It's true. They have a dogma, and they always want to "win", either by converting theists to their dogma, or by ridiculing them if they won't comply. The call it "debating" but really it's preaching. You can spot them a mile off.

Oh yes.

I get really tired of hearing this from theists. Atheism is based on logic and reason, and theists cannot handle it. They have no good arguments anymore.

I get really tired of hearing this from theists. Atheism is based on logic and reason, and theists cannot handle it. They have no good arguments anymore.




Sir I approached you on some scientific items, tou were not able to answer "I am an artist " Heve you worked on some development project ? There is a good amount of faith in the outcome , which means believe ( you cross your finger for the outcome )
I am a believer in my work , I approach my work with knowledge , I don't trow things together and hope an angel will mix and make a miracle.
If this is how you think of us believers in science , you are wrong.

I get really tired of hearing this from theists. Atheism is based on logic and reason, and theists cannot handle it. They have no good arguments anymore.

Translation :

Atheism is true and therefore you theists are wrong and therefore stupid.

All you atheists ever do (some of you) is whine about how other people's methods of coming to their conclusions differ from yours. It's you who can't handle it, not us. You can't stand the idea that not everyone agrees with your views, so you preach and preach and call it "debate" when really all you want to do is get everyone to agree with you. You're insecure.

All you atheists ever do (some of you) is whine about how other people's methods of coming to their conclusions differ from yours. It's you who can't handle it, not us. You can't stand the idea that not everyone agrees with your views, so you preach and preach and call it "debate" when really all you want to do is get everyone to agree with you. You're insecure.
Ha! Who's whining? :D

There are some people who preach to the opposite side of the spectrum from both sides.
I think it's best to say where you sit on the fence and why, offering reasoning and logic.

I like to ask questions out of genuine curiosity. Unfortunately some people from the opposite side sometimes see this as preaching.


Translation :

Atheism is true and therefore you theists are wrong and therefore stupid.

All you atheists ever do (some of you) is whine about how other people's methods of coming to their conclusions differ from yours.

Its hard for a lot of people to grasp how others got there though. Reasoning, logic and probable causes seem to be avoided a lot from some people.

Sir I approached you on some scientific items, tou were not able to answer "I am an artist " Heve you worked on some development project ? There is a good amount of faith in the outcome , which means believe ( you cross your finger for the outcome )
I am a believer in my work , I approach my work with knowledge , I don't trow things together and hope an angel will mix and make a miracle.
If this is how you think of us believers in science , you are wrong.
I suppose you think that my atheism is based on science having a full and complete explanation of the origin of life? I would be an atheist without that for many other reasons.


Translation :

Atheism is true and therefore you theists are wrong and therefore stupid.

All you atheists ever do (some of you) is whine about how other people's methods of coming to their conclusions differ from yours. It's you who can't handle it, not us. You can't stand the idea that not everyone agrees with your views, so you preach and preach and call it "debate" when really all you want to do is get everyone to agree with you. You're insecure.

Is every method of investigation equally valid? I suggest that logic and reason are not simply cultural differences, but are indeed more valid than "methods" of faith in making models of the universe because the results are evident. Of course I want people to agree with me, that's the whole point of debating things. If I were insecure, I would say as you do that perhaps everything is true no matter how outlandish and unsupported.

Some atheists are just like religious fundamentalists

I think that's true, but probably not in the sense that you intend.


It's true. They have a dogma, and they always want to "win", either by converting theists to their dogma, or by ridiculing them if they won't comply. The call it "debating" but really it's preaching. You can spot them a mile off.

You seem to be implying that atheists should remain silent while Christians (or Muslims or whatever) preach. But why should an atheist be passive? Why shouldn't they state what their own position is and argue vigorously for it?

Having said that, I do agree with you that some fraction of militant atheists do resemble religious fundamentalists. One simularity is both groups' burning passion about religion.

Huge numbers of nominal Christians are more interested in football than in church on Sundays, while most secular unbelievers don't pay a whole lot of attention to religion and aren't particularly interested in it. There isn't a whole lot of difference between these two groups and they get along fine together.

But the bible-waving fundies and the fire-breathing atheists do care. They care a whole lot. That's an important simularity between them.

Many of the louder atheists seem to spend an inordinate amount of time studying their bibles and quoting bible verses. But the intention now is to discredit Christianity, not to preach it.

More subtly, some of the militant atheists seem to read and understand their bibles in fundamentalist ways. These atheists are staunch upholders of biblical literalism and vocal opponents of allegorical forms of hermeneutics. Atheists can be just as opposed as the fundamentalists are to what both dismissively call "picking and choosing" which bible verses to believe and honor.

I still recall the rather memorable experience of being lectured by atheists on an atheist discussion board on what "true" Christianity is and isn't.

My own theory is that many of these louder and more militant atheists are former fundamentalists who subsequently lost their faith. That sense of loss and oftentimes a sense of betrayal are what fuel their passion and sometimes their anger. And perhaps more often than they are aware, their thinking about religion still follows the old familiar channels of their youth.

Good post.
Kellisness should take note. Especially this bit:


Huge numbers of nominal Christians are more interested in football than in church on Sundays, while most secular unbelievers don't pay a whole lot of attention to religion and aren't particularly interested in it. There isn't a whole lot of difference between these two groups and they get along fine together.

Of course some atheists have an axe to grind about theism, but it's because we are paying attention to it's evils. There is nothing wrong with being an activist for your cause. The problem with fundamentalism isn't that they want to change people's minds, it's a problem with the fundamentals of their religion.

It's true. They have a dogma, and they always want to "win", either by converting theists to their dogma, or by ridiculing them if they won't comply. The call it "debating" but really it's preaching. You can spot them a mile off.

Have you only just worked this out?

jan.

Typical theistic projection. They don't understand the roots of science, reason, or logic, so they conclude atheists are just as irrational as they are. It's like confusing a police SWAT team with an execution squad, they see only the surface qualities and have no conception of context.

You seem to be implying that atheists should remain silent while Christians (or Muslims or whatever) preach. But why should an atheist be passive? Why shouldn't they state what their own position is and argue vigorously for it?

And why should they state what their own position is and argue vigorously for it?

To free mankind from religious tyranny.

What do atheists have to offer instead?

Whatever is left.

I think that's true, but probably not in the sense that you intend.



You seem to be implying that atheists should remain silent while Christians (or Muslims or whatever) preach. But why should an atheist be passive? Why shouldn't they state what their own position is and argue vigorously for it?

Having said that, I do agree with you that some fraction of militant atheists do resemble religious fundamentalists. One simularity is both groups' burning passion about religion.

Huge numbers of nominal Christians are more interested in football than in church on Sundays, while most secular unbelievers don't pay a whole lot of attention to religion and aren't particularly interested in it. There isn't a whole lot of difference between these two groups and they get along fine together.

But the bible-waving fundies and the fire-breathing atheists do care. They care a whole lot. That's an important simularity between them.

Many of the louder atheists seem to spend an inordinate amount of time studying their bibles and quoting bible verses. But the intention now is to discredit Christianity, not to preach it.

More subtly, some of the militant atheists seem to read and understand their bibles in fundamentalist ways. These atheists are staunch upholders of biblical literalism and vocal opponents of allegorical forms of hermeneutics. Atheists can be just as opposed as the fundamentalists are to what both dismissively call "picking and choosing" which bible verses to believe and honor.

I still recall the rather memorable experience of being lectured by atheists on an atheist discussion board on what "true" Christianity is and isn't.

My own theory is that many of these louder and more militant atheists are former fundamentalists who subsequently lost their faith. That sense of loss and oftentimes a sense of betrayal are what fuel their passion and sometimes their anger. And perhaps more often than they are aware, their thinking about religion still follows the old familiar channels of their youth.


I'm not implying that atheists should remain silent while theists preach. That's your interpretation of what I said, but it's not the case at all. I'm pointing out the fact that some atheists are preachy. I can see that you agree, but I'd like to point out a couple of things.

You ask, why should atheists be passive? You make it all sound as though there's some kind of battle going on. There isn't, not if you don't want there to be. If you want a battle against people with opposing views, you'll almost always find one, because preachy, self righteous people are everywhere and you'll always find a partner to do battle with. The typical error is when a preachy self rightous person assumes that everyone with an opposing view to theirs sees it as they do (a battle), and it makes them uncomfortable when they realise that their efforts to engage in battle are in vain.

You ask, why shouldn't atheists state their position and argue vigorously for it? Atheists are welcome to state their position. If they feel passionate and certain about their views, they are welcome to express themselves so. But many atheists cross the line and become preachy, and instead of just expressing opinions, they start arguing "for" their position, as though it's a game or a battle to be won or lost. It isn't. Seeing it in terms of a battle is the first sign of missing the point entirely. There really is nothing at stake, except pride for those who see it that way.


I love this paragraph of yours :


"My own theory is that many of these louder and more militant atheists are former fundamentalists who subsequently lost their faith. That sense of loss and oftentimes a sense of betrayal are what fuel their passion and sometimes their anger. And perhaps more often than they are aware, their thinking about religion still follows the old familiar channels of their youth."

Very well put. They've left the religion, but the fundamentalism is still a part of their character. And it's amazing just how oblivious they are to that. They honestly don't see it. If we were to take a religious zealot and turn them into an atheist, because of their zealous character, you'd only notice the difference because the lingo would change. These militant atheists and religious fundies are not opposites, they are opposames. Moderate people, that means atheists and theists who have their views but don't feel any compulsion to convert the world are in the middle of the spectrum, while atheist zealots and religious zealots are on the extreme yet they are the same.

And you can usually tell a zealot a mile off because when this is pointed out, it is they who respond angrily.

It's true. They have a dogma, and they always want to "win", either by converting theists to their dogma, or by ridiculing them if they won't comply. The call it "debating" but really it's preaching. You can spot them a mile off.

Dogma is made up all at once and set into stone, squashing any and all mystery, whereas science finds the real truths as it goes along, exulting in mystery and the solving of it. Atheism is both informed by science and by noting that theistic belief has nothing to inform it.

Dogma is for those ‘relying’ on nothing. Atheism doesn’t do this. To claim so is just a bad trick, which only really exposes it as the basis for believers, for that is where they got it.

The karma of paradoxes runs over the dogma of the Godma, ever the preordained result of making groundless pronouncements.

You ask, why shouldn't atheists state their position and argue vigorously for it? Atheists are welcome to state their position. If they feel passionate and certain about their views, they are welcome to express themselves so.
Versus:

But many atheists cross the line and become preachy, and instead of just expressing opinions, they start arguing "for" their position

So, on the one hand, it's okay and on the other it's really not.
(And you're still somewhat unclear of the meaning of "preach").

Do you think people should just express an opinion and leave it at that?

The use "preachy" is yet another word failure by Kellisness, again only betraying what Theists do in their straight out proclamations. Atheists provide actual information.

Theists unethically pronounce invisibles as theory, even fact, but all they are are notions. That is preaching, and it is dishonest, and they must do so so that the listeners will stay.

Nor can any Being be fundamental and first, anyway. They again halted at a 'word'.

It's true. They have a dogma, and they always want to "win", either by converting theists to their dogma, or by ridiculing them if they won't comply. The call it "debating" but really it's preaching. You can spot them a mile off.

Everybody is different. Wrapping stuff up in nice neat bows isn't going to enlighten anyone?

Though you did say "Some Atheists" so maybe my questions weight is a little off. . .

It's true. They have a dogma, and they always want to "win", either by converting theists to their dogma, or by ridiculing them if they won't comply. The call it "debating" but really it's preaching. You can spot them a mile off.
Of course, one could always fall back on hypocrisy...


[Personal opinion expressed]Ignorant bigot.

Kellishness doesn't debate or discuss, as has been shown in several threads, but can only make false generalizations and emotionalizations in lieu of having no specifics to counter with.

Anyone can see through this ploy, spotting it a mile off.

It's funny how when the words "preachy", "zealot" and "fundamentalist" crop up, so do dywydyr and sciwriter. Right on cue, too.

It's funny how when the words "preachy", "zealot" and "fundamentalist" crop up, so do dywydyr and sciwriter. Right on cue, too.
You mean because I directly quoted you? I used YOUR words and that somehow means something about me?
Yes, strange that... :rolleyes:

...You make it all sound as though there's some kind of battle going on. There isn't, not if you don't want there to be.

There is a battle going on, and Christians are waging it. If we don't fight, we all lose. We lose the separation between church and state, and women lose the right to choice, to name two obvious front lines.


...Seeing it in terms of a battle is the first sign of missing the point entirely. There really is nothing at stake, except pride for those who see it that way.
You cannot be more wrong. This is vitally important.



I love this paragraph of yours :


"My own theory is that many of these louder and more militant atheists are former fundamentalists who subsequently lost their faith. That sense of loss and oftentimes a sense of betrayal are what fuel their passion and sometimes their anger. And perhaps more often than they are aware, their thinking about religion still follows the old familiar channels of their youth."

Very well put. They've left the religion, but the fundamentalism is still a part of their character. And it's amazing just how oblivious they are to that. They honestly don't see it. If we were to take a religious zealot and turn them into an atheist, because of their zealous character, you'd only notice the difference because the lingo would change. These militant atheists and religious fundies are not opposites, they are opposames. Moderate people, that means atheists and theists who have their views but don't feel any compulsion to convert the world are in the middle of the spectrum, while atheist zealots and religious zealots are on the extreme yet they are the same.

And you can usually tell a zealot a mile off because when this is pointed out, it is they who respond angrily.

I know of only one former Christian who is now an atheist who might fit this description. But so what? All you are saying is that they once felt strongly about one thing, and now feel strongly about another. Wanting to influence the world is not inherently extreme. Democrats and Republicans do it on a daily basis.

It's funny how when the words "preachy", "zealot" and "fundamentalist" crop up, so do dywydyr and sciwriter. Right on cue, too.

Funny how passive aggressive you religious types can be.

It's funny how when the words "preachy", "zealot" and "fundamentalist" crop up, so do dywydyr and sciwriter. Right on cue, too.

Yet another non answer.

The illuminati of today are not those of the past, for they have mutated, some even picking up on notions that others falsely ascribed to them. Back then they were but scientists. The church and its scripture is basically immutable, still according to the myths of old; that is, the idea of Jehovah told wiped out the numerous Gods of old and became the new—the one and only, too.

Religion may not be burning scientists at the stake anymore, but if one thinks they’ve released their reign over science, one must ask why half the schools in the U.S. Are not allowed to teach evolution, why the U.S. Christian coalition is the most influential lobby against scientific progress in the world…

As for the illuminati of old, the obliteration of Catholicism was their central covenant. The brotherhood held that the superstitious dogma spewed forth by the church was mankind’s greatest enemy. They feared that if religion continued to promote pious myth as absolute fact, scientific progress would halt, and mankind would be doomed to an ignorant future of senseless holy wars. And, I might add to the above, much like we see today.

So, Bush killed stem cell research and went to war against Iraq after consulting with a ‘Higher Father’; holy wars now being everywhere, as ever, since how could the other religions be so wrong!

Those trying to hold a monopoly on truth cannot help but to label the contrary as evil, and, thus, act accordingly. So, we do have to worry, still, when the church wants to be the sole interpreter of the ‘truth’.

Spidergoat, read what you've written. You've just said :

There's a battle going on
[the other side] are waging it
If we don't fight, we lose [and they win]
Front lines
Influencing the world

You sound ridiculous, it's like listening to Hitler. It's laughable, get over it, otherwise you'll spend the rest of your life being stressed. Most people don't give a flying fuck what views others have, they just get on with their own lives, and they don't see diversity as a battle or the world as a battleground. If a minority want to do battle with each other, good, let them kill each other. They have the choice of walking away and doing their own thing, as does everyone. You need to take a chill pill. And just so you know, I'm not religious. You are more religious than I'll ever be and you don't see it.

It's funny how when the words "preachy", "zealot" and "fundamentalist" crop up, so do dywydyr and sciwriter. Right on cue, too.
So are you going to answer the points raised or just carry on arm-waving, whining and preaching?
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2707157&postcount=24

The Christians are working every day to put creationism in our textbooks, erode the rights of women, and bend over for the corporate elite to pollute and wage class warfare on the poor and middle class. You can bury your head in the sand, but I will live in the reality-based world, thanks anyway.

Spidergoat, read what you've written.
he did. You evidently didn't:

they just get on with their own lives, and they don't see diversity as a battle


We lose the separation between church and state, and women lose the right to choice, to name two obvious front lines.
Where will your "diversity" be then?

Seeing it in terms of a battle is the first sign of missing the point entirely. There really is nothing at stake, except pride for those who see it that way.
I disagree.
http://ncse.com/news/2009/04/setback-science-education-texas-004710

I'm sure when the Allies started to attack Germany, Kellisness was like, "look at those Americans bombing stuff and killing people, they are no different from Nazis!".

The Christians are working every day to put creationism in our textbooks, erode the rights of women, and bend over for the corporate elite to pollute and wage class warfare on the poor and middle class. You can bury your head in the sand, but I will live in the reality-based world, thanks anyway.

Spoken like a true militant. Yeah, you go, little soldier! Don't forget to ask mummy to pack you off with a nice packed lunch for the great battle, and let me know how it goes.

And still no rational response.
Still a failure to add anything substantial.

What was it the OP said about resorting to ridicule?

Spoken like a true militant. Yeah, you go, little soldier! Don't forget to ask mummy to pack you off with a nice packed lunch for the great battle, and let me know how it goes.

Are you trying to make people angry so they fit your stereotype? I just think theism doesn't fit observed facts, call me crazy. I think the founding fathers were right in forming a secular nation, I think science is the best method yet discovered for finding out objective facts about the universe, and I think superstition has been responsible for some of the worst atrocities of mankind. Should I show you the video of people getting burned alive in Africa recently for witchcraft? And it wasn't any great bonfire, either, they started with a few sticks and shrubs. One man was fully conscious and forced to sit there while his legs were being slowly consumed by the intermittent flames. This is our future if we don't stand up for reason.

Flawed and arbitrary concepts of good and truth only cause the contrary to be labeled as evil.

Ah, thought Galileo, as he wandered past the deserted and flower-grown ruins of Rome, one night, this looks to be the same now as it will and was a thousand years before and after me. Would that there could be a day when science was free, when the once great Roman glory would pale beside that brightest light of day!

Galileo looked about and around and behind; no one was following him to his ultra secret lair, where other scientists would join him again on this starry night, safe therein to congregate and discuss the topics forbidden by the Vatican.

Spoken like a true militant. Yeah, you go, little soldier! Don't forget to ask mummy to pack you off with a nice packed lunch for the great battle, and let me know how it goes.
Looks like someone needs to take a good look at themselves in the mirror, man.

Are you trying to make people angry so they fit your stereotype? I just think theism doesn't fit observed facts, call me crazy. I think the founding fathers were right in forming a secular nation, I think science is the best method yet discovered for finding out objective facts about the universe, and I think superstition has been responsible for some of the worst atrocities of mankind. Should I show you the video of people getting burned alive in Africa recently for witchcraft? And it wasn't any great bonfire, either, they started with a few sticks and shrubs. One man was fully conscious and forced to sit there while his legs were being slowly consumed by the intermittent flames. This is our future if we don't stand up for reason.

I'm sure the world will be a utopia once your regime is up and running, and woe betide anyone who disagrees with it.

Looks like someone needs to take a good look at themselves in the mirror, man.

I just did. I look great. I could do with a shave, but hey, some females like a bit of stubble.

Still (making attempts at) using ridicule,rather than addressing the point.
Are hypocrisy and blind ignorance your sole resources?

I just did. I look great. I could do with a shave, but hey, some females like a bit of stubble.
Well, as Michael Jackson once said, "If you want to make the world a better place, take a look at yourself and make that change."

Well, as Michael Jackson once said, "If you want to make the world a better place, take a look at yourself and make that change."

Michael Jackson, musical genius, what a legend.

Michael Jackson, musical genius, what a legend.
His life was a messed up train wreck, but he did have an occassional insight. And this song's insight was "don't become what you don't like in others." Just sayin...

This thread is going nowhere fast. Why is that? Who is the face of this debacle lol?

His life was a messed up train wreck, but he did have an occassional insight. And this song's insight was "don't become what you don't like in others." Just sayin...

Absolutely. That's basically what the thread is about.

I'm sure the world will be a utopia once your regime is up and running, and woe betide anyone who disagrees with it.

Yes, they will feel the wrath of my... reasonableness and belief in religious freedom.

Yes, they will feel the wrath of my... reasonableness and belief in religious freedom.

Glad to hear it.

This thread is going nowhere fast.
Was it ever going to go anywhere?
It was started purely so someone could whine and display his hypocrisy.

Yes, they will feel the wrath of my... reasonableness and belief in religious freedom.

All hail Spidergoat, our most reasonable and benevolet leader!:worship:

Glad to hear it.

I'm glad to hear that you're glad to hear it. :D

We could all have short, meaningless posts if we imitated Kellishness.

I'm glad to hear that you're glad to hear it. :D

That fills my heart with gladness.

Sciwriter, get a life, mate.

Nothing, talks to me, I can feel it in my bones.

Meaningless posts in very droll voices

Meaningless posts in very droll voices
Stop it!
:spank:

That's actually quite poetic.

Stop it!
:spank:

Suits you sir :o

Suits you sir :o
It doesn't.
I'm going to have that damn song going through my head for ages now.
:bawl:

It doesn't.
I'm going to have that damn song going through my head for ages now.
:bawl:

Maybe it well help you recover from this thread . . .

That fills my heart with gladness.

Sciwriter, get a life, mate.

Another bad assumption.

I have one:

http://www.toequest.com/forum/anecdotal-stories/5594-life-revealed.html

Maybe it well help you recover from this thread . . .
So would a bullet through the brain.
Neither of them is a method I'd choose though. ;)

Galileo noted the ancient sculptures still standing against mouldering time, knowing that the new scientists arriving, if they were worthily smart enough, would have to use the clues provided as the way to the secret meeting place, for there was no map made and never would be.

As the word of this scientific brotherhood began to spread, scientists would travel thousands of miles but upon the slim hope of chancing a glance through Galileo’s fine telescope and discussing the master’s many ideas.

As Galileo wandered among the ruins made one with nature in their decay, or gazed on the praxitelean shapes that thronged the capitol, and the palaces of Rome, his minding soul imbibed all the forms, this loveliness becoming a portion of himself, as well as its science, even right here, within the realm of the Pope’s Holiness that shadowed him—much as the darkness of night condemned the day.

Another bad assumption.

I have one:

http://www.toequest.com/forum/anecdotal-stories/5594-life-revealed.html

Very nice too.

I will respond to your post on my thread once I figured through it and digested. Late now; I'll look at it after work tomorrow.

Galileo noted the ancient sculptures still standing against mouldering time, knowing that the new scientists arriving, if they were worthily smart enough, would have to use the clues provided as the way to the secret meeting place, for there was no map made and never would be.

As the word of this scientific brotherhood began to spread, scientists would travel thousands of miles but upon the slim hope of chancing a glance through Galileo’s fine telescope and discussing the master’s many ideas.

As Galileo wandered among the ruins made one with nature in their decay, or gazed on the praxitelean shapes that thronged the capitol, and the palaces of Rome, his minding soul imbibed all the forms, this loveliness becoming a portion of himself, as well as its science, even right here, within the realm of the Pope’s Holiness that shadowed him—much as the darkness of night condemned the day.

Great, no hammer needed then!

I've now got images of abraded busts singing Beegees songs, help!

It's true. They have a dogma, and they always want to "win", either by converting theists to their dogma, or by ridiculing them if they won't comply. The call it "debating" but really it's preaching. You can spot them a mile off.

Fundamentalists behave like fundamentalists. Film at 11.

I love this paragraph of yours :


"Yazata - My own theory is that many of these louder and more militant atheists are former fundamentalists who subsequently lost their faith. That sense of loss and oftentimes a sense of betrayal are what fuel their passion and sometimes their anger. And perhaps more often than they are aware, their thinking about religion still follows the old familiar channels of their youth."

Very well put. They've left the religion, but the fundamentalism is still a part of their character. And it's amazing just how oblivious they are to that.

What about the ones who were never religious? Please don't make the assumption all atheists are ex-Christians.

Great, no hammer needed then!

Many had been burned before, thought Galileo, so ‘tis a difficult path to follow, yet the truth calls me forward… and so he had published the ‘Starry Messenger’. Later on, Galileo had argued that the Bible had to be interpreted in the light of what science had shown to be true.

Galileo had several opponents and they made sure that a copy of the ‘Letter to Castelli’ was sent to the inquisition in Rome. In 1616 Galileo wrote the ‘Letter to the Grand Duchess’ which vigorously attacked the followers of Aristotle. In this work, which he addressed to the Grand Duchess Christina of Lorraine, he argued strongly for a non-literal interpretation of holy scripture when the literal interpretation would contradict facts about the physical world proved by mathematical science.

The fundamental scientist who, and which, as always, with science inadvertently promotes atheism…

…

Galileo walked on slowly, for his health had become poor, and noted the setting moon—the sky would be wonderfully dark. He would soon be found guilty and condemned, but he knew none of that this night. The eventual ‘Father of Science’ again sat with the scientific illuminati of his time, the discussions as free and glorious as ever…

He was later put under house arrest in his home in Florence, having by then nearly gone blind, but the starry memories of the Milky Way, the moons of Jupiter, and more, remained in a mind still free—that which could never be taken away by ‘Dogma’.

His body was concealed, and only placed in a fine tomb in a church in 1737 by the civil authorities, against the wishes of many in the church.

On 31 October 1992, 350 years after Galileo’s death, Pope John Paul II gave an address on behalf of the Catholic Church in which he admitted that errors had been made by the theological advisors in the case of Galileo. He declared the Galileo case closed, but he did not admit that the Church was wrong to convict Galileo on a charge of heresy because of his belief that the Earth rotates round the sun.

‘Twas here, his final resting place, in a church… at last enshrined as the Father of science. Embellished, as the master in stone, he’s ever looking up whence forth came the light from the starry skies.

(The end, unless you want more.)

In my experience Atheists are rarely, if ever, fundamentalists. They just believe that the "No God" position better explains the world.

But if you asked Richard Dawkins, for example, an outspoken Atheist, if there could be a a god, he says well of course there could be. Nobody knows for sure.

Thread necromancy.

In my experience Atheists are rarely, if ever, fundamentalists. They just believe that the "No God" position better explains the world.

But if you asked Richard Dawkins, for example, an outspoken Atheist, if there could be a a god, he says well of course there could be. Nobody knows for sure.
yeah he is so unbiased that I hear that the title for his next book is "the atheist delusion"

Yes he is biased. But unlike most people, including your good self (with apologies) he states his biases up front.

And are you saying everyone else is dispassionate, including the religious clergy?

Yes he is biased. But unlike most people, including your good self (with apologies) he states his biases up front.

And are you saying everyone else is dispassionate, including the religious clergy?

Dawkins isn't biased. If there was evidence for creation, he would be a creationist. He would change his mind if the evidence compelled him to.

This is one of the most fundamental differences between believers and non-believers. Believers are opposed to new ideas, and consider faith a virtue. They take pride in their ability to maintain that faith no matter what, to overcome doubt. Non-believers think faith is a weakness, and find stubborn rigidity detrimental.

In my experience Atheists are rarely, if ever, fundamentalists.

Our experiences apparently have been a little different. My view is that some (not all and not the majority of) atheists do appear rather similar to religious fundamentalists. It's entirely possible for a person to be what amounts to an atheist fundamentalist. They are common on the internet.


They just believe that the "No God" position better explains the world.

Or at least they hold the opinion that the "God" position lacks credible justification. Sure, many/most atheists are pretty relaxed and simply don't believe in 'God'. I include myself in that group.

But a certain percentage of atheists do push their non-theism much further along towards broad anti-religious passion. Some atheists are as consumed by their anti-religious passion as the fundies are consumed by religious emotion. These kind of atheists don't just placidly lack belief, they are angry, dismissive and occasionally rather aggressive.

And more subtly, some atheists just seem to conceptualize religion as if it was Christianity, and Christianity as if it was a Protestant-style Biblicism. You'll find a certain kind of atheist studying their Bibles just as intently as the Christian fundies do, and reading them in the same highly literalistic way. There's a similar hostility to allegorical interpretation, a similar disinterest in non-Christian religiosity and blank incomprehension towards the Christian contemplative traditions.

These kind of atheists don't just placidly lack belief, they are angry, dismissive and occasionally rather aggressive.

And many, but not all, have very valid reasons for feeling that way about religion. Religious apologists don't help by making demonstrably false claim after demonstrably false claim either.

Our experiences apparently have been a little different. My view is that some (not all and not the majority of) atheists do appear rather similar to religious fundamentalists. It's entirely possible for a person to be what amounts to an atheist fundamentalist. They are common on the internet.

What exactly is an atheist fundamentalist? Define that for me. Because fundamentalism is defined as a "strict or literal adherence to a set of principals." The reason it is considered dangerous among religious sects is that religious texts are very dangerous when read literally and followed strictly.

What are the principals of atheism? Is atheism principled?


Or at least they hold the opinion that the "God" position lacks credible justification. Sure, many/most atheists are pretty relaxed and simply don't believe in 'God'. I include myself in that group.

[quote]But a certain percentage of atheists do push their non-theism much further along towards broad anti-religious passion. Some atheists are as consumed by their anti-religious passion as the fundies are consumed by religious emotion. These kind of atheists don't just placidly lack belief, they are angry, dismissive and occasionally rather aggressive.

And what's wrong with that? Why should atheists be placid in their belief? You do understand that American atheists live in a country where we are surrounded by religious iconography in public space, to the point where our children are asked to pledge allegiance "under God" at school, and homosexuals are barred from the institution of marriage because of religious opposition. And this says nothing of the multicultural nightmare you find in parts of Europe.

Why on earth should atheists remain silent?


And more subtly, some atheists just seem to conceptualize religion as if it was Christianity, and Christianity as if it was a Protestant-style Biblicism. You'll find a certain kind of atheist studying their Bibles just as intently as the Christian fundies do, and reading them in the same highly literalistic way. There's a similar hostility to allegorical interpretation, a similar disinterest in non-Christian religiosity and blank incomprehension towards the Christian contemplative traditions.

I don't think that's true. I think there's an emphasis on Christianity in the US because that's the dominant religion, and the one that threatens equality. It doesn't have anything to do with people lumping all religion in with Christianity, it's simply a matter of atheists taking aim at the most prominent and hostile religions.

it's simply a matter of atheists taking aim at the most prominent and hostile religions.

The biggest target collects the most arrows.

The biggest target collects the most arrows.

Exactly! This is the same faith that spreads propaganda about a cancer-preventing vaccine because it "doesn't do enough to discourage sex," and wants to ban contraception. Are we supposed to just sit back and take that?

And let's face it, what is christianity if not a big, fat target for criticism?

These kind of atheists don't just placidly lack belief, they are angry, dismissive and occasionally rather aggressive. And many, but not all, have very valid reasons for feeling that way about religion.

There are some angry, dismissive and occasionally rather aggressive theists.
And there are some angry, dismissive and occasionally rather aggressive atheists.

Practically, there isn't really any difference between the two of them: one cannot have a civilized conversation with either.


Or do you believe that anger, dismissiveness and aggressiveness are signs of being civilized and advanced?

Yes he is biased. But unlike most people, including your good self (with apologies) he states his biases up front.

So in advance explaining and apologizing that you are about to slap a person, makes it okay to slap them?



And are you saying everyone else is dispassionate, including the religious clergy?

Certainly every person is invested in their own cause.
It's not possible to pursue something and be simultaneously dispassionate about it.

Although different people do exhibit different degrees of anger, contempt, hostility and other negative emotion in relation to those who seem to be opposed to their cause.

A fundamentalist of any kind, theist or atheist, usually harbors a lot of anger, contempt, hostility and other negative emotion in relation to those who seem to be opposed to their cause.

@wynn --

I think that anger and whatnot are human emotions that are experienced by all humans given the "proper" stimulus(and what that stimulus is depends on the person and the circumstance). All I was saying is that there are those, like myself, who were not only lied to our entire childhood by people we're supposed to be able to trust above all others, but that they did so based on a false premise. Beyond that many of those same people then tell us that we're "less" than human or somehow worthy of scorn. And beyond even that we have many of those same people trying to force their beliefs and inchoate moral systems down our throats, by force many times. I think that we have every right to be angry.

Besides, it's not dismissiveness if we've heard the arguments hundreds(if not thousands) of times before. At that point we're merely going on precedence. In my years of debating theology and religion, I've only heard one new argument coming from the theist side of the equation.

@wynn --

I think that anger and whatnot are human emotions that are experienced by all humans given the "proper" stimulus(and what that stimulus is depends on the person and the circumstance). All I was saying is that there are those, like myself, who were not only lied to our entire childhood by people we're supposed to be able to trust above all others, but that they did so based on a false premise. Beyond that many of those same people then tell us that we're "less" than human or somehow worthy of scorn. And beyond even that we have many of those same people trying to force their beliefs and inchoate moral systems down our throats, by force many times. I think that we have every right to be angry.

Besides, it's not dismissiveness if we've heard the arguments hundreds(if not thousands) of times before. At that point we're merely going on precedence. In my years of debating theology and religion, I've only heard one new argument coming from the theist side of the equation.

Here, some people would suggest that you are attached to the wrong things, the wrong people, or for the wrong reasons ... and that the problem is, essentially, yours.

It's not possible to pursue something and be simultaneously dispassionate about it.
That's perfectly possible. Sometimes one has to pursue something.


A fundamentalist of any kind, theist or atheist..
Please explain what a fundamentalist atheist is.

That's perfectly possible. Sometimes one has to pursue something.

Need doesn't preclude passion.



Please explain what a fundamentalist atheist is.

I said:

A fundamentalist of any kind, theist or atheist, usually harbors a lot of anger, contempt, hostility and other negative emotion in relation to those who seem to be opposed to their cause.

Need doesn't preclude passion.
It doesn't require it either. The point is, one can pursue something without being passionate about it.


I said:

A fundamentalist of any kind, theist or atheist, usually harbors a lot of anger, contempt, hostility and other negative emotion in relation to those who seem to be opposed to their cause.
Please explain what a fundamentalist atheist is. The bold part could hardly be that definition..

It doesn't require it either. The point is, one can pursue something without being passionate about it.

That's like saying "I can go to London without going to London."



Please explain what a fundamentalist atheist is. The bold part could hardly be that definition..

Why not? I think it is accurate.

That's like saying "I can go to London without going to London."
Not at all. I have to pursue making money in order to make a living. But I'm not passionate about it.
If you're passionate about something you want to pursue it.
If you need something you have to pursue it.



Why not? I think it is accurate.
fundamentalism
strict adherence to the fundamental principles of any set of beliefs
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fundamentalist

A fundamentalist of any kind, theist or atheist, usually harbors a lot of anger, contempt, hostility and other negative emotion in relation to those who seem to be opposed to their cause.

Making up your own definitions now?

You, like many weak-minded people devoid of any sound argument, often mistake challenge for hostility. If I call someone's belief ludicrous, you call that response hostile. You're like Michael in the sense that you want to villainize the people who disagree with you. It's easier to say "You're being mean!" than to actually support the argument you present. I've seen you do this on numerous occasions. In fact, in just our last conversation, you turned into a four-year-old having a tantrum. That's how you behave.

You also said there was no "practical" difference between angry atheists and angry theists, which is a ridiculous statement. I suggest you think about that one again for a while.

. I suggest you think about that one again for a while.

I can't. I'm "weak-minded and devoid of any sound argument".

:rolleyes:

Not at all. I have to pursue making money in order to make a living. But I'm not passionate about it.
If you're passionate about something you want to pursue it.
If you need something you have to pursue it.

You might not be passionate about making money, but you are passionate about that which having money allows you to do. So you're still passionate about your pursuits. The only question is what exactly it is that you are passionate about.



fundamentalism
strict adherence to the fundamental principles of any set of beliefs
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fundamentalist

And how does this contradict -

A fundamentalist of any kind, theist or atheist, usually harbors a lot of anger, contempt, hostility and other negative emotion in relation to those who seem to be opposed to their cause.

-?

I can't. I'm "weak-minded and devoid of any sound argument".

:rolleyes:

Funny how the only time you make a good point is when you repeat one of mine.

And how does this contradict -

A fundamentalist of any kind, theist or atheist, usually harbors a lot of anger, contempt, hostility and other negative emotion in relation to those who seem to be opposed to their cause.

-?

Fundamentalism does not imply emotion. You've made that connection on your own.

And please answer the question as it was posed to you: What is a fundamentalist atheist?

wynn


I am not a "fundamentalist" Atheist but I am passionate about removing the idiocy and evil that religion often causes when the fundamentalist religionists force their beliefs on others. One only has to look at the Taliban in Afghanistan to see where that leads. Right now in America we have Republicans trying to roll back advances in the rights of women based on their religious views, trying to limit the access to the vote for those they consider less than American, trying to insinuate that our current President adheres to unAmerican ideologies(Islam, Communism, Socialism), trying to buy the election and the legislators in order to continue to "vote themselves rich"(or, rather, richer)at the expense of the country as a whole. They already allowed their Wall Street buddies(with the help of some Democrats)to destroy out economy(Obama still gets the blame for that, too. Even though it happened over the previous 8 years, culminating in 2008, before Obama was sworn in in 2009).
But do not confuse the passion I feel about these facts as hostility toward religion. In America you have a right to believe anything you like, to gather with others of like mind and to live your life according to those beliefs. But what you do not have a right to is to impose those beliefs on others, to expect special treatment because you subscribe to popular belief systems or to be free from criticism when your beliefs simply do not conform to reality(you deserve common courtesy and respect but your beliefs do not automatically deserve respect if you cannot logically defend them).
If I am a fundamentalist about anything, it would be the Constitution. It is not, nor will it ever be perfect but it is the foundation for our Democracy, our country and our society. There is room for your religious beliefs in it, but there are also contraints on your behavior and ability to be intolerant of the equal right of others to be free of those beliefs. It seems you are calling others fundamentalist for simply asserting those rights.

Grumpy:cool:

If I am a fundamentalist about anything, it would be the Constitution. It is not, nor will it ever be perfect but it is the foundation for our Democracy, our country and our society. There is room for your religious beliefs in it, but there are also contraints on your behavior and ability to be intolerant of the equal right of others to be free of those beliefs.

I'm not religious, nor American. I physically get to see the situation from a different perspective.
It's interesting to me to see that there are people who consider me religious. It suggests, for starters, that they have strange criteria for what constitutes "religiousness."



It seems you are calling others fundamentalist for simply asserting those rights.

If (some) others assert their constitutional rights, that is fundamentalist.
When you and your camp assert your constitutional rights, that is not fundamentalist.

...

Yes he is biased. But unlike most people, including your good self (with apologies) he states his biases up front.

And are you saying everyone else is dispassionate, including the religious clergy?
I am saying that his statements to the effect that there could be a god and that no one knows for sure are simply ploys to avoid the obvious philosophical pitfalls of his hard atheism and outright hostility to anything remotely theistic

If (some) others assert their constitutional rights, that is fundamentalist.
When you and your camp assert your constitutional rights, that is not fundamentalist.

...

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Need doesn't preclude passion.




I said:

A fundamentalist of any kind, theist or atheist, usually harbors a lot of anger, contempt, hostility and other negative emotion in relation to those who seem to be opposed to their cause.

Nope, that's not what fundamentalism means.

Nope, that's not what fundamentalism means.

You're not surprised that she doesn't actually know, are you?

And what fundamentalism is was not the question posed to her. The question was "What is a fundamentalist atheist?" which implies that there are some core principals of atheism.

I'm curious to see what Wynn thinks these alleged principals are. Of course, she has no integrity, so she won't actually give a straight answer, but it's worth asking.

What exactly is an atheist fundamentalist? Define that for me. Because fundamentalism is defined as a "strict or literal adherence to a set of principals."

If that's all there is to it, then why do atheists oppose it?

The name 'fundamentalist' comes from a set of religious tracts published in Los Angeles in 1910-15, entitled 'The Fundamentals', setting out what the authors took to be the fundamental principles of Biblical Christianity, which the authors feared were being swept aside and dismissed by more avant-garde Christians.

Then the use of the word kind of broadened out over the years, coming to refer to the wing of (usually Protestant) Christianity that held tightly to such fundamental ideas as Biblical literalism and inerrancy, belief in Christ's miracles and physical resurrection, justification by faith, the physical second coming, and literal heaven and hell. The word was already turning into what some philosophers call a 'family-resemblance concept', since fundamentalists didn't neccessarily share belief in the same exact same list of fundamentals, but they agreed on enough of them to have a family resemblance to each other that justified use of the same word to refer to them.

(Human cognition often works by association, so family resemblance concepts are very common in our language and thought.)

Gradually, the use of the word expanded further, to embrace religious expressions in other religions that resembled the Protestant traditionalists in what were perceived to be significant ways. There are obviously Muslims, perhaps the majority in some places, who are Quranic literalists, place great emphasis on strict adherence to Shariah law, and so on.

And in yet another broadening of the term, the word 'fundamentalist' has come to be associated with some some broader psychological similarities that fundamentalists often seem to share in common and the word has taken on a more perjorative tone.

There's typically a very strong insider-outsider distinction. The world is divided into Christians and non-Christians. (Or whatever the distinction is.) There are often strong negative judgements projected at the outsiders. There is a kind of psychological grandiosity, an unshakeable belief that the chosen ones have access to unique and absolute Truth. There's a drive to proselytize, to convert the heathen, and to remake the rest of society in the image of their faith. These are people who think about religion much of the time, feel very strongly about it, and hence aren't exactly secularized individuals.

My point has been that a certain kind of atheist spends a great deal of time thinking about religion and cares very passionately about it. They can have their own style of grandiosity, often believing that they are more intelligent than other people and that they possess the one saving Truth of reason and science. They dream of the day when religion, with all of its intellectual obscurantism and moral evil, is swept off the Earth entirely and forgotten.

Even in matters of smaller theological detail atheists sometimes resemble the religious fundamentalists. Some atheists study their Bibles for hours on end and quote Bible verses to illustrate whatever their anti-Christian point is. They read their Bibles with a fundamentalist-style literalism and stoutly reject the kind of allegorical and historical interpretations that many non-fundamentalist Christians favor. They are as opposed as any Christian fundamentalist to what both call "picking and choosing", selecting some Bible verses to believe and follow while dismissing others.

These kind of atheists are rarely aware of it, but there is a distinct and narrow Christian theology implicit in how they themselves perceive and interpret Christianity.

Yazata


My point has been that a certain kind of atheist spends a great deal of time thinking about religion and cares very passionately about it. They can have their own style of grandiosity, often believing that they are more intelligent than other people and that they possess the one saving Truth of reason and science. They dream of the day when religion, with all of its intellectual obscurantism and moral evil, is swept off the Earth entirely and forgotten.



Atheists don't oppose religion because they are ignorant of it, often they know what a religious text says better than most adherents of that faith. And there is an argument to be made that not believing in talking snakes, donkeys and burning bushes is at least more reasonable, logical and even more intelligent(at least showing and using more of it)than doing so. As to the evils, I think the world will be a better place without religious nuts flying planes into buildings, I'm funny like that.


These kind of atheists are rarely aware of it, but there is a distinct and narrow Christian theology implicit in how they themselves perceive and interpret Christianity.

"By their acts thou shalt know them" I don't care what outlandish and childishly ignorant things religionists believe, I do care what evil and bigotted things they do. While you have every right to believe as you wish, you have no right to impose those beliefs on those who do not choose to share them or on our mutual society. Down that path lies the Taliban and the failed society in Afghanistan. And as long as fundies try to impose their views on all a little fundamentalist fervor in resistence is appropriate. The only acceptable intolerance is intolerance of intolerance. When religionists stop such efforts I can go back to giving religion little thought or effort.

Grumpy:cool:

These kind of atheists are rarely aware of it, but there is a distinct and narrow Christian theology implicit in how they themselves perceive and interpret Christianity.

It's not our job to debunk every flavor of Christianity. But we are heartened when Christianity is watered down from what it was, thanks to the influence perhaps of secular society.

Nope, that's not what fundamentalism means.

Of course, fundamentalists are known for being lovely daisies - always kind and happy, compassionate, empathetic, always ready to see things from the other person's perspective, walk a mile in the other person's shoes ...

Yazata



Atheists don't oppose religion because they are ignorant of it, often they know what a religious text says better than most adherents of that faith. And there is an argument to be made that not believing in talking snakes, donkeys and burning bushes is at least more reasonable, logical and even more intelligent(at least showing and using more of it)than doing so. As to the evils, I think the world will be a better place without religious nuts flying planes into buildings, I'm funny like that.



Grumpy:cool:


Not all scriptures talk of talking snakes or donkeys. :cool:
As for those who commit extreme acts that's not due to fundamentalism that's due to extremism because strictly adhering to literal interpretations do not equate to outrageous acts fundamentalism is infamous because it inevitably leads to extremism. To be an extremist is to overdo something or commit an unnecessary act.

Certain forms of fundamentalism are inherently extreme, because the fundamentals of the religion are extreme.

You're not surprised that she doesn't actually know, are you?

And what fundamentalism is was not the question posed to her. The question was "What is a fundamentalist atheist?" which implies that there are some core principals of atheism.

I'm curious to see what Wynn thinks these alleged principals are. Of course, she has no integrity, so she won't actually give a straight answer, but it's worth asking.
this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Philosophical_concepts) + fundamentalism = fundamental atheism

I don't understand why this is so difficult to understand ....

If that's all there is to it, then why do atheists oppose it?

Because strict adherence to literal interpretations of religious texts is dangerous.


The name 'fundamentalist' comes from a set of religious tracts published in Los Angeles in 1910-15, entitled 'The Fundamentals', setting out what the authors took to be the fundamental principles of Biblical Christianity, which the authors feared were being swept aside and dismissed by more avant-garde Christians.

Then the use of the word kind of broadened out over the years, coming to refer to the wing of (usually Protestant) Christianity that held tightly to such fundamental ideas as Biblical literalism and inerrancy, belief in Christ's miracles and physical resurrection, justification by faith, the physical second coming, and literal heaven and hell. The word was already turning into what some philosophers call a 'family-resemblance concept', since fundamentalists didn't neccessarily share belief in the same exact same list of fundamentals, but they agreed on enough of them to have a family resemblance to each other that justified use of the same word to refer to them.

(Human cognition often works by association, so family resemblance concepts are very common in our language and thought.)

Gradually, the use of the word expanded further, to embrace religious expressions in other religions that resembled the Protestant traditionalists in what were perceived to be significant ways. There are obviously Muslims, perhaps the majority in some places, who are Quranic literalists, place great emphasis on strict adherence to Shariah law, and so on.

And in yet another broadening of the term, the word 'fundamentalist' has come to be associated with some some broader psychological similarities that fundamentalists often seem to share in common and the word has taken on a more perjorative tone.

There's typically a very strong insider-outsider distinction. The world is divided into Christians and non-Christians. (Or whatever the distinction is.) There are often strong negative judgements projected at the outsiders. There is a kind of psychological grandiosity, an unshakeable belief that the chosen ones have access to unique and absolute Truth. There's a drive to proselytize, to convert the heathen, and to remake the rest of society in the image of their faith. These are people who think about religion much of the time, feel very strongly about it, and hence aren't exactly secularized individuals.

My point has been that a certain kind of atheist spends a great deal of time thinking about religion and cares very passionately about it. They can have their own style of grandiosity, often believing that they are more intelligent than other people and that they possess the one saving Truth of reason and science. They dream of the day when religion, with all of its intellectual obscurantism and moral evil, is swept off the Earth entirely and forgotten.

Even in matters of smaller theological detail atheists sometimes resemble the religious fundamentalists. Some atheists study their Bibles for hours on end and quote Bible verses to illustrate whatever their anti-Christian point is. They read their Bibles with a fundamentalist-style literalism and stoutly reject the kind of allegorical and historical interpretations that many non-fundamentalist Christians favor. They are as opposed as any Christian fundamentalist to what both call "picking and choosing", selecting some Bible verses to believe and follow while dismissing others.

These kind of atheists are rarely aware of it, but there is a distinct and narrow Christian theology implicit in how they themselves perceive and interpret Christianity.

I appreciate the thoughtful response. I've grown too used to the "Yeah, whatever" juvenilia of Wynn and the like. I'll try to raise my game.

I see a problem here immediately, in that you seem to define "fundamentalist" two different ways.

Yes, the word began as the name for a specific movement, but that movement was defined by its literal interpretations of the bible. It is used in other contexts today, but the definition has not changed. What you're trying to do is change the very definition of the word to mean someone who is passionate about their beliefs, but even in a colloquial sense this is incorrect.

But, oddly, you change the definition again later in the post, claiming that "fundamentalist" atheists are the ones who view Christianity in narrow terms. This is a better try, but still wrong. Atheism has no principals, no tenants. This is why, despite being among the fastest-growing populations, they have no political influence. There is simply nothing to bind atheists together. Disbelief by itself is not a tenant, it's simply a status. Just as being a believer isn't enough to bring people together; there must also be some code or system, and it is by that which theists define themselves. Without these things, belief is little more than spiritualism. You've never met a fundamentalist spiritualist, have you?

We should get away from trying to make atheism fit into some dogmatic mold. It isn't simply an alternative to Christianity or Islam, it's the opposite of belief. While I do agree that many atheists in the US have a very Christian-centric approach, it's only because that's the world they live in, and I would not simply assume that they would not hold the same opinions if it was a different conception of Christianity they were presented with (since it is always religion pushing against secularism, not the other way around), or another faith entirely. Their arguments may differ against more benign faiths like Buddhism, but their hostility is nothing more than the equal, opposite reaction to the opponent. In other words, if theism were not responsible for, say, the oppression of homosexuals, then atheists would not react so strongly in opposition.

I have heard the argument that so-called "strong atheists" (a term I have no patience for) are really anti-theists, but I don't think this designation fits. Anti-theism implies a desire to rid the world of theism, which I don't think anyone would say they truly desired. It isn't religion that atheists have a problem with, after all, but the enforcement of religious tenants in society.

But, should anyone say they really want the eradication of religion, I suppose it would be acceptable to call them radical atheists. Certainly not fundamentalists, though.

this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Philosophical_concepts) + fundamentalism = fundamental atheism

I don't understand why this is so difficult to understand ....

Atheism has no principals or tenants or texts which could be interpreted literally, so there is nothing about atheism that which one could have fundamentalist view. Belief and non-belief are not principals, they are simply statuses. If belief itself was enough, where are all the fundamental spiritualists?

There needs to be some set of laws or guiding principals for there to be fundamentalism.

Atheism has no principals or tenants

Of course it does. Richard Dawkins is a principal of atheism, and JDawg et. al are its tenants.


Given how much you fret, pointing out your spelling errors is perfectly in place!

It's true.

Truth is when an idea or notion in your mind matches actual reality... not when you declare an idea or notion in your mind to be true.



They have a dogma,...

Oh? Please ellaborate on what exactly this dogma is.



...and they always want to "win", either by converting theists to their dogma, or by ridiculing them if they won't comply.

Do you have evidence of your claim?

To quote Sam Harris:

"The rise of fundamentalist Islam is only a problem because of the fundamentals of Islam."

Of course it does. Richard Dawkins is a principal of atheism, and JDawg et. al are its tenants.

Fair enough. I got lazy at the keyboard.

Atheism has no principals or tenants or texts which could be interpreted literally, .....
I take it you didn't read the link then
:shrug:

I take it you didn't read the link then
:shrug:

Oh, I did. I'm guessing you didn't? Or maybe you just didn't understand them?
:shrug:

Because strict adherence to literal interpretations of religious texts is dangerous.

Postmodernist-style science critique would say similar things about strict literal interpretations of scientific texts.


I appreciate the thoughtful response. I've grown too used to the "Yeah, whatever" juvenilia of Wynn and the like. I'll try to raise my game.

You should rein in the emotional provocation and try to be thoughtful and friendly in all of your posts. At the same time, argue for your own points as best you can. You seem pretty smart, so let your persuasiveness carry the weight. You'll look a lot better doing it that way. (It's what they expect in universities and in professional writing.)


I see a problem here immediately, in that you seem to define "fundamentalist" two different ways.

More than two.


Yes, the word began as the name for a specific movement

The word originally referred to the ideas set forth in a set of pamphlets. Then it expanded to Christians who held views similar to those argued for in the pamphlets. Then it expanded out to members of other religions who held views in their own religions that are seemed analogous in some ways to the views of this particular sort of Christian. Then it broadened out to embrace the broader characteristics that all of these people seemed to share in common.


but that movement was defined by its literal interpretations of the bible. It is used in other contexts today, but the definition has not changed. What you're trying to do is change the very definition of the word to mean someone who is passionate about their beliefs, but even in a colloquial sense this is incorrect.

I'm just arguing that some (certainly not all) atheists resemble people who are labeled 'religious fundamentalists' in strong and relevant ways. I don't think that it's inaccurate to call these people 'atheist fundamentalists'.


But, oddly, you change the definition again later in the post, claiming that "fundamentalist" atheists are the ones who view Christianity in narrow terms.

Many atheists hold views about issues such as what "true Christianity" is, or about how the Bible should be read and interpreted, that are very similar to and often indistinguishable from the Christian fundamentalists' own views on the same issues.

The contrast concerning how these issues are understood is often between this kind of atheist and their fundamentalist enemies together on one hand, and theologically liberal Christians on the other.


This is a better try, but still wrong. Atheism has no principals, no tenants.

Then what do people like Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris fill all those books with? And why don't atheists simply fall on their knees and become Christian upon first encountering a preacher and hearing the gospel? (Wow! I never realized! Thanks for telling me!)

I think that many atheists would agree to many of the following propositions: God doesn't exist. Religion is false. Religious belief is nothing more than superstition. Religious belief has no factual or logical justification. Religious belief has been an obscurantist force in human history. Religion is fundamentally opposed to reason and to science. The world would be a much better place if religion no longer existed. And many more... They probably aren't all false. I'd agree with some of them myself. I'm just saying that they are positive beliefs and not just the absence of belief.

I don't really buy the "weak atheist" strategy that tries to argue that atheism is simply lack of belief in God, nothing more, and that it makes no positive claims. That seems a little disingenuous to me. The purpose of that claim seems to be to position atheism where it has no need to justify itself. It looks like a rhetorical attempt to claim immunity from the same kind of 'prove it!'-style epistemological challenges that atheists routinely address to religious believers.


This is why, despite being among the fastest-growing populations, they have no political influence. There is simply nothing to bind atheists together. Disbelief by itself is not a tenant, it's simply a status. Just as being a believer isn't enough to bring people together; there must also be some code or system, and it is by that which theists define themselves. Without these things, belief is little more than spiritualism. You've never met a fundamentalist spiritualist, have you?

But most atheists don't just lack belief in God. They hold views of their own about the existence of God and about those who believe in God.


We should get away from trying to make atheism fit into some dogmatic mold.

I agree with you on that. Of course, we probably should get away from trying to make Christianity fit some dogmatic mold as well. (That's what the fundamentalists are trying to do.) But having said that, I still think that it's true that some rather evangelical 'true believer' types in both the Christian and the atheist camps can plausibly be labeled 'fundamentalists' in their respective contexts.


I have heard the argument that so-called "strong atheists" (a term I have no patience for) are really anti-theists, but I don't think this designation fits.

I agree with you that strong atheists needn't be anti-theists. I'm a strong atheist myself in the sense that I'm reasonably certain that the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God doesn't exist. But I don't consider myself flatly anti-theist. Like you, I definitely take a dim view of certain expressions of theism though.

I'm not thrilled with some expressions of atheism either, which is part of my point in this thread. Atheist excesses and closed-mindedness don't seem as socially dangerous as Christian or Islamic fundamentalism at this point though.


Anti-theism implies a desire to rid the world of theism, which I don't think anyone would say they truly desired.

Many atheists appear to desire that. They would definitely prefer a world in which religion is just an extinct ancient atavism described in history books.


But, should anyone say they really want the eradication of religion, I suppose it would be acceptable to call them radical atheists. Certainly not fundamentalists, though.

We seem to agree on substance there, but disagree about which word to use to describe it. ('radical' vs 'fundamentalist') That's ok with me, I can live with that.

Postmodernist-style science critique would say similar things about strict literal interpretations of scientific texts.

You'll have to forgive my ignorance on some of these matters, but how does one take figurative or metaphorical interpretations of scientific texts?


You should rein in the emotional provocation and try to be thoughtful and friendly in all of your posts. At the same time, argue for your own points as best you can. You seem pretty smart, so let your persuasiveness carry the weight. You'll look a lot better doing it that way. (It's what they expect in universities and in professional writing.)

Well, thanks. I was trying to stay above the fray initially, but when the only sparring partners are Wynn and Reiku, the task becomes difficult. I've been away for about three years, primarily because I simply couldn't take the likes of Baron Max and Sandy anymore, and the moderators refused to do anything about them. Sandy's been banned since, and I think Baron eventually just stopped coming around, but they've been replaced by people just as intellectually bankrupt.

Granted, I'd take Wynn's elusiveness and Reiku's, well, you know, any day over Sandy and Baron's blatant homophobia and racism.

Anyway, I'm getting off-topic. Back to the post!


The word originally referred to the ideas set forth in a set of pamphlets. Then it expanded to Christians who held views similar to those argued for in the pamphlets. Then it expanded out to members of other religions who held views in their own religions that are seemed analogous in some ways to the views of this particular sort of Christian. Then it broadened out to embrace the broader characteristics that all of these people seemed to share in common.

Mmm, you had me up until the part I put in bold. I've never heard the word being used that broadly. Maybe I need to get out more? Are we talking colloquially? I mean, I've heard it applied improperly to groups like atheists or Muslims in general, but improper use doesn't define a word, does it?


I'm just arguing that some (certainly not all) atheists resemble people who are labeled 'religious fundamentalists' in strong and relevant ways. I don't think that it's inaccurate to call these people 'atheist fundamentalists'.

Well, okay, maybe we're getting closer to the problem; you say "people who are labeled" rather than "people who are." Does this mean you're referring to religious people who are incorrectly labeled fundamentalists? Because I can't think of any way an atheist could be a fundamentalist in any real sense of the word.


Many atheists hold views about issues such as what "true Christianity" is, or about how the Bible should be read and interpreted, that are very similar to and often indistinguishable from the Christian fundamentalists' own views on the same issues.

That's interesting. And true. I'm one of those people who believes that the bible was written literally, and other interpretations of it are not accurate. They're preferable, certainly to the fundamentalist interpretation, but not accurate.

But I don't believe in these texts, so how does my perception of them translate to my atheism? I would still believe there is no god no matter what color of flavor it was. Even if Jesus really was the loving quirky rabbi, I'd still think he was a fraud. I no more believe in reincarnation than I do in the God of the Old Testament.

Perhaps my interpretation of the bible is fundamentalist. But I can't figure how that makes me a fundamentalist atheist.


The contrast concerning how these issues are understood is often between this kind of atheist and their fundamentalist enemies together on one hand, and theologically liberal Christians on the other.

I'm not sure how you mean that (I've been up for twenty hours, so again, forgive me if I'm a little slow at the moment).


Then what do people like Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris fill all those books with? And why don't atheists simply fall on their knees and become Christian upon first encountering a preacher and hearing the gospel? (Wow! I never realized! Thanks for telling me!)

Because they are (and were, as is the case for poor Mr. Hitchens) sensible, reasonable, rational human beings. They can see the precursors to the Abrahamic texts in older civilizations, can see the plagiarisms of Christianity in Islam, know that the values held by those who started these faiths are not compatible with the values we hold today.

It's just observation, isn't it? I don't see where the principles become involved.


I think that many atheists would agree to many of the following propositions: God doesn't exist. Religion is false. Religious belief is nothing more than superstition. Religious belief has no factual or logical justification. Religious belief has been an obscurantist force in human history. Religion is fundamentally opposed to reason and to science. The world would be a much better place if religion no longer existed. And many more... They probably aren't all false. I'd agree with some of them myself. I'm just saying that they are positive beliefs and not just the absence of belief.

I'd agree with all but the part I put in bold. I believe religion does serve a purpose, and I wouldn't wish it gone from the people who actually need it. Not everyone can withstand, say, the death of a loved one, or the loss of a home, without some assurance from on high that everything's going to be okay. Even if I could wave a magic wand and make religion disappear, I wouldn't.

(I'd hack a few limbs off it, though.)

But I'm getting sidetracked. Yes, those statements are for the most part agreeable. But are these principals? Or are they simply factual observations? None of them (with the exception of the one I put in bold) are predictive statements. They don't make claims. They're just comments.


I don't really buy the "weak atheist" strategy that tries to argue that atheism is simply lack of belief in God, nothing more, and that it makes no positive claims. That seems a little disingenuous to me. The purpose of that claim seems to be to position atheism where it has no need to justify itself. It looks like a rhetorical attempt to claim immunity from the same kind of 'prove it!'-style epistemological challenges that atheists routinely address to religious believers.

I tend to agree with that, though I am guilty of it sometimes. I get caught up in the semantics of it, because atheism just means "not a theist." Hence, a-theist. But it does mean more than that, I know. It's implied, at least.


But most atheists don't just lack belief in God. They hold views of their own about the existence of God and about those who believe in God.

Okay, but as I said, neither is belief itself a tenet (though I did say "tenant," which I apologize for. I'm usually a mush bedder spellur than that) or a principal. If it were, Sunni and Shia Muslims wouldn't be trying to eradicate each other, Protestants and Catholics wouldn't blow themselves up in corner pubs, and Christians of all other denominations wouldn't find Mormons creepy.


I agree with you on that. Of course, we probably should get away from trying to make Christianity fit some dogmatic mold as well. (That's what the fundamentalists are trying to do.) But having said that, I still think that it's true that some rather evangelical 'true believer' types in both the Christian and the atheist camps can plausibly be labeled 'fundamentalists' in their respective contexts.

But who tries to make Christianity fit into that mold? Atheists aren't generalizing Christianity, they're taking aim at specific kinds of it. When I say "Christians trying to put religion in biology textbooks!" I'm not talking about all Christians, I'm talking about the one's trying to put religious propaganda in biology textbooks!



I agree with you that strong atheists needn't be anti-theists. I'm a strong atheist myself in the sense that I'm reasonably certain that the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God doesn't exist. But I don't consider myself flatly anti-theist. Like you, I definitely take a dim view of certain expressions of theism though.

I'm not thrilled with some expressions of atheism either, which is part of my point in this thread. Atheist excesses and closed-mindedness don't seem as socially dangerous as Christian or Islamic fundamentalism at this point though.

But as I said, I don't think the people you're talking about are atheists. I think they're anti-theists.


Many atheists appear to desire that. They would definitely prefer a world in which religion is just an extinct ancient atavism described in history books.

Okay, fair enough. But that's not what atheism is "about," because atheism isn't "about" anything. People who want religion eradicated are anti-theists, and those folks have some principles. Warped principles, perhaps, but principles nonetheless.

Calling those people atheists is just like calling a suicide bombers theists. Obviously the theism is implied, but clearly there's more to the story, and probably a better, more accurate category for them.

You don't look at OJ Simpson and say "What did you expect of a football player?" do you?


We seem to agree on substance there, but disagree about which word to use to describe it. ('radical' vs 'fundamentalist') That's ok with me, I can live with that.

Sadly, upon further review, I'm going to have rescind my offer. I believe anti-theist is a far better (and accurate, and existing) term for those kinds of people. There's nothing about atheism that says religion is bad. Atheism has no moral opinion of religion. An atheist might, but then he's not simply an atheist, but an anti-theist.

Oh, I did. I'm guessing you didn't? Or maybe you just didn't understand them?
:shrug:
I am guessing you didn't read further than "practical atheism"

IOW "theoretical atheism" is all about ideas that can be taken lightly, moderately or fundamentally (or anywhere in between)

eg : Theoretical (or theoric) atheism explicitly posits arguments against the existence of gods, responding to common theistic arguments such as the argument from design or Pascal's Wager. Theoretical atheism is mainly an ontology, precisely a physical ontology.

or

Epistemological atheism argues that people cannot know a God or determine the existence of a God. The foundation of epistemological atheism is agnosticism, which takes a variety of forms. In the philosophy of immanence, divinity is inseparable from the world itself, including a person's mind, and each person's consciousness is locked in the subject. According to this form of agnosticism, this limitation in perspective prevents any objective inference from belief in a god to assertions of its existence. The rationalistic agnosticism of Kant and the Enlightenment only accepts knowledge deduced with human rationality

or

Other arguments for atheism that can be classified as epistemological or ontological, including logical positivism and ignosticism, assert the meaninglessness or unintelligibility of basic terms such as "God" and statements such as "God is all-powerful." Theological noncognitivism holds that the statement "God exists" does not express a proposition, but is nonsensical or cognitively meaningless. It has been argued both ways as to whether such individuals can be classified into some form of atheism or agnosticism. Philosophers A. J. Ayer and Theodore M. Drange reject both categories, stating that both camps accept "God exists" as a proposition; they instead place noncognitivism in its own category

or

"Metaphysical atheism... includes all doctrines that hold to metaphysical monism (the homogeneity of reality). Metaphysical atheism may be either: a) absolute — an explicit denial of God's existence associated with materialistic monism (all materialistic trends, both in ancient and modern times); b) relative — the implicit denial of God in all philosophies that, while they accept the existence of an absolute, conceive of the absolute as not possessing any of the attributes proper to God: transcendence, a personal character or unity. Relative atheism is associated with idealistic monism (pantheism, panentheism, deism).

or

Logical atheism holds that the various conceptions of gods, such as the personal god of Christianity, are ascribed logically inconsistent qualities. Such atheists present deductive arguments against the existence of God, which assert the incompatibility between certain traits, such as perfection, creator-status, immutability, omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, transcendence, personhood (a personal being), nonphysicality, justice, and mercy.

or

Philosophers such as Ludwig Feuerbach[74] and Sigmund Freud argued that God and other religious beliefs are human inventions, created to fulfill various psychological and emotional wants or needs. This is also a view of many Buddhists.[75] Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, influenced by the work of Feuerbach, argued that belief in God and religion are social functions, used by those in power to oppress the working class.

or

Axiological, or constructive, atheism rejects the existence of gods in favor of a "higher absolute", such as humanity. This form of atheism favors humanity as the absolute source of ethics and values, and permits individuals to resolve moral problems without resorting to God. Marx and Freud used this argument to convey messages of liberation, full-development, and unfettered happiness.[64]

or

French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre identified himself as a representative of an "atheist existentialism"[80] concerned less with denying the existence of God than with establishing that "man needs ... to find himself again and to understand that nothing can save him from himself, not even a valid proof of the existence of God."[81] Sartre said a corollary of his atheism was that "if God does not exist, there is at least one being in whom existence precedes essence, a being who exists before he can be defined by any concept, and ... this being is man.

are all representative of ideas that can be taken lightly, moderately or in a radically fundamental manner.

To suggest otherwise is simply a facet of fundamental atheism of the metaphysical variety (ie to suggest that the atheist idea is so true and objective that it cannot be pinned to any ethical/philosophical agenda since that would necessarily taint it with subjective undertones)

""The fanatical atheists, are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who--in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses'-- cannot hear the music of the spheres"
-Einstein

:o

I am guessing you didn't read further than "practical atheism"

IOW "theoretical atheism" is all about ideas that can be taken lightly, moderately or fundamentally (or anywhere in between)

To suggest otherwise is simply a facet of fundamental atheism of the metaphysical variety (ie to suggest that the atheist idea is so true and objective that it cannot be pinned to any ethical/philosophical agenda since that would necessarily taint it with subjective undertones)

That's nonsense. You're talking about logical arguments against the existence of God, nothing more. You just want to put the "fundamentalist" tag on it because you like to paint atheism as a form of religion. That's all it is. Your argument holds no water.

""The fanatical atheists, are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who--in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses'-- cannot hear the music of the spheres"
-Einstein

:o

I suppose you're one of those people who thinks Einstein was a theist?

I suppose you're one of those people who thinks Einstein was a theist?

One needn't be a theist, nor need one believe that Einstein was a theist,
to appreciate what he says there -

"The fanatical atheists, are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who--in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses'-- cannot hear the music of the spheres."
-Einstein

One needn't be a theist, nor need one believe that Einstein was a theist,
to appreciate what he says there -

"The fanatical atheists, are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who--in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses'-- cannot hear the music of the spheres."
-Einstein

And one doesn't have be a "fanatical atheist" to know he was off the mark here.

And one doesn't have be a "fanatical atheist" to know he was off the mark here.
actually one would have to be a fanatical atheist to dismiss it


I suppose you're one of those people who thinks Einstein was a theist?
No

I am one of those persons who think that even Einstein encountered radical atheists


That's nonsense. You're talking about logical arguments against the existence of God, nothing more. You just want to put the "fundamentalist" tag on it because you like to paint atheism as a form of religion. That's all it is. Your argument holds no water.
Actually I am talking about ideas ... specifically ideas about the validity of atheism ... and specifically how its the nature of an idea (any idea) to be taken lightly, moderately or in a fundamental manner.

The only way you can worm out of it is to suggest that atheism is so purely objective and true that it cannot be coined as a mere "idea" ... but then this can easily be classified as a radically fundamental take on metaphysical atheism so it would completely defeat your purpose.


But no doubt you missed this because you didn't read the bit where i explained all this at the bottom of the last post ... much like you didn't read the bit at the bottom of the link that explains how this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Philosophical_concepts) + fundamentalism = fundamental atheism

Look, let's just end this right here and now. Everybody whip it out and measure it.

And one doesn't have be a "fanatical atheist" to know he was off the mark here.

Read it again:

"The fanatical atheists, are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who--in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses'-- cannot hear the music of the spheres."
-Einstein

Look, let's just end this right here and now. Everybody whip it out and measure it.

Wynn would win.

Look, let's just end this right here and now. Everybody whip it out and measure it.
Seems you are being more direct and honest in your approach to philosophical problems these days

@LG --

I call it like I see it. Seems like you, Wynn, and JDawg are merely having one giant penis measuring contest. Of course, since your and Wynn's posts seem to be little more than trolling, I think that JDawg can be forgiven for participating, we all like to feed trolls once in a while.

@LG --

I call it like I see it. Seems like you, Wynn, and JDawg are merely having one giant penis measuring contest. Of course, since your and Wynn's posts seem to be little more than trolling, I think that JDawg can be forgiven for participating, we all like to feed trolls once in a while.
Frankly that analysis tends to summarize your approach to anything that challenges your values.

:shrug:

@LG --

How would you know? You've never been able to offer me a decent challenge.

@LG --

How would you know? You've never been able to offer me a decent challenge.
see what I mean? (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2911856&postcount=135)

:shrug:

How was that a challenge? I've displayed the ability to debate you with half my brain tied behind my back time and again. Quite frankly your constant and poor attempts at apologetics are boring, I have better uses of my time. Like masturbating or pounding nails into my face.

Wynn would win.

Yeah, the curse of living in modern society where a woman needs to be manly if she wants get somewhere in life!

:eek:

How was that a challenge? I've displayed the ability to debate you with half my brain tied behind my back time and again. Quite frankly your constant and poor attempts at apologetics are boring, I have better uses of my time. Like masturbating or pounding nails into my face.

Its not a challenge

Its a clear indication how you generically respond to challenges to your values by going on an egotistical tirade of hyperbole (which you are doing yet again btw ...)

IOW your model is to venture a hazy contribution to a thread topic. When the structure falls away you then fall back name slinging match exclusively about how good you are and how bad your opponents are

... which, ironically, is precisely how you entered this thread (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2911643&postcount=130)

:shrug:

How was that a challenge? I've displayed the ability to debate you with half my brain tied behind my back time and again. Quite frankly your constant and poor attempts at apologetics are boring, I have better uses of my time. Like masturbating or pounding nails into my face.


@LG --

I call it like I see it. Seems like you, Wynn, and JDawg are merely having one giant penis measuring contest. Of course, since your and Wynn's posts seem to be little more than trolling, I think that JDawg can be forgiven for participating, we all like to feed trolls once in a while.

It's tough being enlightened, isn't it? All those stupid people around you that you have to put up with!

:mad:

It's true. They have a dogma, and they always want to "win", either by converting theists to their dogma, or by ridiculing them if they won't comply. The call it "debating" but really it's preaching. You can spot them a mile off.

How many atheists have you meet in your life-time? A precise number please
How many of those that you meet where “dogmatic" or "aggressive" A precise number please
Do you always generalize a group of people or developed a stereotype of a group of people?
Have i been dogmatic towards you?
The thread title implies that only a " portion" of the Atheist population have mannerisms typical of religious fundamentalist, strangely in your first post you generalize and say that "all" atheist behave this way.
Is love and tolerance not a teaching from your messiah and or god?
I enjoy the company of 5 religious friends Tyler Weldon, Race: W: Catholic, John Roman, Race: Hispanic: Methodist, Chris Bordis, Race: White Satanist, Dorian Bevel, Race: African-American: Methodist: Adam Felix, Race: Vietnamese: Buddhist. In that group I’m the hardcore atheist...if I can befriend all these diverse people, and not harshly label them...Why can't you?
:D