Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The Beauty Of Fundamentalism!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Beauty Of Fundamentalism!

    Because parody is fun and can expose the disingenuous double-standards in the claims made by certain theist: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...Of-Determinism!
    http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...225#post253225


    It seems more and more that the Christians on this board are displaying prejudice towards homosexuals, transgendered people, etc., believing that this is justified by their own religious ideology. They think that their religious ideology should play a significant role in laws that affect other people. You know, this theory does have its advantages. Whenever the theist displays prejudice to a member of another group (such as a homosexual or a feminist) - well no big deal, why feel guilty? You can be prejudiced, since your religious ideology justfies your prejudice. And it seems that people who follow this sort of fundamentalism are more likely to display close-mindededness and prejudice towards outside groups:

    "Religious Fundamentalism and Limited Prosociality as a Function of the Target"
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...0.01551.x/full
    "Two distinct research traditions have established that (a) religiosity implies prosocial tendencies, though limited to proximal targets, and (b) religious fundamentalism (RF) relates to prejudice, often because of underlying right-wing authoritarianism (RWA). Through two studies, we investigated the idea that RF, due to underlying religiosity, also predicts prosociality that is limited to proximal rather than distal targets. Specifically, we found that RF, unlike RWA and because of religiosity, predicted prosociality towards a nonfeminist but not a feminist target in need (Experiment 1) and willingness to help friends but not unknown people in need in the same hypothetical situations (Experiment 2). Moreover, like RWA, RF implied negative attitudes towards the feminist. This limited, not extended, prosociality of people scoring high on RF was in contrast with their self-perceptions of being universally altruistic. Fundamentalism seems to combine religiosity's qualities (in-group prosociality) with authoritarianism's defects (out-group derogation)."

    "Beyond dogmatism: the need for closure as related to religion"
    http://www.ulouvain.be/cps/ucl/doc/p....MHRC.NFCS.pdf
    "The empirical literature, especially in the last decade, suggests that when studies are based on measures of general religiosity, not close- or open-minded religion, but religiosity per se (e.g. attitude to religion, intrinsic religiosity, religious afˇfiliation, religious behaviour and practices such as prayer, church attendance, reading of the Bible), and when the results are significant (this is not always the case), the association between religiosity and constructs relative to close- mindedness is always positive. For example, this is the case with (Rokeach’s) dogmatism (Francis, 2001,for review), authoritarianism (Duck & Hunsberger, 1999; Leak & Randall, 1995), risk avoidance (Miller & Hoffmann, 1995), low spontaneous humor creation (Saroglou, in press; Saroglou & Jaspard, 2001), low openness to experience (Saroglou, 2002b, for review), stereotypical thinking (Watson et al., 1999), non-proscribed prejudice (Batson et al., 1993; Duck & Hunsberger, 1999), in-group favouritism (Burris & Jackson, 1999; Jackson & Hunsberger, 1999), values emphasizing the need for reduction of uncertainty (values of conformity, tradition and security) and low importance attributed to the values emphasizing openness to change (values of self-direction and stimulation) (Schwartz & Huismans, 1995) (184)."


    I wonder how the folks who pretend to care about scientific evidence [unless the evidence is inconvenient for their religious ideology] will react to this?

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    And you are correct, though science can be useful, I am not "bound" by it.
    By which you mean you do not consider yourself “bound” to accept scientifically verified facts if they conflict with your religious presuppositions and that it’s “useful’ only when it supports your religious presuppositions. You said yourself that you don’t believe we live in a physical universe even though you can’t provide any substantive evidence of an alternative universe other than the failed god hypothesis.
    Yes Tass I have religious bias as you have a non-religious bias. We all have presuppositions Tass or we could not make sense of the world. And aren't you the one who keeps telling me that science is always in flux? Perhaps I should still believe in the Steady State universe that I was taught in school.
    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    Your whole approach to the use of scientific links is quote-mining. Science exists to acquire new knowledge based upon physical evidence. It's NOT intended to reinforce existing religious presuppositions, which is how you misuse science. This is double cynical in that you say you’re not bound by scientific knowledge anyway, because you don't believe we live in a physical universe. So science for you is only useful is it can be made to reinforce what you already believe, if it contradicts what you believe it is dismissed. This is what I mean by "dishonest".
    Last edited by Jichard; 10-26-2015, 08:30 PM.
    "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

  • #2
    Look at that, jerkard the idiot didn't bother to read the article in question before he blurted out something stupid, yet again, so he runs away so he can make fun of religious people when nobody ever argued what he claims to be arguing. Once an idiot always an idiot.
    "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
    GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

    Comment


    • #3
      The beauty of Fundamentalism is it's simplicity. One simply believes blindly in the literal interpretation of ancient scripture with questionable provenance. Fideism and Presuppositionalism rule the roost. All the sciences are selectively ignored and qualified to fit the religious agenda. There is need to deal with the problems, progressive change and evolving academic knowledge in ALL other disciplines including history.
      Last edited by shunyadragon; 10-28-2015, 07:42 AM.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Jichard View Post
        Fundamentalism seems to combine religiosity's qualities (in-group prosociality) with authoritarianism's defects (out-group derogation)."
        Looked in a mirror lately?
        Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

        Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
        sigpic
        I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

        Comment


        • #5
          I didn't read the quotes, so I am not responding to whether they are actually being prejudice...

          JRichard, you need to realize people can be prejudice for any reason including what type of cereal they ate for breakfast. Religion is not the problem. Further, you are being a complete hypocrite. Your entire mission on this board is a display of prejudice towards religious people. You candidly display the double standard of the current cultural climate and that is 'it is not politically correct to insult any social class except Christians'.

          Do you see your own hypocrisy?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by ShrimpMaster View Post
            Do you see your own hypocrisy?
            He's prejudiced toward the prejudiced, intolerant of the intolerant, and hateful toward the hateful.

            Those are examples of argument from paradox, in particular, they are negative recursions, the most famous of which is the liar's paradox:

            "This statement is a lie."

            So no, there is no hypocrisy here, or if there is, you'll have to find a valid way to show it.

            Because this one is just fail.

            Comment


            • #7
              First, Christians are no more prejudice against homosexuals for believing marriage is between a man and a woman than the U.S. Government is prejudice against pedophiles for criminalizing pedophilia.

              Second, if a person is prejudice against people because they are prejudice then that is certainly hypocrisy or at least a double standard. Your examples lao tzu are just confused.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by ShrimpMaster View Post
                I didn't read the quotes, so I am not responding to whether they are actually being prejudice...
                Not a good way to start out.
                Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                sigpic
                I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by ShrimpMaster View Post
                  First, Christians are no more prejudice against homosexuals for believing marriage is between a man and a woman than the U.S. Government is prejudice against pedophiles for criminalizing pedophilia.
                  Comparing homosexuals to pedophiles. How novel.

                  Second, if a person is prejudice against people because they are prejudice then that is certainly hypocrisy or at least a double standard. Your examples lao tzu are just confused.
                  We've got a real winner here, folks.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by ShrimpMaster View Post
                    First, Christians are no more prejudice against homosexuals for believing marriage is between a man and a woman than the U.S. Government is prejudice against pedophiles for criminalizing pedophilia.
                    bzzaro comparison to justify one's intolerant agenda.

                    Second, if a person is prejudice against people because they are prejudice then that is certainly hypocrisy or at least a double standard. Your examples lao tzu are just confused.
                    Read lao tzu's post again. You need to work on your vocabulary with a good dictionary.
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Thanks for your valuable responses. I'll be sure to contemplate what you gave said and get back to you at a later date

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
                        Look at that, jerkard the idiot didn't bother to read the article in question before he blurted out something stupid, yet again, so he runs away so he can make fun of religious people when nobody ever argued what he claims to be arguing. Once an idiot always an idiot.
                        Your apparently have no clue what's being discussed, nor why.
                        "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                          Looked in a mirror lately?
                          Do you ever have anything worthwhile to say? Like, ever? (Beyond approving of dangerous minsinformation that results in the death of children...)
                          "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Jichard View Post
                            Your apparently have no clue what's being discussed, nor why.
                            Sure I do and you're an idiot that nobody should take seriously or spend a moment listening to beyond to treat him just as he treats others.
                            "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                            GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by ShrimpMaster View Post
                              I didn't read the quotes, so I am not responding to whether they are actually being prejudice...

                              JRichard, you need to realize people can be prejudice for any reason including what type of cereal they ate for breakfast.
                              You completely missed the point of the thread.

                              The thread is parodying a previous thread seer started, where seer claimed that believing in determinism made people more immoral (this was a lie seer made up, and he misrepresented scientific research in order to support his lie). I'm parodying that, by applying his own logic to fundamentalism.

                              Religion is not the problem.
                              Your reasoning here is fallacious. Religion can be the problem, even if people can be prejudiced for reason other than religion. By your logic, HIV wouldn't be a problem, since things other than HIV can cause people to be sick. The evidence is clear: religious fundamentalism tends to result in the effects noted in the OP.

                              Further, you are being a complete hypocrite. Your entire mission on this board is a display of prejudice towards religious people.
                              Yeah, now you're just making stuff up. Just because I present facts that you cannot address, does not mean I'm displaying "prejudice towards religious people". If you doubt this, then cite one instance of prejudice I've displayed to religious people as a whole. Go ahead; you won't be able to, because I haven't done that and you're just making stuff up.

                              Face it: I provide evidence and arguments for claims you don't want to address. And you then complain about "prejudice" to cover for the fact that you can't address what was said.

                              You candidly display the double standard of the current cultural climate and that is 'it is not politically correct to insult any social class except Christians'.
                              So let me get this straight: you're surprised that in the apologetics section of a largely Christian forum, you'd find atheists who are criticizing the claims of Christian theology, as opposed to say, Islam or Buddhism? Really?

                              There's no need for a victim complex. You most likely live in a majroity Christian country; you're not being persecuted just because people bring up facts that are inconvenient for your religious ideology.

                              Do you see your own hypocrisy?
                              I'm not the one making up false claims without any evidence.
                              Last edited by Jichard; 10-30-2015, 08:40 PM.
                              "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
                              39 responses
                              198 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post whag
                              by whag
                               
                              Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                              21 responses
                              132 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                              80 responses
                              428 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post tabibito  
                              Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                              45 responses
                              305 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                              406 responses
                              2,518 views
                              2 likes
                              Last Post tabibito  
                              Working...
                              X