Fundamentalists and Atheists appear to be opposite sides of the same coin. Think about it.
1. When interpreting Scriptures, both factions insist on a literalist translation, ignoring genre, original audience, and idiom.
2. Both insist that their own view is 100% correct, and all else are absolute fools, decreeing themselves to be the final arbiters of truth.
3.Fundamentalists will not discard their misguided faith under any circumstances.
4.They are militant in 'evangelizing' the unwashed.
Thoughts?
29 comments
Close but no cigar. Most atheists don't insist on a literalist translation at all. We instead use the literalist translation which the fundies insist on to demolish their arguments.
We're quite happy to call the Babble what it really is. A book of stories that are not entirely, if at all, true.
1. Fundamentalists: yes. Atheists: it depends; some do, some don't.
2. Fundamentalists: yes. Atheists: true of a few, but mostly not.
3. Fundamentalists: that's not my experience; many change their beliefs over time - FSTDT has many ex-fundamentalists. Atheists: they can change too.
4. Fundamentalists: it kind of goes with the territory. Atheists: true of a very small number.
I use a literal interpretation to the extent that the person I'm arguing against does. If you get metaphorical and ignore literal things, then I'm entitled to do the same.
Problem is, your faith has things you insist are literal, as well, but yet despite the obvious evidence you insist Mary was perpetually a virgin to get metaphorical.
if one's metaphorical, why not the other?
1. Fundies assert that a literal translation is true, though they do ignore many aspects that they disagree with. Atheists criticise this as it is the core text of a religion that allows the fundies to express their opinions whilst claiming that it defines their faith. Whilst more liberal theists may cherry pick and fit their beliefs around their morality that may not fit their religion, the text allowed heinous actions to be committed under its name.
2. Whilst this may be true to fundamentalists, most atheists I come across are open minded, but will not disregard tenants of religions that are spelled out clearly for their followers, even if they are ignored, nor will they accept theists ignoring evidence behind scientific theories because it upsets the believer.
3. Atheism isn't a faith, it's the opposite of such, and if you could find some solid evidence for a deity most atheists would reconsider their position.
4. Most atheists don't care whether you are faithful, so long as you're not a raving loon looking to influence others with it. This doesn't protect it from criticism, however. Also the idea that atheists are as militant or as keen at evangelising as many fundies is laughable. There are no door to door atheists that I know of!
Also, are you the son of Niall Kilkenny/Patrick Scrivener by any chance? Just wondering.
I am allways amazed by the fact that fundie are unable to even conceive the notion that people can be not religious.
1 I never met an atheist with this behavior.
and this reek of strawman.
2 Correct for fundie, but not for atheist. Even If i am very outspoken against religion, I will not shun the believer, but offer them compassion for the abuse they suffered.
3 Yes, true for fundie, but for atheist as atheism is an absence of faith.
4 Only religious nutjob are doing this.
As an anticlerical and antireligion atheist, I find preoselytism counter productive.
It is better to monkeywrench the brainwashing and plant seed of doubt.
When interpreting Scriptures, both factions insist on a literalist translation, ignoring genre, original audience, and idiom.
Atheists simply reply to fundamentalists using their own words.
"1. When interpreting Scriptures, both factions insist on a literalist translation, ignoring genre, original audience, and idiom."
Atheists say
"It says what it says"
Fundamentalists Say
"That's not what it means"
"It doesn't say that"
"That's not in the Bible"
"That's only for the Jews"
Even Catholics play that game sometimes.
It's a stupid book of unreasonable myth. That's it. Of historical value only.
What do you mean by militant?
Cause one side has literal militias and the other has a couple of vocal, yet brash, speakers.
Also, who do atheists use a literal scripture? I wasn't aware we had a scripture. Do you mean books/scientific journals? Yeah, we disagree all the time about those, and I'd agree that basing a world-view on literal interpretations is foolish given our limited scope of the universe. Its very possible that nobody's right.
Finally, if I see evidence to the contrary, I will change my mind. Stubbornly clinging to ideas in the face of opposed evidence is foolish. I haven't seen anything that indicates that there is any supernatural goings on in the universe so I don't believe in any. You show me the tax stamps on Lord Lighteningpants's sun chariot and I'll believe that he carries the day star across the ethereal dome. For now, I'll just be sure that gravity keeps the Earth in orbit around the Sun.
1. You keep seeing atheists in debates with fundamentalists, thus the atheist tries to debunk the claims of their opponent in debate. Non-fundamentalists don't get into fights as much.
2. That's pretty much the defining characteristic of a fundamentalist. There are plenty of fundamentalist atheists, and they're the ones who get into a lot of arguments.
3. The same as #2, just worded differently.
4. The non-evangelical atheists exist, you just don't realize they're atheists. A lot of them don't even use that word, preferring the label "non-religious."
I'd venture to guess that most atheists use a strict interpretation of the Bible to refute it for two reasons:
1. Most Christians that debate with atheists insist the Bible is literal, therefore they claim there is nothing to interpret.
2. So many passages could be theoretically bent to "prove" one thing or another that it would be folly to refute every interpretation of a single verse exhaustively, especially when most of the time it would be unnecessary to do so.
Atheists only point out contradictions and inconsistencies in Scriptures, to show how foolish it is to take the damned thing literal.
Atheists mostly say that as long as there is no evidence for any gods or goddesses we will live as if there are no gods or goddesses.
Atheists are mostly prepared to change their views if new evidence comes to light.
If wanting to spread knowledge and thinking for yourself is "militant in evangelizing", then I guess I am militant...
Thoughts? Well, when you have presented any original thoughts, then we can talk about them.
You're generalising atheists. Yes, a few are supercilious dicks who do this, no argument there. But the vast majority are just living their lives, bothering no-one.
Many of these are problematic, but for number 1, there is no "idiomatic" context that can justify the glorification of mass murder. Especially in a book that apparently purports to teach people right from wronf.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.