtly distinct proposition from “atheists are arrogant”

“ I suggested why you might take their pov as arrogance.”

Because- “Atheists, in general, "hear no other opinion" because they have been exposed to arguments already…..”

They have heard it all before and don’t need to listen. ;-)

I Read down with agreement and no need to comment to-

“The way someone arrives at the belief in creationism is derived purely from literal acceptance of a book that scholars, for hundreds of years, have shown is not a literal document”.

Glad to hear you say so, my first run in with board atheists was over my refusal to take a literal reading of a passage of scripture. I believe it was Solomon talking to an ant, struck me as metaphor…apparently not.

Little compilation-
“ why do you think it should be necessary to hear the same b.s. over and over?

so, again, no. someone pushing this onto others has nothing to say of value.

If it upsets you to hear this, if you think that's arrogant, that's your problem, not mine”

When I put all the above with "hear no other opinion" because they have been exposed to arguments already”…..” it seems to me that you have misunderstood “the arrogance of certainty”
as some kind of expectation/demand that atheists be prepared to listen to the same literalist Christian dogma over and over.

No.Absolutely not.
This has nothing to do with the “arrogance of certainty at all” .

Except, and please excuse, I believe your demonstrating just what I’m talking about.
You seem certain (from three or four references) that your talking to a religionist.
And you seem certain that I’m a religionist asking you to “to hear the same b.s. over and over”.
You have gone to some length (and go further still) to explain how you have heard all this b.s.
from evangelicals >as if< it is something I’m asking or expecting you to hear again.

No.
I’m not.
But your certain you've got a handle on what I'm talking about-

“The more we learn about the past, the more this has been shown to be true. why do you think it should be necessary to hear the same b.s. over and over? “

I don’t Raindog.
Why are you so convinced that I’m a religionist asking you to hear the same b.s. over and over.?

Here’s what I said in #90 describing a common board atheist behaviour-
“Absolute and unwavering certainty regarding their position to the point that no other position will be actually heard or considered. A deaf arrogance of certainty.”

You have just dedicated 1,500+ words to dealing with a person and pov that does not exist…your whole post is based on an assumed certainty about who I am and what I'm asking to be heard"

I’m not a religionist and I’m not asking you/anyone to hear any religious pov.

Again from #90-
“A preparedness to use assumed psychic insight/guesswork to know the others true (unspoken) intent, purpose, motives and belief/s and argue or attack therefrom.”

I mean you no offense whatsoever…but haven’t you just “assumed” you knew who I was and where I was coming from?

“you say -
"problem is that when a new, distinct proposition is put the response is set on auto to the prior arguments.”

:-) Is that not >exactly< what has just happened?
On the basis of your prior experience you set to auto to fend off the same b.s.?

I happen to agree with everything you said re homosexuality, abortion the law…the whole lot.
I couldn’t find ANYTHING to disagree with other than your certainty that I was a religionist and wanted you to listen to a repetition of my pov.

“so I can only assume that you want to personally call me arrogant….”

OH……..Stick it up your jumper Raindog! ;-)

You have run over your limit of assumptions for one post ;-)

“because you have something you want to bring up that would be a challenge to an atheist position”

Now you are deeply, deeply overdrawn at the Bank of Unwarrented Assumptions.

No, I don’t have anything that I think “would be a challenge to an atheist position”
I have some historical anomalies, some science’n’religion, some religion and community…
And I'd like to be able to talk about these and a range of other things without atheists automaticaly assuming 'religionist-same old b.s.'...and going into attack mode.



“so, I'm listening. what do you have to say?”

I’d like to say thanks for your post, I enjoyed it.

I’d like to say- Please don’t assume, please don’t assume who I am, what I believe or what my pov and intentions are.

I’d like to apologise, it’s getting late, I can’t respond to the rest of your post tonight.

Thanks again

[RainDog]

167. as I noted in my post

I was making assumptions based upon the approach you took.

I am entirely ready for you to say you're not this or that, it's really not material to what are the issues at hand for me.

so, take care and best wishes and, sorry to say, I'm sure you'll find me going off on religion sometimes because of the things I have noted in this thread.

when I do this, I have a Jerry Falwell bobble head doll in my head - nothing I say is meant to be taken personally by anyone on DU - unless, of course, that person objects to my understanding of equal rights and the value of religion in science education.

and then... well, sorry whoever you may be. those are my fighting issues.

[ironbark]

173. And there’s the rub

“I was making assumptions based upon the approach you took”

And that’s the background to the list in post #90.

From my very first post,3-4 years ago, the “approach I took” was open to theism and curious about religion in history. In fact all it took was a couple of posts about Islam and its contribution to science and it was ‘GAME ON’…the “assumptions based upon the approach” and the clear designation as enemy/target for the atheists.

It didn’t matter who I was, what I believed or what I said…every single protracted exchange with an atheist on this board has been hallmarked by exactly the same ‘assumptions’ of theism

“I am entirely ready for you to say you're not this or that…”

Yes, after 1500 assumptive words fending off a non existent believer with proof of god or challenge to atheism that you ‘must’ listen to… I believe you probably are ready to accept that.

But the problem Raindog is that this argument from assumption and hair trigger/loaded for theist is the defalt position for most atheists here.
Yea, sure, this is the WWW and its rough, but this is also a Liberal Board for Religion and Theology…
and it has become a Shooting Gallery targeting anything that looks, moves or is assumed to be a theist.

You clearly came packing for a rerun evangelical encounter but, to your credit, none of the usual snide, smartarse dripping sarcasm that the others employ.

“it's really not material to what are the issues at hand for me.”

No doubt, your not an assumed theist target ;-)
But the exchange is material to the OP and to the Hallmarks and behaviours previously listed.

“ I'm sure you'll find me going off on religion sometimes “

That’s fine by me, “go off” like the Fourth of July if you want ;-)
All I ask and expect of Liberal minded people is that they don’t ‘go off’ at assumptions. presumptions, and projections of their own imagining.

You will find me ‘going off’ as well…but it will not be and has not been at atheists…it has been at specific, identifiable and verifiable behaviours manifested by them.

“when I do this, I have a Jerry Falwell bobble head doll in my head”

LOL!
Yes….I have no doubt you do ;-)
Thank you for the frank and honest insight and dam you for an image I will carry for the rest of the day ;-)

My question to you and other atheists would be- How many others are walking around with the same internal jangling Falwell and the quite justifiable anger and rage he produces?

More specifically and most importantly is it possible that it produces an urge for Payback in Kind…a desire (conscious or subconscious) to hit back at fundamentalists in the same way?

I’m not trying to be offensive or call atheists fundamentalists…but it strikes me that many of the behaviours have the same hallmarks and could possibly stem from a desire for payback…hit them the way they hit us….?

“nothing I say is meant to be taken personally by anyone on DU”

That is not a concern for me. You have said nothing that I could take as insult or offensive and those that attempt to do so I find funny.
The only times I am offended are when I am confronted with blatant fabrication and forgery of pov…and sadly, for a Liberal Board…that is quite frequently.

“my understanding of equal rights and the value of religion in science education.
and then... well, sorry whoever you may be. those are my fighting issues.”

I don’t know why you would (still ;-) be saying “sorry” to me for defence of such issues.
It is a shared concern. Of equal concern to me is the active infiltration of evangelical christians into the US military.
I thought the issue might be of concern to atheists as well.
Scroll down and see Thread ‘God in your sights’….182 views….1 respondent.

Then look at the rest of the pointless speculative theological stupidity threads that people are dedicating their time and energy to.

Anyway…
I’ll take “so, take care and best wishes” as a good by and an end of dialogue and thank you for your time. I enjoyed talking to you and will be pinching and using your Falwell bobble head doll as a standard line and explanation for atheist excesses ;-)

You do realise though that the GAME ON cheers quad and those riding shotgun will be bitterly disappointed that it wasn’t an arsekicking brawl ;-)

See ya ;-)

[RainDog]

188. as I said before

I never post in this forum. this post was moved here by the mods, not by me.

the "sorry" was not to you personally.

you would never have an argument from me about Islamic contributions to western society (algebra, paper rather than vellum -by way of China first, the Jewish translators they brought to Spain that instigated the renaissance... just fwiw.

if you didn't want me to make assumptions, you could have clearly stated you did not feel your beliefs were being attacked. this is generally the case in such situations. It is the logical assumption that someone is personally offended when talking about arrogance, etc.

you could have spared a lot of typeface by merely clarifying.

take care

[beam me up scottie]

103. You'll have to forgive some of the R/T dwellers.

They never get out of here so they really have no perspective.

Our friend is very heavily invested in insulting and defining atheists because that's all he's ever done.

I guess you could call it a religion.

[tama]

123. Rationalism

The self-image and claim of rationalism makes the situation bit different. And often easy and tempting target to show that the claimed rationalism is often quite irrational and defended by irrational means. That the "rationalists of superior intellect" who constantly call others stupid are also just ordinary human beings, who don't allways behave very rationally.

[RainDog]

130. again, you can't just make a blanket statement and pretend it has validity

again, provide concrete examples.

no one that I know of makes claims to be a "rationalist of superior intellect." Calling someone an idiot or stupid is an insult but that doesn't mean the other person is superior. It means they dismiss an argument as stupid.

and I know of no one who claims they act rationally all the time, so this, again, is a vague attack with no concrete example to back it up. it's your way of framing the debate to debunk it.

that's a rhetorical stance but, if you use, you then have to back it up.

[tama]

143. Nope

Just to make things clear, you don't make the rules that I should follow. You're not my master and I'm not your slave. "You can't"; "You have to" is the way bosses speak to their subordinates. Please don't.

[RainDog]

166. no one is trying to be the boss of you

what I was saying was... the statements, outside of context, don't really mean anything to me.

that's all.

you're your own boss.

I don't want to be your boss.

[tama]

171. Nice

and you are your own boss - unless you are married. :)

[ironbark]

174. And ,that,dear tama, was an unnecessary and cruel reminder

to every man who is hiding on the computer instead of doing what his wife has told him to do.

Thanks a lot!

[iris27]

184. YAY! Sexism FTW!

:applause:

[omega minimo]

99. Perhaps

perhaps it's merely an association with fundamentalist behaviors exhibited by some: certitude of one's own point of view as the only correct and corroboratable one; perception that anyone who doesn't share that POV is deluded, ignorant or at least misinformed, unworthy of respect; sense of separation and persecution from those who don't share the POV; bonding with others who share the POV and sense of persecution; self righteous denigration of those who don't accept the same POV; certitude that The Others are ultimately due for whatever it is they "deserve."


That's what I said. That's what I meant.

[iris27]

53. You know, if there were a crew of strong atheists (the "I believe no gods are possible" camp)

running around knocking on doors with pamphlets, protesting outside Christian musicians' concerts, and calling in complaints whenever a celebrity thanked God in an acceptance speech...then I would have no problem calling these people fundamentalist atheists. But they don't exist.

The way it's being used now, "fundamentalist" atheist just means "public and unapologetic" atheist.

[beam me up scottie]

65. !

[RainDog]

68. lol.

that's a good one.

[beam me up scottie]

71. I love Atheist Eve.

My fellow infidels in DU's evil atheist group turned me on to her.

Even though I know how it's going to end, I appreciate your effort to inform and explain our pov in this forum.

[RainDog]

72. I have definitely pissed off people

with my attacks on religious issues lately.

...but as I have said again and again, people can believe any fucking thing they like and I could care less -- until the bring it into the sphere of legislation and rights for others (or, as in my experience, come to my home uninvited, attempt to force me to give more importance to their beliefs than my own in these regards...

and then -

it's on.

that's not fundamentalism.

that's FIGHTING BACK.

[beam me up scottie]

77. Many liberal believers on DU share your anger and concern.

You just don't see them in these threads.

sigh...I've been jumping in and out of these word/definition wars for years and we're no better off than when we started.
I'm still being told what I believe or don't.

:banghead:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

76. Tell them I said hi.

(Stupid PayPal won't accept my perfectly valid CC grumble mumble mumble no star grumble mumble)

[beam me up scottie]

78. Tell them yourself.

:)

I'm sure you're missed.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

80. *smooch*

:*

[beam me up scottie]

81. bf won at poker last night.

We usually put all of the winnings in our camping/kayak fund but this is a good investment.

How can we be expected to take over the world when our best warriors are blocked by paypal?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

93. It's important we never run out of ammo!

[beam me up scottie]

98. YEEARRRRRRRRRRRGHHHHHHHHHHH!!!

Kewl, are you the artist?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

148. Oh, no! I couldn't draw my way out of a paper bag.

Source: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MoreDakka - artist unknown. It's about a tabletop war game, Warhammer 40000. From its instruction manual, perhaps? Have never played it.

[beam me up scottie]

156. You always have the best graphics and links.

Improbable Aiming Skills are all very well, but sometimes — perhaps because your foe can Dodge The Bullet, perhaps because you need to mow down a whole army of Mooks at once, perhaps because you just really, really like the sound of your Shoota — you need to throw a wall of bullets at the target. Modern automatic weapons can achieve rates of fire that can only be described as "bullet spam", and the more guns you're using, the more dakka you can put out. After all, There Is No Kill Like Overkill.

Accuracy is an optional extra.

Hard to achieve with a single, rifle-sized weapon, though bonus points for screaming at the top of your lungs as you empty out a whole magazine at the target, or gratuitous camera shots devoted to torrents of shell cases spewing out of the gun. Getting More Dakka is often the reasoning behind a lot of BFGs. May be used to overcome stylistic inaccuracy. If you lack enough barrels but are a commander with reserves, feel free to substitute lots and lots of men.

:rofl:

[eppur_se_muova]

67. The first person I ever heard use this term was Tony Blankley ...

so that marked it as first-magnitude bullshit right there.

[RainDog]

69. tone-toni-ton blankley?

The phrase is definitely a right wing propaganda attempt to shut up those who are sick of their shit.

But then that opens up the opportunity to talk about what things mean and why terms are used.

[eppur_se_muova]

70. *chuckle* Typo corrected, then saw your reply. ;^)

Law of Unintended Consequences -- don't get people thinking unless that's what you **really** want. :)

[trotsky]

82. Doesn't matter.

The people who use it, brandish it as an insult. It's intended to negate a point of view when they have no way to answer it. Since realizing this, it doesn't really bother me anymore. No more than being called a "doodyhead" or "poopypants" because that's pretty much the way it's intended.

[darkstar3]

83. It just dawned on me, this is SOP.

Ad hoc redefining of terms to make them fit the moment for rhetorical convenience is SOP for everyone who's been throwing that "fundamentalist atheist" oxymoron, here and elsewhere. I think it stems from the fact that No True Scotsman is still gotten away with too often and is grossly misunderstood by the people who continue to apply it.

[Odin2005]

86. Anyone who uses the term "Fundamentalist Atheist" needs a slap in the face.

[tama]

124. OK

but should the slapped one turn the other cheeck or slap back?

[humblebum]

88. Don't look now, but it has become part of the lexicon.

I think that the term 'atheist' by itself is the simple, unobtrusive word for a non-believer, but when atheists ban together in groups and organizations (like they do), they develop mission statements, vision statements, goals, and doctrines (like any other organization). These would be the fundamentals of such a grouping and those who accept or follow them could be called "atheist fundamentalists', ie American Atheists, etc. .

A poster on the 'Friendly Atheist' made this distinction: "Atheists simply don’t believe in any God. They understand that there isn’t much logic in wasting time or money debating, arguing and worrying about something that doesn’t even exist. They don’t even feel the need to announce or proclaim what doesn’t exist. Thus they get on with their lives in peace.

Fundamentalist Atheists feel the need not only to announce and proclaim the non existence of God but they also feel the need to mock others who do believe in God with using such terms as “sky pixie” and “flying spaghetti monsters”.

Extremist Atheists seek to ban religion through legislation and/or vandalism of religious places and symbols"

[LAGC]

89. Fundamentalist atheist = using the term "Flying Spaghetti Monster?"

Logic fail.

So any atheist who mocks religion is a fundamentalist atheist? I guess athiests should just shut up and know their place, eh?

[RainDog]

92. the FSM comes out of attacks on education by fundie protestants

did you know this?

did you know this came about in response to attempts to force religion into public life, into children's lives in schools?

the arguments and anger you hear online are in response to right wing attempts to force religion down the throats of people in science classrooms.

this issue goes beyond someone's personal belief into the realm of intrusion of bullshit into science teaching.

no, you're not going to hear people talk nicely about this.

as I've said elsewhere on this thread - people who use the term align themselves with Falwell, Dobson, Tony Alamo, Benny Hinn, etc.

that's where the term has meaning. it has entered the lexicon because of right wingers.

so, when I hear that term from someone, I associate them with those knee jerk assholes who have nothing to say to anyone who has used his or her brain to look at issues that others want to argue, ad nauseum, because they haven't, generally, looked at the issues that have lead to people's dismissal.

obviously they don't care if I or others hold this view of them, just as atheists don't really care what theists call them.

but I thought people might want to know which side they're on when appropriating right wing terms.

[beam me up scottie]

97. That means DU christians who mock fundies/scientologists/woos, etc. are fundamentalist christians.

Thanks for clearing that up, professor. :eyes:

[humblebum]

101. And this is something new? nt

[beam me up scottie]

104. It is to them.

They think they're liberal christians.

I'll let you break it to them, it's your theory.

[humblebum]

105. What theory?

I quoted am atheist website.

[beam me up scottie]

106. So it's no longer just a theory?

Wow, you guys work fast.

Tell me more about atheism, this is fascinating.

[humblebum]

107. By the statement, I think there is a clear distinction between

mocking and criticism. But hey, it is what it is.

[beam me up scottie]

108. Surely there's more. I mean, you read one atheist's comments on a website and now you're an expert.

Tell me about my atheism.

[trotsky]

128. You, and that poster, are either misinformed or completely ignorant.

"there isn’t much logic in wasting time or money debating, arguing and worrying about something that doesn’t even exist."

Except when the people who believe in that something are busy assassinating doctors, flying planes into buildings, denying medical procedures to people outside their belief system, or even altering the nation's textbooks - all in the name of their god(s).

Do I have a right to debate, argue, and worry about such things without being labeled a "fundamentalist atheist"? Or do you think we liberals shouldn't oppose religious extremism - just sit back and let them run over everyone?

[RainDog]

131. exactly.

I go after religious positions when they become a reason to impose upon people in a nation that declares there is no religious test to be a leader of that nation and definitely no religious test to determine if legislation is good or bad or if some book may be in a library or if someone should be treated as a second-class citizen because they think their religion provides them a reason to oppress others.

[darkstar3]

134. PREEEEECISELY.

The quote you show here is just a "shut up, we don't want to hear you differing opinion" defense. They think we shouldn't be able to play in their sandbox. Well, as I've said before, it's my goddamn sandbox too, and I'm willing to share, but I'm not gonna just leave because you don't like the castles I build.

[humblebum]

140. No one said that you should never oppose human extremism,

because that is exactly what those things are. Even most religious people condemn extremism done in the name of religion. But it must be pointed out that more extremist acts have been carried out for non-religious reasons than for religious reasons, indicating that human extremism is to blame and not the religion. A broad-brush effort to paint "religion" as the source of extremism is asinine. Fanatical human beings are the source of extremist actions.

[trotsky]

141. No, it's not "human extremism."

It's extremism based on RELIGION. If your god would care to get off its ass and make it clear to everyone just whose religion is correct, we wouldn't have any religious extremism. (Spare me the lecture on "free will.")

[humblebum]

144. If that was true then all religious people

would be committing such acts all the time and all non-religious would be committing such acts all the time, which of course is not the case. However, all are human extremists who commit these kinds of acts all the time. It is not extremism "based on RELIGION". It is extremism based on the perverted ideas of one extremist group within a religion or it could be extremism based on extremist political ideals or economic ideals-fill in the blank. But to say that religion, itself, is the cause of extremism is ridiculous. History simply does not support that idea. Extremist atheists, extremist religious, extremist politicals are all capable of these fanatical actions. If you are going to attack the problem then attack the cause of the problem - poverty, overpopulation, extremist philosophies, political gain - whatever. But to categorically state that religion is the cause just doesn't add up.

[trotsky]

145. Flying a plane into a building to get your 72 virgins is absolutely based on religion.

Killing a doctor because your religion says he is killing babies is based on religion.

And I'm sorry you refuse to see that. The fact that there are peaceful believers does not change anything.

[humblebum]

147. It is very uncommon for a Buddhist to fly a plane into a building.

It was religious extremists who flew the planes into the buildings. It was not Argentinian Catholics, nor Tibetan monks. I don't even have to mention things done by non-religious or atheists. No religion involved, totally secular. I never said that people don't do things in the name of religion, but it is usually a tiny fraction of those religious people who bear any responsibility or guilt for action they themselves do not condone.

[trotsky]

149. "it is usually a tiny fraction of those religious people who bear any responsibility"

Yeah, the vast majority - like you - rationalize it away by saying that it wasn't religion anyway. Then they can feel that it isn't their problem, it's just bad people who are misinterpreting or misusing their faith.

Meanwhile, those same believers stomp on what little guilt they might feel by attacking and labeling atheists as if somehow we were the real enemy.

[humblebum]

150. Extremism is the real enemy. History and numbers simply do not support

your claims. An atheist can just as easily be an extremist as can a religious person.

[trotsky]

151. And extremism is enabled and encouraged by religion.

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil. But for good people to do evil -- that takes religion." -- Steven Weinberg

[humblebum]

152. What about atheists who were/are good people

and do bad things? Did that take religion?

[trotsky]

157. Name some and let's find out. n/t

[kwassa]

158. Extremism CAN be encouraged by religion; equally by any other group belief system.

Nationalism, ethnicity, territorialism, communism, facism, personality cults, etc.

Any group that thinks that own the full truth can facilitate extremism or fanatacism.

There is nothing unique to religion in regards to extremism.

[trotsky]

160. Convince your Christian brother then.

He doesn't think religion can EVER be to blame.

[humblebum]

162. That's not what I said and you know it. As a matter of fact , I

agree with Kwassa. As far as flying airplanes into buildings, that was largely the extremist Wahhabi sect of the Hanbali school of Islam - far different than, say, the Maliki school. Not a single Mennonite was involved, nor Buddhist. So, to say that religion is the cause of most major problems in the world is ridiculous. Like I said, history and numbers prove that far more atrocities were committed by non-believers and atheists than all religious wars together. What they all have in common is their predisposition to use extremist fanatical actions to acheive their goals. So if you are still going to hold on to the line that religion is the problem, then I stand by my position that human fanatical extremists are the problem and always have been. I'll leave it at that.

[trotsky]

168. And what atheism lacks that all those other things have...

is a dogma, a fixed doctrine.

And I'm not going to argue your ridiculous numbers because you've already been smacked down on that a dozen times.

Religion has caused MORE than its fair share, and in most cases is the primary cause of extremist fanatical actions. Quit trying to whitewash it and just be honest.

[humblebum]

172. You might want to try taking your own advice to

"Quit trying to whitewash it and just be honest." You are ignorant of history and aren't even considering the other pretexts for extremist activities. And yes, organized atheism does have doctrine, and can also be used as a pretext for extremism. In fact, it has been used as such.

[trotsky]

194. And you get your history from your pastor.

Please tell me exactly what the "doctrine" of atheism is. Go ahead. Tell me exactly what it is that, as an atheist, I am required to believe.

I'll wait right here.

[darkstar3]

178. I bet I know who you're arguing with.

Has he gotten to the point yet where he calls you stupid simply because you don't agree that Communism and atheism were the same thing?

[trotsky]

190. He just did!

LOL

Nice call, ds3. :thumbsup:

[kwassa]

199. what is "more than its fair share"?

and where is that numerical smackdown?

and where do you have any proof for this ludicrous claim?

"Religion has caused MORE than its fair share, and in most cases is the primary cause of extremist fanatical actions."

Unless you can provide some substantiation, we'll just have to assume you made that up, because you did.

[trotsky]

200. Correct your Christian brother first.

I'm still waiting for you to actually criticize someone who shares your faith instead of just leaping on the first atheist you see.

[kwassa]

208. You duck, Trotsky! You have no substantiation for your claim.

I knew you pulled that one out of nowhere.

[trotsky]

211. No, you're the one doing all the ducking.

I'll gladly provide you the information you request after you correct your Christian brother.

But I realize your only way to "win" a discussion is to simply declare victory and run away. I, however, will wait right here for you.

[kwassa]

235. I caught you ...

in a lie, and now you attempt to divert the argument to avoid being caught.

This is old and familiar territory.

[trotsky]

238. *Yawn*

Still waiting.

[ironbark]

185. There’s a breath of fresh air….well spoken.

“… history and numbers prove that far more atrocities were committed by non-believers and atheists than all religious wars together. What they all have in common is their predisposition to use extremist fanatical actions to acheive their goals. “

The raw data and statistics clearly support your pov.

As for the-“ extremist Wahhabi sect of the Hanbali school of Islam” I am yet to see anyone here express any interest in the origins and influences (religious, secular, political) on these sects.
There is nothing gained in the simplistic and shallow pointing the finger of blame exclusively at religion when the secular West had a direct role and influence in the development of Wahhabism and Qutbism.

“Why do they hate us”?...................”Duh…We dunno…it must be their religion”


Any enquiring mind might look to Sayid Qutb, his trip to America and his subsequent torture at the hands of CIA trained Ejyptian government operatives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid_Qutb

Therein resides a tale and trail that leads and contributes to 9/11.

“then I stand by my position that human fanatical extremists are the problem and always have been.”

I’ll stand with you on that with the recognition that we in the West have done a great deal to generate, support and facilitate such fanatical extremists.

[darkstar3]

165. Actually, there is something that is unique to religion.

Religion includes an extra facet that is missing from so many of your examples: The idea that a supreme authority outside the group is backing the group, wants them to succeed and flourish, and has condemned the other groups to their respective fates.

[kwassa]

197. This is not true.

A supreme authority can also be found in authoritarian governments that are also personality cults. Examples would Hitler, Mao, Kim Jong-Il, Stalin, and a variety of other dictatorships where the all-powerful leader is the representative of the absolute truth and the source of all wisdom.

The convert-or-condemn aspect can be found in these belief systems, as well.

[darkstar3]

204. Equivocation will get you nowhere.

Tell me how any of the dictators you've cited were considered to be all-powerful supreme beings with the ability to guarantee military victory just by their divine blessing.

A cult of personality is not remotely the same as a god or a religion.

[kwassa]

207. but it is you who is doing the equivocation, not me.

You are equivocating by adding new conditions to your definition, that of divine blessing.

You are moving the goal posts by doing this. That is equivocation.

These dictators are considered to be all-powerful supreme beings by their people, and their people believed they could guarantee military victory, in some cases.

Really, there is little to no difference.

[darkstar3]

213. Go back and read #165.

You falsely accuse me of moving the goalposts, but you didn't even read #165 completely. You missed an important bit: "outside the group."

I think you're misunderstanding, either purposefully or accidentally, what I mean when I say "supreme authority". I also think you don't know what equivocation means.

[Amaya]

154. your delusions = great entertainment

:thumbsup:

[skepticscott]

186. Virtually no religious commentators

either here or elsewhere are capable of making the simple distinction between atheism and anti-theism. When they hyperventilate about "fundamentalist atheism", what they are really talking about is strident anti-theism.

[beam me up scottie]

187. Don't ruin it for them, they've got it all figured out.

You wouldn't want them to have to look up a new word, would you?

[rug]

191. That's easy. An atheist says there is no God. An antitheist opposes something that's nonexistent.

Although the latter's time is better spent on politics.

[humblebum]

206. That may be the case when atheism is in a 'pristine' state, but

organized atheism, in the process of organizing, has acquired doctrine and procedure, and has even been declared a religion by the courts. Therefore, you have some very basic fundamentals of atheism, which are repeated over and over again. As such, if atheists as a group promote these basic fundamentals, then these organized atheists can rightly be called fundamentalists. They are now both atheistic and anti-theistic.

[skepticscott]

220. Sheer ignorance and BS

Anti-theists don't oppose God. What an assinine thing to say. They oppose the silliness and anti-intellectualism that organized religion (or at least some flavors of it) promotes, and the detrimental effect that it has on society.

Are you really saying that organized religion doesn't exist? Please tell me you're not saying that..

[rug]

223. Maybe you're confusing antitheism with antireligionism.

Are you really saying words mean nothing?

[skepticscott]

227. If you want to call

People like Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris anti-religionists instead of anti-theists, be my guest. It's irrelevant to the argument that what most people here rail about as "fundamentalist atheism" is nothing of the sort.

[rug]

231. It's a simple distinction.

[darkstar3]

209. Because,

to them, there is no distinction, and there never will be. Anyone who doesn't worship God is going against God's plan and is therefore against god, or anti-god, or anth-theist.

[TZ]

198. Also: No such thing as a scientific fundamentalist

or someone who worships at the alter of science or science as religion. I find the same ignorant people who use atheist fundamentalist also seem to believe that. Which is total and complete bullshit.

[RainDog]

203. true. n/t

[darkstar3]

205. +1 n/t

[Desertrose]

214. You kid, right?

There are fundamentalists in everything.


It's just human nature.

Just sayin'. :)

[kwassa]

224. the use of the word "fundamentalist" has changed.

It is now used is exactly the ways you don't like, and those uses are now valid, simply through the now-common use of the word to describe a dogmatic belief.

There are certainly dogmatic atheists.

[darkstar3]

225. No, it hasn't

Fundamentalism still retains its old religious implications and baggage, and using it inappropriately (outside of a religious context) is incorrect, no matter how many people in your own little circle of friends might agree with you.

Dogmatic is incorrectly used in your post too, unless you can come up with some sort of creed, law, or rule that all atheists adhere to.

[beam me up scottie]

226. kwassa spent years telling us what we believe.

I would expect nothing less from him when it comes to this issue.

[kwassa]

229. Hi, bmus!

How the hell are you?

[beam me up scottie]

232. I'm doing well, how are you, kwassa?

:hi:

Miss the good old days, too?

[Name removed]

239. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kwassa]

228. Sorry, but neither you or I get to determine common word usage

Despite your assertion, as many have observed, the word "fundamentalist" is used in a variety of contexts now. It means nothing to me, because I think it unnecessary to use this word.

and when I use the word "dogmatic", I am describing a form of behavior, which perhaps Trotsky descibes as militant. I am describing strong atheists' dogma that there is no god or gods. That constitutes their dogma. Some who claim to be weak atheists certainly act in a dogmatic fashion, they appear to have a belief while claiming none. An interesting contradiction between words and behavior.

[darkstar3]

230. Using a word improperly doesn't change its meaning.

The action only makes the speaker look moronic.

From wordnet, via Google search "define dogmatic":

# characterized by assertion of unproved or unprovable principles
# of or pertaining to or characteristic of a doctrine or code of beliefs accepted as authoritative
# relating to or involving dogma; "dogmatic writings"
...
dogma - a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof

Now, as soon as you can show me any of the following:

1 "Unproved or unprovable principles" asserted by atheists as a group.
2 "A code of beliefs" adhered to by atheists.
3 "A religious doctrine" espoused by atheists.

THEN you can claim that you are using dogmatic properly. You can look upthread for the word "fundamentalist."

[kwassa]

234. but I'm not using it improperly.

There is no "as a group" requirement for individual atheists. You are attempting to impose that. Good luck with that, because I never said anything that applies to all atheists.

I said SOME atheists. I did not say all.

Individual atheists can be dogmatic. Atheists as a group do not have a common dogma, though strong atheists might certainly share one.

[darkstar3]

236. If there is no group requirement, where does the "authority" come from?

Aside from that, your assertion that individual atheists can be dogmatic falls flat for two reasons:
1. Dogma comes from an authority outside the individual, and according to the definition of dogma, it comes from a religion.
2. You still haven't given an example of this thing you (likely incorrectly) refer to as dogma followed by any atheist at all.

The words fundamentalist and dogma are both quite clearly about religion, and to claim otherwise in the face of the definitions, logic, and evidence provided in this thread (and the other) is either stubborn, disingenuous, or both.

[kwassa]

237. You are wrong again, per the dictionary. And you talk to me about usage?

By the way, your arguing by assertion does not make something true. I am using both "dogma" and "fundamentalism" correctly per the dictionary definitions. You simply ignore the non-religious definitions you don't like. Sorry, that doesn't work.

to be dogma, it has to satisfy one definition, not all. My usage is satisfied in two of the following definitions.

Main Entry: dog·ma
Pronunciation: \ˈdȯg-mə, ˈdäg-\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural dogmas also dog·ma·ta \-mə-tə\
Etymology: Latin dogmat-, dogma, from Greek, from dokein to seem — more at decent
Date: 1638

1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets <pedagogical dogma> c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church

and you are also wrong about fundamentalist.


fun·da·men·tal·ism
   /ˌfʌndəˈmɛntlˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled Show IPA
–noun
1.
(sometimes initial capital letter) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.

2.the beliefs held by those in this movement.

3.strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles: the fundamentalism of the extreme conservatives.

The dogma in question, of course, is that absolute belief that no god or gods exist.

[darkstar3]

240. You still can't identify the authoritative source, or the "set of basic ideas".

And your last sentence commits the same language and logic crime so many on this board have committed lately, that of equating active denial of the existence of something with the lack of belief in something.

[kwassa]

243. No authoritative source is required

You apparently missed that point. It is required in one of the three definitions, not the ones I am using. I already pointed that out, by the way.

And I did identify the basic idea, you just didn't accept it. This means nothing to me.

and I never did this:
"that of equating active denial of the existence of something with the lack of belief in something."

I didn't do that. Don't attempt to stick your words in my mouth.

Speaking of logic crimes.

[darkstar3]

245. The definitions you bolded, and so are apparently using, require authority.

And you know very well that absolute belief that no god or gods exist. is not remotely the same as lack of belief. Those are your words, and I'm not putting them in your mouth so much as cramming them back down your throat with a little crow on the side.

[kwassa]

247. My mistake. They require "authoritative", not authority.

The problems with writing on the fly while working.

One can believe oneself authoritative, and yet not be an authority recognized by anyone else as such.

and this:
"And you know very well that absolute belief that no god or gods exist. is not remotely the same as lack of belief. Those are your words, and I'm not putting them in your mouth so much as cramming them back down your throat with a little crow on the side."

I have no idea what you mean by this at all. Of course they are not the same thing, and I have not claimed them to be the same thing. Where do you think that I did say they were the same thing?

[darkstar3]

249. Where, you ask?

Start with #243 and #248. You are stating in both that atheism is an active disbelief.

And, based once again on Wordnet, I don't see how one person alone can meet your statement "One can believe oneself authoritative, and yet not be an authority recognized by anyone else as such."

# having authority or ascendancy or influence; "an important official"; "the captain's authoritative manner"
# of recognized authority or excellence; "the definitive work on Greece"; "classical methods of navigation"
# sanctioned by established authority; "an authoritative communique"; "the authorized biography"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

It seems from those definitions of "authoritative" that other people are required, either to sanction the authority that is the source of the authoritative statement/object, or to be controlled/influenced by it.

YOU do not get to redefine words at will. No one does. You can keep trying, but there is simply no way to make the phrase "fundamentalist atheist" anything other than an oxymoron. So far, you have demonstrated the misuse of dogma, dogmatic, fundamentalist, fundamentalism, and even the word atheism itself (since you redefine atheism as active disbelief). Are there any other words in the English language you'd like to redefine on the fly to fit your own rhetorical convenience? I hear the word Christian is usually pretty fun to play with that way...

[omega minimo]

252. Always devolving to word games

Using them to beat others over the head.

You are also beating a dead horse regarding aspects that ARE included within the range of atheism and for SOME, they are the same thing. Definitions, atheist web sites and comments from atheists here have shown that.

What would it be like if you used your intellect to contribute rather than compete?

[kwassa]

257. You miss the point of what I said completely.

"One can believe oneself authoritative, and yet not be an authority recognized by anyone else as such."

and you counter with irrelevant definitions of "authoritative".

Why are they irrelevant? Because you willfully chose to ignore "One can believe oneself". Belief in any realm requires no proof, no outside ratification. It is a choice on the part of the believer, no more, no less. One can believe oneself an authority, and be supported by no one.

You quoted me the requirements of actually BEING authoritative.

Off point, and off topic. You lose, again.

[darkstar3]

259. Riiiiight...

So you're telling me that anyone whose opinions got them laughed repeatedly out of a room (should sound familiar) would still be able to believe themselves authoritative?

You can say whatever you like to try and defend your usage of these obviously religious terms, but the bottom line is that combining them with the word atheism is nothing more than a trifecta of an attempt at ad hom tu quoque, a slur against atheists, and an oxymoron. The usage of this slur is lame, tired, and a clear signal of deep-seated anti-atheist sentiment. Have fun with that.

[beam me up scottie]

233. You've come a long way,

baby. :)

[TZ]

242. Ah the old argument: I believe it is so, therefore it is so.

Magical thinking. Didn't you have enough of THAT in the last administration. Seriously, just because YOU believe a word means something, doesn't make it true. Anymore than someone who says that I tried to "Jew them down" on a price says that usage isn't bigoted because they don't think it is.

[kwassa]

244. That is not my argument at all.

the word fundamentalist is used in many contexts now, and the dictionary recognizes that as well

here are two different dictionary definitions:

Main Entry: fun·da·men·tal·ism
Pronunciation: \-tə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1922
1 a often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b : the beliefs of this movement c : adherence to such beliefs
2 : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles <Islamic fundamentalism> <political fundamentalism>

fun·da·men·tal·ism   /ˌfʌndəˈmɛntlˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled Show IPA
–noun
1.(sometimes initial capital letter) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.
2.the beliefs held by those in this movement.
3.strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles: the fundamentalism of the extreme conservatives.

[darkstar3]

246. You still haven't shown the "set of basic principles." n/t

[kwassa]

248. Here they are

Princple #1. There are no gods or God.

Principle #2. Anyone who believes such things is superstitious.

[humblebum]

250. You seem to be a bit under seige here, Kwassa

If any atheist, as with anyone else, speaks with apparent authority on matters concerning atheism and religion, then there needs to be some source of authority upon which their opinion and facts are based. This source of authority could simply be personal experience based on observation, or in the case of organized atheism, which has a lengthy and varied history, the source of authority might be the mission statement or doctrine espoused by a particular organization. The source of authority can also be a person or persons who have spoken or published their opinions on subjects related to atheism or religion.

Organized atheism, whether or not it admits such, does have doctrine (same thing as dogma). All one needs to do is to check out the mission statement of American Atheists, or read the brief history of the AAAA (American Association for the Advancement of Atheism), or read up on the League of Militant Atheists, etc.. A person can go back much farther and realize that atheists oftentimes organize, and in fact, do develop doctrines and express opinions based on that same doctrine.

[omega minimo]

253. "This source of authority could simply be personal experience based on observation"

Which is exactly what some "atheists" will not allow anyone else regarding their own personal experience, of anything they don't condone.

[humblebum]

255. I realize that , but that doesn't make it any less so. The same goes

for religious people. People are going to think what they think, regardless of what you or I believe. Any forcing of belief is going to be rejected by some or many. Doctrines are only going to be totally accepted by those whose beliefs and views line up with those doctrines. I don't feel that there is anything wrong with open discussion or criticism (when it is deserved), but any move or suggestion, by an outside group, to limit beliefs or nonbeliefs needs to be challenged for the good of everyone. If you truly believe what you believe, then you should feel secure in those beliefs.

[darkstar3]

254. There they're not.

Principle 1 is a definition of active disbelief. It is only one theoretical flavor of atheism, and not one I have ever encountered IRL or on these boards.
Principle 2 is your own assertion. I have seen this statement made by no atheists. I have seen believers in gods referred to as superstitious, but also as many other adjectives, and no one has claimed that every believer falls under that umbrella, except for you when trying to put words into other people's mouths. Funny you should do that mere hours after accusing me of the same thing.

[kwassa]

256. Says who? You? Who made you an authority?

Do you declare yourself an authority? Then why should I listen to you?

Shall I state what I already said over and over again?

"Principle 1 is a definition of active disbelief. It is only one theoretical flavor of atheism, and not one I have ever encountered IRL or on these boards."

I have certainly encountered it on these boards, repeatedly, for years. I have also encountered, for years, those who claim only lack of belief, but argue it in the most dogmatic fashion.

and by the way, THIS IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT ALL ALONG.

If I write in caps, do you hear it this time? I didn't think so.

So what if it is one theoretical flavor of atheism? It is still a definition of atheism.

[darkstar3]

258. By all means,

keep writing in all caps. Your spluttering does nothing to change the definitions of the words "fundamentalist" or "dogmatic", but it is funny to watch you try vainly to defend your usage.