Quick survey

[InigoMontoja]

This place is largely occupied by atheist trolls who feel rage against 'The System' and think Christians cause everything bad in life.

 

[Eudaimonist]

This place is largely occupied by atheist trolls who feel rage against 'The System' and think Christians cause everything bad in life.

Huh?

 

[DistantMemory]

Very, very vaguely theistic. Leaning towards pantheism, perhaps even panentheism.

 

[oneofthem]

That stereotype bothers me as well. I don't think christians, or believers in general, are the only ones with morals or a conscience (nor do I assume that christians automatically act morally). It's pretty insulting to atheists.

My experience tells me it goes both ways. I get stereotyped and treated a certain way by some, and it hurts when it's my own family. The challenge is to not stereotype back and assume all non-Christians stereotype Christians in some negative light. I'm sure some who do, do it because of their experience with some Christians.

 

[oneofthem]

I'm not too bothered, I try and judge a person by what they say rather than their beliefs. That said, it hasn't stopped my from devising this venn diagram just now to help you decipher who is who (I have a lot of time on my hands this afternoon). I think it is fairly accurate if I do say so myself.

Do you believe in fundamentalist atheism? Say, Richard Dawkins, aggressively wanting to stomp out Christianity and all religion in the world?

 

[Lisa0315]

I'm not too bothered, I try and judge a person by what they say rather than their beliefs. That said, it hasn't stopped my from devising this venn diagram just now to help you decipher who is who (I have a lot of time on my hands this afternoon). I think it is fairly accurate if I do say so myself.

Stan, We have been through this before. Your art stinks. I love you, but it is time to face up to reality. Look what happened to Hitler when his dreams of being an artist were crushed. You don't want that to happen to you, do you? Just face it, man. Get on with the rest of your life. I am sure you have plenty of other talents. (Pats Stan on the head)

Lisa

 

[God-free]

This place is largely occupied by atheist trolls who feel rage against 'The System' and think Christians cause everything bad in life.

Name-calling is childish and rude. And, please don't presume to know how I feel or what I think about anything. Blanket statements such as the one you've made above are helpful to no-one.

 

[stan1980]

Do you believe in fundamentalist atheism? Say, Richard Dawkins, aggressively wanting to stomp out Christianity and all religion in the world?

No, all atheism means is a disbelief in the existence of a deity, nothing more, nothing less. Dawkins just happens to be more outspoken than most.

 

[stan1980]

Stan, We have been through this before. Your art stinks. I love you, but it is time to face up to reality. Look what happened to Hitler when his dreams of being an artist were crushed. You don't want that to happen to you, do you? Just face it, man. Get on with the rest of your life. I am sure you have plenty of other talents. (Pats Stan on the head)

Lisa

*laughs*

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Besides, that diagram is pure 100% science! not art!

 

[cantata]

No, all atheism means is a disbelief in the existence of a deity, nothing more, nothing less. Dawkins just happens to be more outspoken than most.

More, he is an atheist who happens to be anti-religion. But there are, of course, atheists who are wholly in favour of religion and who even regard it as beneficial; and they are just as much atheists as Dawkins is.

I agree that he's not a fundamentalist, though. Fundamentalism is defined in terms of the actual content of one's beliefs, not in terms of one's attitudes to the beliefs of others. A moderate may still hold that everyone else should believe the same thing as them. What defines fundamentalism is its strict and literalist interpretation of scripture, and its consequent conservatism. Dawkins is not, as I understand him, a fundamentalist atheist, because, firstly, no atheist scripture exists in the literal sense of 'scripture' (unless you count Mao's little red book, Marx' Communist Manifesto, and other such articles of political and social philosophy which have been the basis of secular religions, to which Dawkins, in any case, does not subscribe), and, secondly, Dawkins' reading of what some would like to take (incorrectly, in my view) as atheist scripture, most notably On The Origin of Species, is incomparable with fundamentalist readings of the Bible. Although I'm sure that when Dawkins reads OTOoS, as when I do, he understands Darwin to mean what he says and not to be using metaphor or allegory unless he points out that he is doing so himself, Dawkins does not hold OTOoS to be inerrant, and in fact in his own books highlights parts of OTOoS which are obsolete in the light of more recent scientific research.

So Dawkins happens to be an atheist who thinks that everyone else should also be an atheist and that religion is a dangerous and harmful phenomenon. But he cannot correctly be described as a fundamentalist. In fact I don't actually think it's possible to be a fundamentalist atheist, because fundamentalism describes a particular relationship with scripture, and there is no atheist scripture.

 

[stan1980]

More, he is an atheist who happens to be anti-religion. But there are, of course, atheists who are wholly in favour of religion and who even regard it as beneficial; and they are just as much atheists as Dawkins is.

I agree that he's not a fundamentalist, though. Fundamentalism is defined in terms of the actual content of one's beliefs, not in terms of one's attitudes to the beliefs of others. A moderate may still hold that everyone else should believe the same thing as them. What defines fundamentalism is its strict and literalist interpretation of scripture, and its consequent conservatism. Dawkins does not, as I understand him, a fundamentalist atheist, because, firstly, no atheist scripture exists in the literal sense of 'scripture' (unless you count Mao's little red book, Marx' Communist Manifesto, and other such articles of political and social philosophy which have been the basis of secular religions, to which Dawkins, in any case, does not subscribe), and, secondly, Dawkins' reading of what some would like to take (incorrectly, in my view) as atheist scripture, most notably On The Origin of Species, is incomparable with fundamentalist readings of the Bible. Although I'm sure that when Dawkins reads OTOoS, as when I do, he understands Darwin to mean what he says and not to be using metaphor or allegory unless he points out that he is doing so himself, Dawkins does not hold OTOoS to be inerrant, and in fact in his own books highlights parts of OTOoS which are obsolete in the light of more recent scientific research.

So Dawkins happens to be an atheist who thinks that everyone else should also be an atheist and that religion is a dangerous and harmful phenomenon. But he cannot correctly be described as a fundamentalist. In fact I don't actually think it's possible to be a fundamentalist atheist, because fundamentalism describes a particular relationship with scripture, and there is no atheist scripture.

And that ^^^ So there you go, oneofthem, you've got your concise answer and an essay.

Hope that helps to quash the atheist fundamentalist myth.

 

[Sitswithamouse]

I am a christian, but I am considered a heretic because I have leanings towards Deism. I believe that the church has to be reformed and that all will be saved,not just the few.

 

[WatersMoon110]

I'm Christian and Neo-Pagan. It's hard to explain. *wink*

I've been Neo-Pagan since I was 14, before I really knew what Paganism was. As I learned more about, I knew it was a word that defined who I already was.

I call myself "Christian" because I follow (or try my best to follow) the teachings of Jesus the Christ. I am not sure exactly how Christian I am in my spiritual beliefs, but I am certainly working to discover that about myself. *grin*

 

[selfinflikted]

I don't like "atheist" - I prefer "non-theist".

Why, incidently?

 

[cantata]

Why, incidently?

Mainly because of the stigma attached to atheism. If you say "atheist" people assume you're a certain kind of person. I don't like that. So I prefer a term which doesn't come with cultural baggage. (That's also why I prefer "queer" to "bisexual".)

I also don't want people to make assumptions about my feelings towards gods. I'm what some people call a weak atheist. If I say "non-theist", others are inclined to ask something like "Does that mean you don't believe gods exist, or that you believe gods don't exist?" whereas if I say "atheist", they tend to assume the latter.

 

[Rebekka]

When will "faith icons" return? I miss those. Even a text field would do.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I miss them too. They said that the icons were taking up too much space or downloading time or whatever (I'm a computer illiterate, sorry), but you could indeed use text for that. Same with gender and marital status. People could always hide them if they didn't want others to see them (or lie about it - it's the internet, I know you can create fake identities and I don't really care), but I always found it nice to see those things. Made it slightly less anonymous, more personal.

Sigh. I really miss the old CF. I have this bug in the new CF that blocks all characters (including my own).

 

[DeathMagus]

Sigh. I really miss the old CF. I have this bug in the new CF that blocks all characters (including my own).

Are you sure you don't just have them turned off (First box in third section)?

 

[Rebekka]

Are you sure you don't just have them turned off (First box in third section)?

Thank you for your help, but yes, sadly I am really sure. I've started a thread about my problem almost a month ago now, and no mod has been able to figure out what's wrong. That ^ was the first thing I checked. And I could always see them just fine, so it really is the new CF, not my computer. (It isn't even a browser thing, I checked that, too. Nor a cookies thing. Nor a temporary files thing.)

 

[David Brider]

I'm Christian and Neo-Pagan. It's hard to explain.

Maybe, but it sounds like an interesting combination. I've got Christianity pretty much hardwired into me these me, but there are things about paganism that I find kind of appealling. I can imagine myself becoming Christo-Pagan eventually.

 

[selfinflikted]

You're such an intersting person to me, and even though I always assumed American culture was very similar to British culture, I'm finding out just by reading your posts that there are more differences that I first imagined...

Mainly because of the stigma attached to atheism. If you say "atheist" people assume you're a certain kind of person. I don't like that.

Understandable. The only thing I think of when I hear "atheist" is simply "one who doesn't believe in gods." I guess, I'm not familiar with any stereotype regarding atheists. Or, maybe I'm just naive.

So I prefer a term which doesn't come with cultural baggage. (That's also why I prefer "queer" to "bisexual".)

Ah. See, where I live, "queer" is the worst thing you could call someone. People get into fights and kill each other here, over that word. I would much prefer to term "gay" or "homo" or "'mo" or basically anything else to "queer" simply because of what could happen to me.

I also don't want people to make assumptions about my feelings towards gods. I'm what some people call a weak atheist. If I say "non-theist", others are inclined to ask something like "Does that mean you don't believe gods exist, or that you believe gods don't exist?" whereas if I say "atheist", they tend to assume the latter.

I still fail to see the difference