Thread: Gallup Poll: 4 in 10 believe man created by God 10,000 years ago

Originally Posted by xman

There are no fundamentals of atheism, no dogma, no book, no anointed bishops, etc.

A lot of Atheists are starting to "worship" the flying spaghetti monster...

I'm surprised no one brought up the flying spaghetti monster or pastafarianism within these pages, especially since the thread started talking about people wanting creatioanism to be tought as science... It's exactly what started pastafarianism in 2005, which is gaining hugely in popularity among atheists.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

7And by that definition, yes there ARE fundamentalist atheists who even IF evidence was shown to them regarding de existance of a god....would still not believe it and come up with an alternate story i.e. it must've been a trick, you're lying to me, I must have been drugged etc etc.

So you are saying there is good evidence for god and atheists are ignoring it?

Wouldn't that make every atheist a fundamentalist by your definition?

If you aren't saying there is good evidence for god then how can you make the claim that an atheist would ignore it?

Originally Posted by NYCshaver

So you are saying there is good evidence for god and atheists are ignoring it?

Wouldn't that make every atheist a fundamentalist by your definition?

If you aren't saying there is good evidence for god then how can you make the claim that an atheist would ignore it?

That is NOT what he is saying.

I invite you to please re-read the post. It is a hypothetical situation, trying to point out how an atheist CAN be a fundamentalist.

Originally Posted by Glenn24

It is a hypothetical situation, trying to point out how an atheist CAN be a fundamentalist.

once again ...

Originally Posted by xman

This is simply incorrect. There are no fundamentals of atheism, no dogma, no book, no anointed bishops, etc. As mentioned, an atheist may be fervent, passionate, even unyielding, but 'fundamentalist' is attributing a quality which is technically absent. At best it may be metaphorical.

Originally Posted by xman

This is simply incorrect. There are no fundamentals of atheism, no dogma, no book, no anointed bishops, etc. As mentioned, an atheist may be fervent, passionate, even unyielding, but 'fundamentalist' is attributing a quality which is technically absent. At best it may be metaphorical.

Actually.....do the fundamentals have to be widely agreed upon? I don't see any reason why they should be.

If some man started a one-man-church he could still be a fundamentalist even though his ideas wouldn't be widely agreed upon. I think it could be the same for any atheist. If any person would cling to any belief in the face of evidence proving that his beliefs are false I think he'd be a fundamentalist.

And NO, NYCshaver, I'm NOT getting into that discussion, I'm talking about fundamentalism as a state of mind, not about whether religions are or can be true.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

If some man started a one-man-church he could still be a fundamentalist even though his ideas wouldn't be widely agreed upon. I think it could be the same for any atheist.

If an atheist started a church of any kind, they would suddenly no longer be an atheist.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

If any person would cling to any belief in the face of evidence proving that his beliefs are false I think he'd be a fundamentalist.

You may think what you like, but you'd be misdefining it. that person might be a fool and a damned stubborn one at that, but without fundaments ... well, it wouldn't sit right.

It would be incorrect to refer to 'Passionate' or even 'Militant' Atheists as 'Fundamentalist'. The reality is that an Atheist, no matter how whole heartedly he or she may believe in evolution, would readily change their position if presented with the evidence to denounce it. Nothing will change the position of a fundamentalist.

This thread is going no where.



We're just repeating what we already said by using different words.

Originally Posted by xman

If an atheist started a church of any kind, they would suddenly no longer be an atheist.


You may think what you like, but you'd be misdefining it. that person might be a fool and a damned stubborn one at that, but without fundaments ... well, it wouldn't sit right.

Claiming that there are no fundamentals can be a fundamental....

And I wasn't talking about an atheist starting a church. I was talking about your definition of fundamentals. Where you claimed that fundamentals have to be written down or agreed upon by a large group. I don't think this is true.

Even those who claim they have no beliefs have at least the belief that they have no beliefs.

Humans always make up fundamentals, it's how we percieve the world. We make up generic rules and adapt those when needed.

Someone who isn't able to adapt his rules in order to deal with the evidence presented is a fundamentalist. (And yes, a fool.) And there's nothing to say that he can't be an atheist.

Fundamentals can be as basic as "America is the best country in the world in all fields".

There are people that believe this regardless of evidence and that would make them fundamentalists.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

Claiming that there are no fundamentals ... would make them fundamentalists.

Still wrong. You're being rigid and stubborn, Alex. You want to redefine the language rather than learn and adapt. You're entitled to believe any mixed up jumble of ideas you like, but you might still wrong.