|
Post by devilschaplain2 on May 13, 2009 0:37:06 GMT -5
Oh jeez, just read the second one. I stand by my opinion of so-called "atheist fundamentalism", but this attitude is no better than that of bin Laden (even the douchebags at RR haven't advocated murder to my knowledge).
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on May 13, 2009 0:38:59 GMT -5
Oh jeez, just read the second one. I stand by my opinion of so-called "atheist fundamentalism", but this attitude is no better than that of bin Laden (even the douchebags at RR haven't advocated murder to my knowledge). How about "militant atheist" then? That seems to be the alternative version used. To be fair, I think he was being metaphorical... or at least I hope he was being metaphorical.
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on May 13, 2009 0:52:42 GMT -5
Oh jeez, just read the second one. I stand by my opinion of so-called "atheist fundamentalism", but this attitude is no better than that of bin Laden (even the douchebags at RR haven't advocated murder to my knowledge). How about "militant atheist" then? That seems to be the alternative version used. To be fair, I think he was being metaphorical... or at least I hope he was being metaphorical. Heh, I usually use "militant atheist" as a positive statement, like heathen or something. But I get what you mean with the metaphorical thing. It actually reminds me of this to some degree: "Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." -Denis DiderotIf it's not metaphorical then, yeah, this person's an asshole.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on May 13, 2009 1:17:55 GMT -5
The point about this whole thing is that these atheists, who are supposed to be intelligent and such, are stooping to the level of fundies in the way they act. An "atheist fundie", while an oxymoron, does indeed exist. Heck, there's this one guy I knew, a VERY pushy anti-theist. If you didn't agree with his EXACT world view, he treated you like you were scum, even if you were the most liberal person in your respective religion. Even my anti-theist friend found him offensive.
|
|
|
Post by Trevelyan on May 13, 2009 1:39:39 GMT -5
An "atheist fundie", while an oxymoron, does indeed exist. Actually, no it's not an oxymoron. If you click on that linkage you'll find that the definition is: a belief in, and strict adherence to a set of basic principles (often religious in nature), sometimes as a reaction to perceived doctrinal compromises with modern social and political life. It just says that it is often religious in nature not that it always is.
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on May 13, 2009 2:25:11 GMT -5
An "atheist fundie", while an oxymoron, does indeed exist. Actually, no it's not an oxymoron. If you click on that linkage you'll find that the definition is: a belief in, and strict adherence to a set of basic principles (often religious in nature), sometimes as a reaction to perceived doctrinal compromises with modern social and political life. It just says that it is often religious in nature not that it always is. Yes, but what set of principals? I don't believe in God. I don't even think a lack of belief qualifies as a principle by definition. So no, I don't think the phrases "atheist fundie" or "atheist fundamentalism" are appropriate even if some of these guys talk in a way that is reminiscent of a fundamentalist.
|
|
|
Post by Trevelyan on May 13, 2009 2:30:47 GMT -5
If you have a certain way of looking at something then you have a principle. Everyone has a set of principles concerning how they perceive and interact with the world around them. When you become entrenched in those principles and lash out at things that differ from them you are being a fundie.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on May 13, 2009 2:31:43 GMT -5
Actually, no it's not an oxymoron. If you click on that linkage you'll find that the definition is: a belief in, and strict adherence to a set of basic principles (often religious in nature), sometimes as a reaction to perceived doctrinal compromises with modern social and political life. It just says that it is often religious in nature not that it always is. Yes, but what set of principals? I don't believe in God. I don't even think a lack of belief qualifies as a principle by definition. So no, I don't think the phrases "atheist fundie" or "atheist fundamentalism" are appropriate even if some of these guys talk in a way that is reminiscent of a fundamentalist. What would we call them then? That's the thing.
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on May 13, 2009 2:43:58 GMT -5
If you have a certain way of looking at something then you have a principle. Everyone has a set of principles concerning how they perceive and interact with the world around them. When you become entrenched in those principles and lash out at things that differ from them you are being a fundie. This isn't a principle or belief, this is a belief or belief that I don't have. It simply doesn't qualify as fundamentalism. By definition, it can't. Atheism also has no tenets or dogmas or rules or beliefs to it. For that matter, neither does deism or theism, so I would also make the argument that there is no such thing as a "theist fundie" or a "deist fundie." There's just no ideologies or rules to those.
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on May 13, 2009 2:45:43 GMT -5
Yes, but what set of principals? I don't believe in God. I don't even think a lack of belief qualifies as a principle by definition. So no, I don't think the phrases "atheist fundie" or "atheist fundamentalism" are appropriate even if some of these guys talk in a way that is reminiscent of a fundamentalist. What would we call them then? That's the thing. I'll cast my vote for douchebags. I mean I approve of a quote about killing religious people being on here. I agree that atheists who are so warped that they'd make such a statement are no better than fundamentalists, but I'm nitpicky about definitions.
|
|
|
Post by cagnazzo on May 13, 2009 2:57:18 GMT -5
Yes, the word doesn't mean what it originally did. The definition we generally use is, however, rather conveniently located. Note that that's not really an inclusive, set in stone definition either. Even admitting that, the first quoted individual pretty clearly is not in favor of the first amendment. Words change meaning all the time. I'm sure you'll appreciate that if I tell you that I think most of the people I talk directly to on this site are awful? I mean, they've led such interesting, and sometimes challenging, lives! Some of them are, to me at least, truly awful. I'd also like to point out that Osama bin Laden is a pretty terrific guy. Look at what he inspired! Hitler and Stalin were even MORE terrific, I'd say. And Vlad the Impaler? He made it his life goal to be terrific. Sardonic jokes aside, even if we accept the old meaning of the word, atheists do have fundamentals. As in, to be an atheist, it is fundamental that you do not actively believe that there is a god. If we're going to get technical about the original denotation of the word "fundamentalist", we might as well go all the way and use the true denotation of the word "fundamental". Edit: After looking through this again, it was too long winded, so I'm going to remove the second half, and maul the first.
|
|
|
Post by ausador on May 13, 2009 6:03:56 GMT -5
Something I've not understood that this whole bruhaha perfectly illustrates: A lot of you say you stay away from mainpage because it's full of vitriol and idiocy (and I don't mean the quotes). Wouldn't it be better, therefore, for you to be out there on the mainpage making your voices heard over and over again and in force until the asshats get tired of not being tolerated and run off, so that the mainpage becomes a place you actually like visiting? If nobody speaks up, it isn't going to get any better. Same if enough people don't speak up. And no, speaking here is NOT speaking up. Speaking up only happens if the people you can't stand can hear you. I hope you are not seriously advocating that we run everyone off from the main page who allows themselves to indulge in blowing off steam, releaseing some pent up anger, or having a good rant? [sarcasm] Should we appoint mods to remove all DIAF and cactus rape references, after all we should only say something if it is reasoned logic or clever and witty right? Obviously it is wrong to ever allow ourselves to say anything that reflects negatively on the great bastion of logic and rationality that is atheism. Why that might cause the fundies to think poorly of us or something! [/sarcasm] While there are threads on the main page that get too snarky for me to personally enjoy, it does serve a legitimate purpose. In case you have not noticed the correlation, the funny fundie quotes usually have mostly funny comments, those promoting the oppression of others usually have many angry comments. Where else is there that we are allowed to express this anger to society at large? My entire family is fundie, it isn't like I can bitch to them about it, mostly my co-workers are christian, no help there either (besides that, going on anti-theist rants at work would get me fired). The main page is sometimes used by atheists (and yes anti-theists too) to 'shout their rage from the rooftops' so to speak, so what? Shouldn't it be used in that way too along with being funny? When someone gets carried away and actually says something that is blatently fundie then I'm fine with submitting their quote and publishing it on the main page. That is a good mechanism to use and causes discussion and thought about what is appropriate to say. You seem to be suggesting that what we should do is to gang up like Mr. Mann and his fundie horde at R.R. on anyone who expresses themselves in a way we (who is we, anyway?) don't like. making your voices heard over and over again and in force until the asshats get tired of not being tolerated and run offAre you really sure that is a policy that you want to encourage? (especially on an unmoderated page?)
|
|
jes
New Member
Posts: 18
|
Post by jes on May 13, 2009 9:24:21 GMT -5
I hope you are not seriously advocating that we run everyone off from the main page who allows themselves to indulge in blowing off steam, releaseing some pent up anger, or having a good rant? I couldn't agree more! PLEASE, PLEASE don't censor FSTDT. This was my favorite website to visit for fun. But, if it gets all preachy and boring and prohibits free speech, I'll get my jollies elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by pedantictwit on May 13, 2009 9:30:58 GMT -5
Yes, the word doesn't mean what it originally did. The definition we generally use is, however, rather conveniently located. ... Words change meaning all the time. ... ... Sardonic jokes aside, even if we accept the old meaning of the word, atheists do have fundamentals. As in, to be an atheist, it is fundamental that you do not actively believe that there is a god. If we're going to get technical about the original denotation of the word "fundamentalist", we might as well go all the way and use the true denotation of the word "fundamental". I'm sorry, but the fact that the meaning of words does change does not imply that all changes are warranted, accepted, understood, or pervasive. Your examples of awful and terrific are inappropriate, as the meanings that you are using have been out of use for a long time and not a source of confusion or debate in modern conversation. The same is not the case with the FAQ's pseudodefinition of fundie. A more appropriate and illustrative example would be a word that has a currently mutating definition; for example, marriage in the legal context. For most of the people who use it, the word fundy or fundie refers to a fundamentalist, and to willfully attempt a redefinition of the term such that it essentially applies to anyone who does not value at least one of certain principles is not only a hindrance to effective communication, it is confusing and a little disingenuous. For the first, people are not using the same definition for the term, causing a disconnect in communication. Second, because the FAQ's definition is so broad and unfamiliar, it is unclear what qualifies and what does not. Third, the fact that the word is redefined in the FAQ to be different from the common usage combined with the lack of any sort of notification that there is a specific, new, different definition in use reeks of a dishonest bait-and-switch. If a non-standard definition of a word is to be used, it is only reasonable and polite for that definition to be made as prominent as possible, not hidden away in a FAQ that is certainly not the primary reference for word definitions. Finally, you attempt to redefine fundamentalism to suit your rhetorical wants by looking at the root word fundamental and using a different sense of that word than that which is used in the construction of fundamentalism. The adjectival form of the word carries a different denotation and different connotations than does the nominal form. By your redefinition, it is possible to be a fundamentalist chair, because it is fundamental for a chair to have a surface on which to sit. ;D This was also a rather verbose post, for which I apologize, but I get rather worked up over semantic issues. It's a failing of mine that I acknowledge by my choice of username.
|
|
|
Post by crazalus on May 13, 2009 10:33:39 GMT -5
I hope you are not seriously advocating that we run everyone off from the main page who allows themselves to indulge in blowing off steam, releaseing some pent up anger, or having a good rant? This has been talked about on IRC a lot... what is being suggested is a way to stop the Anti-Theist lot from making this site into nothing more than an Anti-Theist site... It was not what it was meant to be, nor is it what Distind wants it to be right now. The ones mentioned that we'd like to get rid of, or at least rein in, are the ones who attack the person because they are in a religion, rather than what they say... if you know what I mean. If I'm wrong, I'm pretty sure someone will correct me on this. (and I hope they do if I'm wrong... I detest being wrong)
|
|