Scratch an atheist and you will find a skeptic!

[inocente]

And they are entitled to do so, but Catholics are not bound to same ideology as a consequence of their faith. I did not say there are no fundamentalist Catholics. Every faith has their radicals, and as such fingers could pointed at any faith for this reason.

On that thread they’ve not just argued that intelligent design should be taught as science, but that current biology lessons are a “heinous crime”, and that God designed biological weapons for the greater good.

Seems some radicals are not just bible literalists.

*My claim is comparisons can be drawn between radical atheists and religious fundamentalists. Not all atheists and religious fundamentalists. Comparisons can be drawn between radicals or fundamentalists irrespective of what race or creed they are.

This is not my personal claim. It is documented. A few years ago I read an authoritative work compiled by history scholars that compared Stalin and Hitler, and their conclusions were the only distinction that could be drawn between Stalin and Hitler was their respective ideologies in that one was a communist and the other a fascist.

There are plenty of atheists who are intelligent, rational and balanced. I’m confident those following this thread know I was not suggesting all atheists are unintelligent, irrational and unbalanced simply because they are atheists. Nor one is intelligent, rational and balanced simply because one is Catholic.*

Any comparison between Stalin and Hitler is on the basis they were both bad, and I know comparisons can be drawn between fundamentalists and atheists because some posters have concluded fundamentalists = atheists = bad. Nice and easy stereotypes. Divide up the world by tribal loyalties. Except it contrives to ignore that there are many Catholic fundamentalists, both on CAF and in real life, and that they and others who sincerely believe the bible is the word of God are not necessarily bad any more than people who don’t believe in God.

So it’s good we agree that such stereotypes are vacuous.

inocente;14732918:

Parents teach it to children, and in Ireland they used to blow up people in bars in the name of Jesus. In America they segregated churches, school buses, even toilets.

Stop right there - No one blew anyone up in bars in Ireland in the name of Jesus. Given the attention Ireland received in the media I can’t believe someone would say people were killed in the name of Jesus. I don’t know if you genuinely think this, but for now I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.

For historical reasons Catholics and Protestants found themselves on opposite side in a political war - not a religious one. That does not make blowing people up in bars more acceptable.

What’s your point? Religious fundamentalists are worse than atheists? Comparisons should not be drawn between radical atheists and religious fundamentalist because they are nicer or don’t exist?

*“Ulster Defence Association (UDA), loyalist organization founded in Northern Ireland in 1971 to coordinate the efforts of local Protestant vigilante groups in the sectarian conflict in the province.” - britannica.com/topic/Ulster-Defence-Association

“Units of the IRA were organized to defend besieged Catholic communities in the province and were sustained by support from units in Ireland.” - britannica.com/topic/Irish-Republican-Army*

My point is that stereotypes often don’t reflect reality and are used to divide between “us” and “them”, as with: all atheists bad; all fundamentalists bad; therefore atheists = fundamentalists = bad.

 

[inocente]

Sure. Because a chosen quality like atheism is comparable to non-chosen qualities like race and sex…

:doh2:

I wouldn’t listen to people who choose their belief. Anyone who chooses her belief is using it as a fashion accessory, and she’ll change at the drop of a hat.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I wouldn’t listen to people who choose their belief. Anyone who chooses her belief is using it as a fashion accessory, and she’ll change at the drop of a hat.

You have to choose what you believe. What do you mean?

 

[inocente]

You have to choose what you believe. What do you mean?

Choose to be a Muslim on Monday, an atheist on Tuesday, a Christian on Wednesday, an agnostic on Thursday, then report back.

But I think your upbringing, peer group, society, etc. influence what you sincerely believe can or can’t constitute evidence, what you sincerely believe is and isn’t important, and so on, and that makes it impossible to directly choose what you believe.

 

[Vonsalza]

Well, this is a really…er…fundamentalist definition of atheist.

You seem to be claiming that atheism is something that doesn’t have a belief in God.

And that would make rocks, dogs, a paramecium, and broccoli atheists, too.

Not sure you want to share the stage with that group.

#justsaying

And then you make your choice when you are ready, and…confirm your belief.

This merits repeating.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I’m quite sure if I do a google search right now I will be able to find an “ist” attached to a dog or similar animal who has embraced an particular enthusiasm for a particular "ism’.
PRmerger;14737214:

Bam!
“This gorgeous Italian dog is an enthusiast…”
…]
“Sexist dog”
…]“Racist dog”

Those are nice examples of anthropomorphization; with some additional qualifiers and signs they were able to apply these words that pertain a person to a non-person.You could use personification and metaphors to do this too. But this doesn’t assist in making ambiguous what Bradski said earlier. Since the -ist suffice denotes a person to use the words in the manner that they did additional markings and context is necessary to mark them as being applied to non-persons. Without these if you mentioned a sexist or a racists (“race” itself being a human social convention) without additional qualifiers your audience will interpret the referents of these words as being persons. A quick Google search also shows that your primary usage of these words has been to refer to humans. So I believe you are already aware of this.

Also unless you say otherwise I also do not believe that your honest interpretation of what Bradski has expressed includes rocks, dogs, a paramecium, and broccoli. Why try to cloud the discussion by interjecting them?

Incidentally, this seems to refute Bradski’s assertion that babies are atheists…as babies do not adhere “to a practice” or hold “certain principals (sic), doctrine or concern”.?

There’s discussion of what level of competency that is necessary for one to have a position on matter or for that position to be considered their own. Even given an child that is able to express that she believes there is or is not a God people will question whether or not to apply labels for religious classifiers. Arguments against this often are based on declarations that the child is absorbing and repeating what their parents or community have said to them. I’ll leave open the discussion of at what age or level of competency it’s appropriate to apply religious labels.

I don’t think Bradski’s comment is one about semantics. To restate my understanding of what he is saying without using the A-word he is saying that humans have a common starting point of not being born with a belief that there are gods or a God. Christine is saying that children innately believe that there is a God and must be influenced to believe otherwise. It may be more constructive to the discussion to talk about these views. A discussion on the belief classification of objects found in the produce section or a pet store may be better suited for a different thread.

 

[minkymurph]

On that thread they’ve not just argued that intelligent design should be taught as science, but that current biology lessons are a “heinous crime”, and that God designed biological weapons for the greater good.

Seems some radicals are not just bible literalists.

I have been arguing on this thread one can be a radical anything.

“Ulster Defence Association (UDA), loyalist organization founded in Northern Ireland in 1971 to coordinate the efforts of local Protestant vigilante groups in the sectarian conflict in the province.” - britannica.com/topic/Ulster-Defence-Association

“Units of the IRA were organized to defend besieged Catholic communities in the province and were sustained by support from units in Ireland.” - britannica.com/topic/Irish-Republican-Army

I don’t see anywhere here where it says people were bombed in the name of Jesus.

The civil war in Northern Ireland was fought between Irish nationalists who wanted a united Ireland, and unionists who wanted to remain part of the UK. No one was bombed in the name of Jesus.

My point is that stereotypes often don’t reflect reality and are used to divide between “us” and “them”, as with: all atheists bad; all fundamentalists bad; therefore atheists = fundamentalists = bad.

The reality is there are people who fit the stereotypical image.

I wasn’t arguing people who are fundamentalists should automatically be categorised as ‘bad.’

 

[PRmerger]

Those are nice examples of anthropomorphization;

I don’t think so.

You think that the dog wasn’t actually sexist/racist?

I think the dogs actually were.

Search the internet for “my dog is racist” and you’ll find some (offensive) examples of what I’m saying.

That is, it’s not just humans who can be “ists”.

And if you want to refute Bradski’s claim, then, that’s fine. I stand by you.

Babies can’t be atheist anymore than a paramecium can be an atheist.

Atheism is a volitional choice.

A quick Google search also shows that your primary usage of these words has been to refer to humans.

Oh, no one is claiming that primary usage of these words hasn’t been applied to humans.

 

[PRmerger]

There’s discussion of what level of competency that is necessary for one to have a position on matter or for that position to be considered their own. Even given an child that is able to express that she believes there is or is not a God people will question whether or not to apply labels for religious classifiers. Arguments against this often are based on declarations that the child is absorbing and repeating what their parents or community have said to them. I’ll leave open the discussion of at what age or level of competency it’s appropriate to apply religious labels.

I don’t have any disagreement with the above.

However, as with most things Catholic, it’s not an either/or but rather a both/and (which is what makes Catholicism so formidable to refute).

Children are Catholic not only by virtue of their ability to express what she believes, but also by virtue of her baptism. She becomes a member of the family regardless of what her beliefs are.

(Incidentally, Judaism is like this, too…as well as a whole lot of other Christian denominations…so please be aware, when you are making statements such as the above, that you may be demonstrating an impoverished understanding of what it means to be a member of a particular religion).

 

[PRmerger]

I have been arguing on this thread one can be a radical anything.

Yes–this has been oft repeated on this thread.

Fundamentalism (and radicalism) is not limited to only religion.

Once again…
A Fundamentalists is someone who:

• Is recusant to reason
• Is obdurate about their opinions
• Is unable to discern the nuances of a particular position
• Is literalist in their readings of texts
• Declares: “If you’ve seen only Abrahamic religion, you’ve seen 'em all”.
• Is completely unaware that the world is not neatly divisible between moral absolutists and moral relativists
• Thinks only of Either/Ors
• Cannot apprehend the Both/And
• Thinks that the Bible is supposed to be the Big Book About Everything
• Believe that spiritual things and intellectual things are separate and opposed to one another.
• Sees the Bible as an attempt to be a science textbook
• Has a a flat-footed and simplistic approach to questions of faith, science, reason, and biblical interpretation
• Professes some Alones (Science Alone, the Bible Alone) which cannot be proven by their Alones (Science cannot prove that it’s the only answer to life’s question; and the Bible does not teach the Bible Alone)
• Is unable to say: you have made a good point, let me think about that
• States: everything my opponent says is wrong. She has never made an utterance that is a good rebuttal
• Cannot articulate the opposing side’s views and what she finds to be the best argument for the opposing view

(and note that religion wasn’t referenced in quite a few of those attributes)

 

[PRmerger]

I have been arguing on this thread one can be a radical anything.

More attributes of fundamentalists/radicals:

A close-mindedness that I fear that it limns the mentality of a person who cannot think logically he is so blinded by his opinions.

For example: someone who says, “There are absolutely NO valid arguments that the opposing viewpoint has”. #fundamentalist

Someone who says, “My opponent has never, not even once, offered something that has made me think, ‘Fair enough. Point made. I will reconsider’” #fundamentalist

Someone who says, “I will never change my point of view on this”. #fundamentalist

 

[PRmerger]

More attributes of fundamentalists/radicals:

A close-mindedness that I fear that it limns the mentality of a person who cannot think logically he is so blinded by his opinions.

For example: someone who says, “There are absolutely NO valid arguments that the opposing viewpoint has”. #fundamentalist

Someone who says, “My opponent has never, not even once, offered something that has made me think, ‘Fair enough. Point made. I will reconsider’” #fundamentalist

Someone who says, “I will never change my point of view on this”. #fundamentalist

And note well that none of the above bears any reference to religious fundamentalism only.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

This merits repeating.

Even jokes are only funny the first time. If they are repeated, they become boring.

 

[tonyrey]

I have been arguing on this thread one can be a radical anything.

I don’t see anywhere here where it says people were bombed in the name of Jesus.

The civil war in Northern Ireland was fought between Irish nationalists who wanted a united Ireland, and unionists who wanted to remain part of the UK. No one was bombed in the name of Jesus.

The reality is there are people who fit the stereotypical image.

I wasn’t arguing people who are fundamentalists should automatically be categorised as ‘bad.’

Undeniable facts!

 

[tonyrey]

Good greif…again.

Everybody starts out as atheist. Nobody is born believing in any god whatsoever. Depending on where (and when) you are born determines which god you will be taught about.

Nobody is born believing (or disbelieving) anything!

As you are a child when you are taught about these things, you will believe them. It’s an inbuilt characteristic of children to believe what an adult tells them. It’s an evolutionary trait (people who didn’t listen generally didn’t survive that long).

You either continue with this belief into adulthood or you consider the evidence to be insufficient to maintain it.

Equally true of disbelief…

If you believe in God and have ‘a falling out’ with him, then I’m not sure how you would describe yourself, but ‘atheist’ wouldn’t be it. ‘Angry Christian’ perhaps. In all my years discussing Christianity, I’ve never met one. Not a single one. So I have no idea who these people are about whom you are talking.

It might be helpful if you took a sheet of paper and stuck it to the wall above your PC or iPad or whatever it you are reading this on, and on the sheet write in large, fat capital letters: ATHEISTS DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD.

To be precise, atheists don’t believe God exists - which is different from not** believing in God** (which entails trust). Ultimately atheists don’t trust anything because they believe nothing has any reason to exist. It is a sobering thought which highlights the stark emptiness of a Godless universe which is soul-destroying in every sense of the term. Without religion we live in a spiritual desert which ultimately becomes so oppressing that death becomes a liberation from despair and desolation. Without religion we are left utterly alone without anyone to share our thoughts and feelings. It is in fact a hell of our own making because it is impossible to know for certain there is no God. Saints experienced the Dark Night of the Soul but at least there was light at the end of the tunnel. Let’s hope it’s true there are no atheists in dugouts… It would be ironic if no one finishes up in that plight when they die!

 

[PRmerger]

Bam!

“This gorgeous Italian dog is an enthusiast…”

tampa-fl.americanlisted.com/33602/pets-animals/9-month-old-cane-corso_29089223.html

“Sexist dog”
ask.metafilter.com/264811/Sexist-dog-Protective-dog-Traumatized-dog

“Racist dog”
(no source as they tend to be offensive. You can, of course, google it yourself)

Annnnndddd…

http://godles(name removed by moderator).com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/20131102-atheist_puppy.jpg

Checkmate, atheists!

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Ultimately atheists don’t trust anything because they believe nothing has any reason to exist.

Wrong - they trust the socialist State. That is their answer to everything.

 

[Bradski]

Nobody is born believing (or disbelieving) anything!

Exactly my point. And children automatically believe what they are told. Tooth fairy, gods and monsters, Santa, they are a tabula rasa on which you can write anything at all. And yes, that would include not believing in things.

Maybe I should have written ‘effectively’ an atheist when referring to young children, but I was expecting people to understand the point I was making. And those who know me well enough would be fully aware that I have previously made the point that you can’t self declare as a Christian or an atheist until you have reached whatever you might consider to be the age of reason.

 

[PRmerger]

Exactly my point. And children automatically believe what they are told. Tooth fairy, gods and monsters, Santa, they are a tabula rasa on which you can write anything at all. And yes, that would include not believing in things.

No one ought to disagree with this.

But you also need to include:
-George Washington was the first president of the US

-if you touch a hot stove you will burn yourself

-if you ride a bike, you’re better protected with a helmet.

Tabula rasa.

 

[PRmerger]

Maybe I should have written ‘effectively’ an atheist when referring to young children,

And we would have just responded with: children are “effectively” Christian when they are baptized.