Originally posted by knightmeister Telerion , The thing is you don't sound like a 'fundy atheist' and you make some good points. You're right to say that any excesses of dogma and bile from Atheists are not in the same league as the hellfire preachers and their like. You are also right to go toe-to-toe with people on the subject of the supernatural. Infact , we Theists shouldn't be fr ...[text shortened]... ve made.
All I'm saying is listen to the silent majority of us not the bible bashers
While Telly's atheism does put him on the wrong side of most theists here, he does have a tender skeleton in his closet which peeks out at ya every now and again when he's not on his guard. A lot of his criticism of theism is reasonably well merited, while the rest is mostly thoughtful tongue in cheek, occasionally laced with a little... uhm... well... vitriol when the other half of the discussion switches on those blinders (or when the discussion demands). One thing you are guaranteed of is a little chuckle when reading his posts.
Originally posted by Halitose While Telly's atheism does put him on the wrong side of most theists here, he does have a tender skeleton in his closet which peeks out at ya every now and again when he's not on his guard. A lot of his criticism of theism is reasonably well merited, while the rest is mostly thoughtful tongue in cheek, occasionally laced with a little... uhm... well... vitr ...[text shortened]... scussion demands). One thing you are guaranteed of is a little chuckle when reading his posts.
Thank you, Hal for your sincerity.
I recognize that my history with Evangelical Protestantism combined with many criticisms of it indicate to some theists (especially those of an evangelical persuasion) that I'm bitter. While I do not want to claim that I am absolutely unaffected by my experience, I will offer another channel through which my history shapes my discussion.
Because of my intimate connection with evangelical ways of thinking, I am capable of drawing on a much broader knowledge of evangelical ideas and Biblical interpretations. Moreover, because I rejected (painfully at times) Evangelical Protestantism, it is a view that I have carefully questioned and deconstructed. Many of the arguments put forth here by this type of theist are ones that I struggled with in my own mind. Both of these factors make me much more prone to object to arguments from an Evangelical Protestant viewpoint and to more persistantly and vigorously argue my view. Thus, a selection bias arises that could make me look obsessed when it's really more a matter of specialization.
Originally posted by telerion Thank you, Hal for your sincerity.
I recognize that my history with Evangelical Protestantism combined with many criticisms of it indicate to some theists (especially those of an evangelical persuasion) that I'm bitter. While I do not want to claim that I am absolutely unaffected by my experience, I will offer another channel through which my history sh ...[text shortened]... bias arises that could make me look obsessed when it's really more a matter of specialization.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH Well, okay: that was reasonable and articulate.
... and true
telerion has had close acquaintance with Fundamentalists that are not brainwashed fools, but intelligent and good people. I know some of them myself. They deserve respect, despite the errors of some of their views.
telerion has had close acquaintance with Fundamentalists that are not brainwashed fools, but intelligent and good people. I know some of them myself. They deserve respect, despite the errors of some of their views.
Although we're likely to get into a pissing match over definition, I am wary of fundamentalism in any form, traditional religious or otherwise.
Originally posted by aardvarkhome Fundies are fundies because they believe in the fundamental truth of the bible. Atheists have no equivelent text therefore cannot be fundies.
We can be bigots, intolerant and down right nasty but not in a fundamentalist way.
This post demolishes the assumptions in which the original question are rooted.
Of course, athiests and other skeptics can be dogmatic and bigoted, but in these threads they almost never display the degree of mindlessness that characterizes several of the most prolific "Fundmentalist" posters. It might be worth arguing, however, whether some of the xtians that infest this forum are true fundamentalists, however, as several even admit that they have not raed the entire Bible, and a few still fail to correctly name the last book therein.
Originally posted by Wulebgr This post demolishes the assumptions in which the original question are rooted.
Of course, athiests and other skeptics can be dogmatic and bigoted, but in these threads they almost never display the degree of mindlessness that characterizes several of the most prolific "Fundmentalist" posters. It might be worth arguing, however, whether some of the xtians ...[text shortened]... have not raed the entire Bible, and a few still fail to correctly name the last book therein.
Originally posted by Wulebgr yep, Hal Lindsey's, too.
Funny you should mention ol' Hal. I never did understand the titles of ministry that Hal, James Dobson, Chuck Missler (sp?), Hank Hanegraff (sp?) et al, all have claimed for themselves at one time or another.
I know there evolved a type of para-ministry sub-set of sorts, but their claims of actually being ministers never rang true. Where is the biblical support for their organizations? Kinda hard to reconcile, in my mind. Great at tax time, I suppose.
Originally posted by Wulebgr This post demolishes the assumptions in which the original question are rooted.
Not quite. aardvarkhome's argument rests on a subtle switch in the meaning of the term "fundamentalist". Of course, 'Fundamentalism' is a movement within Protestant Christianity believing in certain fundamental principles (sola scriptura, sola fide, Virgin Birth etc.) But, in common discourse, it also refers to any inflexible, dogmatic position - and it is the latter sense that is apparently used in this thread. aardvarkhome starts with the first, then switches to the second.
Originally posted by lucifershammer Not quite. aardvarkhome's argument rests on a subtle switch in the meaning of the term "fundamentalist". Of course, 'Fundamentalism' is a movement within Protestant Christianity believing in certain fundamental principles (sola scriptura, sola fide, Virgin Birth etc.) But, in common discourse, it also refers to any inflexible, dogmatic position - and ...[text shortened]... ently used in this thread. aardvarkhome starts with the first, then switches to the second.
I was assuming a capital 'F' throughout. I'll agree with inflexible and dogmatic, yes, atheists do those too!
fundamentalist Atheists?
01 Apr '06 03:07
Back to Top