Extreme Evangelical Atheism vs. Moderate Atheism and Traditional Christianity

The narrator isn't religious.

 

Even more shocking, I'm sure. I can't watch it (a flash thingy issue, I think).

 

Atheism isn't a system. It's just the opposite of theism.

 

True. That doesn't change anything though.

 

It means there is nothing to reform with atheism. You may well be seeking reform is the wider phiosophical structures of some atheists but that's no more reform of atheism as your objections to Islam require reform of theism.

 

Not all Muslims need to be reformed, and not all atheists need to be reformed. But these are the two beliefs in contemporary society where we see the most intolerance in the form of unadulterated hatred/verbal abuse and physical violence (Just Islam needs reform for this one).

 

I think scientologists should be reformed. I don't like'em.

 

They won't be entertaining if they're reformed though. They're brilliantly hilarious just as they are.

 

Are you sure something needs to be a belief to be intolerant and abusive?

 

Beliefs don't hate people, people do.

There is no belief, religion or philosophy that removes the fundamental human potential for intolerance, hated (i.e. fear) and violence, nor is there any that necessarily causes them. Targeting specific religions (or passive identifying characteristics) for "reform" could even be perceived as intolerance in itself, especially when you've already accepted that it is only a subset of those groups causing the problems.

 

There are bad people, congrats. I prefer to narrow my focus on key motivating sources in issues I'm personally concerned with.

What you said sounds nice in a philosophy classroom, but it doesn't change what's occurring IRL. Hindus, Mormons, Jews, Christians, etc aren't running around committing violence and spewing verbal abuse in the name of their beliefs.

The only way to reform this is for the victims (Islam and its need for reform I believe the necessary powers are working on it) to become aware of this phenomenon and fight the collective force working against them in their own way.

 

Some are though the vast majority aren't. Exactly the same is true of atheists and Muslims. Some people commit abuse and violence for reasons other the religion or belief too.

 

Indeed, I must say you have succeeded in narrowing your focus considerably.

 

I prefer to stay within the realm of a thread's topic.

The vast majority of fundamentalist Atheists are precisely what I described.

 

Atheist fundamentalism?

Fundamentalism is strict adherence to theological doctrines...

Atheism has not doctrine... or theology for that matter.

 

The posters use of the term "fundamentalist" with respect to Atheists is proper.

As you will recall, Atheism has been given the ranking and privileges of other Religions and subsequently would be listed as a religion.

"fun·da·men·tal·ism (fnd-mntl-zm)
n.
1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism."

So, because atheism is officially recognized as a religion (without a god), it is still a religion and the activities of atheists can be construed as "religious movements or points of view".

 

So you are making the case that atheism is in opposition to secularism?
Do tell!

 

No! But if you want to interpret it that way, then go ahead. That one would be on your shoulders. I am merely stating what the definition says and what the law has recognized. You take it from there.

Did you miss this part? "...and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism." That would preclude it from being an absolute.

 

Ok, I will, and it's on your shoulders.
It's part of the definition you posted. No interpretation necessary. It's in those exact words.
Did you read it before you posted it?
You have drawn a card when holding an ace and a king.

Edited when you saw your booboo, huh?
LOL!

 

Is that MY definition? No? My goodness. Wishful thinking on your part. Plus, you openly admit above, that you will make such an interpretation rendering the notion of atheism being against secularism to be a fact.

Of course I read it... I posted it,,, meaning that I had to type it which also means that I had to read it. Are you really that dense that you would have to ask such a question? You did exactly what I was hoping you would do. You agreed to make the claim yourself. Congratulations.

 

It is yours in the sense you posted it. You chose it. You own it. It divides the idea of fundamentalism and secularism as incompatible, and atheism is nothing if not secular.
I most assuredly do ascent to the claim of your definition, that fundamentalism and secularism are fundamentally opposed.
No doubt.
Goodnight. You need some sleep too. LOL!

 

http://codinghorror.typepad.com/.a/6a0120a85dcdae970b0120a86d5ea4970b-pi

I guess then by my posting the above, I am now the proud owner of that document also? Your suggestion is retarded at best.

 

Sleep baby. You'll feel better in the morning.

Goodnight.

 

When your pathetic nature and your preposterous claims are shown to be retarded at best, you have nothing to use to make an intelligent response. Cool.

 

If that helps you sleep.
Can always feel the love from the outreach of Christians.
Goodnight, gentle spirit.