Scratch an atheist and you will find a skeptic!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vera_Ljuba
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
inocente said:
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.
Click to expand...
You atheists just love those goofy polls!
 
reggieM said:
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.
Click to expand...
Your recall of my post is certainly inaccurate at times. What I really said was “I’d hope everyone should know not to disparage large groups of anonymous people with pejorative labels”.

As for survey accuracy, open the link and you’ll see that the survey has been run many times over the years, with consistent results, and statistically there is “95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points”.

But even if the sampling error was consistently higher over all those years, and the number of American Catholic fundamentalists wasn’t 20% but only 10%, Catholics who use fundamentalist as a pejorative label are still disparaging millions of fellow Catholics.
*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.
Click to expand...
Ok, have a nice day.*
Click to expand...
Yikes. If you’re claiming that anyone who takes the bible literally is to be lumped-in with sinners, then one consequence is all those intelligent design fans and creationists better repent or they’ll go to hell. And as virtually everyone 400 years ago took Genesis as a literal scientific account, and therefore were fundamentalists, … :ehh:

Perhaps you should review your reasoning.
 
CHRISTINE77 said:
You atheists just love those goofy polls!
Click to expand...
So do you claim that the number of American Catholic fundamentalists is higher than the surveys found? Or lower? Please cite your sources.

btw I’m not an atheist. People who live in the real world outside of internet forums are not necessarily atheists ;).
 
inocente said:
So do you claim that the number of American Catholic fundamentalists is higher than the surveys found? Or lower? Please cite your sources.

btw I’m not an atheist. People who live in the real world outside of internet forums are not necessarily atheists ;).
Click to expand...
Well if is talks like an atheist, and walks like an atheist…

Cite your source and tell me how the information was gathered. Like I said in my previous posts, polls are VERY unscientific.
 
CHRISTINE77 said:
Like I said in my previous posts, polls are VERY unscientific.
Click to expand...
I think Nate Silver learned that in trying to predict the last US presidential election.
Beyond that, a survey can get consistent results and still not ask a question that yeilds an accurate understanding.
Give us any Catholic who says they take the Bible 100% literally and simply ask some follow up questions regarding tearing their eyes out or that Jesus literally was a grape vine, or thousands of other interpreted passages - and you get an entirely different result.

It’s seems that inocente just enjoys disparaging and labeling people he disagrees with - so I guess he’s having some fun. 🤷
 
reggieM said:
I think Nate Silver learned that in trying to predict the last US presidential election.
Beyond that, a survey can get consistent results and still not ask a question that yeilds an accurate understanding.
Give us any Catholic who says they take the Bible 100% literally and simply ask some follow up questions regarding tearing their eyes out or that Jesus literally was a grape vine, or thousands of other interpreted passages - and you get an entirely different result.

It’s seems that inocente just enjoys disparaging and labeling people he disagrees with - so I guess he’s having some fun. 🤷
Click to expand...
Similar to the way the question is posed regarding abortion.

Polls that call the person doing the abortion a “doctor” vs polls that call the person doing the abortion an “abortionist” yield different results.
 
JapaneseKappa said:
Catholics have fundamentalists too, and they’re usually defined as the Catholics who know the religion well enough to have principled (negative) opinions on decisions made by the magisterium. For example, advocates of the idea that all masses should be given in Latin. For some reason, in Catholocism, they’ve invented a new category (traditionalists) which looks an awful lot like fundamentalism.
Click to expand...
Oh, yes.

There is almost nothing worse than trying to engage in dialogue with some of the traditionalists.
 
CHRISTINE77 said:
Well if is talks like an atheist, and walks like an atheist…
Click to expand...
You teenagers. Bless.
Cite your source and tell me how the information was gathered. Like I said in my previous posts, polls are VERY unscientific.
Click to expand...
You’ve already quoted me citing the source, and it details the methodology. Look at your post #61. See the link? Double click it.

So far, you’ve not managed to read my religion, you don’t even seem to have read what you quoted, and not answered my question. Must try harder seems apt.

If you have evidence that all those surveys from 1977 onwards are wrong, present your evidence. If you challenge the number of American Catholic fundamentalists, present your evidence. Until you do, the evidence is that around 20% of American Catholics believe “the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word”.

The news seems to have burst your party balloon. Don’t worry, after denial eventually comes acceptance.
reggieM said:
I think Nate Silver learned that in trying to predict the last US presidential election.
Beyond that, a survey can get consistent results and still not ask a question that yeilds an accurate understanding.
Give us any Catholic who says they take the Bible 100% literally and simply ask some follow up questions regarding tearing their eyes out or that Jesus literally was a grape vine, or thousands of other interpreted passages - and you get an entirely different result.

It’s seems that inocente just enjoys disparaging and labeling people he disagrees with - so I guess he’s having some fun. 🤷
Click to expand...
I’m not the one disparaging fundamentalists. Doesn’t matter to me whether someone is or isn’t. I mean there’s a number on CAF, some have poor arguments, but then some non-fundamentalists have poor arguments.

But it appears that you guys do want to disparage fundamentalists, and real-world evidence has come as a nasty surprise, and rather than accept it you want to deny it and shoot the messenger (that would be me). And don’t be so sure that fundamentalists can’t answer your follow-up questions, as if they’re dumb, they might run rings round you.

I think labeling people as stereotypes in order to look down on them is always wrong.
 
Annnnd…

SAAFAF

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
#havingsomuchfunwiththis

SAAFAF

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
inocente said:
You teenagers. Bless.

You’ve already quoted me citing the source, and it details the methodology. Look at your post #61. See the link? Double click it.

So far, you’ve not managed to read my religion, you don’t even seem to have read what you quoted, and not answered my question. Must try harder seems apt.

If you have evidence that all those surveys from 1977 onwards are wrong, present your evidence. If you challenge the number of American Catholic fundamentalists, present your evidence. Until you do, the evidence is that around 20% of American Catholics believe “the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word”.

The news seems to have burst your party balloon. Don’t worry, after denial eventually comes acceptance.

I’m not the one disparaging fundamentalists. Doesn’t matter to me whether someone is or isn’t. I mean there’s a number on CAF, some have poor arguments, but then some non-fundamentalists have poor arguments.

But it appears that you guys do want to disparage fundamentalists, and real-world evidence has come as a nasty surprise, and rather than accept it you want to deny it and shoot the messenger (that would be me). And don’t be so sure that fundamentalists can’t answer your follow-up questions, as if they’re dumb, they might run rings round you.

I think labeling people as stereotypes in order to look down on them is always wrong.
Click to expand...
I think you are full of it. 😉 definitely.
 
reggieM said:
It’s seems that inocente just enjoys disparaging and labeling people he disagrees with - so I guess he’s having some fun. 🤷
Click to expand...
I find it curious that there is some objection to calling people fundamentalists.

There are not a few people here on the CAFS who welcome and embrace their fundamentalism and would be profoundly insulted that some think it’s bad to be a fundamentalist.

Imagine if a poster said, “Scratch an atheist, find a woman” and the response was “You are disparaging me by calling me a woman!”

This poster, the one who is insulted about being called a woman, is the one who needs an attitude transfusion.

Not the poster who says SAAFAW.

After all, what’s so rebarbative about being called a woman, right?

Unless… you see women as inferior…
 
With that ^^ said, I do see fundamentalism as a profoundly inferior paradigm.

But I am not hypocritical in saying, “You are insulting fundamentalists!”…while, in making that very statement…insult these fundamentalists.
 
PRmerger said:
I find it curious that there is some objection to calling people fundamentalists.
Click to expand...
Except that in post #13 fundamentalists are likened to uneducated children, post #22 says they have a flat-footed and simplistic approach, post #35 lumps them together with atheists and implies they cannot be Catholics, and so on.

No evidence was presented that these assertions apply to even one fundamentalist, let alone all. It sounded much more like prejudice (‘preconceived opinion’, OED) than a rational claim, so I looked around and found those surveys. The preconception that few if any American Catholics are fundamentalists turned out to be badly wrong.

Agreed there should be no objection to the word fundamentalist when it is used with its standard meaning rather than as a prejudiced slur.
 
PRmerger said:
Imagine if a poster said, “Scratch an atheist, find a woman” and the response was “You are disparaging me by calling me a woman!”

This poster, the one who is insulted about being called a woman, is the one who needs an attitude transfusion.
…]
Unless… you see women as inferior…
Click to expand...
A low view of women either in the part of the speaker or the audience could make such a statement something taken as an insult. If it is known/believed that the speaker has low views of women what might otherwise be considered a statement of fact could be taken as the speaker indirectly applying those views to someone. The same person could feel complimented if a person that is known/believed to think highly of women states that she is a women.

The English language has a history of using the feminine form of words as diminutive and condescending. Not to blame this on the language itself, this was an expression of attitudes held by people in the society. Using the feminine marked form of some words instead of a neutral term may be frowned upon (ex:stewardess) with a neutral term being preferred (flight attendant). The feminine marking of many words is now considered obsolete.

All of the above says nothing about how a person may feel if the description applied doesn’t align with their personal identity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top