tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post115155698883018841..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: FundamentalismAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1153583631645457792006-07-22T09:53:00.000-06:002006-07-22T09:53:00.000-06:00“Any hope that America would finally grow up vanis...“Any hope that America would finally grow up vanished with the rise of fundamentalist Christianity. Fundamentalism, with its born-again regression, its pink-and-gold concept of heaven, its literal-mindedness, its rambunctious good cheer... its anti-intellectualism... its puerile hymns... and its faith-healing... are made to order for King Kid America.” Florence Kingbeepbeepitsmehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12931640447011071849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1153369570825226212006-07-19T22:26:00.000-06:002006-07-19T22:26:00.000-06:00Religious Fundie VS Religious Fundie http://beepbe...Religious Fundie VS Religious Fundie <BR/><BR/>http://beepbeepitsme.blogspot.com/2006/07/religious-fundie-vs-religious-fundie.html<BR/><BR/>I agree.<BR/><BR/>It is difficult to place a case for "secular fundamentalism".<BR/><BR/>Can someone make the case that secularism, which embraces "pluralism", is in some way extreme, or fundamentalist?<BR/><BR/><BR/>Secularism is the concept that many different religious beliefs can be represented in the one society. It, by necessity, requires the separation of church and state as many relgious beliefs cannot be fairly represented if one is seen to be more worthy than the other.<BR/><BR/>2 major religions have difficulty in controlling their desire for dominance. (christianity and islam)<BR/><BR/>These 2 religions act more like faith-based corporate monopolies as each tries to gain more political and economic power than the other.beepbeepitsmehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12931640447011071849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1151625528544227682006-06-29T17:58:00.000-06:002006-06-29T17:58:00.000-06:00Excellent post. And let me, as an open and someti...Excellent post. And let me, as an open and sometimes confrontational atheist, say right now that I do *not* want the atheist tyranny you outlined. While I think many religions are, to put it bluntly, lies, and harmful lies at that, I do not think they should be legally banned. Partly because it is a violation of individual rights which I consider important, and partly because if there is a needle of truth in any particular haystack of lies, mistakes and random crap that just accumulated over the years, legally banning the whole haystack will take the needle with it.<BR/><BR/>We, as a species, have an excellent method for separating truth from falsehood. It is called reason (or, alternatively, science). We should apply it to everything and pay attention to the results, and discard beliefs that are discredited or insupportable. We shouldn't ban them, but rather, recognize that they are wrong and people who believe in them are mistaken. The most useful and productive remedy for mistakes is education: teach people how to think critically about their beliefs and how to examine evidence and determine its credibility, and any position that isn't supported by adequate evidence will wither, without any need for violent attack. It is only viewpoints that can't win a debate that must replace the debate with a war.<BR/><BR/>Sometimes, of course, people do take evil actions which may be because of their false beliefs; 9/11 is the most obvious example. Beliefs that are both false, and likely to lead to harm, are dangerous and I believe that working to discourage them is the right thing to do, but I'm not so arrogant in that belief that I want to codify it into law.<BR/><BR/>W. Harper: I don't know where you live, but it seems obvious to me that the U.S. contains no perceptible number of atheist fundamentalists; that while the position Alonzo describes is theoretically possible, essentially no one actually believes or advocates that. Therefore, claims that Dawkins or PZ Myers or whoever is a "fundamentalist atheist" are a misnomer based on a misunderstanding of what fundamentalist atheism would *really* mean. And furthermore, it seems that that was a large part of Alonzo's point and that you missed it completely.<BR/><BR/><BR/>P.S. I hope you address Hamdan v. Rumsfeld - I haven't read the full opinion yet but it looks like there may be a lot to talk about.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1151604261862592492006-06-29T12:04:00.000-06:002006-06-29T12:04:00.000-06:00I would go ahead and defend individualism then, in...I would go ahead and defend individualism then, in that case. It looks to me like a case against collectivism, and belief systems. Any collective has beliefs, and a system.Hellbound Alleeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10268832216080854759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1151588346533786452006-06-29T07:39:00.000-06:002006-06-29T07:39:00.000-06:00Excellant analysis. I have often wondered if the ...Excellant analysis. I have often wondered if the battle between religious fundamentalists and atheist fundamentalists, viewed from the psychological perspective of projection, is not about the fundamentalism-not the existence or non-existence of god. Each side is projecting it's denied, unconscious fundamentalism onto the other. I certainly enjoyed reading this article.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1151564054360004942006-06-29T00:54:00.000-06:002006-06-29T00:54:00.000-06:00Excellent post. Laid out a point to this argument ...Excellent post. <BR/><BR/>Laid out a point to this argument that I had taken for granted without truly considering.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com