Scratch an atheist and you will find a skeptic!

[PRmerger]

Annnd, another SAAFAF:

Originally posted by me:

Hint: it’s an example of someone not necessarily believing in God but simply having a clean heart who will…

And the response:

What is a clean heart?
Low cholesterol?
With my Mediterranean diet, my cholesterol is at a nice level… still, that premonition that “I will sense God” is somewhere in the unknown future… and there are people out there who could claim the same cleanliness, but they died in the meantime, never sensing God…
It seems that’s not a reliable technique.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

What did I get wrong?

Honestly, I try to learn about atheism, but as I see it - there’s virtually nothing to it at all. It’s a philosophy of nothing. There is ultimately nothing - no meaning, purpose. No reason for human life – life which is claimed to be the product of blind, indifferent, unintelligent, unguided processes.

There’s really very little to talk about.

I think that’s why many atheists enjoy discussions on Christian sites because we do, actually, propose that there is a distinct meaning and purpose and direction to life. We seek to explore what that is – since the goal of our attention is the most perfect, joyful and love-filled goodness that a human can imagine.

It’s a pretty huge difference - wouldn’t you agree?

Amen.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

This, from Mark Shea:

"So often, atheists and fundamentalists don’t disagree about things so much as they disagree about whether the things they agree on are good or bad. Atheists and fundamentalists agree, for instance, that Genesis is a science textbook. They merely disagree on whether it is a good or a bad science textbook. They agree that the Bible is supposed to be the Big Book about Everything. They merely disagree about whether it does a good job filling that role. And they agree that spiritual things and intellectual things are separate and opposed to one another. They merely disagree about whether faith or reason should come out on top."Mark P. Shea: Sacraments: The Sacrament of Confirmation, Part 10

My faves:
-Atheists and fundamentalists agree that Genesis is a science textbook.

Catholicism understands that Genesis is NOT a science textbook, anymore than “Your eyes are limpid pools of light” is an Ophthalmological treatise

-[Atheists and fundamentalists agree that] Spiritual things and intellectual things are separate and opposed to one another.
Catholicism understands that spiritual things (faith) and intellectual things (reason)
are 2 wings upon which the human spirit rises to contemplate the truth.

Hey at least fundamentalists believe in God. I think they are much better than atheists!

 

[PRmerger]

Hey at least fundamentalists believe in God. I think they are much better than atheists!

You mean fundamentalist Christians believe in God.

Fundamentalists are just…fundamentalists. Recusant to reason. Obdurate about their opinions. Unable to discern the nuances of a particular position. Literalist in their readings of texts.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

You mean fundamentalist Christians believe in God.

Fundamentalists are just…fundamentalists. Recusant to reason. Obdurate about their opinions. Unable to discern the nuances of a particular position. Literalist in their readings of texts.

Yes I mean fundamentalist Christians. I thought that is what you and Mark were referring to.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

WOOSH!!!

That was the sound of PR’s point going over Vera’s head.

Vera. They both interpret literally when forming their beliefs/arguments. That was what he was meaning.
:doh2::doh2::doh2:

Nonsense. A five years old actually believes that there is a Santa Claus. An adult reads the same story as a fairy tale, and rejects that it is actually correct. That is the difference between a religious fundamentalist and a skeptic - which distinction went way over YOUR head.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Nonsense. A five years old actually believes that there is a Santa Claus. An adult reads the same story as a fairy tale, and rejects that it is actually correct. That is the difference between a religious fundamentalist and a skeptic - which distinction went way over YOUR head.

Wrong. An adult finds the beauty in the idea of Santa Claus - a fictional person who gives with love to children when they are good. In some ways Santa Claus is the fictional epitomy of justice, since he gives presents to children who are good, yet coal to those who are not. But actually Santa Claus is an representation of parents’ love for their children, who give to them whether they are deserving or not. And parents can often be a representation of God to a child. But I guess these allegorical ideas are lost on a fundamentalist atheist who does not believe in Santa, nor the idea of Santa, nor the poetry of Santa, nor the loving meaning of Santa… etc.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Wrong. An adult finds the beauty in the idea of Santa Claus - a fictional person who gives with love to children when they are good. In some ways Santa Claus is the fictional epitomy of justice, since he gives presents to children who are good, yet coal to those who are not. But actually Santa Claus is an representation of parents’ love for their children, who give to them whether they are deserving or not. And parents can often be a representation of God to a child. But I guess these allegorical ideas are lost on a fundamentalist atheist who does not believe in Santa, nor the idea of Santa, nor the poetry of Santa, nor the loving meaning of Santa… etc.

You have no idea what you are talking about. The atheist parent has nothing against allegory and what it represents. They happily participate in the story, to see the happy face of the child. The five years old has no concept of the allegory, he accepts everything literally. That is THE difference between the skeptic and the religious fundamentalist.

Poor PR has this bit between her teeth. She has the urge to put down the atheists and uses the worst insult she can think of: “declaring the atheists to be similar to the religious fundamentalists”. And she wears the blinders of the horses, she has no idea that there is much stronger similarity between the Catholics and the Protestant fundamentalists - literally believing some fairy tales.

 

[PRmerger]

And another commentary on the similarity between atheists (here, narrowed to “empiricists”) and fundamentalists (here, narrowed to “Bible Alone” advocates) from Philosopher of Science Paul Feyerabend:

“He suggests that there are important parallels between them; in particular, he finds them both incoherent, and for the same reasons.”

And from Feser: “Now, the reason sola scriptura and early modern empiricism get themselves into trouble is that they purportedly limit themselves to the deliverances of a “given,” but where the existence of the purported “given” in question and the imperative to limit ourselves to it are not themselves knowable from the “given.” This entails a kind of self-refutation to which doctrines that do not posit such a “given” in the first place are not subject.”
edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/07/feyerabend-on-empiricism-and-sola.html

Both empiricism and sola scriptura are circular.
Both are contradictory.
Both are self refuting.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

You have no idea what you are talking about. The atheist parent has nothing against allegory and what it represents. They happily participate in the story, to see the happy face of the child. The five years old has no concept of the allegory, he accepts everything literally. That is THE difference between the skeptic and the religious fundamentalist.

Poor PR has this bit between her teeth. She has the urge to put down the atheists and uses the worst insult she can think of: “declaring the atheists to be similar to the religious fundamentalists”. And she wears the blinders of the horses, she has no idea that there is much stronger similarity between the Catholics and the Protestant fundamentalists - literally believing some fairy tales.

You have no idea what you are talking about! Atheists believe in scientism. That’s a fairy tale too!

 

[reggieM]

You have no idea what you are talking about! Atheists believe in scientism. That’s a fairy tale too!

That is true.
“Molecules-to-man” is a creation myth.
So are any supposed scientific theories about the origin of the universe.
They’re just imaginary stories.

 

[PRmerger]

That is true.
“Molecules-to-man” is a creation myth.
So are any supposed scientific theories about the origin of the universe.
They’re just imaginary stories.

As is the idea that something came from nothing.

Nothing…then poof! …the universe.

It’s MAGIC!

 

[inocente]

A few people keep on repeating this nonsense: “Scratch an atheist and you will find a fundamentalist”. I have no idea who came up with this ridiculous idea first, but it is so irrational, and getting so frequent that it requires a response.

Fundamentalists consider every sentence in the bible being literally true and correct.
Atheists accept that some parts are historically correct, while others are allegorical, and yet others are pure fantasy or fairy tale.

How can these two, diametrically opposite views be considered equal?

A large number of Americans are fundamentalists. Gallup found that 21% of Catholics and 41% Protestants answered that “the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word”.

So for instance if there are 60 million US Catholics, 13 million are fundamentalists. Obviously no Christian would want to create disunity by using the word fundamentalist as a pejorative for such a large number of fellow Christians. So I guess they must be using the word as a compliment.

 

[reggieM]

Obviously no Christian would want to create disunity by using the word fundamentalist as a pejorative for such a large number of fellow Christians.

Are you speaking for yourself as a Christian?

 

[inocente]

Are you speaking for yourself as a Christian?

I’d hope everyone should know not to disparage large groups of anonymous people with pejorative labels.

 

[reggieM]

I’d hope everyone should know not to disparage large groups of anonymous people with pejorative labels.

Why not?

 

[PRmerger]

And here’s an amusing objection that’s rather…fundamentalist.

This atheist is protesting the application of the word “fundamentalist” beyond the realm of religion or politics.

Ah, speaking of dictionary definitions, you and PRmerger may be interested in a more representative definition of “fundamentalist”: “movement with strict view of doctrine: a religious or political movement based on a literal interpretation of and strict adherence to doctrine, especially as a return to former principles”

In his/her eyes, “fundamentalist” cannot apply to his ideology as it’s not religious or political.

Fundamentalism is a designation ONLY for religion and politics.

#irony
#SAAFAF

 

[inocente]

Why not?

I think you already know the definition of bigot. Too hot here today for word games. Goodbye.

 

[reggieM]

I think you already know the definition of bigot. Too hot here today for word games. Goodbye.

I was just wondering because you generalized about a large group of anonymous people by citing a survey and then extrapolating results for the population. Surveys aren’t very accurate at times.

Beyond that, Our Blessed Lord, the apostles, St. Paul, the Fathers of the Church, Doctors of the Church and many saints spoke disparagingly of groups of people (heretics, apostates, schismatics, those who scandalize, Pharisees, sodomites … many others), so I just wondered where you got your moral certainties from.

Ok, have a nice day.

 

[PRmerger]

Also, I wish to clarify that the amusing SAAFAF meme is not to be interpreted as saying:

ALL atheists are fundamentalists in the strictest sense of the word.

While all atheists are fundamentalists, loosely applied, I don’t have a problem dialoguing with this type of fundamentalism.

Where I excise myself from discourse with a particular poster is when this poster has limned a particular type of fundamentalism which is clearly recusant to reason. 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

#wasteoftime
#notevenforthelurkerswillIpost