Fundamentalism and Intellectualism

[atomweaver]

A lot of stuff runs on that "fallacy" --- legal tender, science, generic vs brand products.

...add religion to that list, and I'll sign off on it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Simply put, I would not run a world according to the bible. EVER. I love this world too much.

I agree. The Bible may be many things, but as a 'how to govern' textbook it is a complete non starter.

Ya --- you might be required to love your neighbor.

 

[mpok1519]

fundamentalism = a disease

and theres no such thing as atheistic fundamentalism. lol

 

[Catherineanne]

Your reliance on dictionary definitions suggests that you see them as prescriptive, telling us how words are to be used. But they are also descriptive, telling us how words are actually used. And they are often well behind on that sort of thing.

Nice try.

When people distort reality to create 'weak atheism' and 'strong atheism' there must be something missing in their understanding of the English language, don't you think?

Atheist is an absolute, not a relative. It denotes someone who believes that there is no God.

If anyone uses it any other way, then their knowledge of the language is somewhat lacking. It is not my fault that I know what the word actually means, and others do not. Neither does that make me prescriptive in the use of language.

I am an atheist. I do not "believe there is no god" but I do "not believe there is a god." I am also agnostic, in that I admit I cannot know with 100% certainty that some sort of god doesn't exist. Call it 99% sure. For the specific God of the bible, 99.9%. But still, technically, an agnostic, since I don't claim to know for sure. I am also an atheist, since I don't believe that there is one at this time.

Most atheists will admit they are agnostic as well. Theists are also agnostic, since they cannot be 100% certain, but most seem to be loathe to admit that.

This is just illustrative of the confusion that arises from imprecise use of language. 'Atheist', 'theist' and 'agnostic' are mutually exclusive. If used properly, that is.

A theist does not need to claim 100% certainty. S/he only needs to believe.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes I would -- as would anyone else who insists on running the world "according to the Bible."

Then I rest my case --- if you guys ran the world like you interpret the Bible, we would all either be slaves, hanging on a rope, burning at a stake, or in hiding.

 

[MoonLancer]

Ya --- you might be required to love your neighbor.

as long as they were not a witch.

 

[Catherineanne]

Ya --- you might be required to love your neighbor.

Love which is required is not love but coercion.

 

[AV1611VET]

My opinion, insofar as it is relevent, is that the law was idiotically conceived and unfairly enforced -- but in a world run according to the Bible, what else can you expect?

If you want to include "according to the Bible", then you are going to have to say it wasn't murder, since the Bible does not condone death by homicide.

If you say it wasn't murder, then you have to agree that their exectutions were justified.

If you agree that their executions were justified, then you agree with me that if you ran the world like you interpret the Bible, we would be either slaves, in hiding, or awaiting execution ourselves.

 

[Split Rock]

This is not about what I would or would not say. The dictionaries are clear enough.

However, if there were such a thing as afeyism, then yes. That would be a position that asserts that fairies do not exist; and doctrine could be formulated from such a belief.

Meanwhile atheism is well defined; you can check for yourself.

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

 

[AV1611VET]

This is just illustrative of the confusion that arises from imprecise use of language. 'Atheist', 'theist' and 'agnostic' are mutually exclusive. If used properly, that is.

I have to agree here as well.

 

[AV1611VET]

Love which is required is not love but coercion.

What do you call peace that is required?

 

[MoonLancer]

Then, in your opinion, it was done in spite of the Bible --- wasn't it?Not if it was murder --- the Bible does not justify murder.That doesn't explain the 19 women who were hanged.

the bodies are burned afterwords if they were not burned before.

In your opinion, were those women who died in 1692 executed or murdered?

If you say they were murdered, do you think then that it was done in spite of the Bible, or in respect to the Bible?

Again, in your opinion.

I think they were murdered as called for in the bible.

The bible says to Murder witches, then says don't murder. Your bible needs to get its story straight, unless its saying don't murder, except in cases were it says to murder.

if you guys ran the world like you interpret the Bible, we would all either be slaves, hanging on a rope, burning at a stake, or in hiding.

your failing basic logic here. We would never run the world like that no matter how you fallaciously try to make it seem like we would. The reason many people are atheist is because the bible has losts of morality in it. Sure you may twist it so it supports modern morality today, but you have to ignore large parts of the bible to do so. You ignore the bible av in favor of a secular morality that is not connected to the bible.

We know already know what the world would look like if fundamentalist Christians ran it. Its called the dark ages.
They have already interpreted the bible to mean murder is ok in some situations, and that Slavers is ok as well.

You can try to revise history av, but i wont let you.

 

[mpok1519]

why does AV just ask random questions and never post evidence?

 

[Freodin]

This is just illustrative of the confusion that arises from imprecise use of language. 'Atheist', 'theist' and 'agnostic' are mutually exclusive. If used properly, that is.

A theist does not need to claim 100% certainty. S/he only needs to believe.

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.

 

[Split Rock]

Then, in your opinion, it was done in spite of the Bible --- wasn't it?Not if it was murder --- the Bible does not justify murder.That doesn't explain the 19 women who were hanged.

As usual, you conflict The Bible with its interpretation. Those witch-hunters and the courts setup to put witches "on trial" were following their interpretation of The Bible. They believed they were doing God's Work and protecting themselves and their families from those who made ungodly pacts with Satan. My interpretation would be not only be different, but I wouldn't use The Bible as a source for criminal justice in the first place.

As far as the 19 women who were hanged, no it doesn't, but such an interpretation of scripture does explain the prevalance of execution by burning.

 

[AV1611VET]

They have already interpreted the bible to mean murder is ok in some situations, and that Slavers is ok as well.

"They"?

You guys aren't doing it, too?

You can try to revise history av, but i wont let you.

Thank you --- please don't.

I have been careful to insert the word "today" in enough of my posts that it is clear that I'm talking about two things here:

1. You guys here on this Internet --- (and you know who you are) --- the ones who claim the Bible condones murder, genocide, and slavery.
2. 2009.

 

[AV1611VET]

why does AV just ask random questions and never post evidence?

You guys are the evidence in this conversation --- assuming I can get an honest answer from you.

I even created a poll for it.

Some of you guys are smart enough to stay out of the conversation, though.

Stick to read-only if you don't want to be pwned.

 

[Hespera]

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.

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.

 

[Freodin]

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.

Well, in regard to deities, it is a yes/no question. If you don´t answer this question positive, you answer it negative. You might escape having to answer... which is often (falsly) labeled as agnosticism... but you either do believe or you don´t.

So in regard to basketball, I might be a soccer supporter. But in regard to gods, I am a no-godian. (To use Polycarp_fan´s funny label)

 

[AV1611VET]

As usual, you conflict The Bible with its interpretation.

No --- I'm trying to show the danger this planet would face if you guys ran this world the way you guys interpret It.

Those witch-hunters and the courts setup to put witches "on trial" were following their interpretation of The Bible. They believed they were doing God's Work and protecting themselves and their families from those who made ungodly pacts with Satan.

I'm not interested in the least about what they thought --- I'm interested in what you think.

In my opinion, they thought wrong --- but you guys are thinking just like they were.

My interpretation would be not only be different, but I wouldn't use The Bible as a source for criminal justice in the first place.

If you say so.

As far as the 19 women who were hanged, no it doesn't, but such an interpretation of scripture does explain the prevalance of execution by burning.

Just FYI, the Bible does not say to hang them, or burn them --- again, that's your interpretation --- not mine.

I'll be frank here --- you guys scare the living snot out of me --- you really do.

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.