I was about to make that same point. It seems to be o.k. to mock or ridicule minor nonsense such as bigfoot followers and hollow earth believers, but when it comes to the big illogical beliefs suddenly we are required to respect those who believe.
Elves? Silly.
Angels? Personal belief to be respected.
Hollow Earth? Silly.
Earth created in six days? Religious belief to be respected.
Santa Claus? Silly
God? Religious belief to be respected.
At some point the illogical becomes so great that it actually becomes a sort of psuedologic.
It’s worse than that. The actual fundamentalist asshole liar believers are the ones that want to claim that atheism or even “darwinism” are religions or faiths. What I can’t get my head around is that they - the people asserting that their faith and religion is the most important thing there can ever be - are actually using the words “faith” and “religion” as negative terms. There’s something very seriously wrong there.
I don’t see any reason (beyond a blatant if not ridiculous personal bias) to assume that is the case. T.J. said (well, I’ll assume so) he could use all the help he could get. He politely didn’t point out that his friend’s prayers were not helpful in the least.
Well, the whole point is the same as the OP. Atheists are fundamentally in a superior position because they are not asserting things for which they have no proof. On some level believers understand this, so they attempt to alleviate the pressure of this understanding by dragging atheists down to their level.
So instead of thinking “Wow, your absense of belief in the absense of evidence is more logical than my belief in the absense of evidence”, which threatens their world view, they just say “oh you’re just the same as me, except Darwin is your prophet and atheism is your religion”. That way, to them, everyone is on the same playing field and you just have different (and obviously wronger!) beliefs than they do.
The fact that lying about what atheists said on their deathbeds (and elsewhere, for that matter) is such a common thing. I’m sure we’ll hear about how Richard Dawkins confessed his faith in Jesus when he dies.
I think you’re in the wrong place if this is your attitude towards fighting ignorance.
In most cases, perhaps. But it can still have beneficial effects. It may inform third parties, like arguments on this board between rational people and true believers. It may actually cause someone to think about the issue and come to different conclusions. It reduces the social pressure of conforming to that belief (if you grow up in a town where absolutely everyone is on the same page religiously, you may not ever actually be exposed to the counter-arguments on the irrationality to your beliefs, and you are far more likely to accept them unquestioned), etc.
Ignorance and irrationality should be fought where it’s practical. Do you think those asshole fundamental atheists who show up at school boards to testify against people trying to put intelligent design in the curriculum are just smug, troublemaking assholes?
Well, great for you. Some of us feel that it’s an obligation to fight ignorance where we can. Again, perhaps this board may not be for you.
Who does?
Well, that’s good, if true. Gives you half a leg up on people who aren’t, but then, you still share the same core beliefs.
I agree; they don’t actually believe their own claims to faith as the ultimate truth. That’s just a convenient smoke screen to swap real knowledge with made up stories. The most fundamentalist evangelicals will stoop as low as to make up evidence to back up their claims, and the reason they do that is because they really do know that without evidence, any claim about reality can be dismissed.
There are also certain religions that it’s ok for the mainstream religions to bash or mock - Scientology, Wicca, Raelians, Islam - it’s really only mainstream Christianity (and even then, some denominations like LDS or JW’s might still get derided) and Judiasm which are considered sancrosanct.
If I recall correctly, Dawkins has said that he wants to videotape his last moments to keep this from happening.
The term fundementalist has become a perjorative to refer to certain types of Christians who are strident, outspoken, and shove their noses into the business of others. There might be other Christians who take the Bible literally who qualify as having similar beliefs, but they are not in your face about it.
Seeking a term to refer to that subset of the atheist population that ALSO has a strong asshole behavioral pattern is why you see “fundementalist atheist” being bandied about. There is a desire to have a way to refer to the asshole contingent without broad brushing all atheists, much as I do not choose to self identify with the fundementalist segment of the Christian community.
Since this is Great Debates - do you have a cite for this rampant lying about deathbed conversions?
'Fundamentalist" is still the wrong word, though, since that word denotes a strong adherence to a core set of precepts, or to a sacred text. Atheism contains no beliefs and no text, so has nothing to adhere to or be “fundamentalist” about. Even religious fundamentalists aren’t necessarily strident or obnoxious.
I suppose “evangelical” atheists might be fair to describe those atheists who are aggressive about trying to “de-convert” theists, or who are gratuitously demeaning, or offer their opinions unasked.
I would submit that most atheists rarely talk about it, though. Certainly nowhere close to how God beliefs are ubiquitously and casually expressed by theists (especially in certain geographical regions of the US).
I agree with you on the twisted syntax, but Fundie just seems more perjorative than Evangelical to me to capture the feeling.
I also agree that most Atheists are NOT this way, but then again I also think that most Christians are not either.
I don’t know if this counts as rampant, but from some random message board:
Other sites: http://www.ministers-best-friend.com/Atheists-Deathbed-Conversion--NEAR-100-Per-Cent.html
http://www.slideshare.net/stevecamo1/deathbed-confessions-atheists
And I got tired of linking at this point. It’s a common assertion. Of course some theists are more than willing to lie to convince others.
So no defensible cite then. Passed around glurge doesn’t strike me as a GD worthy city, except as evidence that glurge has continued to be forwarded.
I could also ask for the cite that disproves all of those quotes instead. But since I am not the one who claimed lying, nor the one who used this list, I will continue to await the evidence.
Or should I just take you all on faith?
Is there any kind of evidence you would accept?
Your opinion is that commonly forwarded glurge doesn’t count as rampant lying?
Okay, how about you set the terms here. What possible evidence would you accept?
What percentage is rampant? Is that some set percentage of all conversations all theists everywhere have?
Suicide bomber to God - you have to let me blow you up, otherwise I don’t have free will!
Sure - take that series of citations and show them to be lies. Then show that these are regularly trotted out by people of faith. Now, that could be showing that they are regularly used in the pulpit, or are posted on a series of Church websites, or some other such way of showing that people are running around lying about deathbed conversions.
Personally, with 40+ years in Christian churches (starting with Evangelical, and currently Presbyterian), I have never had this particular list read to me, shown to me, emailed to me, or even discussed from the pulpit or in a Bible study class.
I am sure that there are some out there that do it, but the way it was portrayed by Der Trihs - it was made to sound like lying about last words was a common occurance. If Der Trihs and others want to toss out assertians in Great Debates, they should be ready to back it up with facts.
So - show me that the assertians are common, and show that they are lies.
I think an Atheist Extremist would *not *blow up someone with a bomb.