Fundamentalism and Intellectualism

PreachersWife2004 · #**541** 10th July 2009, 08:29 PM

Originally Posted by divx110

Just because you believe in a God does not mean there is a God for you to believe in.

How about you stick to the topic at hand?

Nathan Poe · #**542** 10th July 2009, 10:04 PM

Originally Posted by mpok1519

yes; fundamentalists feel threatened by logic, truth, and rationality. This is why they are so against intellctualism.

I think it's part of a larger issue that fundamentalism of any kind is never a movement in favor of something as it as reaction against something. Fundies need an enemy to rally against -- and if no such enemy exists, one will be manufactured.

BananaSlug · #**543** 11th July 2009, 12:16 AM

I also think it is a deeper issue as well. We see many of the fundies on here that go out of their way to hand-wave evidence that violates their particular interpretation of the Bible. Any evidence in support of evolution, the big bang, or anything else under the term "evolutionism" must either be ignored or explained in a way to coincide with the Bible. This is how we get things like "embedded age", "hyper-evolution after the flood", and even the "different state past". It doesn't matter that there is zero evidence for such events but it helps them keep their religious beliefs in the face of the ever growing field of scientific evidence.

Many fundamentalists also look down on science because it "always changes". They see the Bible as God's word that is true and unchanging no matter what time period (despite the fact that it has changed over the many years it has been around). They ignore the fact that science is self-correcting, the Bible never has to be corrected.

Last but not least, honest intellectualism can lead to agnosticism or even the dreaded atheism. Critical thinking and inquiry can lead someone to question their beliefs when they see evidence that goes against what they've been taught all of their lives. That is what happened to me, and I'm sure it is what happened for 95% of the atheists on here. Critical thinking is the biggest enemy to fundamentalism.

Catherineanne · #**544** 11th July 2009, 05:43 AM

Originally Posted by Split Rock

What do you mean if there were such a thing as "afeyism?"

Given that I coined the term based on your question, it is not unreasonable to say 'if' in relation to whatever semantic construct is attached to it.

I certainly do not believe fairies exist. How about you? I don't believe in ghosts, kobolds, BigFoot, or The Lochness Monster, Zeus, Shiva, Isis, or The Easter Bunny either. That must mean I have an awful lot of "faiths" all with their own "doctrine." I think you are abusing the terms faith and doctrine. Not believing in something that is not demonstratable does not require any faith at all. Only believing in something that is not demonstratable requires faith.

I am not sure how many times I will have to say this, but here goes once more. Atheism is not a lack of belief. Atheism is a belief.

Similarly, 'afeyism' would not be disbelieving in fairies. It would be believing that fairies do not exist. And as you rightly say, believing in something that is not demonstrable requires faith. That is true of atheism, it is true of theism, and it would be true of afeyism if there were such a thing.

No faith is required for the agnostic position on any of these; this is the position of science which says, we cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God/fairies/the Easter bunny and so there is nothing we can say about them. We cannot disprove their existence to anyone barmy enough to believe in them, and neither can we prove their existence to the rest of the world. Science has nothing to say about belief, however bizarre it may appear to those who do not share it. Science is agnostic.

Catherineanne · #**545** 11th July 2009, 05:49 AM

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

What do you call peace that is required?

Tyranny.

Catherineanne · #**546** 11th July 2009, 05:52 AM

Originally Posted by Freodin

That is incorrect. Agnosticism is a position on knowledge. Atheism is a position on belief in the existence of deities. They are not exclusive.

I am an atheist: I don´t believe that there is a god.
I am also an agnostic: I believe that you cannot know whether there is or not is a god.

This is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. However, this is once again evidence of imprecise use of language.

Your use of language being imprecise does not give you the right to say that my precise use of language, in line with accepted definitions, is incorrect.

Atheism, agnosticism and theism are absolutes, and they are mutually exclusive. They do not bleed into one another. It is totally meaningless to say that you are both agnostic and atheist.

Catherineanne · #**547** 11th July 2009, 06:03 AM

Originally Posted by Hespera

Wouldnt it be great to not even know that anyone ever claimed there was a god? Nobody would come up with a negative way to label you, a-theist, defined by what you are not.

At least it only seems fair to just be a person, if others want to be theist-person, let them. If someone wants to play basketball, fine, just dont call me an abasketballist.

This is right. Atheists are defined in relation to what they are not, rather than in relation to what they are, and that is distinctly unhealthy.

Catherineanne · #**548** 11th July 2009, 06:05 AM

Originally Posted by Freodin

It´s sooo easy.

"People interprete the Bible in a certain way. They are wrong."

"People did interprete the Bible in a certain way. They were also wrong."

"I interprete the Bible in a certain way. I am always correct."

There is a much easier way. There is a whole lot of nonsense in the Bible, but as the Bible is not God, then it really doesn't much matter either way.

Catherineanne · #**549** 11th July 2009, 06:07 AM

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

The way you guys think we Christians should walk, talk, and think, based on how you guys interpret the Bible, it's no wonder we were thrown to the lions.

Sorry to demolish your castle in the air, AV, but Christians were not thrown to the lions because of how they interpreted the Bible; the Bible did not then exist.

The crime they were thrown to the lions for was atheism. Strange, but true. They denied the reality of the pagan gods, including the former Emperors, and were executed for atheism.

dewaddict84 · #**550** 11th July 2009, 06:15 AM

No faith is required for the agnostic position

What now? Sorry, but the agnostic, those who believe in agnosticism, believe that it's impossible to know [about god] for sure. If you're going to demand that atheism be defined as a belief, then agnosticism follows suit.

Science is agnostic.

Actually, there's a few out there who believe that it's possible to learn everything there is about the universe. That there's an end to science, a point where we won't be able to learn anything new. We're NOWHERE near that as yet, but the idea is out there. Those people would certainly not be agnostic.
Science however, is just a field or category. It doesn't love, live, or have belief systems. Don't personificate science, it hates that.

Personally, I believe that we can't disprove any of the gods, but they could certainly come down in a column of light and prove themselves to us. So I guess I'm not really agnostic, but it's close enough.