Favorite thinker of worldview opposite of yours

[Battlehymn Republic]

Do you ever appreciate the works and thoughts of the opposition? Who is your favorite writer, philosopher, scientist, statesmen, entertainer, etc. who had a completely different worldview from yours?

Mine is Douglas Noel Adams. Upstanding chap, fascinated by religion, actually satirized theism without outright insulting it. Great writer, good sense of humor, died to early. I wonder what I'm angrier at him for: not finishing Mostly Harmless's sequel or not finishing the Salmon of Doubt.

[wolveraptor]

How is his worldview different than yours?

I'd say mine right now is John McCain.

...actually, I agree with a lot of his stances, so maybe he doesn't count.

[Darth Wong]

The opposite of my worldview would be a raving fundie, and I cannot think of a raving fundie who is not also an idiot. This is not surprising, since one of the entrance requirements of fundamentalism is that you either have an IQ below 80 or act as if you do.

[Battlehymn Republic]

The opposite of my worldview would be a raving fundie, and I cannot think of a raving fundie who is not also an idiot. This is not surprising, since one of the entrance requirements of fundamentalism is that you either have an IQ below 80 or act as if you do.

Well, instead of 180 degrees, what about 120? What about a evangelicals who are somewhat moderate?

[Darth Wong]

The opposite of my worldview would be a raving fundie, and I cannot think of a raving fundie who is not also an idiot. This is not surprising, since one of the entrance requirements of fundamentalism is that you either have an IQ below 80 or act as if you do.

Well, instead of 180 degrees, what about 120? What about a evangelicals who are somewhat moderate?

Moderate evangelicals are a contradiction in terms. There are moderate Christians, and then there are evangelicals. They contrast themselves to the fundamentalist only in the ferocity with which they express their opinions and/or attempt to force them upon others. Their actual philosophical worldview is the same blighted idiocy.

[Metatwaddle]

The opposite of my worldview would be a raving fundie, and I cannot think of a raving fundie who is not also an idiot. This is not surprising, since one of the entrance requirements of fundamentalism is that you either have an IQ below 80 or act as if you do.

Well, instead of 180 degrees, what about 120? What about a evangelicals who are somewhat moderate?

If we go by that, I'd have to say my favorite is my grandmother. She's got an extremely strong faith and she's been known to make me angry by saying that God has a plan and God will make it all right, but when she's not talking about religion, she's an extremely good person. She likes people a lot and she does a lot of charity work through her church, and she gives the impression of someone who's very serene and mentally healthy. I disagree with her faith on every possible level, but it seems to work very well for her.

She also kicked ass in the NYC marathon a couple of weeks ago.

[Battlehymn Republic]

Sorry, I'm not very sure of the definition of evangelical. I've always thought of them as just your run-of-the-mill non-denominational American Protestant, often from a very active (mega-)church.

Well, what about moderate Christians? Or moderate Muslims? Jews? Hindus? Buddhists? Sikhs? Rastafarians?

Almost any theist as an opposite worldview, don't they? Oh, sure, there's degrees of moderation in ethical codes and whatnot, but by worldview, I was referring to their general philosophy on who made the world, what runs it, and so forth.

[Darth Wong]

Sorry, I'm not very sure of the definition of evangelical. I've always thought of them as just your run-of-the-mill non-denominational American Protestant, often from a very active (mega-)church.

There is no single official definition of "evangelical" as a noun. I've seen some definitions which suggest that all Protestants are evangelicals, while others are much more specific. But "evangelical" as an adjective means someone who is unusually zealous in his faith. Those who call themselves "moderates" usually distinguish themselves from the more belligerent assholes by simply being less aggressive and hateful about it, but they generally think the same things are true.

In other words, the fundie says "you pagans are all going to hell, and I want you people to stay away from us god-fearing folk, especially our children". The evangelical says "you pagans are all going to hell because you rejected our righteous, holy, and perfectly loving god, but I will tolerate your abominable ways because I hope you will convert someday." The words "fundamentalist" and "evangelical" sort of shade into each other, because a fundie is a hardcore literalist, while an evangelical is an unusually zealous Christian ... who in most cases is going to lean toward literalism.

Well, what about moderate Christians? Or moderate Muslims? Jews? Hindus? Buddhists? Sikhs? Rastafarians?

Almost any theist as an opposite worldview, don't they? Oh, sure, there's degrees of moderation in ethical codes and whatnot, but by worldview, I was referring to their general philosophy on who made the world, what runs it, and so forth.

Well, any religious belief is basically irrational, so I only respect those religious people who admit that it's irrational. There are basically three intellectual attributes which I respect:

1) Intelligence
2) Honesty
3) Rationality

Not coincidentally, failing to exhibit those characteristics (especially if you score a perfect 0 for 3) is something you tend to see repeatedly among people who get banned from this forum.

[GuppyShark]

Do you ever appreciate the works and thoughts of the opposition? Who is your favorite writer, philosopher, scientist, statesmen, entertainer, etc. who had a completely different worldview from yours?

I'm not noticing a whole lot of positive responses!

I was going to say Robert Anton Wilson. He's very hippy and I'm more of a conservative libertarian, but I still love his work.

Of course he's pretty libertarian himself, so it's not really a valid opposite.

I think the only way you could enjoy something from someone who has a completely different worldview from yours is if they're wise enough to keep a lid on their politics in their works.

Actually, now that I think about it, I do listen to a lot of music from groups that have left-wing affiliations without it bothering me at all.

[Glimmervoid]

I have always liked Hinduism and Bodisem (sp). They always seemed a nice (if not always logical) way to look at the world. But I don’t know enough about them to say for certain or name a particular person (beyond the Booda of course).

[Molyneux]

I have always liked Hinduism and Bodisem (sp). They always seemed a nice (if not always logical) way to look at the world. But I don’t know enough about them to say for certain or name a particular person (beyond the Booda of course).

...it's Buddhism, and his title is the Buddha.

[Invictus ChiKen]

Easy for me. Micheal Wong!

Your talking to the guy that believes all pagan gods are from outer space and Satan is there leader. Add on a real life star wars going on between Satan and his people and the Angels and there horrid creations (Jehovea a sort of real life Matrix) and Jesus.

I also admit that there is no one in hell I could prove any of this, as all my 'evidence' comes from experiance that could easily be a result of constant isolation from my rational friends (They life in New Jersey I'm stuck in S.C. surrounded by people going from nice to assholes that hate me for not believeing in Christ and/or wanting to move up North), an over active imagnation that WANTS to believe there is someone up there willing to give me a helping hand and that in the end someone is going to make people like Bush PAY!

But hey you it's no less crazy than what others believe.

[Lord of the Abyss]

I can't think of anyone. After all, like most people I think I'm right, so my opposite would be someone I consider wrong about everything. It's hard to respect someone like that.

Comment to Darth Wong : Actually I think your opposite wouldn't be a fundmentalist; you are both firm in your opinions and argue relentlessly for them being right ( with a better track record in your case, of course ). I think your opposite would be one of those New Agey types ( if they're still around ) who thinks everybody should just get along and doesn't believe in objective reality; the ones who think whatever you believe is true.

Actually, I think that would be my opposite as well.

[chaoschristian]

DW wrote:

Moderate evangelicals are a contradiction in terms. There are moderate Christians, and then there are evangelicals. They contrast themselves to the fundamentalist only in the ferocity with which they express their opinions and/or attempt to force them upon others. Their actual philosophical worldview is the same blighted idiocy.

I disagree with you here in that it is a necessary condition to be evangelical in order to be a Christian. Its part of the package.

However, you are correct in the sense that the meaning of the word has changed, and some would say hijacked, to specifically refer to literalist, fundementalist, conservative Christians such as you describe.

As for the OP - as soon as I figure out my world-view, perhaps I'll encounter someone who embodies its opposite. And should I ever meet said person, I'd expect the encounter to be a carthartic experience in which we both emerge from it with a completely newly synthesized world-view.

[chaoschristian]

DW wrote:

In other words, the fundie says "you pagans are all going to hell, and I want you people to stay away from us god-fearing folk, especially our children". The evangelical says "you pagans are all going to hell because you rejected our righteous, holy, and perfectly loving god, but I will tolerate your abominable ways because I hope you will convert someday." The words "fundamentalist" and "evangelical" sort of shade into each other, because a fundie is a hardcore literalist, while an evangelical is an unusually zealous Christian ... who in most cases is going to lean toward literalism.

Aaah, I see I missed this when I posted just earlier.

Well, I would argue that these people are not Christian. Just as the same could be made against me I suppose. But your thoughts are true in that the term 'evangelical' has shifted its meaning from 'witnessing the Good News' to 'beating people over the head with the Bible and using all possible force in order to inflict 'salvation' upon others."

[wolveraptor]

Modern evangelicals don't use all possible force to inflict salvation upon other. If anything the shift has been the opposite of what you suggested. Look at the Crusaders. Look at current day evangelists. See the difference?

Comment to Darth Wong : Actually I think your opposite wouldn't be a fundmentalist; you are both firm in your opinions and argue relentlessly for them being right ( with a better track record in your case, of course ). I think your opposite would be one of those New Agey types ( if they're still around ) who thinks everybody should just get along and doesn't believe in objective reality; the ones who think whatever you believe is true.

That would be a similarity of personality or something, rather than actual world-view.

[Lord of the Abyss]

That would be a similarity of personality or something, rather than actual world-view.

The two strongly overlap. For example, an argumentive and assertive personality and the belief that unbelievers/the ignorant/fools should be confronted ( or converted/convinced/educated ) have obvious features in common. A rational person ( personality ) is likely to have a rationalistic worldview. A happy person is likely to have an optimistic worldview.

[General Zod]

Modern evangelicals don't use all possible force to inflict salvation upon other. If anything the shift has been the opposite of what you suggested. Look at the Crusaders. Look at current day evangelists. See the difference?

You mean the fact that they use lawyers instead of swords?

[chaoschristian]

Modern evangelicals don't use all possible force to inflict salvation upon other. If anything the shift has been the opposite of what you suggested. Look at the Crusaders. Look at current day evangelists. See the difference?

It's called hyperbole, my dear man.

[Rye]

The only one that immediately springs to mind is Ken Miller, but that's mainly because of the things I agree with him on. I disagree when it comes to theism and christianity, but shitting on ID is a good thing to be doing.

There's one creationist I liked, my IT teacher, and I think he'd just been hoodwinked by his church and not looked into it more.

Economically and politically, I think shep qualifies, he's most amusing.

[Haruko]

Paul Atreides is a fictional character by Frank Herbert who shows up in the Dune saga. He's opposite of me in his idea of predetermined fate and anti-democratic stance... but, in Dune Messiah, when his rule as Emperor of Arrakis really took off, I really came to admire him for his intellect, and the way he leads.

Stilgar: "The streets are dangerous, Muad'dib..."
Paul: "Truth is in the streets, Stil', not in this parade of sycophants who flutter around this palace with their meaningless statistics and empty ritual."
Korba: "Ritual is the whip by which men are enlightened, Muad'dib."
Paul: "Tell me, Korba, when was it that you reinvented yourself from Fremen Fedaykin to religious fanatic?"
-- Children of Dune (miniseries)

"Elaborate euphemisms may conceal your intent to kill, but behind any use of power over another the ultimate assumption remains: 'I feed on your energy.'"
-- Addenda to Orders in Council The Emperor Paul Muad'dib; Dune Messiah

[wolveraptor]

The two strongly overlap. For example, an argumentive and assertive personality and the belief that unbelievers/the ignorant/fools should be confronted ( or converted/convinced/educated ) have obvious features in common. A rational person ( personality ) is likely to have a rationalistic worldview. A happy person is likely to have an optimistic worldview.

Well by comparing Darth Wong and a fundie, one can see that it easily is possible to have an assertive, argumentative personality and still share none of the same worldviews, so you're still wrong in saying that the opposite of Mike's worldview wouldn't be a fundie.

It's called hyperbole, my dear man.

You used it to illustrate a point that was wrong. Witnessing the word has not become forcing the word. It's the other way around.