RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (11) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: The official Post Atheism Movement starts now< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2011,10:29   

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 24 2011,13:39)
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 24 2011,04:16)
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 24 2011,06:41)
Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 23 2011,18:02)
From Greta Christina's Blog: "I get angry when believers use the phrase 'atheist fundamentalist' without apparently knowing what the word 'fundamentalist' means. Call people pig-headed, call them stubborn, call them snarky, call them intolerant even. But unless you can point to the text to which these 'fundamentalist' atheists literally and strictly adhere without question, then please shut the hell up about us being fundamentalist."

(shrug) Sheer sophistry.

Jello Biafra got knee-capped by what he called "punk fundamentalists", for daring to question aspects of the movement / lifestyle / hairstyle / whateverthefuckpunkisorwassupposedtobe.

There are "fundamentals" that hard-core whatevers subscribe to.  Just because zealous Christian literalists were tagged with it doesn't mean no-one else can be.

Apatheism rules. Or  not. Whatever.

I disagree with this.

Words are important, it's not merely sophistry to reject the labelling of one thing as another, different thing because of some superficial similarity or other. Clarity, or at least the attempt at it, is important.

While I have no doubt that there are unpleasant {insert further negative adjectives here} atheists, who do {insert series of nasty or tactically disagreeable things here}, I always want to ask the question HOW are they "fundamentalists"? The word means something, it has more to it than a simple sequence of unpleasant traits associated with genuine fundamentalists. I've yet to receive a coherent answer to the question.

To be frank, I think it's merely used to sate the desire to be insulting on the part of people who don't like what the so labelled "fundamentalist atheists" are doing. Incidentally, I think the term "accomodationist" is the same deal.

The subtle use of language to damn one's opponents has a long and well established history and that is precisely what is occurring in the "accomodationist" vs "gnu atheist" pseudo-debate......oh sorry, you all do know it's not a genuine debate right? A false dichotomy. You do know it's basically solved by one phrase: Let a thousand flowers bloom. Pluralism wins here, as it so often does in complex situations like this.


Greta's saying the word "fundamentalist" can only be applied to Christians. I disagree. I think that restriction is completely arbitrary. Look what happened to "chauvinist". YMMV.

Yup, it's sure used as a thorn, a barb, a goad, because, well, everyone knows what "fundamentalist" really means, right? Right?

No she isn't.

The word "fundamentalist" refers to someone adhering to the fundamentals of a specific text or set of texts, so it could be a Christian or a Communist. Pick me up a copy of the atheist gospels.

The point she is making is that if people have a legitimate criticism of vocal atheists (and there ARE legitimate criticisms) then simply by falsely equating them with their perceived polar opposite is inaccurate and misleading. It is a poor, and purely rhetorical, label.

The same goes for the accomodationists. That word is a poor, purely rhetorical, label. It is designed to polarise. As is the term "new atheist", especially since the atheism being evinced is identical to that of people born well over 3000 years ago. Not so "new". It's an attempt to discredit without analysis, to avoid the substance and engage only with the tone. It is, in a word, abso-fucking-lutely-arse-quakingly-pathetic whoever does it.



  315 replies since Nov. 23 2011,18:52 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (11) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]