Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Religious Fundamentalists
111 Answers
After years of debate on here (and elsewhere, both online and in person) with religious fundamentalists, there's only one conclusion that can be reached.
Their brains are switched off!
Im not talking about the average person who happens to have a religious belief. I mean the fundies. Those who believe whole heartedly in a given dogma and wont make any concession that they may be wrong, despite been shown evidence to the contrary.
I remember reading an Arthur C Clarke article once where he talked about a team of scientists who set up an observatory in a muslim country to observe a solar eclipse. The team of scientists were ridiculed by the local clerics who said that only Allah knows the timing of such things. After the eclipse, the clerics accepted that it had happened but said that it was nothing more than an amazing coincidence...
I have no problem at all with religious believers, but some (like the clerics above) cant accept the bloody obvious even when its been presented to them right before their eyes.
It gets passed over like its never even been read!!!
Their brains are switched off!
Im not talking about the average person who happens to have a religious belief. I mean the fundies. Those who believe whole heartedly in a given dogma and wont make any concession that they may be wrong, despite been shown evidence to the contrary.
I remember reading an Arthur C Clarke article once where he talked about a team of scientists who set up an observatory in a muslim country to observe a solar eclipse. The team of scientists were ridiculed by the local clerics who said that only Allah knows the timing of such things. After the eclipse, the clerics accepted that it had happened but said that it was nothing more than an amazing coincidence...
I have no problem at all with religious believers, but some (like the clerics above) cant accept the bloody obvious even when its been presented to them right before their eyes.
It gets passed over like its never even been read!!!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by nailit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//There is a distinction between the non-caring frequently ignorant atheist who simply says he doesn't believe & the "relentlessly confrontational " atheist such as Dawkins. //
There is indeed. One sees no immediate evidence and feels the whole thing not worth bothering about - the other is a scientist who has taken the trouble to actively seek it and can say with conviction he has found none.
There is indeed. One sees no immediate evidence and feels the whole thing not worth bothering about - the other is a scientist who has taken the trouble to actively seek it and can say with conviction he has found none.
Khandro. //The trouble with Dawkins is, he doesn't know where to look.//
Rest assured, he’s looked. Never doubt it.
If Rupert Shortt’s ‘well-measured piece’ is anything like Alister McGrath’s scrap of a book claiming refutation of ‘The God Delusion’, it won’t be worth much. Like you, it seems all he is capable of doing is putting the boot in to people who don’t believe as he does. Must try harder, Khandro.
I would ask if you’ve actually read ‘The God Delusion’, or Christopher Hitchens on the subject of religion, or Sam Harris’s ‘Letter to a Christian Nation’ and 'The End of Faith', but you don’t appear to be answering questions.
Incidentally, you told Ludwig you supplied the wrong link. Have you got the right one?
Rest assured, he’s looked. Never doubt it.
If Rupert Shortt’s ‘well-measured piece’ is anything like Alister McGrath’s scrap of a book claiming refutation of ‘The God Delusion’, it won’t be worth much. Like you, it seems all he is capable of doing is putting the boot in to people who don’t believe as he does. Must try harder, Khandro.
I would ask if you’ve actually read ‘The God Delusion’, or Christopher Hitchens on the subject of religion, or Sam Harris’s ‘Letter to a Christian Nation’ and 'The End of Faith', but you don’t appear to be answering questions.
Incidentally, you told Ludwig you supplied the wrong link. Have you got the right one?
naomi - // AH, //but as I have tried (and failed) to explain to Naomi, believing in a religion and being a fundamentalist are two different aspects of the same concept. //
I don't need you to explain anything concerning religion to me. You're having a larf! //
Religion - maybe not, but the difference between a faith holder and a fundamentalist - certainly, since you have singularly failed to understand it, even though I have explained it twice in my exchanges with you.
I don't need you to explain anything concerning religion to me. You're having a larf! //
Religion - maybe not, but the difference between a faith holder and a fundamentalist - certainly, since you have singularly failed to understand it, even though I have explained it twice in my exchanges with you.
Khandro - // naomi; //Richard Dawkins isn't a fundamentalist.//
Of course he is, you can't get more extremely fundamental than him, there's no where to go beyond. //
According to the dictionary -
// noun. an adherent of fundamentalism, a religious movement characterized by a strict belief in the literal interpretation of religious texts: radical fundamentalists. //
You have to be an extreme believer of a religious movement involving belief in religious texts.
Since Mr Dawkins is clearly not a believer in any religion, or its texts, he fails the dictionary definition of a fundamentalist.
Of course he is, you can't get more extremely fundamental than him, there's no where to go beyond. //
According to the dictionary -
// noun. an adherent of fundamentalism, a religious movement characterized by a strict belief in the literal interpretation of religious texts: radical fundamentalists. //
You have to be an extreme believer of a religious movement involving belief in religious texts.
Since Mr Dawkins is clearly not a believer in any religion, or its texts, he fails the dictionary definition of a fundamentalist.
Khandro - // There is a distinction between the non-caring frequently ignorant atheist who simply says he doesn't believe & the "relentlessly confrontational " atheist such as Dawkins. //
There is also a distinction between non-caring Christians, and 'relentlessly confrontational' Christians like yourself and Theland - but hey - room for all in your God's kingdom, so you can't really moan … except you do, all day every day.
There is also a distinction between non-caring Christians, and 'relentlessly confrontational' Christians like yourself and Theland - but hey - room for all in your God's kingdom, so you can't really moan … except you do, all day every day.
naomi; Some references to the term, you may not agree with it, but it certainly exists;
The term "fundamentalist atheist" is relatively recent, being developed and popularised in response to the "new atheists" (NAs): a group of authors, scientists, and journalists who don't just have the bad taste to be atheists, but also the damnable audacity to write books about it! Although, many NA critics -- who are often atheists themselves -- feel as Ed Brayton does, that some NAs are "right-wing neo-cons who are cloaking themselves under the umbrella of atheism." Some of the term's notable appearances include:
Christian apologist and theologian Alister McGrath's critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion is titled The Dawkins Delusion: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine.
In December 2007, the Anglican Church in Wales' Archbishop warned that "atheistic fundamentalism" was exerting a growing influence in Britain, in a speech regarding the alleged War on Christmas.
The Discovery Institute's "Evolution News & Views" website includes an article entitled "Atheist Fundamentalism and the Limits of Science".
etc. etc.
The term "fundamentalist atheist" is relatively recent, being developed and popularised in response to the "new atheists" (NAs): a group of authors, scientists, and journalists who don't just have the bad taste to be atheists, but also the damnable audacity to write books about it! Although, many NA critics -- who are often atheists themselves -- feel as Ed Brayton does, that some NAs are "right-wing neo-cons who are cloaking themselves under the umbrella of atheism." Some of the term's notable appearances include:
Christian apologist and theologian Alister McGrath's critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion is titled The Dawkins Delusion: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine.
In December 2007, the Anglican Church in Wales' Archbishop warned that "atheistic fundamentalism" was exerting a growing influence in Britain, in a speech regarding the alleged War on Christmas.
The Discovery Institute's "Evolution News & Views" website includes an article entitled "Atheist Fundamentalism and the Limits of Science".
etc. etc.
// I simply declined to comment on your deliberations.//
excellent - keep mum
// noun. an adherent of fundamentalism, a religious movement characterized by a strict belief in the literal interpretation of religious texts //
sounds like it is
you have people who study the bible - some of them are theologians whom I suggest no one would call fundamentalists
and fundamentalists who feel that they will gain an extra inner connection to the Bible usually NT - if they pray enough
excellent - keep mum
// noun. an adherent of fundamentalism, a religious movement characterized by a strict belief in the literal interpretation of religious texts //
sounds like it is
you have people who study the bible - some of them are theologians whom I suggest no one would call fundamentalists
and fundamentalists who feel that they will gain an extra inner connection to the Bible usually NT - if they pray enough
Naomi - // AH, please don't make unfounded assumptions. Since explanations from you on the nature of fundamentalism or otherwise are surplus to requirements I simply declined to comment on your deliberations. //
My assumptions are absolutely founded - the posts are there for anyone to read.
As usual, you have grasped the wrong end of the stick and proceeded to beat about the bush with it, and when exposed as being wrong, you simply sigh and act as though my point is not worth bothering with.
As I said, the evidence is there for anyone to read - you can deny your misunderstanding if it makes you feel better, but it doesn't make your denial valid.
My assumptions are absolutely founded - the posts are there for anyone to read.
As usual, you have grasped the wrong end of the stick and proceeded to beat about the bush with it, and when exposed as being wrong, you simply sigh and act as though my point is not worth bothering with.
As I said, the evidence is there for anyone to read - you can deny your misunderstanding if it makes you feel better, but it doesn't make your denial valid.
Khandro, I’ve heard/read the considered arguments from those you so spitefully denigrate. You, however, offer no argument whatsoever on an intellectual level but, yet again, confine your rhetoric to personal abuse. And as for The Discovery Institute …. please ...... don’t insult your own intelligence.
Incidentally, I know the title of McGrath’s desperate little offering. It sits here on my shelf next to ‘The God Delusion’. I doubt you’ve read either - but how handy is google, eh? You see, that’s the difference between religious zealots and the investigative atheist. The latter takes the time and has the wherewithal to ask questions and to examine alternative opinions.
AH, Earlier today I said // I sense one of your ‘moments’ approaching so I’ll leave it there.//
I did leave it there… and lo and behold, as expected, your moment arrived.
Theland, // Sorry wrong link.//
Thank ‘God’ for that. I’ll treat the rest of your rambling with the disinterest it deserves.
Incidentally, I know the title of McGrath’s desperate little offering. It sits here on my shelf next to ‘The God Delusion’. I doubt you’ve read either - but how handy is google, eh? You see, that’s the difference between religious zealots and the investigative atheist. The latter takes the time and has the wherewithal to ask questions and to examine alternative opinions.
AH, Earlier today I said // I sense one of your ‘moments’ approaching so I’ll leave it there.//
I did leave it there… and lo and behold, as expected, your moment arrived.
Theland, // Sorry wrong link.//
Thank ‘God’ for that. I’ll treat the rest of your rambling with the disinterest it deserves.
He (Dawkins) has been the laughing stock of all denominations of religious communities for a long time, now he has become the same of much of the scientific community as well. He pathetically states he wishes he hadn't used the word "selfish" in selfish gene - but he doesn't regret how it helped sell his books - ditto to the origin of life (and consciousness) being a "happy accident" WHAT!
Then there is the nonsense of his proposal of what he calls, "nemes" implying that religion can be explained by a sort of infectious brain chemistry - well you try telling that to sociologists studying former Communist East Germany, one of the most secular societies on Earth, & comparing it with its neighbour Poland, one of the most religious.
Your darling of atheism, wasn't even a 'real' professor at Oxford, the post was financed by a software billionaire who donated the money on the understanding the he (Dawkins) and he alone, should hold the post.
Then there is the nonsense of his proposal of what he calls, "nemes" implying that religion can be explained by a sort of infectious brain chemistry - well you try telling that to sociologists studying former Communist East Germany, one of the most secular societies on Earth, & comparing it with its neighbour Poland, one of the most religious.
Your darling of atheism, wasn't even a 'real' professor at Oxford, the post was financed by a software billionaire who donated the money on the understanding the he (Dawkins) and he alone, should hold the post.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Food & Drink12 mins ago
Crosswords207 mins ago
Crosswords255 mins ago
