Crime Cases Still Using Cassettes
Technology13 mins ago
Religious Fundamentalists
111 Answers
After years of debate on here (and elsewhere, both online and in person) with religious fundamentalists, there's only one conclusion that can be reached.
Their brains are switched off!
Im not talking about the average person who happens to have a religious belief. I mean the fundies. Those who believe whole heartedly in a given dogma and wont make any concession that they may be wrong, despite been shown evidence to the contrary.
I remember reading an Arthur C Clarke article once where he talked about a team of scientists who set up an observatory in a muslim country to observe a solar eclipse. The team of scientists were ridiculed by the local clerics who said that only Allah knows the timing of such things. After the eclipse, the clerics accepted that it had happened but said that it was nothing more than an amazing coincidence...
I have no problem at all with religious believers, but some (like the clerics above) cant accept the bloody obvious even when its been presented to them right before their eyes.
It gets passed over like its never even been read!!!
Their brains are switched off!
Im not talking about the average person who happens to have a religious belief. I mean the fundies. Those who believe whole heartedly in a given dogma and wont make any concession that they may be wrong, despite been shown evidence to the contrary.
I remember reading an Arthur C Clarke article once where he talked about a team of scientists who set up an observatory in a muslim country to observe a solar eclipse. The team of scientists were ridiculed by the local clerics who said that only Allah knows the timing of such things. After the eclipse, the clerics accepted that it had happened but said that it was nothing more than an amazing coincidence...
I have no problem at all with religious believers, but some (like the clerics above) cant accept the bloody obvious even when its been presented to them right before their eyes.
It gets passed over like its never even been read!!!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by nailit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
naomi - // AH, I am disagreeing with you. You cite a psychological need to 'belong'. I don't believe that is the reason that people cling to religion. //
As I pointed out, my post is not about religion, it is about fundamentalism - which is what the OP is about.
I don't believe that the need to belong is the reason why people cling to religion - that's why I did not say that it is.
By all means disagree with the point I made, but not the point you think I made, which I did not.
As I pointed out, my post is not about religion, it is about fundamentalism - which is what the OP is about.
I don't believe that the need to belong is the reason why people cling to religion - that's why I did not say that it is.
By all means disagree with the point I made, but not the point you think I made, which I did not.
naomi - // AH, so when you said, //fundamentalist Christians do this//…..and …..//fundamentalist Muslims do that.// you weren’t talking about religion. Righto. I sense one of your ‘moments’ approaching so I’ll leave it there. //
In order to be a religious fundamentalist, which is what Nailit is questioning, you need to be connected to a religion.
But if you re-read my post, you can see that the entire thrust of my 'belonging' argument is attached the fundamentalism, not religion per se.
So no, I am not talking about religion, I am talking about an aspect of behaviour inspired by a particular interpretation of religion, which is not religion itself.
I hope that clears up any misunderstanding.
In order to be a religious fundamentalist, which is what Nailit is questioning, you need to be connected to a religion.
But if you re-read my post, you can see that the entire thrust of my 'belonging' argument is attached the fundamentalism, not religion per se.
So no, I am not talking about religion, I am talking about an aspect of behaviour inspired by a particular interpretation of religion, which is not religion itself.
I hope that clears up any misunderstanding.
Once you've taken on a religious belief you've already crossed a line into strange territory from which it's difficult to return - ie the land of making a conscious decision to believe things to be true for which there's zero evidence.
Fundamentalists are just an extreme form of that. They've lost sight of the line if they were ever aware of it.
Fundamentalists are just an extreme form of that. They've lost sight of the line if they were ever aware of it.
Khandro - // Richard Dawkins is at one end of the fundamentalist spectrum & at the other, we have the likes of the Ayatollahs & other assorted freaks. The truth lies somewhere in the centre. //
I can't see how you can assess Richard Dawkins as a fundamentalist in any understanding I have of the term - care to elaborate?
I can't see how you can assess Richard Dawkins as a fundamentalist in any understanding I have of the term - care to elaborate?
Ludwig - // // I can't see how you can assess Richard Dawkins as a fundamentalist in any understanding I have of the term //
It's something religious people do to try and wind up atheists. They refer to atheism as a belief. //
That is so, but as I have tried (and failed) to explain to Naomi, believing in a religion and being a fundamentalist are two different aspects of the same concept.
If any religious person wishes to ascribe the notion of atheism as a 'belief' - when clearly it is the absence of a belief, then they would be incorrect, but that would not be the same as referring to Mr Dawkins as a fundamentalist, merely incorrectly referring to him as a believer.
It's something religious people do to try and wind up atheists. They refer to atheism as a belief. //
That is so, but as I have tried (and failed) to explain to Naomi, believing in a religion and being a fundamentalist are two different aspects of the same concept.
If any religious person wishes to ascribe the notion of atheism as a 'belief' - when clearly it is the absence of a belief, then they would be incorrect, but that would not be the same as referring to Mr Dawkins as a fundamentalist, merely incorrectly referring to him as a believer.
naomi; //Richard Dawkins isn't a fundamentalist.//
Of course he is, you can't get more extremely fundamental than him, there's no where to go beyond.
He's just produced a new denunciatory harangue entitled 'Outgrowing God', which is described in the TLS as being "relentlessly confrontational", (but hear those cash-registers ringing?)
Rupert Shortt (Research Associate at the University of Cambridge) has written a nice, well measured piece, called "Outgrowing Dawkins: God for Grown-ups.
You'd be better off with the latter rather than the former :0)
Of course he is, you can't get more extremely fundamental than him, there's no where to go beyond.
He's just produced a new denunciatory harangue entitled 'Outgrowing God', which is described in the TLS as being "relentlessly confrontational", (but hear those cash-registers ringing?)
Rupert Shortt (Research Associate at the University of Cambridge) has written a nice, well measured piece, called "Outgrowing Dawkins: God for Grown-ups.
You'd be better off with the latter rather than the former :0)
Khandro, to claim that Richard Dawkins is a fundamentalist is irrational but I think that emanates from an inability to understand that some people don’t depend upon religion and have no use for it. Dawkins has reached his conclusions through a process of honest critical examination and given new evidence would have no hesitation in reassessing those conclusions. Regardless of evidence, try changing the mind of a fundamentalist - or even someone like you, whom I presume you don’t regard as a fundamentalist. Good luck.
naomi; I never tire of educating the deserving;
https:/
https:/
Khandro, educate yourself before you attempt to educate others especially with nonsense irrelevant to the discussion. Read my previous post - especially the bit where it speaks of reassessing opinions.
Just out of interest, what would it take to change your mind? Or would you never change your mind?
Just out of interest, what would it take to change your mind? Or would you never change your mind?
From your own link Khandro..
// The labels "fundamentalist atheist" and "atheist fundamentalist" are used pejoratively as a criticism of contemporary atheists by associating them with religious fundamentalists who are intolerant, militant, oppressive, and anti-democratic. Critics of atheists only employ the label fundamentalist atheist as a means for discrediting atheists, not as a way to provide an objective, neutral description of some phenomenon. //
As I said above, it's something religious people do to try and wind up atheists. They refer to atheism as a belief. Childish really.
// The labels "fundamentalist atheist" and "atheist fundamentalist" are used pejoratively as a criticism of contemporary atheists by associating them with religious fundamentalists who are intolerant, militant, oppressive, and anti-democratic. Critics of atheists only employ the label fundamentalist atheist as a means for discrediting atheists, not as a way to provide an objective, neutral description of some phenomenon. //
As I said above, it's something religious people do to try and wind up atheists. They refer to atheism as a belief. Childish really.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank105 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles151 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles151 mins ago
News214 mins ago
