Fundamentalism, Fundies, and Misnomers

[AlphaBravo]

I think the fact Dawkins called teaching children religion equal to child abuse tells us all we need to know about him.

Yeah, def a fundy atheist. He has mommy issues I think.

[Jaecp]

???
I think all of the Bible has to be contextualized, though there are certainly parts of it that require more contextualizing than others.

So which parts require so much contextualization so as to become nothing like what the plain reading would seem to be?

Not in the way you think it matters. While you're certainly correct that it's "modeled after the term used on/by (fundy) Christians" it also happens to be accurate, since both Fundy Atheists and Fundy Christians reason and read the Bible in the same way.

Do tell

She repudiated her own son for converting to Christianity. If that's not irrational hatred then I don't know what is.

Why is that irrational?

That's why I said especially when it's used that way (as opposed to how I personally use it). I don't necessarily agree that hostility towards religion is the defining trait of a fundy atheist, but there are certain people who do, and they would certainly see her as a fundy atheist because of her reasoning. To me it's far more interesting to know why she was hostile to religion, which is far more useful in knowing whether or not she actually was a fundy, in opposition to simply branding her a fundy because she happened to hate religion.

The usual way as to your personal way? How can we trust a term that appears so... fluid?

Well, she did found one of the more prominent constitutional watchdog groups, American Atheists. She was the women who got school led prayer and bible reading out of public schools.

Well, primarily his charges that God promotes genocide, slavery and rape in the Old Testament.

And thats nowhere to be found then?

Well, the fact that he thinks we are idiots would probably be more relevant if he wouldn't look like a total moron himself while arguing against God.

You'll forgive me if I don't take your assertion as, ahem, the gospel truth.

[AlphaBravo]

People who act upon the existence of a god have that behavior whether or not that god actually exists. We know this, because, at most, one of the many mutually exclusive religions is true.
We know that religions tend to arise out of a charismatic leader whose followers continue on after his death. We know that religions spread from a starting location out relatively slowly, the same kind of rate one might expect based upon the technology available. We know that religious books look like books written by humans of whatever era and not like the word of omnimax superbeings that know everything. It's why lots of those old stories from our long running religions have parts that we know couldn't have happened based upon stuff that we know that the ancient people did not.

There is also the question of why would an omnimax superbeing act like the tribal god of a bunch of desert wanderers? Thats the kind of question I imagine Haven is asking himself when he says that any gods that exist don't care about us, because, they probably wouldn't. Human beings have created metric tons of gods to explain certain things or to give cultural context or whatever else. Tons and tons and tons of false gods, check out www.godchecker.com for a few thousand.

I'm sorry I must have grabbed the wrong quote. Disregard my comment. I'll try it again next time it comes up.

[Xru]

Yeah, def a fundy atheist. He has mommy issues I think.

[lilpixieofterror]

Have you forgetten your discussion with SoR regarding when science actually came to be? You use that word loosely, as my quote of your source showed.

Lol, no I didn't Jaecp. You'll find science as a word is actually used pretty loosely to refer to almost any field and SoR used it loosely to refer to history. It is too bad that I proved that natural philosophy is what came BEFORE modern science and WAS seen as the science of it's day and you ignored it, as par the course for you. Also, you do not produce full quotes below. Dishonesty at it's finest. Just as I expected from you.

I recall reading, in a thread a couple months back, where you let slip that you like to keep information witheld from a discussion to create "Gotcha" moments so you can "win" or w/e.

Jaecp wants to be dishonest again and leave out details of the conversation. The thread in question is where somebody started ranting about how mean and evil I was for 'chasing off' a Jesus myther a few years ago. What I pointed out is that I was trying to get him to throw a hissy fit about being insulted and then point out his insults to others to 'catch him' condemning himself, others throw a huge deal about this. Jaecp wants to pretend as though I do that on a daily bases or normally, I actually do that quite rarely and what I had to say about the science of the era teaching the earth was covered by a dome is commonly know by anybody that studies history in depth. Problem is, he can not admit he is wrong and rather then admit to his errors on history, he wants to 'blame me' for it and throw up excuses to cover for his own ignorance of facts of history. Funny, I easily backed up what I said when asked and well... nothing yet to prove me wrong other then running and and acting like he was never wrong.

Par the course for you though, eh? Leaving out details that do not make you look good. Also, I give you too much credit for knowing stuff and that is my biggest weakness. I forgot you like being lead around like a child at a Museum.

I won't be getting into a discussion with you untill you put your cards on the table. Also, you should probably make the Dawkins thing its own thread, to avoid this one being thrown off track,

Par the course for you, demanding everybody do the leg work and you do nothing. Do you really not know how to use Google or do you only know how to use Google when you are not proved wrong? Searching the key phrase "richard dawkins says religion is child abuse" gets this hit on the very first link:

'What shall we tell the children?' is a superb polemic on how religions abuse the minds of children, by the distinguished psychologist Nicholas Humphrey. It was originally delivered as a lecture in aid of Amnesty International, and has now been reissued as a chapter of his book, The Mind Made Flesh, just published by Oxford University Press. It is also available on the worldwide web and I strongly recommend it. Humphrey argues that, in the same way as Amnesty works tirelessly to free political prisoners the world over, we should work to free the children of the world from the religions which, with parental approval, damage minds too young to understand what is happening to them. He is right, and the same lesson should inform our discussions of the current pedophile brouhaha. Priestly groping of child bodies is disgusting. But it may be less harmful in the long run than priestly subversion of child minds.
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/1...al-child-abuse

Oh dear, that is from his OWN WEB SITE!!!! That took me a couple of seconds to find and a few minutes to read, do you just ignore anything and everything that proves your delusions wrong? It is in black and white, so spin away Jaecp and make excuses for your hero's.

[lilpixieofterror]

Yeah, def a fundy atheist. He has mommy issues I think.

The quote I gave Jaecp proves really how deluded he is. Teaching children religious beliefs can be more damaging than molesting them? Why do people not only read such disgusting idiocy, but will back it up and defend such stuff all for their own anti-religious agenda?

[Jaecp]

Lol, no I didn't Jaecp. You'll find science as a word is actually used pretty loosely to refer to almost any field and SoR used it loosely to refer to history. It is too bad that I proved that natural philosophy is what came BEFORE modern science and WAS seen as the science of it's day and you ignored it, as par the course for you. As par the course, you ignore that part and do not produce full quotes below. Dishonesty at it's finest. Just as I expected from you.

Natural Philosophy indeed was the predescessor, which means that the dishonesty is yours when you equate it with science and try to make a point about the firmament being supported by science.

Jaecp wants to be dishonest again and leave out details of the conversation. The thread in question is where somebody started ranting about how mean and evil I was for 'chasing off' a Jesus myther a few years ago. What I pointed out is that I was trying to get him to throw a hissy fit about being insulted and then point out his insults to others to 'catch him' condemning himself, others throw a huge deal about this. Jaecp wants to pretend as though I do that on a daily bases or normally, I actually do that quite rarely and what I had to say about the science of the era teaching the earth was covered by a dome is commonly know by anybody that studies history in depth. Problem is, he can not admit he is wrong and rather then admit to his errors on history, he wants to 'blame me' for it. Funny, I easily backed up what I said when asked and well... nothing yet to prove me wrong other then running and and acting like he was never wrong.

Par the course for you though, eh? Leaving out details that do not make you look good.

We have no way of knowing the frequency and I made no claim to frequency. It is enough that you do it, that you admit to doing it, because it goes to your character. You make assumptions about people and then try to trap them in your preconceptions.

My posts have always been significantly more brief than yours. I only go into detail when its actually neccesary. Here, it was not.

Par the course for you, demanding everybody do the leg work and you do nothing. Do you really not know how to use google or do you only know how to use Google when you are not proved wrong searching the key phrase "Dawkins says religion is child abuse" gets these hits...


'What shall we tell the children?' is a superb polemic on how religions abuse the minds of children, by the distinguished psychologist Nicholas Humphrey. It was originally delivered as a lecture in aid of Amnesty International, and has now been reissued as a chapter of his book, The Mind Made Flesh, just published by Oxford University Press. It is also available on the worldwide web and I strongly recommend it. Humphrey argues that, in the same way as Amnesty works tirelessly to free political prisoners the world over, we should work to free the children of the world from the religions which, with parental approval, damage minds too young to understand what is happening to them. He is right, and the same lesson should inform our discussions of the current pedophile brouhaha. Priestly groping of child bodies is disgusting. But it may be less harmful in the long run than priestly subversion of child minds.
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/1...al-child-abuse


Oh dear, that is from his OWN WEB SITE!!!! That took me a couple of seconds to find and a few minutes to read, do you just ignore anything and everything that proves your delusions wrong? It is in black and white, so spin away Jaecp and make excuses for your hero's.

Spin what? I think everyone here should click that link and read the whole piece, its only like 3 pages long. You've made the same mistake people usually do when talking about this and anyone who reads the article will see why. You quoted the conclusion and freaked out about HOW DARE DAWKINS CALL RELIGION CHILD ABUSE without talking about the first eight paragraphs leading up to your quote.

Go make this a new topic if you want to discuss this further.

[Chrawnus]

So which parts require so much contextualization so as to become nothing like what the plain reading would seem to be?

I don't really think that's the proper way to put it. The "plain reading" of a text will be different for a person living when the text was written than for a person who's reading it now since our cultures are so far away from each other. The claim that we as modern persons are just "reading the text as it is" is not only wrong, it's borderline ridiculous. The plain meaning of the text would be the one that the original writers and recipients put into it and, to the extent we're able to put ourself in their shoes, the ones who actually take their time trying to put the text into it's proper interpretive framework.

So your "plain reading" is not really a plain reading at all, it's simply you imposing modern interpretive techniques and values on an ancient text.

Do tell

Well, the fact that both camps claim that they're simply interpreting the Bible according to the "plain reading" for starters.

Why is that irrational?

So you don't think disowning your son for converting to Christianity is irrational?

In her own words:

Dracos, Ted (2004-10-05). Ungodly: The Passions, Torments, and Murder of Atheist Madalyn Murray O'Hair. New York: Berkley Books. ISBN 0425201163.

"One could call this a postnatal abortion on the part of a mother, I guess; I repudiate him entirely and completely for now and all times...he is beyond human forgiveness."

© source where applicable

The usual way as to your personal way? How can we trust a term that appears so... fluid?

Lolwut?

Well, she did found one of the more prominent constitutional watchdog groups, American Atheists. She was the women who got school led prayer and bible reading out of public schools.

Not that that's the reason why I would call her a fundy atheist. Though the reason she did it might have been because she was a fundy (if she indeed was one if using the definition of fundy atheist that I'm using).

And thats nowhere to be found then?

What exactly? Slavery, rape and genocide, or God promoting it? If you mean God promoting slavery, rape and genocide, then no, I don't think there are any examples of God doing that.

You'll forgive me if I don't take your assertion as, ahem, the gospel truth.

That doesn't faze me one bit, actually.

[AlphaBravo]

Indeed...

Great. So we agree on that Dawkins is a fundy atheist.

[Jaecp]

I don't really think that's the proper way to put it. The "plain reading" of a text will be different for a person living when the text was written than for a person who's reading it now since our cultures are so far away from each other. The claim that we as modern persons are just "reading the text as it is" is not only wrong, it's borderline ridiculous. The plain meaning of the text would be the one that the original writers and recipients put into it and, to the extent we're able to put ourself in their shoes, the ones who actually take their time trying to put the text into it's proper interpretive framework.

So your "plain reading" is not really a plain reading at all, it's simply you imposing modern interpretive techniques and values on an ancient text.

So, no one can get anything out of the bible without having... what years?... of scholarship done first? That doesn't seem right. Are there no sections of which a plain reading is correct? Where the plain meaning hasn't changed?

Well, the fact that both camps claim that they're simply interpreting the Bible according to the "plain reading" for starters.

I doubt that if presented with a verse that caused confusion they would claim that a plain reading is sufficient.

I think it goes more to Mark Twain's comment of "It's not the parts of the bible that I don't understand that bother me, but the parts I do understand"

So you don't think disowning your son for converting to Christianity is irrational?

In her own words:
Dracos, Ted (2004-10-05). Ungodly: The Passions, Torments, and Murder of Atheist Madalyn Murray O'Hair. New York: Berkley Books. ISBN 0425201163.
"One could call this a postnatal abortion on the part of a mother, I guess; I repudiate him entirely and completely for now and all times...he is beyond human forgiveness."

It depends on the reasoning. Thats where we'd know if its irrational or not. Pointing to the action itself doesn't tell us anything.

Lolwut?

You don't need hostility, maybe, others do. The whole thing as a mirror insult is just... eh.

Not that that's the reason why I would call her a fundy atheist. Though the reason she did it might have been because she was a fundy (if she indeed was one if using the definition of fundy atheist that I'm using).

It'd be interesting to see a breakdown of her qualities contrasted with your definitional list.

What exactly? Slavery, rape and genocide, or God promoting it? If you mean God promoting slavery, rape and genocide, then no, I don't think there are any examples of God doing that.

Interesting.

That doesn't faze me one bit, actually.

K

[lilpixieofterror]

Natural Philosophy indeed was the predescessor, which means that the dishonesty is yours when you equate it with science and try to make a point about the firmament being supported by science.

You do know that science is also used informally to refer to many things right? I know you do not look up stuff for yourself, but here is the definition for you:

Science - a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

Last I checked, both philosophy and natural philosophy was a branch of knowledge or study that dealt with facts or truths, systematically arranged, so again, you're WRONG! Likewise, did I say modern natural science backed up their views? Nope, I said, "The science of their day" and guess what, that was THE SCIENCE OF THEIR DAY! Again leaving out facts that disagree with you is par the course for you, isn't it? Spin spin spin away and keep showing me right, you'll never admit to error, no matter what.

We have no way of knowing the frequency and I made no claim to frequency. It is enough that you do it, that you admit to doing it, because it goes to your character. You make assumptions about people and then try to trap them in your preconceptions.

In other words, "DUH! This is my attempt to make you look bad, so let me IGNORE FACTS that disagree with me!"

No Jaecp, you're spinning away again because you're too full of pride to ever admit you are wrong. I knew this information for years and was easily able to back it when asked. You're trying to spin doctrine away and make up things based on partial quotes and facts because you can't admit you are wrong. Anybody who has studied the history of science knows what I said and anybody who was curious to know, I would have explained it to them. Sorry, but your diversions and assertions are not going to help you here, but again par the course for you, when caught in error try throwing up a diversion to avoid admitting you are wrong. The fact I answered imminently, without making excuses shows I wasn't holding back anything. Now, have fun in the hole you dug for yourself because you're proving quite well you can't admit you are wrong and will find excuses to avoid your errors.

Spin what? I think everyone here should click that link and read the whole piece, its only like 3 pages long. You've made the same mistake people usually do when talking about this and anyone who reads the article will see why. You quoted the conclusion and freaked out about HOW DARE DAWKINS CALL RELIGION CHILD ABUSE without talking about the first eight paragraphs leading up to your quote.

Yep, making more excuses and just IGNORING DATA that proves him wrong. Go ahead Jaecp, prove that the article doesn't lead up to that conclusion because I quoted the last paragraph and I would think a college student would know what the last paragraph of an article like this usually is. He is giving a summery of what he said and what the thrust of his article is all about. Did you not learn that in your Freshmen English class? I remember learning it in mine. Not a bad spin doctrine, but if you were going for making yourself look ignorant you're doing a good job. If you are going to back up your hero and make yourself look worse, great job. It is too bad reality just keeps hitting you upside the head over and over again.

Go make this a new topic if you want to discuss this further.

Nah, I think you embarassed yourself enough already. No need to keep furthering your own embarrassment and watching you fail to understand basic writing 101.

[Jaecp]

Great. So we agree on that Dawkins is a fundy atheist.

You wound me :P

I don't think passion alone does a "fundy" make,

We could just call him a passionate guy, like many people. I'm pretty passionate myself in person. I keep a very calm persona online because emotion, humor, body language, and all these other super important communication markers doesn't translate well to text :D

[Jaecp]

You do know that science is also used informally to refer to many things right? I know you do not look up stuff for yourself, but here is the definition for you:

Science - a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

Last I checked, both philosophy and natural philosophy was a branch of knowledge or study that dealt with facts or truths, systematically arranged, so again, you're WRONG! Likewise, did I say modern natural science backed up their views? Nope, I said, "The science of their day" and guess what, that was THE SCIENCE OF THEIR DAY! Again leaving out facts that disagree with you is par the course for you, isn't it? Spin spin spin away and keep showing me right, you'll never admit to error, no matter what.

If you're being informal, taking poetic license, then your point becomes pointless.

In other words, "DUH! This is my attempt to make you look bad, so let me IGNORE FACTS that disagree with me!"

No Jaecp, you're spinning away again because you're too full of pride to ever admit you are wrong. I knew this information for years and was easily able to back it when asked. You're trying to spin doctrine away and make up things based on partial quotes and facts because you can't admit you are wrong. Anybody who has studied the history of science knows what I said and anybody who was curious to know, I would have explained it to them. Sorry, but your diversions and assertions are not going to help you here, but again par the course for you, when caught in error try throwing up a diversion to avoid admitting you are wrong. The fact I answered imminently, without making excuses shows I wasn't holding back anything. Now, have fun in the hole you dug for yourself because you're proving quite well you can't admit you are wrong and will find excuses to avoid your errors.

Partial quotes? So what? If you want to accuse me of quote mining do so. Not that I have a habit of partial quotes in the first place.

The "holding back info" was, in this instance, related to Dawkins, not the firmament business. Try to keep the conversations straight, k?

Yep, making more excuses and just IGNORING DATA that proves him wrong. Go ahead Jaecp, prove that the article doesn't lead up to that conclusion because I quoted the last paragraph and I would think a college student would know what the last paragraph of an article like this usually is. He is giving a summery of what he said and what the thrust of his article is all about. Did you not learn that in your Freshmen English class? I remember learning it in mine. Not a bad spin doctrine, but if you were going for making yourself look ignorant you're doing a good job. If you are going to back up your hero and make yourself look worse, great job. It is too bad reality just keeps hitting you upside the head over and over again.

Huh?

My point was that you were fear mongering by pointing to the conclusion and not going through the reasoning. In other words, your overplaying your position.

Nah, I think you embarassed yourself enough already. No need to keep furthering your own embarrassment and watching you fail to understand basic writing 101.

Attacking me for weird things is your perogative, I guess.

[Kane]

LPoT--

What atheist literature have you read?

[lilpixieofterror]

If you're being informal, taking poetic license, then your point becomes pointless.

More excuses! Sorry jaecp, but if you would have kept up SoR USED the word science to refer to history, which isn't a natural science, but is a science per the number one definition of science. So sorry, your spin doctrine will not help you here. You should just admit you are wrong and move on before you make yourself look worse.

Partial quotes? So what? If you want to accuse me of quote mining do so. Not that I have a habit of partial quotes in the first place.

You are in ignoring information you don't want to hear. I know I'm not the only one that accused you of that and you seem to be doing a good job of doing that right now.

The "holding back info" was, in this instance, related to Dawkins, not the firmament business. Try to keep the conversations straight, k?

WRONG AGAIN! I backed it up and anybody who keeps up with his stuff would know this information. I know par the course for you is to IGNORE information that proves you wrong or makes you/ your hero's look bad so I'm not surprised you ignored that little piece of information too and I again, backed it up when challenged and was easily able to find the information you should have already known. If you ever bothered to actually educate yourself outside of school. Sorry, I keep forgetting that, I'll try to remember you like being lead around like a clueless noob at a museum that doesn't know the difference between an aircraft and a butter turner. I'll make sure to remember to try to remember to take my mind reading pills so I can automatically answer your 10,000 dodges and aversions so you can't accuse me of 'holding back information' next time, ok?

Huh?

My point was that you were fear mongering by pointing to the conclusion and not going through the reasoning. In other words, your overplaying your position.

Yep, more spin doctoring because as usually Jaecp is WRONG and can't admit to it now he's trying to underplay his ignorance and say, "Well, I knew that all along!" What was my position? Oh yeah, that Richard Dawkins said teaching children religion is child abuse, it was backed up, and as always, you make EXCUSES for your hero's (along with your self) and now trying to make it look as though you were never wrong or that I made some other claim, when you just can't admit you were wrong. Face it, the quote proves you wrong and is the words of Richard Dawkins himself. How much more do I need to dig up before you'll admit I was right and you were wrong?

Attacking me for weird things is your perogative, I guess.

You're sure a riot. Keep proving me right, you're doing a great job of embarrassing yourself so far.