I give Ultra-Orthodox Jews a free pass compared to other fundies...

[BolivarianHero]

While I think their beliefs are backward and kooky, because they are an insular and anti-evangelical religion, they seldom pose any threat to a society that is free, just, and secular. Compare that with fundamentalist Christians, with Islamists, and Hinutva adherents, who do want to impose an ideology and a moral hygiene that intends to police the thoughts and control the lives of non-believers. The only exception I make to this statement is with regards to the state-funded gender-segregated buses in certain parts of Jerusalem so as to satisfy the ignorance of the Hasedim and the Haredim (furthermore, men are given privileged seats on these buses). If they want to treat women like shit, at least make the community pay for the bus service from its own coffers.

[annabanana]

1. Anyone who is convinced that

God gave them land is a threat.

[BolivarianHero]

2. Not so fast..

Haredim and Hassidim are anti-Zionists. It's the one good thing about them.

[asthmaticeog]

6. They're against the currently established government of Israel.

They still believe that land is their birthright and that God is going to sweep it clear of infidels for them. The only difference between them and the 20th Century Zionist movement is a doctrinal point among messianics.

[pnwmom]

8. No, it's much better that they think they can control the streets of Brooklyn

(remember the bike lane controversy?) and the town of Kiryas Joel -- and the neighboring communities they're looking to annex.

:sarcasm:

They've got the same urge to control as other fundies. They don't deserve a free pass.

[damyank913]

100. Agreed-no pass given here...

Have you seen that rabbi who is against choice. I forget his name. He's politically active, very vocal, and very popular with the right. His followers are a movement that wants to effect social change in America (and perhaps everywhere).

[mdmc]

3. I live in a county where the Hasidim decide our local elections

It is amazing that a town of 15000 can get just about every voter to the polls. It is an absolutely fascinating thing to see. The village of Kyrus Joel usually has voter turnout at over 95%.

Imagine what could be done if that kind of turnout was achieved in the inner cities..

[Smarmie Doofus]

4. Mega-homophobic last time I checked.

Be glad you're not gay.

[GodlessBiker]

89. +100. They are a threat to me, that's for sure.

[asthmaticeog]

5. That's crap.

In NYC, Ultra Orthodox Jewish men got public bike commuter paths removed because of the temptation to sin posed by female cyclists in shorts. They didn't get cycling prohibited, nor could they get women in shorts prohibited, just the dedicated paths. So now, no cycling paths, which makes biking less safe for everyone, including motorists, all because of a religious prohibition against women's skin being visible, and they didn't even prevent that! Not too far removed from the Taliban in kind, only in degree. That's only one example of their horrible religious sexism fucking up a good thing for people who don't believe their ancient superstitious rubbish. The Chasids get no pass from me.

(Necessary disclaimer: I'm Jewish. I have very, very good reasons for finding the Chasidim vile and obnoxious.)

[caitxrawks]

7. good point.

They do seem to like that general "live and let live" idea. (Most of them, at least. Not the crazy ones.)

[Odin2005]

9. Ultra-Orthodox Jews are the most vocal supporters of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

[stray cat]

10. I'm sure they are thankful.....

[rd_kent]

11. "they seldom pose any threat to a society that is free, just, and secular. " Really? Ask NYC about

that. They successfully lobbied to have bike lanes moves so that women who wore shorts and bikini tops would not be able to ride through their neighborhood.


No threat my ass.....

[humblebum]

12. How about fundy atheists?

[ZombieHorde]

13. I don't think fundamentalism means what you think it means. nt

[darkstar3]

14. +1 n/t.

[humblebum]

17. Perhaps you could enlighten me? nt

[lazarus]

18. From Wikipedia

Fundamentalism refers to a belief in a strict adherence to a set of basic principles (often religious in nature), sometimes as a reaction to perceived doctrinal compromises with modern social and political life.<1><2><3><4>

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>

The term has since been generalized to mean strong adherence to any set of beliefs in the face of criticism or unpopularity, but has by and large retained religious connotations.<6>

Fundamentalism is commonly used as a pejorative term, particularly when combined with other epithets (as in the phrase "Muslim fundamentalists" and "right-wing/left-wing fundamentalists").<7><8> 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> Others in turn, such as Christian theologian Alister McGrath, have used the term fundamentalism to characterize atheism as dogmatic.<10>

Since atheists are marked only by a lack of belief, not a belief in anything, they cannot by definition be fundamentalist.

[humblebum]

19. Do you believe you're right?

[lazarus]

20. clever (not)

and irrelevant. Read it again. General beliefs (such as: the sun will rise tomorrow) aren't dogmatic.

[humblebum]

22. Do you believe that this life is all there is?

[lazarus]

24. Do you have any evidence that it isn't?

[humblebum]

26. That 's what I thought.

[lazarus]

27. So, no evidence?

Why believe something with no evidence?

[rd_kent]

28. All he has is his sophomoric attempts at sophistry.

Never has anything else, thats why I had him on ignore for a while, I grew very tired of it.

[humblebum]

36. Do you consider evidence to be objective, subjective, or both? nt

[lazarus]

38. objective, of course

subjective is meaningless is this sort of discussion.

[humblebum]

61. So, it is only meaningless because you say it's meaningless?

Yours is the standard answer of an atheist based on the epistemologies used by skeptics and atheists, but not necessarily the majority's answer. Empiricism: if it can't be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched, then it doesn't exist.

[lazarus]

68. majority answer?

Have you even heard of the concept of vox populi? Read up on it.

Subjective evidence isn't evidence, it's just claims. I saw a flying spaghetti monster. There, that's subjective evidence.

[rd_kent]

29. Hahaha! Your attempts to squirm and twist are not working, huh? Back under the bridge with you!!!

[rasputin1952]

46. Not to be trite, but the same question can be asked of you...

THe point/counterpoint only truly works when one can provide a better answer.

Since neither side can empirically prove this one way or the other...essentially, the argument is moot.

As for the sun "rising", in days of yore, that was a good "explanation...however, if one uses the science of the day, the sun doesn't "rise", rather the earth spinning on it's axis creates the illusion of the sun "rising" and setting. I have empirical evidence to refute your point, in this case, there is one side factual, and the other conjecture based on ancient lore and a religious doctrine enhanced by papal decree several centuries ago.

Edited for typo...:blush:

[darkstar3]

50. For an answer

to your canard of "no one has proof or empirical evidence," please see #49.

[rasputin1952]

56. For an answer to your post, please see post 54...

:)

[rd_kent]

21. I see you are trying to dodge again after you have been proven wrong.

But we expect nothing less from you.

[humblebum]

23. Proven wrong of what?

[rd_kent]

25. That fundamentalism is not what you think it means, at least in the context you are implying.

buh bye now.....

[humblebum]

30. Implying? The term fundamental atheism must have some meaning

if it is commonly used by authors and commentators to describe some atheists. I don't think it is always used as a pejorative. Whenever people organize around common interests to promote those interests - then it seems quite reasonable to assume that they share common ideas and common ideals.

[rd_kent]

31. Only commonly used by you.

[humblebum]

34. And many others in conversation and print. nt

[lazarus]

37. Vox populi

If a million people say something that's wrong, it's still wrong.

[humblebum]

40. I guess Hedges and Mcgrath are mistaken when they write books

about the subject.

[rd_kent]

44. I guess they are, just like you.

[humblebum]

52. So the only ones claiming that fundamentalism

only pertains to religion are the atheists? Gee. That sounds like it might be a logical fallacy.

[rd_kent]

53. Sure you do, you're the expert.

[Amaya]

88. "logical fallacy"

is your favorite word, isn't it

:hurts:

[lazarus]

32. but that's not fundamentalism

Go back and read that definition again.

[humblebum]

33. Actually your Wiki def. describes the word being used pertaining

to atheism. Of course we all know that wiki is the choice of most scholars as their reference source of choice.

[lazarus]

35. No

It referred to the fact that some Christian fundamentalists use it in reference to atheists.

Here it is from Merriam-Webster:

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

[humblebum]

39. So there are no Muslim fundamentalists?

[rd_kent]

42. Oh, for fucks sake. The stupid.....it BURNS!!!

[rd_kent]

41. How about the fucking dictionary..Websters. Is that the choice for scholars?

fun⋅da⋅men⋅tal⋅ism –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.





Jesus H. Christ, you are willfully ignorant and obtuse.

[lazarus]

45. Thanks, rd

It's amazing how much just knowing what you're talking about can confuse people.

[rasputin1952]

47. Neither side can "prove" anything in an argument of this type...

one can neither prove/disprove the existence of an after life...it is all a matter of conjecture.

[darkstar3]

49. And??

Explain to me why I must DISprove the existence of an afterlife, a god, a set of gods, angels, demons, or other absurd items that are believed in by so many people for no better reason than that they seem like nice, or sometimes simply old, ideas.

To believe in an afterlife when there is clearly not one shred of evidence for said afterlife is exactly the same as believing in elves, gnomes, or sprites when there is clearly not one shred of evidence for them. If it is simple conjecture that I do not believe in an afterlife, then it is simple conjecture that you do not believe in sprites.

[rasputin1952]

54. Because the claim is being made, quite often that they...

or any subset of the given, don't exist.

If one makes an emphatic claim, as so often happens, regardless of side, they place themselves in the position of substantiating said claim. There is no "proof" there isn't an afterlife. Therefore, both sides rely on conjecture, not empirical proof. This brings into play, that until there is proof, one way or the other, both arguments, by default, can only believe thy are right.

The problems in situations like this arise when when people, (regardless of stance on the matter), decide it is time to "prove" they are correct by getting into to derision and spiteful name calling.

It is fine to disagree w/each other over this issue, however, both sides have fine people that wish only to find the truth. Both sides also have people that would simply deny the other's side, not just to believe they way they want, but also attempt deny the others ability to believe as they wish. No one should ever think that is a particularly good idea, people should be free think as they like w/o the treat of attack and ridicule; that is one of the basic tenets of rational discussion.

For one to state, "I believe in God", or "I don't believe in God", should not bring a tirade upon either from the other side. Both are belief systems, as they are merely statements of what one "believes" is true. No one should be so emphatic as to state they have "proof" in either circumstance, nor should they blindly attack the other side.

I cannot figure out why this isn't relatively obvious in situations like this...:hi:

[darkstar3]

65. It's not obvious for a simple reason:

"I don't believe in God" does not qualify as a belief system.

When someone makes a claim about an afterlife, a god, angels, demons, or other things, it is sufficient for the skeptic to say "I doubt it" or "I don't believe it". At that point, the burden of proof does not magically shift to the skeptic, because the claimer hasn't yet provided ANY proof for the existence of the absurd thing they posited to begin with.

It bears repeating, since it is so often misconstrued and used as a cop-out: "I don't believe in X" does NOT qualify as any type of belief system.

[rasputin1952]

69. Sorry, I've had a lot to do away from the pc today...

but the statement, "I don't believe in God", is an opinion based on what one perceives. It never ends at that point though, basically because that statement begs the follow up, "what do you believe then?"

At that point, everything that follows is conjecture. One "believes" in something, it need not be a deity, and afterlife or much else...but one must believe they are correct in their assessment, and should, at that point be capable of defending why they believe they are correct. In my corner of the world, I accept all hypotheses, they may seem ridiculous to others, but I feel that the only way to come to a conclusion is to look at all facets of the problem, then make a decision. That decision can accept or reject, some or all of the ideas put up. I respect the decisions made on an individual level, and pretty well leave it at that.

I cannot see any reason to deride another for their position on such things...unless they fly in the face of irrefutable truths, (ie, we know the earth is not flat, we know there is gravity, etc.).

That's just me, I don't expect others to follow my "lead", but I would expect common courtesy for all involved...:hi:

[lazarus]

70. most

if not all atheists have done that. Looked at all facets of the concept of god, then made a decision. Many of us (me, for one) were raised Christian. I was raised fundie. I've read the Bible twice; I'm reading it now for the third time. I never really even made a conscious decision not to believe in god, any more than most theists made a conscious decision to believe in a god or gods.

As for what I believe, I believe in reality as shown to me by science.

As for deriding others based on their beliefs, when I see those beliefs causing harm to society or even just to individuals, I believe I have a responsibility to speak up about that. I deride beliefs. Occasionally I'll deride a person who seems exceptionally obtuse, but that has nothing to do with that person's beliefs. I have never had a post deleted, for a personal attack or any other reason (well, maybe a dupe or two).

Do you really believe that it's okay for parents to not seek medical treatment for a very sick child because of their belief that prayer will heal the child? That's just one small example of why we shouldn't just accept everyone's beliefs as just fine.

[rasputin1952]

71. No, I do not think it's correctr for people to deny children medical

care because of their beliefs...but that is not a Christian "value", as it is not a "value" in any other religion or non-religion; unfortunately, it happens in every aspect of society.

I don't think dancing w/vipers is exceptionally bright, nor do I think praying to trees, rocks or the sky...but if there are things that do not harm people, like praying to trees, what is the harm?

People have spent lifetimes bastardizing religious precepts while claiming they were doing things in the name of a deity/deities...it is as old as societies in general. The Inca thought it was "correct" to spill blood on the earth to rejuvenate it; Puritans thought it was fine to hang "witches; in Europe, it fine to burn heretics at the stake...anbd today, some sects of Islam hack off hands and heads for various "crimes". I don't think that the "atheist" Chinese are doing the right thing by executing people for innocuous crimes.

Some zealous Christians do not represent Christians in general; some zealous Muslims do not represent Islam in general; some zealous atheists do not represent atheists in general...the vast majority of people in this world want to live their lives in peace and some form of harmony. To broad-brush Christians as people who would do harm is ingenuous at best. For every "bad" individual in a religion or lack thereof, there are tens of thousands that try to live a decent life. Picking specifics to prove a case that is generally against an entire religion, as you did above, is as bad as those who use the Bible or the Koran by single point, to define the entire religion or overall point of view...it is disingenuous as well.

We should be far more tolerant than we are at this point in human history; we should ot tolerate those who ush for harm to themselves or others...but like I said...most people just want to live and get along...:hi:

[lazarus]

73. but if they won't tolerate me

or my friends, then I return the favour. Look at the millions of Christians who oppose gay rights, for instance. That's not just an outlier, that's a huge percentage of Christianity. Or how about the fact that an atheist has almost no chance of being elected to any office in this country, and when by chance one is, the churches start agitating to have him removed. These aren't isolated incidents. Christianity and other religions have a long history of intolerance for others. That's one of the reasons I dislike religion so much.

[rasputin1952]

79. One never moves to tolerance by using intolerance as an...

avenue toward gain. How can one explain that they wish to be see tolerance, yet be intolerant themselves? Fighting fire with fire leaves nothing but scorched earth.

I cannot blame any individual for the situation we are when such things are discussed, I blame a system of attack/defense/counterattack/counter-defense tat has developed over a long period of time for the situation we see today. How can one say' "Stop the fighting", while slapping another across the face?

Hypocrisy is rampant across the spectrum of this debate, and naturally, hypocrites can never see the fault of their own position. Hypocrisy owns no title to a specific religion or non-religion just as understanding holds no title in this ongoing battle. Hurling insults has never smoothed the road to conciliation, only sound reasoning and intelligent discussion achieves a desired result. Almost everyone can realize that the key to wisdom is understanding; one need not accept the opposite point of view, but one can make great progress if they keep to parameters where they understand the opposing point of view.

As for your statement that "millions of Christians oppose gay rights", so do millions of Muslims, Jews, Hindu's, Buddhists and atheists; the issue goes far beyond religion. An example that parallels this, millions opposed Civil Rights for blacks, but when the tack was changed to it being a fight for Human Rights, it is as if a light were switched on and great progress was made. The same holds true for for GLBT Rights and equality, for even the most adamant of opposition, when brought into the sphere of human rights, their argument against said rights cannot hold true.

The whole thing narrows down to, no one ever gained by saying something along the line of "screw you!", the stage is set at that point for disaster, anger ensues and no common ground can be found; it becomes argument for argument's sake. The first thing one must do is realize we are all human beings, things get a lot easier after that, for that is the universal common ground in these issues.

Exposing hypocrisy where it is found is a given, regardless of whom the offender is or what they say they, "represent". When all of the dust clears, no matter whom is arguing to represent a "system", they are actually doing nothing more than representing their own position, and it is usually a position based on ignorance and one's own predisposition to alter their own conceptions into defense of the whole. None of us can claim infallibility in this area; after all, rather than question our own perceptions, it is far easier to attack another's...:hi:

[lazarus]

81. When you find me making a personal attack

feel free to delete it and give me a warning. I attack beliefs, not people. :hi:

Shermer and others have tried for common ground, but it's hopeless. We're evil, after all, and must be converted. :evilgrin:

I understand the other side very well. I was raised a fundie Southern Baptist, reading Chick tracts and going to Bible summer camp. I've read the Bible twice (reading it a third time now). All of my family except my wife and daughter are very Christian or, in my Dad's case, secular Jew. Actually, I think part of the problem is that we atheists usually understand the Christian position quite well, as most of us come from that tradition. Christians, though, can't understand atheism, even though they all started as atheists (they don't remember that part at all). Because of this ignorance, we're attributed all sorts of positions and beliefs that just aren't valid.

For an example of how an atheist can do this sort of thing in a way unthinkable to a Christian, check out the Skeptic's Annotated Bible. The website not only points out all sorts of interesting things (contradictions, etc.) in the Bible, he also links to Christian responses to these statements. That's fair and evenhanded. And I've never seen a religious website that points out the skeptic's position on their beliefs.

Honestly, if it weren't for the harm that magical thinking does to our society, I wouldn't care if someone believed in anything. But I fight against magical thinking wherever I find it. When I have time, I'll even venture into the Health forum and take on the anti-vaxxers. I'm prevented from going into the Astrology group, though. I miss the old Meeting Room, that was fun.

This is a nice, civil exchange. A breath of fresh air in R/T.

[rasputin1952]

82. My post was not person specific...

:hi:

It was a synopsis of the reason why progress is rarely, if ever made on this situation. It is meant as inclusive of all who participate on this subject based on observance of the trends these things take...:pals:

ETA: this is indeed a nice civil discussion...:D

[lazarus]

83. understood, it was rhetorical

What if there were no rhetorical questions? :evilgrin:

[rasputin1952]

84. I don't think I could exist...

w/o such...:D

[darkstar3]

74. You're calling for civility,

and I can understand that, but you are doing so while either willfully or mistakenly mischaracterizing the position of people on the other side of the fence from you.

"I don't believe in God" may be considered an opinion, but whatever you call it, it is NOT a belief. As for your slippery slope fallacy that this statement eventually LEADS to a belief system of some kind, try this on...

I believe in scientific evidence, and where evidence has not yet become available, I believe in probability.

The earth IS flat. The stars ARE burning balls of gas billions of miles from earth. Death really DOES await us all. These things and many, many more are backed by solid scientific evidence.

Science has yet to successfully answer any of the following topics either way:
1. A creator
2. A personal God
3. Angels
4. Elves
5. Sprites
6. Invisible Pink Unicorns
and many more...but I still choose NOT to believe in them, because their very existence is HIGHLY improbable.

And that's how a skeptic's life works. To call this simple conjecture is, for lack of a better word, discourteous.

[rasputin1952]

80. Please explain to me, or show me a link to the argument that the

"earth IS flat". I also question how one can know a unicorn is pink if it is invisible.

By the system we have, we base one belief upon another, but it all begins with believing that we are correct in our assumptions, by building upon each truth/untruth, we form a system...by definition, this becomes a belief system, regardless of the premise it is based upon.

As for my beliefs, we have never discussed these, so base your premise of "mischaracterizing the position of people on the other side of the fence from you." You don't know which side of the fence I am on. I will tell you that I do not believe in creation as told in many religious tomes, and held to by so many, (I find the idea ludicrous on the face of the argument). I find much of the OT to make sense, when one looks at some of the Mosaic Laws, they are valid, "wash your hands before preparing meals, use clean utensils, honor your parents/parents loving their children, caring for the poor and infirm, calls for justice, not retribution; I find other aspects noxious, killing the name of God, stoning for what today we consider minor offenses, the exploitation of non-Jews...the list goes on. As for the teachings of Jesus, all things considered, they are an excellent road map for life in general, tolerance, understanding, forgiveness, seeking knowledge, care for those less fortunate. These are echoes of far older tenets laid down in other systems, I thin that taking the best from all philosophy leads to a more balanced knowledge of how we can function in the human family.

I cannot say for sure there is a God, and if there is one, so be it, if not, so be it. I was taught from a young age that God existed, after extensive thought and research on the position, I rest on the fence as opposed to either side. However, I see no reason for either "side" to condemn the other for their points of view...I think that the fence is common ground, and rather than toss grenades, we should be tossing ideas. Just my 2 cents.

[darkstar3]

85. You'll have to forgive me for that flat earth comment...

I meant to say is NOT flat, but posting very late at night often causes me to miss important words. I would hope you could have seen that in context.

As to the rest of your post, you are clinging desperately to the idea that I, who have no beliefs to speak of, still somehow have a belief "system", because then that makes me, an atheist, no different from anyone else in this discussion. It's not true, and I have shown you clearly why not. Your canard that it all begins with believing that we are correct in our assumptions is a weak attempt at minimalizing the importance of hard evidence and scientific fact. Believing, for example, that Newtonian Mechanics is a very good description of kinetic and potential energy transfer at sublight speeds does not in any way constitute a belief "system".

Calling atheism a belief system is an attempt to equivocate it to all other POVs as a religion. As has been said many times before, if atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

[rasputin1952]

86. My point is valid, one must believe their assertations are correct...

this is not to say one blurb is of great consequence, but one must evaluate how they came to said conclusion; each step is validated/invalidated by the steps in evaluation. At the end of the evaluation, one has decided, based on, (in the instance of the non-provable by empirical evidence), that they believe they are correct. Since, at this point, it is impossible to irrefutably prove either case, one takes it on a personal belief they are correct in their assumption. Since the entire process was based, step by step, on a previous belief that an assertion was correct to reach the conclusion accepted, (wholly on the belief that one is correct), a system was put into place, hence, a "belief system".

I am not trying to nit-pick here, nor am I trying to be obtuse...what I am saying is that in the absence of empirical proof, in any situation, the only rational course in the instance is to "believe", or have "faith", in one's position. I have no problem whatsoever in your decision to be an atheist, it affects me in no way and is your personal decision. I am assuming you made this decision consciously and with thought over the the situation. You are entitled to believe what ever you want to believe, but there are steps that are taken in every decision process...when it comes to making a decision based on nothing more than a process that leads to a conclusion where there is no proof to decide another outcome, one can only assume they are correct based on personal belief.

[darkstar3]

90. You still don't get it.

You state that anything accepted without empirical evidence is a belief based on an assertion. Probability is not an assertion. Lack of belief is not a belief system in itself. You, who do not believe in sprites, are not referred to as an aspritist, and your lack of belief in sprites and other fairy-creatures is not a belief system.

Did you know that the word atheist would not even be required if it weren't for the fact that the majority opinion of humanity still clings to the bronze age belief of a creator-like deity. If we all lacked belief, do you know what we would call ourselves? Humans...

One final time...I reject the possibility of a god-like being because his existence is HIGHLY improbable. "I believe...I'll have a scotch."

[rasputin1952]

94. Has it ever dawned on you, that it may be that you didn't get it?

Why must it always be someone else that, "doesn't get it"?

Up thread, you were more than willing to assume you are correct, to the point where you felt some requirement to insult others; it may dawn on you that you are not a great sage, neither am I, but I can make my points knowing that I do not know everything about a subject and can accept that perhaps it is me that doesn't get it. However I've known for a long time that just stating someone "doesn't get it", and/or an attempt to belittle them, not only does nothing to further the argument, but actually demeans the individual that lowers themselves to that level of discourse.

[darkstar3]

95. Wow

Did you even read the rest of my post? If you read past the subject line, you will see that I was not demeaning, that I did not use insults, and that in fact, I only used the phrase "you don't get it" to illustrate the fact that you have either not understood my point, or that I feel you are failing to respond to it.

To clarify: I have given you analogies and reasons why lack of belief does not constitute a belief system, yet you keep repeating that it does. I have answered each of your attempts to label atheism as a belief system in turn, and I believe that I have done so with fact and logic. If you'd like to answer any of those points, I'm all ears. I do not believe that I have insulted you here. Would you like to continue the discussion on any of the things I said earlier, or simply throw your hands up in disgust and walk away?

Ball's in your court.

BTW: Where "upthread" did I insult others?

[rasputin1952]

97. Your post #49 fits the criteria...

However, I will certainly concede that it is far less harsh than what others have posted, both in this thread and elsewhere in R/T.

As for the "sprites, pixies"...et al; when I was studying the electromagnetic spectrum, I dragged some notions into Philosophy to discuss. Since visible light is a very narrow band of the spectrum, is it not possible that there are entities we may not see, feel or touch within other aspects of the electromagnetic spectrum. We cannot feel, smell, see radio waves, but we know they exist. Is it possible that things exist, beyond the scope of our 5 senses? Perhaps there are things out there that we cannot explain due to our limited knowledge at this point. I don't believe in these things myself, but suppose that a "rift" occurred due some magnetic anomaly and someone "saw" something they could not explain...most of us just "blow this off", but something had to occur, whether physically of mentally for an event to have occurred. There are so many things we don't yet understand, yet every day, something new is found. Just a thought...:)

[darkstar3]

98. Anything is possible.

I will never discount that fact. Literally ANYTHING is possible. Probability for any one particular thing, though...that is another story.

ETA: I don't see how #49 fits the criteria for insulting. It does not provide extra respect for any one religion over another, or even no religion, because it relates religion to the other things with which it shares most characteristics: myths and superstitions. This is not an insult, but simple fact. Now if I had called a believer stupid, that would be a different story.

[rasputin1952]

99. I cannot recall seeing you ever call a member stupid...

that is factual, and from what I've seen, your postings in this matter have been well thought out and rational...:)

[rd_kent]

51. Thats not what he was just proven wrong about. This sub-thread is not about god.

Its about humblebum's blatant attempt to steer the conversation in a direction that he can try out his new-found sophistry skills.

No, this sub-thread was about his assertion that HIS definition of fundamentalist was the only and correct one. He was proven wrong, as evidenced by the dictionary definition, courtesy of Merriam-Webster, and then he tried to dodge it.

No, this was really just a good example of his attempt that not only FAILED, but backfired in his face, exposing him for what he really is.

[rasputin1952]

55. The point is, that others decided to go by definitions that are

based on dictionary paradigms. Things go beyond that quite often. One can define a "square" as figure with 4 equal side. But the definitions have changed over time and have gone beyond the basis of the original. It often comes down to context as opposed to strict formal lines.

It was a little further in the subthread, when the term "fundementalism" turned to the religious definition concerning protestants and evangelicals; however, one who studies atomic theory can also be considered a "fundementalist" of sorts as they are seeking the fundamental building blocks of matter in all it's forms. I think we can all agree that we have the right to disagree, but we don't necessarily have the right to abuse each other for their specific take on an issue, regardless of where they stand on an issue.

[rd_kent]

58. You are right, and normally I would agree with you

but THIS particular poster is known for this kind of thing. We have had this issue before.

You are right, 100%, and if it was any other poster, this sub-thread probably would not even exist.......

[rasputin1952]

59. Well, there are times to let things go...

for all involved...:pals:

[rd_kent]

60. and there are times to make a point...

but I think its been made.

Until next time.......

[humblebum]

62. But what point has been made?

Is it that there is no such thing as atheist fundamentalism? You say no. I say yes based on 2 premier authors who base their works on that very subject, one of whom is a PHD. Also the Oxford dictionary states: " noun (2) the strict maintenance of the ancient or fundamental doctrines of any religion or IDEOLOGY.

Atheism by itself is a fairly neutral term - simply no belief in God, gods, or dieties. I can accept that. BUT organized atheism, which is sometimes quite militant, develops a mission statement, a vision statement, and a has an agenda, which of course leads to specific FUNDAMENTAL ideas held by all members within that particular organization. This does not necessarily include all atheists. The former case is the one written about by those authors who have defined the meaning of "atheist fundamentalism".

Here is a quote from friendlyatheist.com:

"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."

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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

[darkstar3]

66. The point is simple:

You can't show how atheism ACTUALLY qualifies under the term fundamentalism. There is no doctrine, no ideology, nothing associated with atheism except the lack of belief in gods. It is impossible to show how the single requirement to be an atheist, lack of believe in deities, logically proceeds to the attitude with which you take issue.

You could concede this point, and still save a little face, if you would admit that you are misusing the term fundamentalist and simply call the atheists with which you have a problem "asshole atheists." But that doesn't carry with it the ad hom tu toque nature of the term "fundamentalist atheist", so in your mind it is not as powerful.

BTW: Telling us that other people have written works on the idea of atheist fundamentalism, and that one of them is a PhD, is nothing more or less than yet another logical fallacy called "the argument from authority."

[humblebum]

72. You are clearly refusing to accept what others already see.

I have already articulated that atheism (small 'a'), by itself, is what you say it to be - "There is no doctrine, no ideology, nothing associated with atheism except the lack of belief in gods." In reality, however, the term atheist has been being used with a capital 'A', and has acquired a large following, has become organized, has developed an agenda, and has entered the world of ideas right along side every other philosophy and movement. These are the ones referred to commonly as the "fundamentalists". They are fundamentalists as surely as there are baseball fundamentalists, economic fundamentalists, etc..
To answer your claim about my "argument from authority" fallacy. That is not always a negative if it can be used for emphasis. If I said that atheistic fundamentalism exists because they say it exists, then it would indeed be a logical fallacy. But, I used it instead to emphasize the fact that the term is, in fact, a recognized concept and commonly used. That fact is difficult to dispute, regardless whether you disagree or not.

[darkstar3]

75. Wow.

I've answered your claim of organization elsewhere. If you now wish for me to accept your premise that there is in fact a real Atheist "movement", then you're going to have to show me proof, and a few books aren't going to do it, because a few books don't equal a movement.

I gave you an out. You are abusing the term fundamentalism as surely as you are abusing the "argument from authority" fallacy. That you didn't take the out you were given shows your desperation to attack atheism in any way you can, even in the face of all opposition and evidence.

[humblebum]

76. You must live a very sheltered life. Either that or you argue for

the sake of arguing. Have you never heard of American Atheists,for example. They are organized and they do have a mission statement and a stated purpose. The League of Militant Atheists was certainly a movement with an a agenda and purpose. The 'Godless Americans March on Washington' in 2002 was a movement by any measure. You seem woefully self-sheltered from any bit of knowledge that might shatter your view of reality. 'Campus Atheists' or 'Atheists' call to arms' - does any of that ring a bell?

[darkstar3]

77. And what are their dogmas?

Are any of them connected to each other?

American Atheists is a simple movement. They do not dedicate their time to the advancement of atheism or any other "atheist" agenda, as you are trying to claim here. They're purpose is to help with other organizations to maintain the separation of church and state. No more, no less. They are a political organization, not an atheist movement.

The Godless March was the exact same thing as a Gay Pride parade. We're here, we don't believe like you, get used to it. That might get you a little closer to a movement, but if you really want to apply that label to the March, then the movement didn't get far before it stagnated.

Campus Atheists is a support group and a social network. It is nothing more than a group of like-minded people who wish to spend more time around each other. That their chapters are difficult to charter on various campuses and thus require struggle along the way is not reflective of a movement, but rather of wild discrimination on the part of various believers who control university and college funding and student organization.

The bottom line here is that this is evidence not of an Atheist movement, as you claim, but of individual groups of atheists finding their own ways to fight discrimination, socialize, or express themselves. None of them share mission statements, dogmas, or even ideas about atheism itself. Now if you want to call this a movement, that's fine, but you damn well better refer to it properly. It wasn't "the black movement," and it isn't "the gay movement". It was "the civil rights movement" and the "gay rights movement." This, if movement it can be called, is not the "atheist movement," but rather the "atheist rights movement." We're people too, and we're tired of being demonized because we don't think like you do.

And speaking of demonization and other attacks, your comments here on my knowledge once again smack of your MO. You seem desperate to attack others. You repeatedly attack atheists with broad-brush statements in several threads, claiming that their logic is flawed, their POVs outdated, and their dedication to charity and their fellow man lacking. You attack me personally every time I question your broad brush statements, just as you attack others who do the same, as if attacking us would somehow lend more credence to your falsehoods. Finally, you attack the English language through your constant abuse of terms like fundamentalism, and you attack the application of logic by abusing straw men, ad hom, and other fallacies while claiming you somehow hold the logical high ground.

You, sir, have an axe to grind against atheism, as your comparative and repeated reference to the League of Militant Atheists easily shows, and no amount of logical argumentation from anyone on this board will stop you from your abhorrent, repetitive, and libelous ad hominem. I bid you good life, sir, for I am done playing the Abott to your horrific Costello.

[humblebum]

78. A movement is a movement. I only stated fact without adding opinion.

Jettison the guilt trip.

[rd_kent]

91. You got crushed. Stop dancing, because the piano is on top of you.

[humblebum]

92. I think someone got mad, threw a fit, took the ball, and left the game.

[humblebum]

93. And Darkstar, here is another example of one of your nonexistent movements.

http://www.atheistconvention.org.au/

Of course you would never find any kind of fundamentalists here.

[rd_kent]

96. The game was over before you stepped on the field.

[ZombieHorde]

67. You're right, I should have included a definition with a source in my reply.

From Dictionary.com

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.

[Amaya]

87. hehe ... how cute

;)

[Unvanguard]

103. No "fundy atheist" in the world thinks I'm going to burn in agony for eternity

because I don't believe in the millenia-old mythology of some Near Eastern tribe.

[WVRICK13]

15. NOT

I don't give any religious assholes a pass no matter what their religion.

[rasputin1952]

48. Religious or not...

assholes should never get a pass. There are plenty of people of every religion that can fall into the "asshole" category, but many of non-religious individuals fall into the same category. It's a matter of perspective.

[WVRICK13]

57. Agrgee

assholes are assholes

[onager]

16. But they do pose a threat to their society.

Due to the nature of Israeli politics. Let's not forget, these are the lovely believers who fling bags of shit at women who dare to pray at the Western Wall.

I'm not an expert on this, but I've seen it mentioned many times on the Internetz.

And this guy is an expert:

Menachem Friedman - The Ultra-Orthodox in Israeli Politics

The Haredim appear to be an organized, unified group, led by charismatic leaders of unimpeachable authority. Recently, however, Haredi society has emerged as hopelessly divided and schism-ridden, comprising subgroups which are sometimes more hostile to one another than to the secular Zionists. Such hostility is expressed verbally, especially via posters, and even physically...

Their maneuvering between the two major parties is a result of commitment to the "Scholar Society," whose very existence essentially frees its members from the basic civic obligation of Israeli citizens--military service--thereby arousing pointed questions and undermining the basis of the Haredi parties' legitimacy...

http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp104.htm

Usual Disclaimer - I'm an atheist, so I don't have a god in this fight.

[Meshuga]

43. The ultra-Orthodox far right can be beyond nasty

And don't deserve a pass.

[timtom]

63. I would agree with you

as long as they are not Zionists.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

101. Er, from what I read here and there, secular Israelis might disagree with you.

They seem to be gaining numbers (not by evangelization) enough to seriously threaten their democracy.

[Unvanguard]

102. Please don't. You're misled by their comparatively small numbers.

They oppose equal rights for LGBT people, they are predominantly anti-choice and anti-feminist, and so forth, just like the Christian and Muslim fundamentalists. In places where they have real political power, like Israel, they pose serious threats to civil freedom.