Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hmmm...how do I describe it...OK the poster you were referring to--which is an excellent post--did a wonderful job of describing the Fundamentalist belief system; you wrote that and I agree with you.
I think, I think where the error on the part of some, some atheists is to see Fundamentalism as the most devout state of religion. This means that to some atheists if there is a God then the Fundamentalist is right. Or, unless you are a Fundamentalist you are not a true believer, or a religious non-Fundamentalist is uncommitted to religion. What I try to communicate to atheists is that it is Ironic for them to take that position and also a little absurd.
Atheists that draw this conclusion are really like the Fundamentalist themselves meaning that were they to finally know there is a God they would then choose to be Fundamentalist. What I'm saying is that if you have a tendency to be very literal, very extreme, very intolerant then it really doesn't matter if you call yourself Atheist of Fundamentalist; you are essentially the same person with the only difference being whether you know there is a God.
This is different than a religious person who may know there is a God, maybe even in less doubt then most Fundamentalist, but sees the Fundamentalist as something inherently perverse, abhorrent, irrational. Most religious people have just about as much certainty there is a God as the average Fundamentalist but nowhere in their mind are they capable of being all those things detested about Fundamentalist--literal, intolerant, extreme...etc...
Now you are an atheist or an agnostic and there is nothing wrong with that but, but, but what I'm suggesting is there is still more work to do to unravel the Fundamentalism. As I wrote before there is a lot of Regionalism involved in Fundamentalism i.e. it's not surprise that regions where there is a high incidence of Fundamentalist intolerance there is also a prevalence of intolerance from non-religious people as well.
Excellent post!
I have always said there is a such a thing as fundamentalist atheist. These are folks that are 100% sure there is no God and tend to be very hostile towards religion. And they often quote the same idiomatic expressions hard core atheists use.
Interestingly many fundamentalist atheist were once fundamentalist Christians. Maybe it has to do with the black and white thing. Many have explored all world religions with great fervor before becoming atheists. This suggest that they were looking for something to believe in.
It sounds like your main concern is intolerance. Do I understand you right?
I personally don't have a problem with private religious beliefs, although I still think they can be harmful to a person. (Example: someone who keeps their religion private but worries that they might go to hell when they die.) I realize that I cannot rid the world of harmful religious beliefs; individuals must get themselves out of it on their own, but only if they are willing.
I'm much less tolerant when potentially harmful religious ideas are given to children, the mentally ill, the elderly, the sick, the dying, and other vulnerable members of society. Religion generally exploits human psychological weaknesses: the natural gullibility of children, the fear of death, the fear of non-existence, the willingness to believe whatever an authority figure says, the desire to escape harsh reality, the fear of the unknown, natural superstition, tribal "us vs. them" instincts, confirmation bias, etc.
Do you see where I am coming from? Do you think I am a bad person for having those views?
I realize that there are thousands (if not millions) of religions in the world today. Maybe some are relatively harmless. I'm certainly no expert on them all. For now, my main concerns are conservative (or fundamentalist) Protestantism in this country and radical Islam anywhere. Those religions have proven themselves to be authoritarian, expansionist, and thirsty for political power.
It sounds like your main concern is intolerance. Do I understand you right?
I personally don't have a problem with private religious beliefs, although I still think they can be harmful to a person. (Example: someone who keeps their religion private but worries that they might go to hell when they die.) I realize that I cannot rid the world of harmful religious beliefs; individuals must get themselves out of it on their own, but only if they are willing.
I'm much less tolerant when potentially harmful religious ideas are given to children, the mentally ill, the elderly, the sick, the dying, and other vulnerable members of society. Religion generally exploits human psychological weaknesses: the natural gullibility of children, the fear of death, the fear of non-existence, the willingness to believe whatever an authority figure says, the desire to escape harsh reality, the fear of the unknown, natural superstition, tribal "us vs. them" instincts, confirmation bias, etc.
Do you see where I am coming from? Do you think I am a bad person for having those views?
I realize that there are thousands (if not millions) of religions in the world today. Maybe some are relatively harmless. I'm certainly no expert on them all. For now, my main concerns are conservative (or fundamentalist) Protestantism in this country and radical Islam anywhere. Those religions have proven themselves to be authoritarian, expansionist, and thirsty for political power.
If religion is taken seriously there is a problem.
Religion as a coping mechanism in times of despair may work for some. Religion as a form of socialization also works. It also works as culture.
As a child I once believed in Santa and I don't think I was harmed.
It sounds like your main concern is intolerance. Do I understand you right?
I personally don't have a problem with private religious beliefs, although I still think they can be harmful to a person. (Example: someone who keeps their religion private but worries that they might go to hell when they die.) I realize that I cannot rid the world of harmful religious beliefs; individuals must get themselves out of it on their own, but only if they are willing.
I'm much less tolerant when potentially harmful religious ideas are given to children, the mentally ill, the elderly, the sick, the dying, and other vulnerable members of society. Religion generally exploits human psychological weaknesses: the natural gullibility of children, the fear of death, the fear of non-existence, the willingness to believe whatever an authority figure says, the desire to escape harsh reality, the fear of the unknown, natural superstition, tribal "us vs. them" instincts, confirmation bias, etc.
Do you see where I am coming from? Do you think I am a bad person for having those views?
I realize that there are thousands (if not millions) of religions in the world today. Maybe some are relatively harmless. I'm certainly no expert on them all. For now, my main concerns are conservative (or fundamentalist) Protestantism in this country and radical Islam anywhere. Those religions have proven themselves to be authoritarian, expansionist, and thirsty for political power.
No, I don't think you are a bad person at all. The italicized part seems well thought out.
The only thing is you if focus on Fundamentalism per your last line (I don't call it Conservative Protestantism because there are many Conservative Protestants that are not Fundamentalist and while I would disagree with their Political Views I would more than likely not find their religious views to be aberrant) then you are really only focusing on a small percentage of religious people out there. I'm not criticizing you as intolerant but that would be akin to saying, "I met a few French people and they were jerks so the French must be jerks as a whole." (Insert whatever group you like) That thinking is too unenlightened for me and too Regionalist for my tastes much like the Fundamentalist is; too black or white, too literal for my tastes.
On this forum, the terms "fundamentalist or fundie" are most often used in a pejorative manner to denigrate Christians whom the name-caller thinks take the Bible and Christianity too literally or seriously.
Properly used, "fundamentalism" is certainly not the 'negative blight' that some imagine. Here is a reasonably accurate definition:
“A ‘fundamentalist’ is one who believes the Bible is the inerrant authority on faith and life, salvation is achieved only through faith in Jesus Christ, and he or she has a personal responsibility to share this belief with non-Christians.”
... What's wrong with that??
There is nothing wrong with being called a fundamentalist'.... it is a blessing, especially that God has granted us the faith to believe and take His truth completely as infallible and inerrant deeply into one's heart! Being able too honor, respect and obeying it with all our heart is a gift from the Father, amen !
I am so thankful that God's precious infallible words of His will and way for life has been bestowed upon my life through that book so many here deny !
For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. John 3:20
This scripture speaks of the very ones why they carry on as such. Their hate for God's word, denying its inerrancy because in reality they "fear that their deeds will be exposed."
Blessing's to all who continue enduring through God's perfect word believing regardless of the foolishness of those who are trying their best to bring doubt to the heart of the elected of God's kingdom !
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball7
The phrase "fundamentalist" is a tool of the secular liberals whose agenda is to demean the Word of God.
They paint it in a negative light because they don't want anyone to fundamentally believe in the fundamentals
of God's Word. They want Christians to be infected with malleable, fanciful notions that serve to fundamentally
separate the believer from the Word, and destroy the believer's dependence upon the Word, replacing
it's authority with the dalliances of the age.
Amen, Snowball7 ! Your post are always right on
Blessing's to you
Last edited by Cyber Munchkin; 01-26-2015 at 04:19 AM..
Reason: correct spelling
That is certainly something a fundamentalist would do ... although (and I don't think you are saying this) this does not exclude (as some suggest), all other scriptural teachings that are not colored 'red'. Jesus, for example, repeatedly referred to OT Scripture.
Correct, it does not exclude any books in the Bible.
The phrase "fundamentalist" is a tool of the secular liberals whose agenda is to demean the Word of God.
They paint it in a negative light because they don't want anyone to fundamentally believe in the fundamentals of God's Word. They want Christians to be infected with malleable, fanciful notions that serve to fundamentally separate the believer from the Word, and destroy the believer's dependence upon the Word, replacing it's authority with the dalliances of the age.
I think there is a difference between a fundamentalist who holds untenable positions in regard to scripture and a "fundie" who tries to imposre them on other people.
I thought you were a Catholic ? Nobody can call themself Catholic and say this.
I am cultural Catholic. I am not a devout Catholic.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
true 