When I wrote the above, I first declared myself a fundamentalist, but deleted it because I wanted to see if anyone else would point it out. You're the winner!Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn24
When I wrote the above, I first declared myself a fundamentalist, but deleted it because I wanted to see if anyone else would point it out. You're the winner!Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn24
-1Quote:
Originally Posted by Utopian
I am an atheist. I firmly and strictly adhere to the belief that your beliefs are false IF they cannot or will not be shown.
Big difference in that 'if'. Fundamentalists will change their minds under no circumstances and that is what defines it. Not what one believes or how passionately, but whether there is room for change, room for reason.
I guess I assumed that to be an agnostic.Quote:
Originally Posted by xman
BTW, when I wrote "your beliefs," I was directing it at a Christian.
You can be agnostic and atheist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Utopian
Fundamentalist is not a belief, but a state of mind. Take the religous belief away from a fundamentalist Christian, Jew or Muslim and you would still have a person who thinks fundamentally. Even though they have no particular belief or the belief in non believing, in the case of agnostics and atheists, they really can't change their cognitive maturity level.Quote:
Originally Posted by NYCshaver
Fundamentalist meaning they are concrete thinkers and not capable of abstract thought.
I totally agree with that. I've met and seen my fair share of fundamentalist americans, british and dutch people for instance.
All believing that which ever country they were putting forward was the best regardless of evidence.
And 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.
No-one is calling all atheists fundamentalists.....but there are atheists that are fundamentalists.
Quoting the great atheist advocate Richard Dawkins:
Implying that it's also possible for someone who doesn't believe in anything to continue in that state regardless of evidence.Quote:
"The true scientist, however passionately he may “believe”, in evolution for example, knows exactly what would change his mind: evidence! The fundamentalist knows that nothing will."[41]
Richard Dawkins, "How dare you call me a fundamentalist: The right to criticize ‘faith-heads’," The Times, May 12, 2007
Something is not necissarily false if it cannot be shown. For example, the beleif that a god exists is not false. It cannot be shown that god exists, but the opposite is also true. You can disagree with the beleif of the existance of a god, but based on what we know / don't know today, under no circumstance can it be said that the beleif of the existance of a god is false.Quote:
Originally Posted by xman
And you definitely cannot say that a beleif is false if it will not be shown, because it's impossible to predict what will and won't be shown in the future.
You know the old saying-"if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to see it did it fall"?
Do you think other animals believe in some supreme being or is it just us? If we could really communicate with a Chimp for instance what do you think they would say about this? Would their answer have implications?
Think about it.
This is hypothetical of course but surely Chimps would think that the higher power is Chimp. And surely they would also think that they are on the top ladder of the evolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by thebigspendur
*So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish*
Yes, I took that meaning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Utopian
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingfish
I quite imagine, if they had a need for such abstraction which I bet they don't, that they would see us as some kind of gods. Mostly I think they view us as curious, industrious, complicated and dangerous animals.Quote:
Originally Posted by thebigspendur
A lot of Atheists are starting to "worship" the flying spaghetti monster...Quote:
Originally Posted by xman
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.
So you are saying there is good evidence for god and atheists are ignoring it?Quote:
Originally Posted by LX_Emergency
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by NYCshaver
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.
once again ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn24
Quote:
Originally Posted by xman
Actually.....do the fundamentals have to be widely agreed upon? I don't see any reason why they should be.Quote:
Originally Posted by xman
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,:deadhorse: I'm talking about fundamentalism as a state of mind, not about whether religions are or can be true.
If an atheist started a church of any kind, they would suddenly no longer be an atheist.Quote:
Originally Posted by LX_Emergency
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. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by LX_Emergency
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.
:deadhorse:
We're just repeating what we already said by using different words.
Claiming that there are no fundamentals can be a fundamental....Quote:
Originally Posted by xman
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by LX_Emergency
He said:Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn24
"And by that definition, yes there ARE fundamentalist atheists"
Looks like he's saying there are ones.
What discussion? I didn't say anything about religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by LX_Emergency
Why not just look at the definition of fundamentalism
Definition of FUNDAMENTALISM
1 a often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching
b : the beliefs of this movement
c : adherence to such beliefs
2 : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles <Islamic fundamentalism> <political fundamentalism>
Atheism doesn't meet any of those.
I see no reasoning behind your statements X, only accusations.
If you look at meaning 2 that you so kindly provided. A set of basic principles can be anything. Yes, two religions are named as examples. But does that automatically mean that it's only religions that qualify? I see no reason why.Quote:
Originally Posted by NYCshaver
As for why I claimed you brought religion into it?
Seem pretty obvious to me.Quote:
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?
By all definitions I've seen a fundamentalist is someone who adheres or would adhere to the basics of his/her beliefs regardless of evidence.
That means anyone can be a fundamentalist, regardless of what he does or doesn't believe.
Xavier, I'm not being stubborn and rigid, I'm simply doing what you claim to be doing, sticking to what I believe untill someone proves otherwise. So far...no one could.
It meets number 2 like LX points out, wiki carries the description of fundamentalism a little further: "The term has since been generalized to mean strong adherence to any set of beliefs in the face of criticism or unpopularity". Atheism definitely fits that, especially the in the face of unpopularity part since a very small percentage of people world wide believe in atheism, its very unpopular. I am not saying atheism is wrong, I dont KNOW one way or the other but popular it is not, and fundamentist it is. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by NYCshaver
You'll believe what you like.
I think we all are just turning circles here :argue:
I see fundamentalim more as an intolerance to accept and deal with those who think differently. Specially with religious matters.
And just like only small minority of Christians or Muslims are fundamentalists, incapable and unwilling to deal with those who do not share their religious beliefs. Maybe it happens with atheists too :shrug:
As for Jason, atheism is no unpopular, at least here. More and more people are resigning from the Lutherian Church. Tens of thousands during the last year only, and it is a huge number here. While it is true that some, but not many, are taking back their ancient Scandinavian Gods, turn into Islam, Hindu, or any other God, their number is relatively small. Most do not look after any Gods but live happily there after.
I do not fall into any of these categories as i am an agnostic. Yet i've always been most interested in religious topics. I see them mostly as cultural issues or at least it depends on where you live.
I also think that the world has room enough for any kind of beliefs, or lack of them, as long as they treat each other with respect, and keep their beliefs just what they are: beliefs or the way to see the world.
Damn we've come far from the OP. Maybe it is a sign of good conversation :beer2:
There you go. Not I'm not saying that an atheist is by definition a fundamentalist. Just that it's possible for an atheist to be one just like it's possible for anyone to be a fundamentalist regardless of what they believe in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasongreat
From the small bits i have read here i think this thread is breaking the No1 internet rule - do not discuss religion - its pointless each will stand his ground and never change his opinion no matter what.
I have many friends, who attended catholic church as part of their growing up and education, I'm right in saying that non of them attend church now and would only do so to appease their, in some cases, strict parents.
I too have been to church for family occasions but i refuse to say the prayers and bow my head but i do like to sing from time to time.
I'm quite happy and comforted by my atheism and, although i disagree, i dont make it my goal to antagonise, or even argue to the point of frustration, any believers. There is simply no point.
have a happy day all of you :)
ian
This thread has been locked for Moderator review