Have you been called a "fundamentalist" atheist? (Buddhism, Christianity, choices)

[Arach Angle]

we can post anything we want as many times as we want. It doesn't change a thing.

List the traits of a fundie.
it is the end of the story.

[mordant]

Originally Posted by Ella Parr

Do I have doubts? Sure I do. The older I get the smaller the percentage, but sometimes I wonder. My biggest concern is whether I'm good enough or not. For all I can prove, it is indigestion. I understand that. Luckily, I only have to prove it to me.

That sums up in a nutshell the sort of theistic thinking I can coexist just fine with. It is a live and let live mutual respect.

Sadly, relatively few theists in this forum exhibit that. Happily in the Real World, at least in a fairly liberal community well out of the Bible Belt, most theists seem to be like yourself or at least keep any intolerance to themselves.

It is not as though I can't have compassion for fundamentalist ideation. After all, I once was such a beast myself. The desire for certitude and clarity and correctness is understandable if misguided and unrealistic.

Sometimes in dealing with these folks I can be pretty direct and when they put their arrogance and bigotry on full display I sometimes even give tit for tat. That does not mean that I hate them or literally think I'm 100% correct and they are 100% wrong. It's just that you have to speak to them within the limitations of their rigid thinking.

I repeat often in this space (not for the benefit of fundamentalists, who either can't see it or would never admit it -- but for the general audience of lurkers) that atheism is a belief position, not a knowledge position. It is about rational defaults when evidence is lacking. For all I know there's an unseen world full of spirit beings and it's "elephants all the way down". I just am not willing to say that unless there's good and sufficient reason to do so. I don't consider faith good and sufficient. It's okay if others do, so long as, like yourself, they are clear on what faith is and that it is entirely personal in nature and not to be foisted on others.

[Ella Parr]

Originally Posted by mordant

That sums up in a nutshell the sort of theistic thinking I can coexist just fine with. It is a live and let live mutual respect.

Thanks, Mordant.

I believe in "to each his own". That's why I preach: one's own path - either to vegan or to God.

Originally Posted by mordant

Sadly, relatively few theists in this forum exhibit that. Happily in the Real World, at least in a fairly liberal community well out of the Bible Belt, most theists seem to be like yourself or at least keep any intolerance to themselves.

Tee hee hee. I live in a small, totally un-liberal community right in the heart of the Bible Belt. It's a wonder I turned out as good as I did! Geez, I'm a liberal and a democrat! Try walking a mile in my shoes!!!!

Perhaps it is living here around the "Amen" section of conservative church with their bigotry, hatred, intolerance and holier-than-thou attitudes that makes me so aware of it.

I believe that a walk with God is an evolution that is supposed to make us better people. I believe that I have evolved from where these people are. (sorry. that sounds a lot "holier-than-thou" oops). How do you "love thy neighbor" as Jesus commanded if you are so intolerant of everybody who isn't just like you. Non-believers seem to get this and they aren't claiming any god. So, it would seem to me that the organized religions of Christianity are the ones promoting this. Sheesh! What are the implications of that????

Originally Posted by mordant

It is not as though I can't have compassion for fundamentalist ideation. After all, I once was such a beast myself. The desire for certitude and clarity and correctness is understandable if misguided and unrealistic.

I am so sorry for your experience. It seems that a lot of non-believers had the same experience. I, too, left the church - run-of-the-mill Baptist and Methodist - 40 years ago. Sadly, I think church is one of God's greatest enemies.

Now that the old televangelists are dying off, I wonder what they found on the other side (sorry. I'm a Christian. I can't help myself.)?

"Lord, Lord, didn't I hate in your name? Didn't I scare people with the threat of hell fire for you?" sheesh. Talk about the Anti-Christ and the false prophet!!!!

If there was a point system (and if there was a god, of course), I think you would get a bunch of points for realizing the error of their ways and leaving them behind. When it comes to "falling short of the glory of God" who qualifies? I think that people who hurt others in the name of God would be at the top of the list. But, I think people like you and me out here trying to find our on way - whatever that is - without hurting anybody else are doing ok. I don't see non-belief as a sin. I think (if there was a god, of course and if we were being judged) your soul is still "good". If you were hating in the name of God and leading others astray, as the church so often promotes, it wouldn't be. I think you and I are pretty much breaking even - if anybody was keeping score, that is.

Originally Posted by mordant

Sometimes in dealing with these folks I can be pretty direct and when they put their arrogance and bigotry on full display I sometimes even give tit for tat. That does not mean that I hate them or literally think I'm 100% correct and they are 100% wrong. It's just that you have to speak to them within the limitations of their rigid thinking.

Don't I understand that!!! Because of what I believe, I feel sorry for them - and the people they infect. You walked away. Kudos to you. Better to be a non-believer than to be a destructive believer. (if anyone was keeping score, of course. I sure give you a bunch of points. )

Originally Posted by mordant

I repeat often in this space (not for the benefit of fundamentalists, who either can't see it or would never admit it -- but for the general audience of lurkers) that atheism is a belief position, not a knowledge position. It is about rational defaults when evidence is lacking. For all I know there's an unseen world full of spirit beings and it's "elephants all the way down". I just am not willing to say that unless there's good and sufficient reason to do so. I don't consider faith good and sufficient. It's okay if others do, so long as, like yourself, they are clear on what faith is and that it is entirely personal in nature and not to be foisted on others.

Yes, I, too, tend to be mindful of the lurkers - regardless of the poster I am answering. Everyone has to walk his/her own path to whatever conclusion. You never know when an isolated word or phrase might be a piece of their jigsaw puzzle - for or against. Walking one's own path is not done in isolation. Collecting information comes from all around us.

I totally understand what you are saying and where you are coming from. "Faith" can not come from someone else telling you to "believe it or else". Believing - for or against - comes from the pieces you collect and put together.

Yes, I believe that my beliefs are totally my own. I couldn't *give* them to you even if I wanted to. Whatever we believe just doesn't work that way. A belief or faith in God - a walk with God - is an individual endeavor. It's not a group activity. That's why I preach "one's own path - to vegan or to God". I have enough trouble taking care of my own immortal soul without trying to take care of anyone else's.

[Freak80]

I don't have a problem with personal religion or private "quests for the divine" or what have you. But I do take issue with the "I have THE TRUTH directly from the mind of God himself, and if you don't believe me then you will burn in hell" mentality. Especially when it's forced on children, since they don't yet have critical thinking skills.

[Ella Parr]

Originally Posted by Freak80

I don't have a problem with personal religion or private "quests for the divine" or what have you. But I do take issue with the "I have THE TRUTH directly from the mind of God himself, and if you don't believe me then you will burn in hell" mentality. Especially when it's forced on children, since they don't yet have critical thinking skills.

I'm going to pretend this was addressed to me.

Thanks, Freak. The only "truth" anyone can have is for him/herself alone. So, I totally agree with you.

I think it is sad when children are forced to believe most anything "religious". Luckily, I came out of a home that didn't force religious beliefs on me. I was 7 when I first questioned what I learned in church.

My dad got his Bible and said, "read this". When I was finished reading my dad said, "what did you read, what does it say to you, what seems wrong with what you read, what do you think it means?" I talked it through. He never gave me his opinion. The longest day he lived, he didn't give me his opinion. He just said, "read this" and he asked me those questions. As a kid, I was so irritated by that. Just give me the answer and let me get on with my life, all ready. Now, I am very grateful.

Sadly, church can't make you "believe" something that isn't taught or reinforced at home.

[TRANSPONDER]

Even if not addressed to you, Ella, you are as entitled as anyone to respond. Yes, as kids we do tend (like Hobbits) to like all the answers set out fair and square in a book with no contradictions.

It is later that we learn to value disagreement, search and discovery. It was a lot later that i was asked to 'really read the Bible' (that is the gospels) and the result has me here, sneering at the shekel -eating fish.

The debate really isn't about the experience of 'God' (only about the claim that there is no other valid explanation) but about the claims of religion. Theism as such is not really a problem for the atheist, though on logical and evidential grounds we do have other explanations and thus do not buy into the belief.

That is all that we need to be atheist, though we de reject the Bible and its god, pretty flatly, just as the definition says. If to go where the evidence really leads is some kind of 'fundamentalism', then the term is obviously used equivocatively and unfairly pejoratively. (bwll blooblle.. breakfast waffles anyone? )

[Ella Parr]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Even if not addressed to you, Ella, you are as entitled as anyone to respond. Yes, as kids we do tend (like Hobbits) to like all the answers set out fair and square in a book with no contradictions.

It is later that we learn to value disagreement, search and discovery. It was a lot later that i was asked to 'really read the Bible' (that is the gospels) and the result has me here, sneering at the shekel -eating fish.

The debate really isn't about the experience of 'God' (only about the claim that there is no other valid explanation) but about the claims of religion. Theism as such is not really a problem for the atheist, though on logical and evidential grounds we do have other explanations and thus do not buy into the belief.

That is all that we need to be atheist, though we de reject the Bible and its god, pretty flatly, just as the definition says. If to go where the evidence really leads is some kind of 'fundamentalism', then the term is obviously used equivocatively and unfairly pejoratively. (bwll blooblle.. breakfast waffles anyone? )

Hey Arq,

hahaha. I was sneering at the shekel-eating fish, too.

Yes, I understand what you are saying. I understand, too, that there is no other valid explanation. I don't disagree with you. There is no valid explanation based on physical, tangible evidence. I have never argued that there was - and do not argue that point now. You are totally and completely right. And I am as much against organized religion as you are and like most atheists, agnostic, and deists. We really don't have a problem here - you and I or any other non-believer.

If I understand this correctly, fundamentalists (of the Christian variety) are so, so dogmatic in their beliefs, overbearing, rude, closed-minded - to the point of trying to defend the earth as 6,000 years old - unrelenting, unforgiving, and sometimes down right nasty. They don't even consider another point of view. Does that about cover it? Yeah, I think so.

Well, if it does, then you know the answer to why some Christians call the militant non-believers, Atheist Fundamentalist (or vice versa). That is the way some militant non-believers come across. It doesn't have anything to do with beliefs. It has to do with attitude.

We all have posts that qualify us as "fundamentalist" now and then. Most of us try to do better. Some don't.

I like sausage patties with my waffles ...and diet Coke.

[mordant]

Originally Posted by Ella Parr

We all have posts that qualify us as "fundamentalist" now and then. Most of us try to do better. Some don't.

I suppose that was my first impression, long ago, of our own Nozz. But I eventually warmed to his technique. He really has a very simple approach.

1) I have never had any one present any evidence to me -- at all -- for god.

2) Please do present it to me.

And then he's just relentless about being consistent and holding people's feet to the fire. No, that's not evidence. Please try again.

Is this deflating to the worldview and often ego of his interlocutors? Sure. Is it condescending? No, I don't think so. It's just a great demonstration of a very excellent BS filter. People BS themselves. A lot. Nozz, being human, BSes himself, now and then, I'm sure. But he doesn't BS himself, or let anyone BS him, about what is and is not known and/or likely metaphysically. That is all. This is a form of tough love, and it would be wildly inappropriate in many real world contexts, but it's entirely valid in a debate forum (or in someone representing a sizable atheist organization and defending it against theist disinformation -- which is also one of his roles).

Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade, as the saying goes. Sometimes you can't sugar coat things. Sometimes, to quote the Bible, "the wounds of a friend are faithful". Where Nozz would cross the line is if he were indiscriminately ramming atheist reasoning on unwilling random strangers (door to door cold calls, or bellowing on a public street corner to passers-by maybe would be extreme examples). But when you engage on a forum, or when you engage willingly with an atheist organization, you can't expect the person you are engaging with to issue kudos to your magnificence. You enter the kitchen, you take the heat -- or get out. If you don't have an argument, don't make one. If you have an opinion that you can't support, at least to others -- don't call it an argument or a fact. You're entitled to your opinions so long as you own them as what they actually are.

I respect your opinions and beliefs in terms of your right to have them. Obviously I don't respect them in terms of finding them something I can subscribe to. But we are okay with each other being different persons with different beliefs and while we may try to be persuasive we haven't any malfunctions with each other as persons.

Maybe the defining feature of fundamentalist thinking is that fundamentalism always dehumanizes The Other so as to protect and advance itself and excuse a failure to respect the self determination of The Other. THAT is the root attitude that bothers us both about fundamentalist thinking, IMO.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Ella Parr

Hey Arq,

hahaha. I was sneering at the shekel-eating fish, too.

Yes, I understand what you are saying. I understand, too, that there is no other valid explanation. I don't disagree with you. There is no valid explanation based on physical, tangible evidence. I have never argued that there was - and do not argue that point now. You are totally and completely right. And I am as much against organized religion as you are and like most atheists, agnostic, and deists. We really don't have a problem here - you and I or any other non-believer.

If I understand this correctly, fundamentalists (of the Christian variety) are so, so dogmatic in their beliefs, overbearing, rude, closed-minded - to the point of trying to defend the earth as 6,000 years old - unrelenting, unforgiving, and sometimes down right nasty. They don't even consider another point of view. Does that about cover it? Yeah, I think so.

Well, if it does, then you know the answer to why some Christians call the militant non-believers, Atheist Fundamentalist (or vice versa). That is the way some militant non-believers come across. It doesn't have anything to do with beliefs. It has to do with attitude.

Yes. And some can be abrasive and even trollish. I was even invited to do a parachute into a theists forum and post rude messages. I totally disapproved and still do. I believe that treating people with respect - even if you disagree (but that doesn't mean agreeing with them so as not to upset them) is by far the best way. We need to cultivate a persuasive style. Atheists have an awfully long Bad rap to overcome, and it is made worse by those who have a desire to see us continue to be regarded as bad. We have really to be excruciatingly better than the opposition, who have two thousand years of being thought good simply because of what they believe.

It is especially hard when we come up against those who will not be reasonable, deny evidence and generally try the patience. How do you tell someone they are being intellectually dishonest, logically flawed and closed minded without looking like an arrogant fundamentalist? Yet it has to be said.

We all have posts that qualify us as "fundamentalist" now and then. Most of us try to do better. Some don't.

I like sausage patties with my waffles ...and diet Coke.

I'm a maple syrup man myself. I'm assuming these aren't potato waffles. And coffee. Thick, strong and sweet.

[Freak80]

Who is Nozz? A forum member I assume?