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.
ThinkingSapien said:
The same person could feel complimented if a person that is known/believed to think highly of women states that she is a women.
Click to expand...
Egg-zactly. 👍

So those who view fundamentalism as a bad thing will find the SAAFAF meme insulting.

This is amusing, then, to see someone object and say, “You’re insulting fundamentalists!” while he’s actually, emmm…insulting fundamentalists.
 
PRmerger said:
Egg-zactly. 👍

So those who view fundamentalism as a bad thing will find the SAAFAF meme insulting.

This is amusing, then, to see someone object and say, “You’re insulting fundamentalists!” while he’s actually, emmm…insulting fundamentalists.
Click to expand...
What can we conclude about the person that nods appreciatively and finds high praise with the concept of being associated with fundamentalism?

Answer: he thinks highly of fundamentalists.

What can we conclude about the person that is insulted about references to fundamentalism?

Answer: he is scornful of fundamentalists.
 
Christian fundamentalists are not the only fundamentalists around. Religious fundamentalists are not the only fundamentalists around.

Fundamentalism has come to be applied to groups characterized by a markedly strict literalism as applied to ideologies. The term can be used in a political sense - fundamentally right/left wing.

The term ‘fundamental atheist’ is applied to atheists who advocate no religion has no substance at all, faith has no value and is superstitious nonsense. Comparisons can be drawn between religious fundamentalist and radical atheists in terms of - among other things - their respective rhetoric and apparent tenacity if not outright opposition towards anything that runs contrary to their philosophy or ideology. There are atheists who are considerably less dogmatic and more tolerant, and thus would not be categorized as ‘fundamentalist.’

This said, if there is an objection to use of the term ‘fundamentalist’ due to it’s association with religion I would suggest the ‘radical’ as in ‘radically atheist’ would be an appropriate substitute.
 
minkymurph said:
Christian fundamentalists are not the only fundamentalists around. Religious fundamentalists are not the only fundamentalists around.

Fundamentalism has come to be applied to groups characterized by a markedly strict literalism as applied to ideologies. The term can be used in a political sense - fundamentally right/left wing.

The term ‘fundamental atheist’ is applied to atheists who advocate no religion has no substance at all, faith has no value and is superstitious nonsense. Comparisons can be drawn between religious fundamentalist and radical atheists in terms of - among other things - their respective rhetoric and apparent tenacity if not outright opposition towards anything that runs contrary to their philosophy or ideology. There are atheists who are considerably less dogmatic and more tolerant, and thus would not be categorized as ‘fundamentalist.’

This said, if there is an objection to use of the term ‘fundamentalist’ due to it’s association with religion I would suggest the ‘radical’ as in ‘radically atheist’ would be an appropriate substitute.
Click to expand...
The SAAFAF meme means this:
  • the atheist reads the Bible in the same way that a fundamentalist Christian reads the Bible
  • the atheist is resistant to nuances of arguments, just as fundamentalists are
  • the atheist is recusant to reason, just as fundamentalists are
 
PRmerger said:
The SAAFAF meme means this:
  • the atheist reads the Bible in the same way that a fundamentalist Christian reads the Bible
  • the atheist is resistant to nuances of arguments, just as fundamentalists are
  • the atheist is recusant to reason, just as fundamentalists are
Click to expand...
Is it not the case the atheist does not read the Bible literally themselves but thinks all Christians should read the Bible as fundamentalists?

No problem with the other points.
 
minkymurph said:
Is it not the case the atheist does not read the Bible literally themselves but thinks all Christians should read the Bible as fundamentalists?

No problem with the other points.
Click to expand...
I think the answer to the above is both/and.

The atheist does indeed read the Bible literally–“It says in the Bible that God made the world in 7 days! No room for misunderstanding there!”

And “It says in the Bible that there was a talking serpent! No room for misunderstanding there!”

And see this meme that I posted earlier:



What is that if not a literalist reading of Genesis?
 
PRmerger said:
So those who view fundamentalism as a bad thing will find the SAAFAF meme insulting.
Click to expand...
Can’t say that I understood this to be something that has been mimicked. I may have missed the other occurrences, but you are the only poster that I’ve ever encountered using it.

I think you are singular focused on one reason a person might find the description less than charming while ignoring others. The ones I mentioned were:
  • Those who find it as a bad thing
  • Those who think the other person sees it as bad
  • Those who feel it doesn’t align with their self identity
For the last one a person need not even find the term insulting to be bothered by being called by it. A person might be mildly bothered by being frequently called by someone else’s name, not that they think the other name is bad.
 
ThinkingSapien said:
Can’t say that I understood this to be something that has been mimicked.
Click to expand...
You missed page 2 of this thread.

I did not coin this phrase but have found it oh-so-trenchant and amusing and am wont to use it as often as I can.
 
ThinkingSapien said:
I think you are singular focused on one reason a person might find the description less than charming while ignoring others.
Click to expand...
I am only focused on it because I find it hypocritical.

“How dare you insult fundamentalists” while…he is insulting fundamentalists.

That’s almost pharisaical in its affectation.
 
ThinkingSapien said:
Can’t say that I understood this to be something that has been mimicked. I may have missed the other occurrences, but you are the only poster that I’ve ever encountered using it.

I think you are singular focused on one reason a person might find the description less than charming while ignoring others. The ones I mentioned were:
  • Those who find it as a bad thing
  • Those who think the other person sees it as bad
  • Those who feel it doesn’t align with their self identity
For the last one a person need not even find the term insulting to be bothered by being called by it. A person might be mildly bothered by being frequently called by someone else’s name, not that they think the other name is bad.
Click to expand...
I am curious what you think about all the examples I have posted of atheists being rather fundamentalist in their assessments.

Do you not agree that these are quite descriptive and germane?
 
In my opinion, (and I’ve done this dozens of times), it’s easy to get frustrated with atheists for a very long list of reasons. After that, it’s easy to just generalize them as stupid, bad, evil, ignorant - or any other number of things which may or may not be true.
For me, when that happens, I realize it’s time to take a break from internet debating.

I don’t agree with that “scratch a …” thing or calling people fundamentalist unless they self-identify with that.

Back to the survey - I think it’'s dishonest to ask people questions and not reveal that their answers will cause you to give them a name of some kind.
No - ask them upfront if they identify with the term Fundamentalist. Then of course, you need to know what they mean by it.
Otherwise, it’s meaningless.

Survey designers to each other: “Hey, anybody who believes XYZ is an idiot, right? Right. Ok, we’ll find out how many idiots are out there.”.
Survey question: “Do you believe XYZ?”
Survey results: 40% of the population, by their very own words, are idiots.

No, no - you have to be upfront. No sneaky stuff like that of adding a definition to people who haven’t been informed that’s how you’re interpreting their answers.

I would like to see the number of Catholics who identify themselves as fundamentalists. I’ve never met one.

How is the term even defined? Who owns the definition? Is there an official fundamentalist organization out there? How do they know they’re it?
 
PRmerger said:
The SAAFAF meme means this:
  • the atheist reads the Bible in the same way that a fundamentalist Christian reads the Bible
  • the atheist is resistant to nuances of arguments, just as fundamentalists are
Click to expand...
Exactly! The atheists read the Bible literally. They are exactly like religious fundamentalists in that way. They are blind to any allegory or poetry in the Bible.
 
reggieM said:
In my opinion, (and I’ve done this dozens of times), it’s easy to get frustrated with atheists for a very long list of reasons. After that, it’s easy to just generalize them as stupid, bad, evil, ignorant - or any other number of things which may or may not be true.
For me, when that happens, I realize it’s time to take a break from internet debating.

I don’t agree with that “scratch a …” thing or calling people fundamentalist unless they self-identify with that.

Back to the survey - I think it’'s dishonest to ask people questions and not reveal that their answers will cause you to give them a name of some kind.
No - ask them upfront if they identify with the term Fundamentalist. Then of course, you need to know what they mean by it.
Otherwise, it’s meaningless.

Survey designers to each other: “Hey, anybody who believes XYZ is an idiot, right? Right. Ok, we’ll find out how many idiots are out there.”.
Survey question: “Do you believe XYZ?”
Survey results: 40% of the population, by their very own words, are idiots.

No, no - you have to be upfront. No sneaky stuff like that of adding a definition to people who haven’t been informed that’s how you’re interpreting their answers.

I would like to see the number of Catholics who identify themselves as fundamentalists. I’ve never met one.

How is the term even defined? Who owns the definition? Is there an official fundamentalist organization out there? How do they know they’re it?
Click to expand...
I agree with you. There may be a few Catholics like that, but they are in a very small minority. Most uneducated Catholics don’t even read the Bible, so how could they be fundamentalists? This was and is a Protestant movement.

Fundamentalism as a movement arose in the United States, starting among conservative Presbyterian theologians at Princeton Theological Seminary in the late 19th century. It soon spread to conservatives among the Baptists and other denominations around 1910 to 1920. The movement’s purpose was to reaffirm key theological tenets and defend them against the challenges of liberal theology and higher criticism. This is not a Catholic movement.
 
reggieM said:
I would like to see the number of Catholics who identify themselves as fundamentalists. I’ve never met one.
Click to expand...
I just googled “I am a fundamentalist Catholic”.

You’ll find that there are indeed some Catholics who self identify this way.
 
PRmerger said:
I am curious what you think about all the examples I have posted of atheists being rather fundamentalist in their assessments.

Do you not agree that these are quite descriptive and germane?
Click to expand...
Are you referring to the graphics about Gates and Noah? I don’t think much of them; they look to be ridicule in response to some interpretations held by some Christians of what is in the bible. They don’t appear to have much if any applicability to the views I’ve seen expressed here in CAF. More times than not the view stated here has been that only God knows who will be in heaven and who will be in hell. They may have some greater applicability to the views expressed elsewhere. Looking at the graphics by themselves I can’t say that the person producing it necessarily meets the criteria that you defined back in #86. Bidirectional interaction may be needed to determine that.

I once attended a church that concluded learning too much was a sin. It wouldn’t be hard to form a response ridiculing this position and post it somewhere. Even someone that reads the bible with a different interpretation could make statements ridiculing the position of those in this church on knowledge. Such ridicule doesn’t necessarily indicate how someone responding interprets the bible; they are responding to someone else’s interpretation. Bradski touched on this towards the end of his post in #23.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top