Are Atheists Fundies?

[Bob McDob]

I've noticed that some of the atheists on this board appear to become rather uniform in thought and become devoted to a sort of blind idol worship of exceptional leaders like Wong. These are all traits commonly assigned to fundies. Granted, not necessarily as extreme, but then I've never actually met a "fundie", and I have no intention of doing so.

Am I reading too much into this? Perhaps it's simply a peculiar trait. Is this simply a necessary result of an inbred community like this one, that some of them would become more alike than others and latch on to more experienced figures for protection?

[Darth Wong]

I've noticed that some of the atheists on this board appear to become rather uniform in thought and become devoted to a sort of blind idol worship of exceptional leaders like Wong.

Uniformity of opinion is not necessarily a trait of fundies. Mathematicians all agree that 2+2=4; does this make them fundies? And nobody here worships me; they can all disagree with me, and if they're going to argue a point, they argue it on their own, not by simply saying "Wong says so, therefore it's true".

These are all traits commonly assigned to fundies. Granted, not necessarily as extreme, but then I've never actually met a "fundie", and I have no intention of doing so.

Am I reading too much into this? Perhaps it's simply a peculiar trait. Is this simply a necessary result of an inbred community like this one, that some of them would become more alike than others and latch on to more experienced figures for protection?

I think you're reaching. Nobody asks for or expects protection from me. Nobody ever tries to prove something by simply saying that I say so.

[neoolong]

The difference is that we have a belief in reality. Thus when evidence shows something to be true we believe it. Since many will feel that way it means that we can appear to be uniform in thought. However, we do not blindly follow Darth Wong. If presented with evidence that he is in the wrong on some point I would believe that he is wrong.

Fundies on the other hand disregard fact and reality for a dogmatic and irrational belief.

[data_link]

While we do respect our lord Wong, we will freely question him when he makes an irrational argument without supporting evidence, whereas a fundie will appeal to God's authority as though his word is truth. Do not mistake our respect for worship however, as the two are very different things.

[Shinova]

Are atheists fundies?

I wouldn't say so, since they don't devote themselves mindlessly to a book. They are bigots, however, since they themselves are incorrigably set in the notion that God cannot, simply CANNOT exist.

[haas mark]

It all depends on your definition of a fundamentalist.

A fundie can mean what Shinova has just said, but fundie could also mean an intolerable bigot, refusing to change views.

I don't remember a dictionary definition ever stating that a fundamentalist *had* to believe in a book, or *had* to resist evidence of some sort. All they have to do is set themselves so that they don't change their views given any circumstances.

Thus, I believe that yes, an atheist can be considered a fundie, in extreme cases.

[Frank Hipper]

When a person behaves in an extreme fashion in defense of their beliefs, that person exhibits "fundamentalist" behavior. If a person kills a trader in fur coats or a heathen from another relgion, the behavior is just as reprehensible, no matter the background. It`s the true believer that is the danger.
.......I just pasted this from the "Anti Fundie Virus" thread, felt it was appropos....

[Darth Wong]

Are atheists fundies?

I wouldn't say so, since they don't devote themselves mindlessly to a book. They are bigots, however, since they themselves are incorrigably set in the notion that God cannot, simply CANNOT exist.

First, bigotry is hatred, not fixed thinking. Second, you are interpreting conclusion as close-mindedness. Why SHOULD anyone believe that God exists, particularly when the very notion of an omniscient, omnipotent supernatural being is totally unnecessary and without any kind of objective precedent?

[Shinova]

Are atheists fundies?

I wouldn't say so, since they don't devote themselves mindlessly to a book. They are bigots, however, since they themselves are incorrigably set in the notion that God cannot, simply CANNOT exist.

First, bigotry is hatred, not fixed thinking. Second, you are interpreting conclusion as close-mindedness. Why SHOULD anyone believe that God exists, particularly when the very notion of an omniscient, omnipotent supernatural being is totally unnecessary and without any kind of objective precedent?

Sorry about the mix-up of definitions.

Secondly, I am agnostic. So if God does appear to everyone in the world, I would accept that he exists. If he doesn't exist, then he's still in a realm of doubt.

For the atheists, the idea that God does not exist is conclusion and fact. For me it's a doubt.

[neoolong]

Are atheists fundies?

I wouldn't say so, since they don't devote themselves mindlessly to a book. They are bigots, however, since they themselves are incorrigably set in the notion that God cannot, simply CANNOT exist.

First, bigotry is hatred, not fixed thinking. Second, you are interpreting conclusion as close-mindedness. Why SHOULD anyone believe that God exists, particularly when the very notion of an omniscient, omnipotent supernatural being is totally unnecessary and without any kind of objective precedent?

Sorry about the mix-up of definitions.

Secondly, I am agnostic. So if God does appear to everyone in the world, I would accept that he exists. If he doesn't exist, then he's still in a realm of doubt.

For the atheists, the idea that God does not exist is conclusion and fact. For me it's a doubt.

I think it's a bit different. I know that a literal Biblical God cannot exist. Nor can a omnipotent deity. However, the existence of some type of deity is unknown and so I am open to it. Though, I will not say that it definitely exists without proof, nor will I say that it definitely does not exist.

[Darth Wong]

For the atheists, the idea that God does not exist is conclusion and fact. For me it's a doubt.

Do you doubt that Santa Claus does not exist?

[Shinova]

For the atheists, the idea that God does not exist is conclusion and fact. For me it's a doubt.

Do you doubt that Santa Claus does not exist?

Those presents that mysteriously appeared in our living room, despite the fact that the whole family was away on a ski trip hundreds of miles away and that the whole apartment was locked tight, with no chimney, does leave some room for speculation

And all our furniture were in place when we got back.

[Darth Wong]

Do you doubt that Santa Claus does not exist?

Those presents that mysteriously appeared in our living room, despite the fact that the whole family was away on a ski trip hundreds of miles away and that the whole apartment was locked tight, with no chimney, does leave some room for speculation

And all our furniture were in place when we got back.

Heh heh ... but seriously, you know perfectly well that if somebody tried to claim that Santa Claus was real (and was older than about 8 ), you would think "what a fucking idiot. Anybody with a brain knows that Santa Claus does not exist". Yet you seem to think it's somehow unreasonable for atheists to say the same of God.

[Shinova]

For the atheists, the idea that God does not exist is conclusion and fact. For me it's a doubt.

Do you doubt that Santa Claus does not exist?

Those presents that mysteriously appeared in our living room, despite the fact that the whole family was away on a ski trip hundreds of miles away and that the whole apartment was locked tight, with no chimney, does leave some room for speculation

And all our furniture were in place when we got back.

In fact, we even left behind some cookies. After we got back from our 3-day(IIRC) ski trip, the cookies were gone and there was a thank you note. I also got Mortal Kombat 2 that Christmas (This was obviously years ago)


The REALLY strange thing is that my copy of Mortal Kombat 2 had a different startup sequence from every other MK2 cartridge I've played with.

The normal one has the Acclaim screen, the copyright screen (I think; it was years ago so give me a break), then the title screen.

Mines had some different company logo screen (forgot the company's title), THEN the Acclaim screen, copyright screen, and title screen.


Also my copy for Super Mario Bros 3 for NES (Again this was YEARS ago), was also "given to me by Santa". It's arrangement of the title words (Super Mario Bros 3) is different from every other cartridge.

[Darth Wong]

You are being deliberately facetious in order to evade a serious point: one can easily argue for Santa Claus in the same manner as one argues for God. Yet no one seriously believes that Santa Claus is real. Agnostics are people who have abandoned SPECIFIC faith, but still refuse to accept logic.

[Shinova]

Heh heh ... but seriously, you know perfectly well that if somebody tried to claim that Santa Claus was real (and was older than about 8 ), you would think "what a fucking idiot. Anybody with a brain knows that Santa Claus does not exist". Yet you seem to think it's somehow unreasonable for atheists to say the same of God.

Ah, but I never did say I would think "what a fucking idiot...etc" if someone told me they would believe in Santa Claus.

As for the atheists, I'm fine with them....until they see God right in their face, in front of the whole world, with all kinds of sensors comfirming that he's there, and still say, "That's an illusion. God can't exist."

That would make me kinda angry. <== This is assuming that God isn't really a high-tech creation of some alien race. In that case, then 2 billion+ people have been bent to the propaganda of an alien race.

[haas mark]

You are being deliberately facetious in order to evade a serious point: one can easily argue for Santa Claus in the same manner as one argues for God. Yet no one seriously believes that Santa Claus is real. Agnostics are people who have abandoned SPECIFIC faith, but still refuse to accept logic.

Is it that they refuse to accept logic, or that they accept it, just in a different way?

[Phil]

I am an atheist because the non-existence of God is a conclusion I have come to. It is not necessarily a fact.

If evidence comes in that can be tested and verified, then I will change my stance, but that does not make me agnostic.

As I see it, an agnostic has yet to make up their minds one way or the other. This is a respectable position if not taking it just to avoid thinking about the subject. An open mind is essential, and just by declaring myself an atheist I am saying that certain evidence is not acceptable, so in one sense, I do have a closed mind.

As an intolerant, funadmentalist bigot I can live with that.

[Darth Wong]

You are being deliberately facetious in order to evade a serious point: one can easily argue for Santa Claus in the same manner as one argues for God. Yet no one seriously believes that Santa Claus is real. Agnostics are people who have abandoned SPECIFIC faith, but still refuse to accept logic.

Is it that they refuse to accept logic, or that they accept it, just in a different way?

They refuse to accept logic. Gods are not useful premises for any rational explanation for the universe. They are purely redundant terms, and bear no relation to objective reality.

As for Shinova's comment, I would say that God cannot appear with sensors confirming his existence, since the proof of God would be in him performing bona fide miracles (for example, make a galaxy), and there is no known method of making God-sensors. Somebody who could perform such feats in violation of physics would, at the very least, be a godlike being.

[Darth Wong]

As I see it, an agnostic has yet to make up their minds one way or the other. This is a respectable position if not taking it just to avoid thinking about the subject. An open mind is essential, and just by declaring myself an atheist I am saying that certain evidence is not acceptable, so in one sense, I do have a closed mind.

Is it close-minded to think that Santa Claus does not exist?

What form of evidence are we atheists denying? I haven't seen anyone introduce this mythical evidence yet.

[data_link]

Is it that they refuse to accept logic, or that they accept it, just in a different way?

They accept logic, they're just afraid of commitment. After all, they know that if they say that they do not believe that God exists that the fundies will call them "bigots" and "irrational" and use the tired "but you have as much faith in the nonexistence of God as we do in his existence." And they can't handle that, because their debating skills are not finely refined enough to recognise these arguments for what they are - bullshit.

[Shinova]

Agnosticism \Ag*nos"ti*cism\, n.

That doctrine which, professing ignorance, neither asserts
nor denies. Specifically: (Theol.) The doctrine that the
existence of a personal Deity, an unseen world, etc., can be
neither proved nor disproved, because of the necessary limits
of the human mind (as sometimes charged upon Hamilton and
Mansel), or because of the insufficiency of the evidence
furnished by physical and physical data, to warrant a
positive conclusion (as taught by the school of Herbert
Spencer); -- opposed alike dogmatic skepticism and to
dogmatic theism.



In case some of you were unclear to the definition.

[haas mark]

You are being deliberately facetious in order to evade a serious point: one can easily argue for Santa Claus in the same manner as one argues for God. Yet no one seriously believes that Santa Claus is real. Agnostics are people who have abandoned SPECIFIC faith, but still refuse to accept logic.

Is it that they refuse to accept logic, or that they accept it, just in a different way?

They refuse to accept logic. Gods are not useful premises for any rational explanation for the universe. They are purely redundant terms, and bear no relation to objective reality.

I still fail to see where agnostics refuse to see logic. Although gods are not useful in basing rational explanation, agnostics have denied that they exist (up to the point that they reveal themselves), and that would be accepting logic, yes? That is, if logic says that the gods don't exist. I may be just confusing myself here, so try no tto hold me to too much of what I am saying.

[Darth Wong]

I still fail to see where agnostics refuse to see logic.

They refuse to admit that logically, one should conclude that something does not exist if there is no reason whatsoever to think it does exist.

Although gods are not useful in basing rational explanation, agnostics have denied that they exist (up to the point that they reveal themselves), and that would be accepting logic, yes? That is, if logic says that the gods don't exist. I may be just confusing myself here, so try no tto hold me to too much of what I am saying.

Agnosticism is basically a milder version of the notion that nothing can be known unless it is proven, and nothing can be proven but "I think therefore I am". They seize upon the fact that God's existence cannot be absolutely disproven as proof that atheists are "dogmatic", as if it is "dogmatic" to come to a logical conclusion based on all available evidence.

[haas mark]

I still fail to see where agnostics refuse to see logic.

They refuse to admit that logically, one should conclude that something does not exist if there is no reason whatsoever to think it does exist.

Should could would. And although there is plenty of evidence against the existence of deities, what is there to say that you *shouldn't* conclude that something doesn't exist?