|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Oct 11, 2009 1:20:46 GMT -5
I'd say no So... that's nothing more than a lot of "Atheist Conspiracy" garble, huh? Fundie persecution complex operating full blast, and full steam.
|
|
|
Post by Vypernight on Oct 11, 2009 3:59:00 GMT -5
Awww, are you feeling persecuted because I just wanted to show another side? Since when did people have to strap bombs to them to be fundies? I thought just speaking out and saying something stupid with regard to religion would count ('Religion is stupid and anyone following it are idiots' definitely qualifies.).
Oh well, here's a fellow or at least former Buddhist one:
Shoko Asahara
Leader of the Aum Shinrikyo Buddhist clan.
Actions: Wrote several books supposedly based on Buddhist Sutras, but actually said pretty much the exact opposite. Pushed his own authority, preventing followers from making their own choices. Basically, he had a psychotic episode while meditating and thought he had become a god.
Finally led members of his group to gas a Tokyo subway in 1995, killing a dozen people and injuring thousands more, all because he wanted to bring upon the apocalypse.
His own followers were so appalled by their actions, they turned their backs on Asahara and made reparations to the families of the victims of those attacks.
|
|
|
Post by malicious_bloke on Oct 11, 2009 6:01:15 GMT -5
this may already have been covered in the thread, but there's a couple of problems putting all this into an actual wiki.
1a) Wikis, by definition are open to edits by anyone who wishes so to do. The amount of fundie spam and bullshit edits we'd get would be astronomical
1b) "1a" would probably present the need for us to lock certain pages or have account validation and full moderation, in effect making it just like conservapedia [albeit with a different slant], which kind of defeats the whole point of a wiki IMHO
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Oct 11, 2009 12:19:55 GMT -5
Awww, are you feeling persecuted because I just wanted to show another side? Persecuted? Other side? Wha?
|
|
|
Post by xaria on Oct 12, 2009 8:31:00 GMT -5
a fundie atheist- REALLY doesnt believe in god.
|
|
|
Post by Vypernight on Oct 12, 2009 9:14:17 GMT -5
I don't know if fundie athiests exist or not.
I was just commenting on how people went from describing fundies who verbally berate groups to suddenly throwing their hands up to frantically point out how 'no athiests strapped a bomb to their chests,' or something like that.
If you don't see the possibility of fundie athiests exisiting, fine. I could name a few offline, but since they're just people I know or have heard about, they really don't fit here.
But don't get so hot and bothered at the idea that someone who doesn't believe in God can still be a bigoted asshole.
|
|
|
Post by Rime on Oct 12, 2009 10:36:01 GMT -5
Ok, one of the points I'd like to highlight is that the definition Fundamentalist has changed a bit. What it has come to mean is how someone reacts to disagreeing viewpoints. If you have a "my way or the highway" attitude to someone having differences, you're a fundamentalist.
I lifted this text from another forum, but I think it does highlight a fundamentalist attitude without the associated religious connotations it's commonly associated with.
While this may seem okay from the perspective of some here, I'm a critic, not a conqueror. This entails telling someone what to believe, and I am not at all okay with this.
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Oct 12, 2009 11:08:05 GMT -5
I don't know if fundie athiests exist or not. I was just commenting on how people went from describing fundies who verbally berate groups to suddenly throwing their hands up to frantically point out how 'no athiests strapped a bomb to their chests,' or something like that. If you don't see the possibility of fundie athiests exisiting, fine. I could name a few offline, but since they're just people I know or have heard about, they really don't fit here. But don't get so hot and bothered at the idea that someone who doesn't believe in God can still be a bigoted asshole. I'm not the one getting "hot and bothered." I disagreed with you and you started saying shit about me feeling persecuted and whatnot. I'm not upset about someone disagreeing with me. That happens. Just don't take my disagreement personally.
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Oct 12, 2009 11:09:57 GMT -5
a fundie atheist- REALLY doesnt believe in god. Chris Stotch: "Yeah, let's kill God!" Randy Marsh: "Um...let....let's just be atheists." Chris Stotch: "Same thing."
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Oct 12, 2009 11:15:13 GMT -5
Ok, one of the points I'd like to highlight is that the definition Fundamentalist has changed a bit. What it has come to mean is how someone reacts to disagreeing viewpoints. If you have a "my way or the highway" attitude to someone having differences, you're a fundamentalist. I lifted this text from another forum, but I think it does highlight a fundamentalist attitude without the associated religious connotations it's commonly associated with. While this may seem okay from the perspective of some here, I'm a critic, not a conqueror. This entails telling someone what to believe, and I am not at all okay with this. But how do atheists go about this sort of thing? By writing books? By creating comedies like Religulous? By creating billboards and bus signs saying it's okay not to believe? None of these things are forceful at all. Just as it's reasonable for a believer to do all of these things, it's reasonable for a non-believer to do the same thing. When atheists come up with a version of a hell house or something it may be considered forceful. (And while I don't know if my post sounds confrontational, I don't intend it to sound that way.)
|
|
|
Post by Rime on Oct 12, 2009 11:49:05 GMT -5
It's also about attitude. HisBride is a fundie because if you disagree with her, you're immediately on an "untrusted" list. She broadbrushes anyone who doesn't walk lock-step with her dogmas as some Antichristian agent who is endeavoring to draw her into eternal perdition. Can we agree that she's a representative of the 2-5% of the term fundie?
Can we also agree that she's pretty harmless in spite of posting crazy/scary things on RR?
Conversely, you can also have people who blame all of life's ills on religion. While it is responsible for some terrible crimes, the vast majority of believers aren't dangerous and I believe that pegging everyone who believes in the supernatural as having some sort of mental illness is going as far as HisBride and BuzzardHut, only from the other side of the circle. If an evening beer, toke or an hour on WoW isn't harmful, you can honestly tell me that any belief in a deity is?
If you have Bill Maher, you have on the other side of the circle Ben Stein. Both stacked the deck to bolster the appeal of their movies. While neither one was advocating violence, and since plenty of people card Ben Stein as a fundie, why not call Bill one, albeit a harmless one?
EDIT: Question mark
|
|
|
Post by xaria on Oct 13, 2009 7:12:02 GMT -5
my point that a fundie atheist and a plain old atheist are pretty much the same thing
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Oct 13, 2009 10:41:41 GMT -5
my point that a fundie atheist and a plain old atheist are pretty much the same thing I agree with you on that.
|
|
|
Post by Vypernight on Oct 13, 2009 17:42:25 GMT -5
I don't know if fundie athiests exist or not. I was just commenting on how people went from describing fundies who verbally berate groups to suddenly throwing their hands up to frantically point out how 'no athiests strapped a bomb to their chests,' or something like that. If you don't see the possibility of fundie athiests exisiting, fine. I could name a few offline, but since they're just people I know or have heard about, they really don't fit here. But don't get so hot and bothered at the idea that someone who doesn't believe in God can still be a bigoted asshole. I'm not the one getting "hot and bothered." I disagreed with you and you started saying shit about me feeling persecuted and whatnot. I'm not upset about someone disagreeing with me. That happens. Just don't take my disagreement personally. I didn't take anything personally. I also wasn't referring to you about the 'persecuted' part, but about someone else's response. My 'aww' part was my sarcastically pretending to pick a fight. I doubt anyone here feels persecuted for their beliefs, or lack of. My comments just didn't come out the way I thought they would. As for the athiest-fundie discussion, it just seemed, to me, like people went from describing some fundies who just verbally bash people, but then point out that no athiests have ever performed terrorist attacks. That's true, but it doesn't mean some athiests don't try to push their views onto others. I've seen or heard about if several times. I just figured there had to be a famous one out there somewhere who did the same. I have no problem with people not believing any more than I do with those who do believe. I just dislike those who push these onto others or who have no problem calling religion stupid or anyone who follows religion, idiots. I'm not referring to people here, BTW, just speaking in a general sense. I think, overall, I just saw what I thought was someone getting bothers by my remark about the possibility of a close-minded, bigoted athiest, and I decided to poke at that. I apologize if I pushed any wrong buttons.
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Oct 13, 2009 20:48:28 GMT -5
I'm not the one getting "hot and bothered." I disagreed with you and you started saying shit about me feeling persecuted and whatnot. I'm not upset about someone disagreeing with me. That happens. Just don't take my disagreement personally. I didn't take anything personally. I also wasn't referring to you about the 'persecuted' part, but about someone else's response. My 'aww' part was my sarcastically pretending to pick a fight. I doubt anyone here feels persecuted for their beliefs, or lack of. My comments just didn't come out the way I thought they would. As for the athiest-fundie discussion, it just seemed, to me, like people went from describing some fundies who just verbally bash people, but then point out that no athiests have ever performed terrorist attacks. That's true, but it doesn't mean some athiests don't try to push their views onto others. I've seen or heard about if several times. I just figured there had to be a famous one out there somewhere who did the same. I have no problem with people not believing any more than I do with those who do believe. I just dislike those who push these onto others or who have no problem calling religion stupid or anyone who follows religion, idiots. I'm not referring to people here, BTW, just speaking in a general sense. I think, overall, I just saw what I thought was someone getting bothers by my remark about the possibility of a close-minded, bigoted athiest, and I decided to poke at that. I apologize if I pushed any wrong buttons. At any rate you can say that atheists can be sadists and murderers and whatnot--because they can be, just like everyone else. For example, Matt Hale is an avowed atheist but is also a white supremacist who attempted to solicit the murder of a federal judge. He also says his race is his religion, so is he doing what he does because he's an atheist or because he's a white supremacist who believes in an entirely different dogma? Or like Stalin who murdered a great many of his own people--he was undoubtedly an atheist but the reason for him murdering people and believing bizarre pseudosciences like Lysenkoism was because of megalomania or dogmatic adherence to Communism (or his interpretation of it).
|
|