On Fundies, Christianity and DU.

[nadinbrzezinski]

Well folks, I am nominally a Jew... but have noticed something really worrisome 'round these parts. It comes down to this. All Christians believe in a magical god in the sky and are fundies.

Well ... all religions have core believes that are well... magical in a way. Yes the Law was given to the People of Israel at Sinai is not a provable fact... it is belief. So is the virgin birth... or God dictated the Quaran to Muhammad... I could go on... you get the picture.

But I want you to consider this. Just because somebody is a PRACTICING CHRISTIAN does not make them automatically a fundy... the same goes for Jews, Muslims and any other religion. All faiths have a few fundies... and in my experience they tend to get the lion's share of attention, partly because the leaders of these fundy groups do look up for the attention and are damn loud. They all have something in common... damn selective on what they chose to believe in... and what they chose to practice.

So I will put it this way... FUNDY, I really do not care what day of the week they happen to pray at, can be dangerous. But not all practitioners are fundies. IN fact, most practitioners of any faith are NOT fundamentalists.

So let's give our fellow DU'ers who happen to be (insert version of Christianity here) a break, ok. People do not need that hassle, especially in a liberal board.

Oh and for the record... nominally a Jew, but truly an atheist... but in my world people of faith do have a place... and not one inferior either. I just want you to think about this, and the overt and covert attacks.

[DCKit]

1. I try to reserve my negative comments to the fundies - of any religion.

Those who pick and choose which tenets they will follow.

It's a universal disease of religion.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. Realize that it is not religion

but for the moment I want to talk in general about how folks at times generalize from that very loud but small minority.

[skepticscott]

81. You're among many people

who spread the meme that fundamentalists are only a small fringe minority of Christians in this country. The problem with your whole argument is that that isn't even remotely the case. Fundamentalists are a majority of Christians in the United States and by far the most influential segment of that religion. Painting the face of religion in this country as anything BUT fundamentalist Christian would be an inappropriate generalization.

[nadinbrzezinski]

86. While very influential, they are not the majority

actually their influence is well beyond their actual numbers.

Or you are telling me that 70% of all Americans are Fundies? No, not really.

They will reach, best case, 30%. There are the MAJORITY in some REGIONS, like the deep south, where in a few towns they are indeed the majority. But in a country of 308 millon they are NOT the majority.

IN a few states, absolutely and if you happen to live in them. I can understand the confusion.

[skepticscott]

88. Between 40 and 50% of ALL Americans

believe that the world was created less than 10,000 years ago, just as described in Genesis. You don't get much more fundy Xstian than that. And that's ALL adults. Since Christians make up only 75-80% of the population, the proportion of such people among Christians is clearly higher than 50%. Do the math.

You're demonstrably wrong and off the mark here, so please don't condescend to me about "confusion".

[nadinbrzezinski]

90. I do the math and they are not

sorry.

Attendance in church has gone down over the decades.

Right now it stands at 44%, the highest among OECD economies but nowhere close to the majority

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/rel_chu_att-religion-church-attendance

By the way attendance in church includes all faiths...

Now according to Gallup it has inched up in 2010

http://www.gallup.com/poll/141044/americans-church-attendance-inches-2010.aspx

In times of economic crisis that happens to be a historic norm.

It is still NOT the majority.

That said, FUNDIES should be confronted, and the battle to keep science in the curriculum goes back to the 19th century and American ANTI INTELLECTUALISM.

[skepticscott]

105. So what is your justification

for putting church attendance over religious attitudes to judge fundamentalism? Stop deflecting the issue onto things I've made no claim about.

And your math is deeply flawed, if not blatantly dishonest. If Christians are 80% of the total population, it would take 50%-60% of Christians being fundamentalist (to help your math along, 50-60% would be a majority of Christians) to reach the 40-50% of the total population that clearly is. Try again.

[humblebum]

127. My friend, the atheists' position, if there is one, is not being helped by you. nt

[PassingFair]

152. Facts don't need "help".

And the "atheist position" is, what?

[onager]

193. The atheist position = the missionary position, with Stalin

:hi:

[PassingFair]

197. When we were little....

One Saturday or Sunday morning, my little brother
answered a knock at the door...

He came into the living room and told my dad that
there was a missionary that wanted to talk to him.

My father said, "Well, invite him in! Tell him I want to know
more about his position."

My little brother almost made it back to the door
before we stopped him.

I miss Dad.


:cry:

[ZombieHorde]

2. What is a fundy? I am assuming you mean "fundamentalist," but what is that?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fundamentalist">Dictionary.com has three definitions.

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.

-------------

Since you mention Muslims, I doubt you are using definition one or two. Are you using definition three? Is your OP about those who try to strictly follow the teachings Jesus Christ, Mohammad, etc.?

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. It is number three and having met and dealt with a few

Jewish Fundamentalists... they are just as bad.

Of course they say the same things about me... including the ever so popular you are going to hell. Which I usually counter with the more traditional belief in Judaism that there is no hell. Believe it or not the more Christian version (scarily the fundamentalist version) has made heavy inroads into Jewish Fundamentalism.

But let me see.

The world is 53... whatever year this is old? Check.

We should shield our children from the Internets? Check.

We should keep evolution away from... kids? check

Secularism is dangerous to morals... check.

We should all pray for the return of the Messiah? Check.

It is a very different world view from mine... and has far more in common with strict followers of Shariah Law, or American Christian Fundamentalists. As I said, I don't care what day of the week a Fundamentalist prays on.

[bananas]

45. There are also fundamentalist atheists

Fundy atheists are as annoying as any other fundamentalist.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fundy%20atheist&defid=1197305

1. fundy atheist

An atheist who says that god doesn't exist but then spends every waking moment on their lives obssessing over and griping about said god.

Pretty much any atheist is a fundy atheist.

by laugh at the atheist fundies Apr 18, 2005

[darkstar3]

47. Sure, becuase urbandictionary is accurate in any way.

when you can tell me which book, which dogmatic precepts, and which fundamental principles any group of atheists adheres to, I MIGHT believe that "fundy atheist" is anything other than an oxymoron.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cleanhippie]

52. Ugh. THIS nonsense again?

Next, you will be calling them militant, too.

[Mariana]

63. I'm sure it was just an oversight. nt.

[uppityperson]

7. Those who not only hold strong beliefs about their behavior, but feel the need to

try and make others behave in a certain way.

That is part of my definition of a fundy. They are not content in their own beliefs, but must attempt to push them on others. Add to that is Fundies believe their way is not just a right way to be/believe, but the ONLY right way to be/believe.

[Irishonly]

26. I try to stay out of these conversations but....

I wanted to tell you about a conversation I had with a newly converted fundie. Boy, could she quote the Bible and took everything literally. The parables were not parables to her. She believed God said each and every word and you had to be the camel getting through the eye of the needle. I was raised and still am a Disciple of Christ-one of those liberal denominations. I asked her about forgiveness and I asked her about trying to live more like Christ. She didn't say anything about trying to live more like Christ or follow his teachings but she told me all about forgiveness. She told me God forgave you and it didn't matter what you did. You could murder and ask God for forgiveness and if you had accepted Jesus Christ as your savior the slate was wiped clean. I then asked what if you killed again would you still be forgiven. She said yes. The conversation went on at some length. She believed strongly in the parts of the Bible that fit her belief and value system and saw no reason to try to live as Christ did. She said you could keep committing atrocious crimes and still go to heaven and if you didn't believe as she did you were doomed. She could not relate to charitable,, helping the poor and the lessons he taught. She has always been my idea of a fundie.

[uppityperson]

8. another online definition that more closely says how I use the word...

http://www.answers.com/topic/fundamentalism
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fundamentalist
A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

[The Straight Story]

12. It is #3 - which refers to dems, repugs, etc - I have found more fundies here on DU

than I have elsewhere - but instead of a god with a bible the 'god' is money (ie, if your choices cost me $ then you are sinning and I should be able to punish you for your sins - your body, my choice).

I have heard of people being called 'breeders', heard how having kids is killing 'mother' earth (a planet that is doomed anyway since the sun will burn out someday, and no amount of money will change that). I hear that someone smoking in a bar with others who want to be smoking in same bar is terrible - all the while those same folks are driving their car to work and killing the planet.

Religion - it does not need a bible or any other book. There are plenty of folks who adhere to a religion of money and that is the only god they will ever need.

[kestrel91316]

18. Fundies, to me, are the biblical literalists, who literally believe that every

word in the bible is the revealed truth spoken by Gawd, including the part about earth being only 6000 years old. They are the born-againers, the bible beaters, the shouters on tv, the evangelists who used to come up to me in high school in OH and harangue me about whether or not I had been "saved".

I was raised Presbyterian, and at that time they were NONE of those things.

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. Trust me their Jewish counterparts are just as bad

I got a few stories, both as an EMT, and from "friends" and even family.

Suffice it to say I am going to hell ... which is kind of strange since hell does not really exist in the concept you are thinking in Judaism. Well that is until recently... listening to a family member who has been going to a pretty fundy synagogue... I have the urging to jump to my feet and scream AMEN!

[raccoon]

34. self delete. nt

[immoderate]

58. Jews are not fundamentalists, unless they are Christianized.

The Jewish tradition is one of interpretation, and recognition of ambiguities and contradictions. (I confirmed this with several rabbis.) There isn't a view of "inerrancy." This "modern" fundamentalism is one that politically conservative Jews picked up from Christians. Many of them also believe Jesus was the Messiah.

There are also more than 100 secular synagogues, with atheist rabbis, that celebrate culture and tradition without the superstition. I think that many, if not most Jews are atheist, because belief is not a requirement for being a Jew, unlike other religions.

--imm

[Crunchy Frog]

74. When I think fundamentalist Jews, I picture the

extreme Orthodox militant settler types. The kind who are uprooting olive trees in the West Bank and trying to run sex segregated bus lines. It may not be fundamentalism in the same sense of Christian fundamentalism, but it shares many characteristics including the extremism and intolerance.

[nadinbrzezinski]

85. Or my all time favorite since I got to be on the sharp end of it

the ones who throw stones at emergency vehicles because you should not travel on the Sabbath... I got those in, of all places, Mexico City.

Yes we called the cops, for interfering with EMS...

[immoderate]

93. Jews not immune to authoritarianism.

Still, they will tell you what to do, not what to believe.

--imm

[nadinbrzezinski]

83. You should visit a Chabad house

especially in Mexico, and you will understand. Trust me.

Or for that matter Mea Shearim in Israel... and they are not Jews for Christ either.

In fact, that would be a huge insult to them. But they do preach a return to the traditional ways, the strict observation of the Sabbath and the separation from this thing called the secular world... oh and constant study of the Mishna, the Torah and the rest of them, as well as inherency in the holy books.

Judaism in the US, for multiple cultural reasons, is the only place where you can be a Jew and be an atheist. After all a principle of faith going back to at least the Rabbinic movement of the 1st century is the belief in God... most Jews are actually not atheists by the way and here you go.

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

It is actually pretty good as an introduction. Having gone to an Orthodox Temple in Mexico City... i got to learn those.

[immoderate]

92. American Jews are not the only atheists.

I surely know some from Israel and France. And none of us can say with certainty what all or any, for that matter, Jew believes. The article you pointed me to affirms that Jews are no called on to believe. They observe. There was a chabad two blocks from my house growing up. And an orthodox neighborhood nearby, which put up barricades, so no one could ride down "their" streets. Where I greew up, there were more Jews than Tel Aviv or Miami, even.

So now I'm in Fort Lauderdale, and I belong to an atheist's meetup group with over 400 on the roster. About half are Jews. Principle, shminciple, most Christians tell me that Jews are atheists. Some seem to me like Jewish Deists, after their bris they're never inside a shul again. Is that what you mean by a believer?

--imm

[nadinbrzezinski]

94. What you have observed is the division between

the Secularists and the orthodox... the division is pretty close to that you observe in other faiths.

Among the Secularists there is a strong group, I would not call it a majority either, of atheists.

But in strict Judaism one of the principles of the faith is the existence of one god...

Another is that this god gave the Law to the people of Israel at Sinai.

Both principles require a god. And both are CENTRAL tennets of the faith.

They are like principles in other faiths, such as the virgin birth. They are not provable, Why they are called faith.

Of course all religions have folks who only attend shul, temple, church, what have you, only for births, deaths and high holidays... and there are people who are there every week. Those are still the minority in the US, even if the US is the most religious society of OECD economies. I posted Gallup's for this year where we are at 43% who attend church (includes all religions) regularly. It's inched up, it does that in economic stress.

[madrchsod]

3. i usually pay no attention to those....

who claim people of faith are somehow brainwashed.but sometimes i have to ask why i`m not worthy if i believe in christ`s universal message. i do not believe that christ is the son of god.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Well as nominally a Jew I don't either

alas that is a matter of belief... like the Law was given to the chosen people at Sinai...

Judaism has a few principles of faith... so do (insert version of christianity here), or any other religion. Most of those principles of faith do not pass a rationality test, but they were not meant to be rational, or for that matter testable. Why I don't even get into that discussion.

[haikugal]

9. .

If someone is talking about fundamentalists and their plans for our country and the world and you don't hold those same beliefs then the original remark is obviously not intended for you. I've listened to the culture war long enough that recognizing an authoritarian mind set, religious or not, is not good for our democracy...ie country is very easy to do.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. Re-read the OP please

this is speaking to a TREND to lump all practitioners of one faith with a very loud minority within that faith. One that incidentally does not see others within Christianity as followers of christ, let alone secularists, jews, and others completely outside the faith.

People need to be able to separate these guys from the rest.

[haikugal]

16. I think they do...

I've often been accused of lumping all Christians into one pot by people who are uncomfortable with what I said. I know the difference. I guess I need to see what you're talking about. Maybe you could include a link to an example.

I even try to be as clear as possible by saying Fundy Dominionist. The problem is that so many churches have been steeple jacked that they don't even realize that they are now teaching dominionist dogma.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. Hang around here for a while

you will find those examples. You really will.

[haikugal]

22. OK but what about my initial response?

How did I misunderstand the OP to the degree that it caused you to suggest I re-read it? I thought my remark was to the point. Just wondering.

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. My apologies

[haikugal]

28. Accepted....

however one is not required. My question was why you felt I needed to re-read the OP? I'd like to know.

[Goblinmonger]

40. I guess I take issue with the "minority" label.

Lots of people want to push the crazies into a small little group. Look a the numbers of people that believe in creationism in the US. Assuming that most of those are Christian (based on stats of how many people are Christian), then it is very likely that the majority of Christians believe in creationism.

[BrklynLiberal]

10. Eloquently said. Fanatics of any color, stripe, origin, faith, etc...are dangerous.

They always believe that their way is the only right way...and therefore are a threat to anyone who does not share that belief.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. I got to say my first contact

with a Jewish fundy was as a young EMT... and if I were not one....

Lets just say it was an ugly underside I got to see. I guess that was one of those... I knew they existed, but lord they are real!

This rise in fundamentalism is not just limited to the US. I suspect it is a reaction to modernity and how scary fast change is. As always a good explanation of why this may be happening is

The Chrysallis Effect, a wonderful book.

http://www.amazon.com/Chrysalis-Effect-Metamorphosis-Global-Culture/dp/1845193113

Yep this should be expected and yes, it too shall pass.

[BrklynLiberal]

35. Thanks for that link

[Boojatta]

205. Are you sure that is the reason?

They always believe that their way is the only right way...and therefore are a threat to anyone who does not share that belief.

For example, consider people who believe that "potato" is the only right way to spell that word. Are they a threat to others?

[Mojeoux]

14. "Fundy," I like it. Fundies deny science.

Their religious views and the agenda of Big Oil seem to complement each other. It works as well for warmongers and the mining industries. In the Middle East and the United States, religious "Fundies," Christian and Muslim, are disgusting.
Before we had a constitution here in America, the Fundies were witch burners.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. And for the record, our era will be known as ...

The Third Great Revival.

Thankfully, it too shall pass.

What is ironic is that it is a reaction to the massive changes we have seen, and yes peak oil...

[jwirr]

17. Thank you. Sometimes it can feel very threatening for anyone to

be part of a faith - any faith. My faith is personal and I do not expect anyone else to accept it as their faith. Yet I think I was born a liberal Democrat. My father taught us to love FDR and from there I get my political ethics. I think I am rambling because I really do not want to preach to anyone. However, I stay out of all the religious posts for self preservation. Yours is an exception as I really like your philosophy on most things.

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. Well it bothers me that there is a little bullying, to put it midly

why I raised the issue.

[skepticscott]

82. And please, not the

poor, victimized Christian meme too...that's old and tired and long discredited on this board.

[humblebum]

162. Yes you represent what you stand for quite well and most assuredly

are doing wonderful things to improve the image of the Democratic Party.

[Goblinmonger]

41. ....

:puke:

Sorry, I know this is going to seem to you like that which you rail against in your post, but, seriously? You guys are the majority in the country. You're the "cowboys," the "cops," the ones with the power. And then you want to come in here and tell me about feeling threatened?

:puke:

[darkstar3]

43. Believer privilege at work. n/t

[bananas]

48. "You guys" ???

I don't think she's a guy.
Maybe you should read the OP again.
Do you really feel threatened by atheist Jewish female cowboys?
"You guys are the majority in the country. You're the 'cowboys'..."
Oh noes, our country has been taken over by atheist Jewish female cowboys!
:scared: :scared: :scared:

[charlie]

51. Follow the dotted line that connects his post to the parent

Or click the "Response to" link in his post.

You won't find an atheist Jew at the other end.

[Goblinmonger]

55. Follow along here if you can.

1. My post was in response to jwirr, not the OP.
2. Yes, jwirr is a female.
3. My phrase "you guys" was aimed at people of faith, not a group of males. I'm sure you can understand the usage of that term. But, fine, if people are offended by that term as a generic and find it sexist, I will do my best to stop using it.

[Goblinmonger]

57. Oh, yeah, and btw

FAIL. Way to think you had some great point to make me look stupid and come off looking like the doofus.

[Codeine]

53. Must be hard being 90% of the population and in charge of everything.

Scary stuff I'd imagine. :scared:

[RagAss]

21. As long as they keep their cartoon beliefs out of government...I agree.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. So let me ask you

if I am a practicing Jew or Christian I am not allowed to serve in Government? Most members of Congress do believe in a deity... as most Americans. This is the most religious country in OECD ecnonomies. And most keep what they do on Friday night, Saturday or Sunday out of the rest of the week... a few don't. But does that mean that if I suddenly found Yahveh? Automatically I am not allowed to serve? realize most can keep things separate.

[RagAss]

37. Believing in a deity is one thing. Believing that said deity is working through you to govern me....

is schizophrenia !

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. And that is a real small but loud minority

[uppityperson]

27. "cartoon beliefs"? What do you mean. nt

[Withywindle]

29. K & R from a Pagan

I am a person of faith--but I do not worship a patriarchal One-God-Who-Of-Course-Is-Male-And-Favors-Male-Humans.

Yes, I know that faith is not entirely rational; that's why it's called "faith." My reasons for being religious are purely emotional, as far as I can tell - but that emotion exists in me, and I feel it strongly.

Atheists who don't feel it can't be persuaded to believe by arguments, and it's insulting to them to try to force it down their throats. I think it's rude and offensive to do so.

By the same token, believers who DO feel it won't be persuaded to change their minds by arguments either. Because faith is not a matter of science or logic. Faith is a matter of faith. Period.

I think atheists and people of faith will never change each others' minds, because they're speaking a vastly different language when they try to do so. I say this as a religious person raised by atheist parents. They are really different ways of, not just seeing the world, but FEELING it. I'm starting to think the difference is as inborn as right/left-handed, straight/gay, brown/blue eyes.

[immoderate]

98. I think you have it about right.

People's beliefs are embedded in their personality, like their favorite color or flavor of ice cream. I don't expect to change anyone's mind.

--imm

[Mimosa]

30. K&R: Tolerance is a good thing

I was brought up Catholic but made acquainted with all religions, including Reform Judaism. My mother was a liberal agnostic.

Yes, I believe I am a Christian. But every time I've taken one of those long version Belief quizzes, usually titled 'What religion are you, really?' it always comes out that I'm in line with Orthodox Judaism or something called Matrayana Buddhism. :)

Anyhow, I was brought up to be tolerant of the religious beliefs of others. And that discussion of politics and religions are best avoided among people one doesn't know. ;)

Two of my doctors are Muslims, of completely different sects.

I won't use the word 'fundie'. It's rude to denigrate people. If people of goodwill in some religion don't believe as I do, it's none of my business. Yet it's everybody's business when some people try to bring religion into the government of the United States.

[mr blur]

31. "Moderates" just make it possible for fundies to exist

It's no good saying, "I believe in superstition and the supernatural but I'm not extreme" - believing in the ridiculous is extreme.

[Withywindle]

32. My fellow Tom Verlaine fan, it's really not that simple.

The world is FULL of people who believe in some kind of "supernatural" something. It's not extreme. It's normal, in the sense of being the majority of humanity all over the world.

I'm one of them (Pagan). My faith is rooted in experiences I've had and the way my emotional brain chose to process those experiences. You won't talk me out of them, any more than I could talk you into them.

Believing in a spirit world does NOT necessarily = wanting religion to rule. I am a member of a minority religion, and I find that the RW "Christian" movement to take over government terrifying, because if the church/state division is erased, my very definitely non-middle-eastern-monotheism religion will suffer big time.

[bighart]

33. So where does tolerance of others fit into your worldview?

[skepticscott]

117. "Tolerance" ends

where other people's try to impose THEIR supernatural and unsupported worldview on those who do not share it. Savvy?

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. I will offer to you two free clues

1.- Religious belief of one sort of another has been around since oh ... at 40K years ago. Yes, there is evidence that humans worshiped something that far back. The Earth Mother is common... as well as bears and of course they did BURY the dead.

2.- Fundamentalist belief at this point is a reaction to the extremely fast changes we are living through... it is the FUNDIES that have to be confronted. Most people of faith... they will be with us as long as humanity exists. It may very well be... part of how the brain works.

Try tolerance it makes life better for everybody. We know fundies will not... let's not become them.

[Mimosa]

61. ^ Good clues, too ^

Mr. Blur, many people are members of a religion because of the landmarks through rituals which affirm to people that our lives have meaning. And perhaps bodily death does not mean total extinction of a beloved individual or oneself. :)

There's a phrase I forget in total which I heard from an Anglican priests. he said most people who may show up in pews mainly on easter and Christmas are the christen, marry and bury sort of Christians.

And their are Muslims who seldom go to mosque, Jews who seldom go to temple.

As a lapsed Catholic who lately has been appalled by some nonsense coming out of the Vatican, I understand and appreciate all the needs for religious faith.


I bet Nadia has also read Joseph Campbell a while back. ;)

[nadinbrzezinski]

79. I am more than just a fan of the Power of Myth

Yep, I have.

And the power of myth has become formula for fiction these days, starting with... Star Wars.

[immoderate]

99. Note though that all religions have proscriptions for heretics.

Which means that atheists have always been around. :)

--imm

[Nye Bevan]

36. 76% of people in the US are Christian

Deriding Christians for "believing in sky monsters" and calling them "fundies" is not the best way to win people over to our cause.

[Goblinmonger]

56. Only 16% believe

that humans evolved with no input from a god (i.e. evolution). I fell confidant in saying that the remaining 84% are either foolishlessly and willfully ignorant, completely stupid, or batshitcrazy.

[Nye Bevan]

60. So Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich, Ted Kennedy, John Paul Stevens, Howard Dean,

are (or in Ted's case, were) "foolishlessly and willfully ignorant, completely stupid, or batshitcrazy"? I guess you are smarter than all of these folk.

[Goblinmonger]

70. Red Herring Fail.

So when I am talking about statistical trends you want to argue by example.

OK

George Bush, George W. Bush, Dick Chaney, Fred Phelps, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Oral Roberts. I'm ahead 7-6.

Or perhaps you can stop being so intellectually dishonest and address what I was actually saying (unless you have some knowledge that the 6 you listed don't believe in evolution--which was my argument--in which case I will state that person is either foolishlessly and willfully ignorant, completely stupid or batshitcrazy. Though in the case of politicians, I would add pandering. Many of Obama's early writings paint him as much more non-religious than the current incarnation which is understandable given that atheists are the most hated minority in the US.

[humblebum]

126. Definitely not a red herring, but a necessary straw man and

quite pertinent to the argument.

[darkstar3]

129. Straw men are logical fallacies and therefore never necessary.

[trotsky]

133. They're absolutely necessary for him.

He'd have nothing to say if it wasn't for strawmen.

[humblebum]

134. Always such constructive replies. And yes there are times when strawmen are

quite valid, ie,"In debate, strategic use of a straw man can be very effective. A carefully constructed straw man can sometimes entice an unsuspecting opponent into defending a silly argument that he would not have tried to defend otherwise....The best straw man is not, in fact, a fallacy at all, but simply a logical extension or amplification of an argument your opponent has made."

[darkstar3]

135. Seriously?

Where is that quote from? The Idiot's Guide to Debate?

[laconicsax]

136. It's from a page that opens with:

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html">"This is a guide to using logical fallacies in debate. And when I say "using," I don't mean just pointing them out when opposing debaters commit them -- I mean deliberately committing them oneself, or finding ways to transform fallacious arguments into perfectly good ones."

Who would have guessed that our very own humblebum gets his material from a page on how to commit logical fallacies without getting caught. Apparently, not giving away your source isn't covered.

[darkstar3]

138. I don't think he's the only one who uses that site.

I've seen things from a few other posters here that could have been lifted from that website

[humblebum]

151. This is the source. One of several.

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

[laconicsax]

155. That's the same site I linked to.

Thanks for validating my claim.

[humblebum]

160. Perfectly legitimate scholarly website. It just makes you look incompetent, but

that's the breaks.

[laconicsax]

163. That's quite a loose definition of "scholarly website."

It's a page on an assistant economics professor's website hosted by Cal. State Northridge.

Nice argumentum ad verecundiam abd ad hominem though. Keep up the good work. Professor Whitman would be proud.

[humblebum]

168. The man's Curriculum Vitae would indicate that you really are

quite shallow in your assertions. Par for course I'd say.

[laconicsax]

171. Where in his CV does it mention his degree in philosophy?

Oh, that's right! It doesn't. He's an economist who is heavily involved in debate competitions. Not surprising since the page in question is a cheater's guide to not getting caught.

Logic (as it pertains to debates) is a discipline of philosophy, not economics. Nice try defending your appeal to authority though.

[humblebum]

175. A degree in philosophy is hardly a requirement for scholarly debate.

Any professor of economics or for that matter almost any social science is going to be grounded in a good deal of philosophy. Debating economics is very common. And considering that your entire response to the site has been one massive ad hominem against the source, I would have to say that you are evading the original argument quite nicely. Do you honestly think that his is the only source that holds the same opinions?

[laconicsax]

176. Whose argument am I evading? It certainly isn't yours.

If my repsonse were an ad hominem against the source, it would be attacking his character or motives, not his qualifications to the matter at hand (i.e. evaluating whether he is a valid source).

Again, an appeal to numbers. Looks like you already forgot that "no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right."

It's a page which gives advice on how to cheat without getting caught. This invalidates it as a source on conducting an honest debate.

[humblebum]

177. Don't look now but you just did it again. nt

it has nothing to do with "cheating", but everything to do with the skills of debate.

[laconicsax]

178. Do you know what "nt" means?

The only skill described on that page is how to cheat (intentionally use faulty reasoning) without getting caught. You keep dodging that issue with fallacy after fallacy, but that doesn't change the simple fact that logical fallacies are errors in reasoning, and therefore invalidate an argument. That is true regardless whether you get caught.

[humblebum]

179. In this case I think here it means nice try, but you are out of touch with the real world.

In real world debate, whether an argument is a fallacy or not is conditional. Another well used maxim of debate is that "carefully presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's argument is not always itself a fallacy. Instead, it restricts the scope of the opponent's argument, either to where the argument is no longer relevant or as a step of a proof by exhaustion." This applies perfectly here. BTW, concerning your cross section remark, we are talking religion, not income, not education, nothing else.

[laconicsax]

181. Sigh...more of the same fallacy.

You're bordering on the Big Lie here...nicely done.

And to your afterthought, even if we only pay attention to their religious beliefs, a group comprised entirely of non-Fundamentalist Christians isn't an accurate cross-section of society at large. Even if they're meant to be only representative of American Christians (saved you the trouble of shifting that goalpost), then the fact that half of them are Catholic shows that the group isn't an accurate cross-section of American Christians.

[humblebum]

182. I think the only criteria was christians, period. And that thing you call the big lie

is you denying reality again.

[laconicsax]

189. Well, since it's been refuted by that criteria, I expect you'll be admitting error any minute now...

[humblebum]

191. Well, since you stumbled a couple times to finally identify the proper criteria

and since you think you have refuted anything, I'll let you humor yourself. I've already shown my evidence and I haven't changed a thing. Whatever makes you happy.

[laconicsax]

192. I accept your apology. n/t

[humblebum]

194. Great dodge. nt

[darkstar3]

180. I think at this point it might be best not to feed it.

The bum has shown beyond doubt his dishonesty, not to mention ignorance of everything from simple terminology to proper debate form. Let him fall, and we'll use this as an object lesson for future readers.

[laconicsax]

187. He wants more rope, and I'm a generous person.

Things do seem to be winding down--the trap door opened and he hasn't realized it yet.

[trotsky]

142. Ha ha ha ha ha

Let's take a look at what you omitted and replaced by the ellipses:

"But this strategy only works if the straw man is not too different from the arguments your opponent has actually made, because a really outrageous straw man will be recognized as just that."

Yup, that's your tactic alright.
:rofl:

[humblebum]

145. Well, I would say that further justifies my assertion. Actually, in debate

it is a useful and acceptable method.

[darkstar3]

146. Only for those who cannot defend their points any other way, as admitted even on that site.

Even then, your statement only applies within a formal, time-limited, JUDGED debate. That site, and your claim, are all about slipping one past the judge in order to "win" that format.

[laconicsax]

147. Just like how taking steroids is a useful and acceptable method of winning athletic competitions.

Just like how using crib notes is a useful and acceptable method of passing an academic test.

As long as you don't get caught, you're good to go! Right?

You may have heard this quote before: "Our character is what we do when we think no one is looking."

[humblebum]

149. Now that is most definitely a straw man fallacy, however when

someone makes a blanket declaration that 84% of christians are "batshit crazy", it is a logical deduction that when a list of several prominent christians is presented, that a high percentage are numbered in that 84%, therefore, you have a straw man argument, but certainly no logical fallacy.

[laconicsax]

154. You are absolutely wrong. Here's why:

Suppose that the declaration, "84% of christians are batshit crazy," is true and applies to the US population. That would make roughly 37 million Christians who are not "batshit crazy" (assuming Christians make up approximately 75% of the US population). There's no logical reason why "a list of several prominent christians" cannot be comprised entirely of individuals within that pool of 37 million.

Suppose that the declaration, "84% of christians are batshit crazy," is true and applies to the global Christian population of 2.2 billion. That would make over 350 million Christians who are not "batshit crazy." As that number is greater than the entire US population, it would be relatively easy to compile "a list of several prominent christians" who aren't "batshit crazy."

You see, population statistics don't apply uniformly to all samples and cannot be accurately applied to very small sample sizes. Among my immediate family (n=9 including myself), exactly 3 are Christian. If population statistics applied uniformly to all samples, my immediate family (including myself) would be strong evidence that Christians are not a majority of the US population.

Finally, my analogies are certainly not straw men. You claim (parrot) that a using logical fallacy is an "acceptable and valid" way to win a debate provided no one catches you in the act. Since using a logical fallacy to win a debate is essentially cheating, steroid use and crib notes on a test are perfectly valid comparisons. Assigning a fallacy to an argument because you don't like the reminder that you subscribe to dishonest tactics doesn't make it true.

[humblebum]

159. Way to rationalize, but what you refer to as "dishonest tactics" are

really very common and acceptable. And if that 84% is representative of a random cross-section and given that politicians also represent a cross section, increased legitimacy is given to the argument.

[laconicsax]

173. Wrong, and wrong again.

First you start with an argumentum ad populum (technically it's ad numerum) which as your cheater's guide to not getting caught explains: "...no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right."

Whoops! Maybe you should have read that guide a little more closely.

As for a random cross-section, a list of six people hardly qualifies as an appropriate sample size to evaluate a statement about Christians as a whole. Maybe professor Whitman can explain to you what an "n-value" is and why it invalidates that list as a representative cross-section. What's more, look at who is on that list:

By occupation:
20% are current or former Presidents of the US.
20% are current or former governors.
40% are current or former US Senators.
20% are current or former US Representatives.
20% are current or former Supreme Court justices.

By race/ethnicity.
80% are white
20% are "biracial."

By religion:
100% are Christian

By income:
100% earn (or earned) over $150,000 per year for the last 5 years of employment.

Does that look like a representative cross-section of the US population to you? Are there really over 60 million current or former Supreme Court justices? Does everyone in this country really earn over $150,000?

[cleanhippie]

190. BOOKMARKING!!!!! Priceless quotes!

Wow, un-fucking-believable. Saving this for later.

[humblebum]

201. The quotes also haven't a thing to do with the subject referenced.

they are a true straw man argument. The only criteria derived from Nye Bevan's post are the US and Christian. No other conditions apply. Hippie, how you can manage to speak with both feet in your mouth is beyond me.

[cleanhippie]

210. Hahahahahaha! Nice try, but no cigar.

I do not even need a witty retort here. Your posts are self-evident and I would only diminish from their greatness by commenting further. Thank you, bumble, thank you very, very much.

[GeorgeGist]

42. I'll try to remember that

in principle, people don't really believe in religion or God.

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. In principle most do actually

though going to church, synagogue, what have you, is down in the US... it is still the HIGHEST among OECD economies. And MOST people who attend any kind of church are Christian of one variety or another.

A very loud and small minority, think Foxx and Bachman, truly believe that God is working through them and they indeed can decide for you and me in the name of the Lord. Those have to be confronted... but they are a SMALL minority.

[darkstar3]

46. We're not them, we're better!

Sorry, I'm not buying it.

Moderates and fundies, as we'll call them for now, have more in common with each other than either would like to admit. Let's get the differences out of the way first:
Fundies believe moderates will burn in hell.
Fundies believe in a more confrontational and vindictive God.

But there are SO many similarities.
The two believe in the same trinity.
The two believe in heaven and hell (and differ only on who will go to each.)
The two believe that their religion, and only their religion, is the right one. (Though the rewards for being "right" sometimes differ)
The two pick and choose which parts of the Bible to interpret literally, which parts to interpret as metaphor, and which to ignore. (literal: Jesus is always the son of God for Christians. metaphor: Jonah may or may not have actually spent three days in a whale, depending on who you ask. ignore: Kosher laws.)
The two believe that God and his message should govern their actions, even when their actions include voting on public policy.

This list goes on much further than I care to elaborate. My point is that the difference between fundies and moderates has very little to do with belief and a whole lot to do with attitude. There are 3 problems with this:
1. Any division between fundy and moderate is sketchy at best since the two share so many beliefs.
2. Fundies, regardless of their stripe, are empowered by the acceptance of moderates and their beliefs into society at large. Once people accept the fundy beliefs through the moderates, then all they have to do is change their attitude.
3. The angrier, more defensive, and more condescending a moderate becomes, let's say on a message board for example, the more fundy their attitude appears. This is happening more and more today, because as the world gets smaller moderates are being challenged more and more on articles of faith about which they are already insecure.

[trotsky]

50. ...

[Nye Bevan]

59. So Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich, Ted Kennedy, John Paul Stevens, Howard Dean,

are (or were) similar to "Fundies"?

[darkstar3]

62. Your overused fallacy deserves only one response.

:eyes:

[Nye Bevan]

64. That's a great smilie. But one of the following two statements has to be true, doesn't it?

Either

1. It is possible for someone to follow the Christian faith *without* being similar to a fundie;

or

2. Dennis Kucinich is similar to a fundie. And so is/was everyone in the Kennedy family, including JFK and Ted.

I happen to believe that the first statement is true. I realize that you are in the fairly awkward position that statement (1) is the opposite of what you just posted, and statement (2) just looks absurd. So posting an eyeroll smilie was indeed your best strategy.

[trotsky]

65. FYI, you totally missed the point of ds3's post.

Perhaps you might want to read it again and address the points; explain why moderates are truly different than fundies and how ds3 was wrong about something.

If you can, that is.

[Nye Bevan]

73. Sorry, my mistake.

When he said "but there are SO many similarities" I thought he was saying that moderates were similar to Fundies.

Mea culpa.

[trotsky]

76. So I guess you are just choosing to miss the point.

Those are some pretty tough questions - can't blame you for avoiding them.

[Nye Bevan]

77. I only have one response to avoid tough questions.

:eyes:

[trotsky]

78. I'm sure Jesus is proud of you. n/t

[darkstar3]

97. Oh, no, you've painted me into a corner!

Whatever shall I do?!?! :sarcasm: <- since I'm sure you needed it.

Trotsky's right. You totally missed the point of my post #46. If you had actually taken the time to think about the points raised there instead of just knee-jerking and posting a red herring, you would have realized that your statement (2) doesn't look absurd at all.

To be clear, yes, I'm saying Dennis Kucinich is similar to a fundie.

Assuming that you're still reading this and your head hasn't exploded, you're probably wondering how I could be so callous. Well, if you'd bothered to read #46 you would know that there is very little difference between so-called fundies and so-called moderates, and that difference is rooted in attitude, not actual beliefs.

Oh, and BTW, you might want to go back and read point 3 from #46. ;)

[Nye Bevan]

100. Would you consider casting your vote for a neo-fundie in a presidential election? (nt)

[darkstar3]

101. I would ask:

How is that question relevant?

WTF is a "neo-fundie"?

I say "I would ask" because frankly, given that this is a diversion on your part preceded by a red herring, I don't really care what your answers would be. If you have something non-fallacious to say in response to #46, we can discuss it, but otherwise I'm not interested.

DO you have something non-fallacious to say in response to #46?

[Nye Bevan]

114. I would say:

I can see why the mods like to hide away religion threads in this forum. Rantings about how Dennis Kucinich is "similar to a fundie" simply because he is a Catholic are a little embarrassing.

[darkstar3]

115. A simple "no" would have sufficed. n/t

[Codeine]

54. Moderates perpetuate and legitimize the blithering nonsense

that fundies (who are far more common than you pretend) use as a weapon against the comparatively small minority of non-believers and those of fringe faiths. The moderate Xtian will always side with his fundie brother when the rubber hits the road.

[GOPBasher]

66. This atheist rec's this. n/t

[AsahinaKimi]

75. This Buddhist rec's this also. n/t

[wryter2000]

67. Thank you!

K&freaking R. This agnostic Episcopalian salutes you.

:yourock:

[quarbis]

68. Christians or christians

There are tons of small c but very of capital Christians
Their attitudes and lack of believe in what Jesus said

[quarbis]

69. I am a

Gnostic/Deist I believe in a Prime mover

[Goblinmonger]

71. No True Scotsman in 68

I would have guess much lower.

[Atypical Liberal]

72. I don't care if you want to believe in magic or not

But the second you let your belief in magic influence the political process, or government policy, especially education, then I have a problem.

[nadinbrzezinski]

80. And I can name those with the fingers of ONE hand

in national politics.

Foxx and Bachman come to mind, in the Senate Brownback... but they are a VERY SMALL minority. Loud. I'll grant you, and they have to be confronted. But most people in this country who happen to believe in something keep it separate. In fact, that is the main criticism from the loud mouths and why we are all going to hell! That little recognition about secularism is really scary for the real loudmouths.

[skepticscott]

84. And how many more Republicans than that

attend and suck up to the Values Voters conference and other similar fundamentalist events? Get back to us when you're done counting.

[nadinbrzezinski]

87. Far from the MAJORITY OF AMERICANS

let's start with this reality... how many Americans are even involved in politics? The Majority? no... so let's start there.

The influence is higher than it should be... but majority, hardly. In fact, EXTREMIST movements are MINORITY movements, this is a HISTORIC reality.

So your question should be how to get these RADICALIZED MINORITY back where they belong...

[skepticscott]

89. I said NOTHING about Americans in general

so stop your intellectual dishonesty in mischaracterizing my position. I was responding to YOUR post about how many fundamentalist Christians there are in national politics. You claimed that there were no more than 5. That's demonstrably false, and if you paid any attention to the activities of the Christian right, you'd know that.

Please stop making arrogant declarations of fact about topics that you're woefully uninformed about.

[nadinbrzezinski]

91. Well in the course of human events

it reaches the point where you and I cannot have a discusion. So good bye. I am not here mischaracterizing you... and you seem to think so... good bye

I sugest you do the same.

[Goblinmonger]

96. That's some serious weaksauce

You: There are no more than 5 fundies in national politics
SS: That's bullshit and you know it. There are more than 5.
You: I'm done talking to you because we can't have a discussion.

THAT'S your limit? Being called on your gross mischaracterization of the extent of the religious crazies?

[skepticscott]

106. Since you seem determined to

make bogus claims and then take your ball and go home when you're asked to back them up with evidence, you're right. It's not worth trying to have a discussion with you. I think GD is a better environment for your kind of unsupported pontificating, because it won't fly on this board.

[Goblinmonger]

95. Gay marriage ban?

Prop 8? That's NOT a minority. And that is only one example.

[PassingFair]

109. ONE hand? Really?

You must not attend many official "Prayer Breakfasts"
in D.C.


images?q=tbn:sKcNkkbehfV_HM:

[Atypical Liberal]

118. Nice qualifier there...

>national politics.

Give me a break. How many times have I shook my head in disgust after hearing about another school board who is up in arms about teaching evolution or intelligent design? How many times have I heard about how we can't have gay marriage because someone thinks god disapproves? How many times have I heard we can't have the choice of abortion because someone thinks god disapproves?

I could go on and on.

[DeSwiss]

102. I've started.....

...several different responses to your post and in the end I decided to post none of them. And while I understand what you're saying and why, I couldn't disagree more with the premise of one muting one's responses, because to do otherwise would be like saying lemons and lemonade are the same thing. The one sour, bitter and difficult to swallow -- and the other only made tolerable because someone's added sugar to their beliefs.

So I'll not clutter-up this thread with my reasons, cogent as I think they are, but suffice it to say nobody gets a pass in life for what they believe. Or don't believe. Even the bible tells Christians that much. But in the end rather than quoting me, I'll let someone else speak who has already addressed this issue. And quite well I think:

"Religious moderation is the product of secular knowledge and scriptural ignorance ... by failing to live by the letter of the texts (religious holy books), while tolerating the irrationality of those who do, religious moderates betray faith and reason equally." ~Sam Harris - "The End of Faith"

DeSwiss

[nadinbrzezinski]

103. And I will tell you this

most folks who go to church, temple, or mosque to pray once a week, once a month, or for funerals, births and high holidays are not the ones you need to worry about. They are not the ones who will try to impose their religion on you in a secular state. Nor should we place tests for service.

It is the fundies (of any and all faiths) that we have to worry, since those are the ones that need to be confronted every day of the week and twice on whatever holy day of the week you chose. So you will try to impose your belief that there is no magical being in the sky? I mean that path leads to all good intentions, but not necessarily good. And in fact it is the same path somebody like Bachman would love for you... except in her case it is her Personal God that is talking to her and telling her that yes you are going to hell and need to be saved...

Most people of faith do not follow in her category... like most atheists do not follow your path either.

[DeSwiss]

104. I'm not an atheist.

And you missed the point, but no matter.

Most often do.....

[nadinbrzezinski]

111. So what is the point?

That we should confront people of faith for their faith?

[DeSwiss]

120. You said nothing about "confronting" anyone in your original post.

You referred to it as "giving them a break." Which reminded me of the 50s and 60s. My own past.

Then, another large group of people got a break even though most of them abhorred what others were doing to those who wanted the same rights as everyone else -- but they remained silent then, just as many do now. They refused to challenge the status quo. Refused to challenge the way in which the their secular institutions and religious beliefs were being twisted to conform to the view of reality held by a few.

They were wrong then to remain silent. To fail to vociferously speak out to remind everyone that it was not their place to judge others, only to love them. Just as moderate Christians and religionists are wrong to remain silent now.

That was my point.

[Sal316]

108. That quote proves Harris is a moron.....

....who believes just like the fundies do. His atheism is a mirror of the theology it opposes, and, quite honestly, it's a childish and simple one.

Anyone who agrees with Harris on this is the same.

[skepticscott]

110. And because you say it

it must be so. The tired old argument that people like Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens are attacking a distorted and ridiculous theology and version of Christianity that hardly anybody actually adheres to has been so thoroughly debunked (here and elsewhere) that you should be ashamed to try to float it again. And if you're arguing that Harris' atheism is opposing the theology of moderate and liberal Christians too, then you must be arguing that their theology is "childish and simple" as well. At least you're right about that.

[AlecBGreen]

128. is this what you truly mean to say SS?

"And if you're arguing that Harris' atheism is opposing the theology of moderate and liberal Christians too, then you must be arguing that their theology is "childish and simple" as well. At least you're right about that."

Moderate & liberal theology is childish & simple?

[skepticscott]

130. When it is based

on the existence of a god which still cannot be adequately demonstrated, despite 2000 years of trying to do so, then what exactly does Xstian theology amount to? A security blanket, crafted to make people feel better about holding beliefs they ultimately can't justify or defend. An elaborately designed security blanket, to be sure, with lots of frills and lace, but in the end, nothing more than that. And as such, not inaccurately characterized.

[AlecBGreen]

131. ok gotcha

"When it is based on the existence of a god which still cannot be adequately demonstrated, despite 2000 years of trying to do so, then what exactly does Xstian theology amount to?" It goes without saying that the existence of God has been 'proven' to most Christians, however the threshold for what counts as acceptable evidence is a big difference b/w most believers and atheists.

"A security blanket, crafted to make people feel better about holding beliefs they ultimately can't justify or defend." My belief in God has improved my quality of life. I would not call it a security blanket because that has an insulting connotation to me personally. I can both justify and defend my faith to anyone who is willing to listen but as I said before, what I consider evidence of the existence of God others may not.

Thank you for taking the time to clarify.

[skepticscott]

132. Try a little thought experiment

And assume that the Christian god didn't really exist outside of the mind of his believers, any more than Thor, Hera. Make-Make, Baal or any of the others you're unconvinced of. Then ask yourself what meaning the voluminous works of Christian theology would have in that case, other than what I've said. Ask yourself what good it would be and why people would need it in that case.

And then consider that even if your Xstian god did really exist, if theology were not based on actual understanding of that being (as opposed to presumed understanding) that it would still be meaningless except as a feel-good.

[cleanhippie]

139. ok, I don't gotcha...

You seem to admit that you do not require the same "evidence" to believe in your god that you require for everything else in your life. Why is that?

[AlecBGreen]

140. Yes, I do admit that

though why I have a double standard I cannot say for certain.

This is an imperfect analogy but its what first comes to mind: I love my wife. Why? Hard to say. I can think of things she DOES and ways she BEHAVES that make me feel good, but deep down, why do I love her? I dont know. I just do. I was head-over-heels for her the moment I laid eyes on her but looking back I cant say why. I just was and still am. Now this is an imperfect analogy because I am talking about something subjective (feelings of love) versus something objective (the reality of the existence of God) but internally, it feels the same. It is a feeling of unshakable certainty. God just IS and its not something I can explain or express well, but it is a fact to me. Of course this boils down to how I define & conceptualize God.

i understand how confounding and frustrating it might be to hear me say these things. To some it might sound delusional, hypocritical, whatever. I admit it makes no sense, but to me, it just IS.

[skepticscott]

141. Well, if it

"boils down to how I define & conceptualize God", then the reality of his existence is hardly "objective", now is it? "A feeling" is not evidence of objective reality, it is purely subjective.

[AlecBGreen]

143. I believe reality has dualistic properties

It can be both simultaneously objective (it is what it is) & subjective (perception is reality). I acknowledge the existence of God separate from my own existence, yet my knowledge of God is inextricably linked with my subjective perception, interpretation & interaction with reality. Furthermore, the theological issues become complex for Christians because we are taught that we are one with Christ. We are in him, he in us, and he in the Father. So are we part of God, separate, or both? I go with a wholehearted, utterly confused response of BOTH.

You might ask, "Can God exist without you?" To me this is an impossibility. I believe in predetermination; the past, present & future are fixed. Its hard to enunciate just what I mean by this, but it would be akin to asking, "What would you be like if you had a different mother and father?" I am a product of my mother and father and therefore if I had different parents, I wouldnt be I. (as an aside, Jesus' statement "I am the I am" has led me nearly to aneurisms in trying to figure out just what the heck he meant). The universe was created through God and, all through the 14 billion years before my birth, reality was awaiting my arrival (man that sounds arrogant, doesnt it?!). It was determined at the moment of creation that I would be here. How could things be different? Feel free to tell me if Im rambling and nonsensical :)

"A "feeling" is not evidence of objective reality, it is purely subjective." As I said, perception and reality are linked. If I feel the temperature is too high, it IS hot. The temperature obviously is what it is, but to me, it IS hot. My reality has been shaped by my subjective interpretation.

This is the blessing & curse of the R/T forum. It seems like no discussion can go more than a few threads deep without getting down to the real nuts and bolts of our beliefs re: reality.

[skepticscott]

156. Of course, what most people refuse to admit

about their religion is that it is just an invention of their minds, as is their theology. My point all along.

[AlecBGreen]

164. I freely admit it is a possibility

nt

[humblebum]

202. And what you need to admit is that you really have no objective basis

to make such a brazen statement. None. Purely based on subjective opinion, an opinion that was formed by using a prohibitively narrow epistemology, which has no possibility of assessing anything other than what can be physically sensed. And of course we know what the senses are, don't we? I(we)don't claim to be able to objectively prove diety, but neither can you claim to prove the opposite.

[Name removed]

203. Deleted message

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

[humblebum]

206. "Can't be physically sensed"- I think we have been here before.

Ah yes. If it cannot be sensed (seen, heard, tasted, smelled, or touched), then it can't exist. And you are doing more than withholding acceptance. You made the declarative statement, "that it is just an invention of their minds." That sir is subjective opinion and does not qualify as proof of anything. Just because you say so does not make it so. What a joke. I can respect "I don't know" but "I know" is nothing but bunk.

[KaoriMitsubishi]

107. Do moderate christians really deserve a break?

I think not. This guy says it best for me.

Christian Cherry Pickers & Fundamentalist Enablers

[nadinbrzezinski]

112. Do moderate anything deserve a break?

Yes. They are not the problem... but do carry on. Become a mirror image of the fundies.

[DeSwiss]

121. Excellent video. TY n/t

[kwassa]

122. Do moderate atheists deserve a break?

No, they enable the dogmatic, or as some say, the fundamentalist atheists to ply their animosity and bigotry.

[darkstar3]

124. And what dogmas do these dogmatic atheists adhere to?

What fundamental texts or precepts form the core of their belief system?

(Hint: Atheism =/= belief system.)

[varkam]

125. More than that, whose rights are offended by the lack of a faith?

[cleanhippie]

137. What dogma is that? I hear a lot of accusations like that but never can get anyone to spell it out.

what dogma do the "fundamentalist" adhere to? Please, tell me what that is...

[AlecBGreen]

144. I can offer an answer but I think you wont/dont like it

A dogmatic, fundamentalist atheist (:hide:) is one who is utterly convinced that God DOES NOT EXIST and attempts to convince others of this fact. They are unwavering in their belief.

Through conversations with many here on the R/T, I have found that most self-proclaimed atheists would not apply this label to themself. Most atheists here (correct me if Im wrong) 'do not believe in God' as opposed to having an active belief in the non-existence of God.

[skepticscott]

148. You speak of "God"

arrogantly, as if the one god (out of thousands) that you personally believe in is the only one worth considering, and as if disbelief in YOUR god is the only thing that rises to the level of "dogmatic, fundamentalist atheism". Why is that?

[cleanhippie]

150. I think that you nailed it. Alec is a fundamental atheist!

Alec is actually much more of a "fundamental atheist" than any atheist I know. Considering that he flatly rejects the existence of any other god except his, he is "utterly convinced that" all other "God(s) DOES NOT EXIST and attempts to convince others of this fact."
Congrats, Alec, you are officially a fundamentalist atheist. Well done.

I think that this also applies to all beleivers. I guess the "fundamental atheist" bit was just projection!

[humblebum]

153. Is that the same as a militant atheist or

is a militant atheist a fundamental atheist with an attitude?

[skepticscott]

157. Still puzzling over the difference between

atheism and anti-theism, I see. You really should try to sort that out before you type too much more.

[humblebum]

161. ????? nt

[skepticscott]

169. Your reply

says it all. A hundred yeses could hardly have answered more eloquently.

[AlecBGreen]

166. I am!?

eep! :yoiks:

Actually, being an atheist could be a good thing. Now me and yall can finally be on the same team :) Atheist party at Alec's house! :party: Details to follow. :toast:

[cleanhippie]

183. Hehe!

I was using the definition you supplies for a "fundamental atheist". Going by that, and your prior posts on your beliefs, I was able to surmise that you are a fundamental atheist when it comes to all but one of the believed in gods. Is that a fair assessment?

[AlecBGreen]

185. yes that is accurate

"you are a fundamental atheist when it comes to all but one of the believed in gods"

The real question is... should I be a militant fundamentalist Christian atheist?

[cleanhippie]

199. What does that mean?

Not really sure what you mean by that. Can you better define it?

[AlecBGreen]

200. you mean this?

"The real question is... should I be a militant fundamentalist Christian atheist?"

Just tried to be funny and failed :7

[AlecBGreen]

165. you raise a good point

If someone says, "I dont believe in Baal" would they be considered an atheist? And (in line w/ what CH said in reply to you) since I Alec dont believe in Baal, does that make me an atheist? I would say no to both.

[skepticscott]

170. Which cleverly dodges the real question

of why only someone who doesn't believe in YOUR god merits YOUR label of "dogmatic, fundamentalist atheist" (as per your post 144 above). Apparently you don't think that people who disbelieve in any other god should be so labeled, or that they should be labeled even as "atheist". Care to explain?

[AlecBGreen]

172. you give me too much credit SS!

not cleverly avoided, lazily avoided the question. I was thinking of your question (roughly, why would I call people who dont believe in 'my' God atheists). I had just started a youtube video on astronomy and it was really good so I skipped writing a longer answer. I just finished it so Ill answer your question.

When I say God, I am referring to the God of the Abrahamic religions. In modern discourse, this is what I assume most people mean when they say 'God.' There could be people who worship Odin and or Baal or whatever and call he/she/it God but they are a rarity IMO. Hindus believe in many gods and Buddhists none. Not too familiar with other religions but I think thats the vast majority of believers worldwide right there in those groups. So thats why i refer to people who dont believe in my Abrahamic God as atheists. Thats the only God we are all talking about as far as I can tell.

If you are interested in Astronomy, the video was really informative. Its about the current understanding of cosmology, the study of the universe. Its quite long (1hr+) but I really enjoyed it. You can see it here if that sounds like something that would interest you. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo). One of the neat things he (Lawrence Krauss) said was that in the far distant future, the universe will be expanding so fast and will be so large that any observers in our galaxy will be unable to see any other galaxies and will have no signs of the cosmic background radiation and thus will not have any idea of the Big Bang or other galaxies out there. I thought that was a pretty neat fact, albeit rather depressing.

[skepticscott]

188. Which STILL leaves the question unanswered

of why you only assign the label of "dogmatic, fundamentalist atheist" to people who are convinced that YOUR god doesn't exist, and not to people who are just as strongly convinced of the non-existence of other gods. Why is the latter group not "dogmatic" and "fundamentalist" too?

[AlecBGreen]

195. see post 185

Technically speaking I could apply that label those who believe in the Abrahamic God but not Baal, Odin, etc, myself included.

(my post 185) "It is accurate to say) (I am) a fundamental atheist when it comes to all but one of the believed in gods"

Practically speaking since so few people worship other Gods (with the exception of Hindus) I use the term atheist to refer to those who dont believe in the Abrahamic God.

[skepticscott]

204. Nice dodge, but

since that "so few" amounts to over a billion people, it falls a little flat. I can see you have a deep-seeded need to avoid a direct answer, so I won't waste my time expecting more from you.

[AlecBGreen]

208. what are you talking about?

What billion people am I missing here? In this country and throughout the rest of the world, of those who believe in a (one) God, nearly all believe in the Abrahamic God: Christians, Muslims and Jews. Of the rest, Hindus are polytheistic, Buddhists and atheists are atheistic. That leaves the non-religious (we're not talking about them), Sikhs and Baha'is (I know little about them) and OTHER religions (11%). Are you talking about the 'other religions?' 11% of 6 billion ~660 million. Of those, how many do you think are monotheistic worhsippers of one God?

Here is my point: I say "God" in reference to the Abrahamic God because that is the God who the majority of the world and the majority of American believers follow. We seem to be having a problem of miscommunicating. Sorry you feel like you've wasted your time.

[laconicsax]

174. There's a great quote about that:

"We're all atheists about most of the gods humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." -Richard Dawkins

[cleanhippie]

184. Perfect.

[Jim__]

113. I agree.

Attacking all religious people for the actions of a few is ridiculous. It's also politically stupid.

[skepticscott]

116. And how few are

"a few"? Give us your assessment of the percentage of Xstian fundamentalists in this country and in Congress, based on the incessant promotion of creationism and prayer in public schools, the obsession with "under god" in the Pledge of Allegiance, the rampant hatred of homosexuals and the stifling of gay marriage rights, and the ceaseless trumpeting that this is a "Christian Nation" (among other things).

[Manifestor_of_Light]

119. Where I live they are all fundies.

Anti intellectual and incurious.

Their answer to everything is "Gawddiddit!"

:banghead:

[kwassa]

123. Where I am very few Christians are fundies.

My church is liberal, like many others.

[laconicsax]

158. To both of you:

Where you live is not representative of the entire country.

Polls consistently have fundy creationists as about 40% of the US population or a little over 50% of all Christians. This distribution is NOT uniform, so there will be places with tons of fundy creationists and places with very few. Manifestor_of_Light's situation and your situation are evidence of this.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

207. Yes, it does depend on where you live,

as to which kind of Christians are in the majority.

In fundy areas, there may be churches or universities with moderate or liberal denomination labels, but they are really fundy.

For example, DH went to the University of Tulsa which is allegedly a Presbyterian college. He told me they had fundies running the PHYSICS DEPARTMENT!! He was earning a master's degree there.

:wtf: How in the hell do you have a fundy physics department?

I graduated from a very good small university that was Presbyterian, and my experience was quite different from his. And I've argued with fundies that said that my problem with religion was those courses I took at that Presbyterian college, where all the religion professors had gone to Harvard or Princeton. Definitely NOT fundy.

The bible courses were not about pounding doctrine into your head, unlike the classes down the street at Incarnate Word College, which was Catholic.

The bible courses were about history and linguistics in multiple ancient languages.

[AlecBGreen]

167. I have been posting to this thread for some time now

and never got around to replying to your OP. I agree with you NB. I think most practitioners of most religions are peaceful people who want to live and let live. Dont get me wrong, there are aspects of humanity that I would like to see change but I wont hold a gun to your head to cause that change.

[cleanhippie]

186. You make a good point.

if you "think most practitioners of most religions are peaceful people who want to live and let live", then why don't you and the rest of those "practitioners of most religions are peaceful people who want to live and let live' ever stand up to and call out the very vocal, very powerful, alleged minority that feel differently? :shrug:

Silence often implies approval, and in the case of religion, I think it does just that considering the damage that that allegedly small minority is doing.

[AlecBGreen]

196. I do stand up

When one of my Christian friends espouses something I find abhorrent (the treatment of homosexuals is the prime example) I do speak up. In this way I have convinced several friends, including nonbelievers, that homosexuality is not an aberation and they are deserving of equal protection and recognition.

"Silence often implies approval..." I agree. One of my best high school teachers and now a colleague of mine once said, "What you permit, you promote." That has always stuck with me. It is hard for me to confront others because I was raised in a very nonconfrontational house but its something that must be done and Im trying to improve. The atheist movement is actually inspiring to me in this way. It isnt always easy to stand up to bullying and the derogatory remarks made by some Christians but many atheists are taking a stand and I admire their determination.

[cleanhippie]

198. Then I applaud your efforts. Where are the rest of those that think like you?

If you and those that think like you ARE the true majority in your religion, where are they? Why does your congregation and the (I assume) thousands of other "liberal" congregations allow this "minority" to run the show?

[AlecBGreen]

209. There is firm pushback CH but its not sexy

It happens in Bible studies, discussions, over cups of coffee etc. My former Lutheran church's state synod had a big confrontation over homosexuality that almost tore it apart. Eventually the progressives 'won' but I think no national press covered it so you the layperson far away would never know about it.

I agree we need national exposure in confronting the extreme right-wing believers in the country. There is progress however and it is beginning to show, especially the movement for 'creation care' and the acceptance of homosexuals.

[cleanhippie]

211. I cannot disagree with you.