It's amazing that so many people in the modern world still believe in fairy tales

[Hugabear]

Even though it's been demonstrated repeatedly that much of Christianity has been stolen from contemporary religions, it's amazing to see so many people still clinging to their beliefs. Yet many Christians scoff at the beliefs of other religions. When you boil it down to its basic tenets, how are many of the beliefs of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam more credible than Scientology? How many times have seen Christians mock the beliefs of Mormons? And this doesn't even touch the open disdain that many "Western" religions have towards Eastern and "New Age" religions.

[melody]

1. All philosophies think they are right and every other is wrong

Including many of my friends in the sciences.

The difference is in the actions of those religions. It's one thing to believe in an imaginary friend ... it's another
to use that imaginary friend's ideas to harass and attack others. Hate the sin, not the sinner. ;)

[Warpy]

158. Also, nothing looks stupider than somebody else's religion

to people who are true believers in the religion they were either raised in or were converted to.

[dmallind]

161. and a further corollary

The vast majority of people remain convinced that the religion they were born into/raised in happens to be the final and ultimate truth. While pasty-skinned Muslims from Malmo and olive-skinned Baptists from Bahrain undountedly exist, they are few and far between.

[aquart]

2. Isn't it wonderful what people with a complete lack of understanding will say?

I swear, it always amazes me. Every single time.

How empty and sad it must be to live only on one level, with one single basis of understanding, believing only one thing can be true and truth can never be contradictory.

[Hugabear]

13. I was brought up in a very strict fundie church

Honestly, it was all I really knew, all I was ever really exposed to while growing up. It wasn't until I moved away from home, wasn't required to go to church, that I was able to start thinking for myself, and to start analyzing the beliefs that I had always been brought up with.

It's amazing how quickly it all falls apart with just a little bit of rational thought.

[physioex]

20. Good for you....

Learn to think for yourself and wonder about the possibilites of the universe with an open mind.

[mac2]

21. Some children don't escape and have scares...

Look at John Ashcroft? His father was a Pentecostal minister. He seemed to think everyday things such as Calico cats were evil. Covered the statue of Liberty because it was shameful (or symbolic of our liberty covered).

Ashcroft had no love of democracy but of his church ruling as a theocracy.

I call that "religious insanity" and does leave the children with lasting effects. There should be mental health help for them.

[crawfish]

59. I don't know about that...

Is it possible you just decided to be irrational in the opposite way?

If it were an easy issue then belief wouldn't be so prevalent. There are, and have been, many brilliant people who are believers. To dismiss them all as self-deluded believers of fairy tales is to deny any respect to the argument.

[Realityhack]

146. Why should the argument be respected?

I have no respect for the argument that the earth is flat. It lacks support and contradicts the facts.
I feel the same way about religion. Show me some evidence as to why I should have respect for people who argue in favor of religion aside from an argument ad-populum.

[Realityhack]

147. As to the issue of it being easy

You are correct. It is not necessarily easy. There are all kinds of reasons NOT to think about it rationally. But what the poster said was that it easily fell apart with the application of rational thought. That argument would not necessarily lead to people dropping the belief in mass.

[knitter4democracy]

114. I grew up in a strict evangelical church and went to their college.

It wasn't all I knew, considering my dad's an agnostic and was mad as hell that I chose to be a Christian, but it was what was safe for me.

I haven't walked away from the faith, but my personal faith was battered pretty badly in college when I saw the logical extension of the beliefs made real. When I saw what "good Christians" did to the Other, I got sick to my stomach and started researching and questioning and travelling. I ended up Eastern Orthodox, which by no means is perfect (pogroms are something we still haven't faced), but the faith itself and the liturgy were and are what I needed.

I look at it like this: everyone's walking a path. Some stay on the path they're put on as a child. Some take branches to other paths. Ultimately, though, each path is the right one at that time for that person until they decide it's not and take a fork in the path to walk a new direction.

[Silent3]

32. Gee, if only we could all be living so multi-level like you!

Gosh, golly, it must be so, like, wow, believing all of those mutually contradictory things at once!

[John Gauger]

33. That's a joke, right?

You're joking. You must be. Nobody could possibly say that in seriousness.

[knitter4democracy]

115. I understand the anger, but few here lack understanding.

Just because someone here is atheist doesn't mean that person doesn't understand faith. Many of them grew up in a faith and have chosen to walk away from it for whatever reason. That choice is just as important as my choice to be a Christian.

[physioex]

3. And that's just the beginning.....

Did you watch that show on Nova on "Intelligent Design"? Did you watch the piece on ABC News friday where Xtian fundies think the earth is 6K to 10K years old and that man lived with the dinosaurs?

[ColbertWatcher]

9. B-b-but Jesus did ride dinosaurs!

[physioex]

12. LOL.....

Talk about delusional. Like Richard Dawkins says I don't care if they believe in the flying spaghetti monster just keep your religion to your home and church.

[mac2]

4. Scientology, Mormons, Catholics, Jehovah Witness, Baptists, etc.

groups can be cult like. They socialize and stay within their own. I wouldn't say they are "Christians" since they exclude others from their group if they don't believe exactly as them. Only they are right and they have a direct pipeline to god.

If they are friends or socialize with others it's like the evil might destroy them somehow.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

24. Nope, they are Christians except for Scientology.

What are you talking about?

ALL the Christians I've ever met think that everyone who does not believe the same way they do is to be excluded and going to hell.

And Christians are self-identifying. Do NOT use the "No True Scotsman" fallacy to say that people who self-identify as Christians and do bad things are NOT Christians.

They ARE Christians if they do bad things; that does not make them right.
George W. Bush is a Christian even though he has murdered hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and a few thousand Americans. And so was Hitler. He said that God spoke to him (Just like George W.) and that he was sent by God to unify Germany. Kaiser Wilhelm thought he was led by God in the First World War.

I repeat: DO NOT USE the "No True Scotsman" fallacy to say "No Christian would ever do ________". It's a logical fallacy.

The Christians I've known that are insane love to tell me that I'm evil and that I'm going to hell, and they can't understand why I refuse to associate with them.

Idiots.

I do know some Christians who mind their own business, and do good things, but they are in the minority.

[mac2]

29. Nope...Prysbeterians are very open and respectful of other

religious groups. They don't ban your wife or husband because they won't change their religious beliefs requiring you to raise your children in their group only.

Scientology is now under Rev. Moon who has made himself their god on earth. Who knows what it was before? He believes he is the leader of all other religions on earth. We make him rich and protect his "on earth worldly" wealth.

[muriel_volestrangler]

31. "Scientology is now under Rev. Moon"? That would indeed be news

I have no idea where you've got that idea from, but I think you're wrong. He leads his 'Unification Church', but that doesn't espouse Scientology.

[mac2]

38. Rigth you are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rev._Moon Rev. Moon Unification Church.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology Hubbard. They are a cult.

Rev. Moon wants to be their religious head too.

[mac2]

41. Sociologists are Christians of sorts...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology

[Realityhack]

43. I assume you meant Scientologists not Sociologists

Did you read the link you posted? The only mention of Christianity was a single person characterizing Scientology as drawing Gnosticism.

How does that support your statement that Scientologists are 'Christians of sorts'? Do you even know the core beliefs and basic methods used by Scientology?

[knitter4democracy]

149. No. They're not.

They believe in Thetans taking over your body and a god named Xenu. They're not Christian.

[Realityhack]

36. You clearly lack both logic and...

the ability to make important distinctions.

First off you are employing the no true Scotsman fallacy. And doing so in a way that has been corrected in this forum countless times.

Secondly, you are displaying a clear inability to make important distinctions in degree of isolationism.
Scientologists are far from the same as Catholics when it comes to cult like behavior. The other groups you list also display vastly differing degrees of 'excluding' others. Claiming that Catholics display the same degree of tendency to socialize within their own and exclude others as scientologists is either horribly ignorant or intellectually dishonest.

[mac2]

39. Sorry that's been my experience maybe yours is different?

We have Catholics in my family. We let them in because we were "open".

[Realityhack]

44. What?!?

In what way is anything you said in that post a rational response to mine?

Me: You used the no true Scotsman fallacy. You failed to make a distinction between degrees of isolationism between the religions you mentioned where a large difference exists.

You: We let the catholics in are family in because we are "open".

What?!? This isn't a matter of my experiences, and it certainly isn't a matter of your families personal issues.

You used a fallacious argument.
There are vast differences between the religions you mentioned in terms of the degree to which they isolate themselves from the rest of the world.

[Unsane]

163. The poster makes me want to end my life.

[Realityhack]

180. Me or mac? n/t

[Unsane]

181. The poster to whom you're responding.

I'm better now, though.

[tbyg52]

5. However, I don't care what fairy tales people believe in, really, as long as

they don't tell me I'm going to hell (and preferably don't even believe it in their minds, but I'll settle for just SHUT UP, especially on their church marquees), they don't tell me I am de facto immoral because I don't subscribe to their particular fairy tale, and they don't use what the fairy tale tells them is going to happen as an excuse for wars, trashing the environment, etc.

[physioex]

7. That's right...

Simply put I like to tell the Xtian fundies to keep their religion to their home and church.

[mac2]

11. The religious groups who are taking the environment on as

part of their church and goals also don't believe in population control and family planing. They can't have it both ways.

Humans in great numbers can destroy the environment. Go to China or India and see for yourself. Both countries are trying to limit their population and bring prosperity. It is still out of control. Religious groups in this country want in to stop that?

[tbyg52]

18. Sure,

because in too many cases blind faith trumps actual thinking. That's another issue I've got with them.

[MindPilot]

6. Interesting too is that Christians celebrate Easter

A religion which teaches that sex the preeminent evil afflicting humankind has co-opted a fertility rite as one of its most significant holy days.

[mac2]

15. Thou shalt multiply so I can have more power and wealth.

I care not about the suffering of the poor and homeless.

[TomBall Democrat]

8. Read Joseph Campbell or watch the PBS DVD

of his convos with Bill Moyers.

Power of Myth.

It's the stories we tell that connect us. Hard for some to see them as stories. Brittle minds that fear the unknown.

Take hope from the fact that you see. Be the change you want to see in the world.

[tbyg52]

17. Absolutely.

Myths are important. They should be taught in school, as well as stories of contemporary religions. Unfortunately, this important topic mostly seems to be used to try to sneak *just* bible studies into the public schools.

[physioex]

19. I also reccomend Richard Dawkins.....

You can watch many of his videos on Google or You Tube.

[ColbertWatcher]

10. Religion as serious topic.

I personally don't think it is. I don't particularly like the era we are in now, where too many people feel religion is a topic for rational conversation.

Let the flamewar begin.

[physioex]

16. Ohhh No...

I think a lot of people here would agree with you. I don't care what anyone believes just keep it to your home and church...

P.S. Religion only serves to supress free thought and scientific advancement from Galelio to the present day.

[MethuenProgressive]

14. Happy Easter!

[ColbertWatcher]

22. Happy Easter to you too!

[Hugabear]

25. And a happy Ishtar to you as well

:)

[mac2]

42. Happy Spring...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spring_%28season%29

[edhopper]

23. Here are some other myths

some people in out country believe:

Lowering taxes increases the government's income.
We are fighting them there so we won't fight them here.
All regulation is bad.
Helping the rich trickles down to the poor.
People on welfare are all lazy.
Socializing medicine is bad.
Oh yes...the Surge is working.

[kimmerspixelated]

26. Touche'!

Plus, whatever myth is being popularized it is absolutely the media's fault for giving the belief any dignity at all.

[edhopper]

27. And a few that some folks here

won't agree are myths:

Aliens come to Earth and abduct people.
A big human like Primate prowls the forest of the Northwest.
People can read minds and see the future.
Ghost of dead people haunt places.
Sea monsters inhabit lakes around the world.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

35. Not to mention

vaccines cause autism
human beings evolved as vegans and are poisoned by eating animal products

I've seen people defend both of these vehemently on DU.

[Realityhack]

40. Can we add

chem trails and a variety of other insane conspiracy theories to the list?

[physioex]

46. I am not going to talk about vaccines....

But I not sure why eating animals products is contoversial in your opinion. You do realize the "animal" products you purchase at the grocery store in no way resemble say what the native americans would have been consuming.

I mean come on oscar meyer hot dogs, mcnuggets, big mac, pepperoni. Do you really think any of those products are fit for human consumption?

[edhopper]

48. You're missing the point

the poster wasn't debating the merits of vegetarianism. He was pointing out the fools who try to say humans are natural vegetarians and meat eating is not part of our evolutionary make-up. Your point about Native Americans reinforces his statement.
It looks like you had a knee jerk reaction without fully reading the post.

[physioex]

74. I don't think so....

It says "evolved as vegetarians", which yes I do disagree with but the word "are" suggests present tense. I will leave it to the original poster to clarify.

[Silent3]

80. We have to be careful with artificial and processed foods, yes...

...but it's also far from automatically true that "natural = good" and "artificial = bad".

I'm also not sure why you singled out what native Americans would have eaten (presumably you mean before the arrival of Europeans).

[trotsky]

50. Human beings *evolved* as vegans?

Now I've been on DU for quite some time, but that one is new to me.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

78. Someone actually claimed that in a veganism thread a few years back

Someone who obviously didn't know archeology or realize that humans have the tooth set of an omnivore.

[trotsky]

83. Well, you never know...

maybe it was harder to rip the flesh off an apple way back when. ;-)

[uberllama42]

110. I don't know if I've ever heard that on DU

but it's a fairly common misconception (or lie, in some cases) among PETA types. That was one of the things that actually turned me off as I was getting into vegetarianism about two years ago. In my book, compassion and mendacity don't mix.

[DeSwiss]

28. What is most significant about it in my view….

...is that the same people to whom you refer, don't truly understand what it is that they do believe. They have some understanding of the narrative of their religion, but not anywhere close to a full understanding of all of it, its history and nor its context within the larger historical landscape.

As you suggest, "even though it's been demonstrated repeatedly that much of Christianity has been stolen from contemporary religions" the fact is that few Christians are actually aware of this, and only a few that I've ever met even knew something about it. And its been my experience that this is because they mostly don't want to know about religious history since it can only served to undermine their own particular belief's veracity.

What I do find amazing, is the ease with which many are able to suspend their belief in the factual, logical and intelligible world they've come to depend upon for their very lives, and yet when the factual world collides with their beliefs they don't even hesitate to throw what they know to be true under the bus for the sake of the preservation of their fairy tale.

Psychologically and emotionally it makes perfect sense of course. When one has been steeped in a life/reality paradigm which encompasses a deity such as Yahweh as the central supreme figure and the reason for all things, it becomes problematic to suggest eradicating such a large portion of their psychological and emotional support system. Because for many, the question then becomes, "what would then replace it?" When one has become dependent upon its presence in one's life and which has become the backdrop onto which one safely falls back upon in times of stress and difficulty with life's sometimes inexplicable trials.

From its beginning, religion's purpose has been to provide succor and stability – to provide a calming effect upon the masses for stress-out members of the tribe(s). Those tribe members who survived one calamity after another and needed a reason to go on with life's struggle. There HAD to be a reason for all this -- and religion told them what it was. And what it was has continually changed over time to reflect what we know to be true, and also so that the narrative could avoid being classified as total nonsense. At least that worked pretty well in the beginning. Not so much anymore.

As humanity has continued on its trek "up from the muck," we've learned quite a bit now that for many of us totally undermines the last shred of "truth" that religion purported to retain. Religion began by telling the tribe members that the natural phenomena that impacted into their lives was the result of capricious gods who relished in the opportunities to cause mischief in the lives of we mere humans. And tribe members were admonished and required to pay homage to them in the form of sacrifices to keep them at bay. And religion told us that even this was no guarantee. They couldn’t lose either way.

Over time these deities coalesced from a number of deities fighting among themselves for power and control, into a single deity where what were formerly known as minor or lesser gods became replaced by angels, prophets and saints. But at the center of all this worship has always been one theme: FEAR. Fear of the unknown, fear of storms, fear of sickness, fear about tomorrow, fear about the everlasting. Fear of hellfire and damnation. Fear, fear, fear. Its religion's stock-in-trade.

Although many would like to think that its not about the fear. That its about understanding and insight. Meaning and morals. About LOVE. And that religion serves as some kind of social glue banding us together to the good of all. And yet it has been the history of religions to cause contention and strife rather than ameliorate it. Not only within its own confines of the tribe, but outside them as well. It has be the cause of wars, or it has served as war’s rallying cry. It has much to answer for.

As an organizing institution and principle, I find it quite easy to understand how and why religion took on the role that it did. And when viewed from a longer perspective, it has served some positive purposes. Its role as an institution that sought to aid those in need has been one of its greatest benefits. Not that this couldn’t have been accomplished in a secular way. Religion has used this role for its great PR. And the power they’ve derived from this role has unfortunately exacerbated its worst tendencies. That of controlling free choice and associations and in seeking to undermine logic and intelligence in order to preserve its own position. Not to mention the role of the worst that society has offered when they take advantage of the weak and dependent among us.

So when one considers the leap of logic that one must take. A leap that leaves behind all that they have known and come to expect to be there for them in times of need and trouble. When one considers that doing so positions them squarely at odds with the mainstream and where they will become subject to ridicule and ostracism, it makes perfect sense why many cling to the fairy tale.

They're scared to believe their eyes. They're afraid to take the leap into reality. They're afraid of being alone without the loving hand of their god’s ever-present existence in their lives.

As I said, its all about the fear....

DeSwiss

[Lydia Leftcoast]

30. So much misinformation and hashing out of personal resentments in this thread

So little time.

[and-justice-for-all]

34. Yes indeed, in this day and age...

people still cling onto fantasy rahter then relaity. Dark Age religions have nothing to offer and are void of anything benefical to society, it is nothing more then wish-thinking and empty promises. A control mechanism that people use on others which some people fall prey too and others are not prone too.

Orgaized religion has conned millions, yes Conned. They promise this and that and yet provide absolutley no proof at all for any of it, the preacher or pastor is nothing more then a good liar and a thief. Organzied religion is no very different from orgnaized crime.

[Berry Cool]

37. I personally don't care what atheists believe or don't believe in

so long as they leave people who do believe in something alone and quit displaying rude intolerance with their insistence that all religion is "fairy tales" and "stolen" and so on.

But every Christmas and Easter, you can always see them coming out, attempting to force conversions to their religion...the antideist religion.

[physioex]

45. Come on now....

Is it atheists who can't keep their beliefs to themselves or is it Xtians? You can't be serious?

I mean who is trying to prevent our children from learning evolution? Who refuses our children to learn the facts on sexuality? Who denies the universe is billions of years old yet enjoys the benefits of an evolutionary vaccine?

[pegleg]

47. Atheistic fundies are very much like religious fundies in their

zeal to proclaim their beliefs or lack of them.

[trotsky]

51. Wouldn't that make just about everyone on DU a democratic fundie?

We all like to proclaim our democratic/liberal beliefs.

[pegleg]

90. Ya know? I'm an old dem from the 60's era and one of the characteristics of that era

was to live and let live. That goes for everyone, so it really doesn't matter to me what anyone believes as long as they afford others consideration instead of intolerance. That seems to be a lesson we have woefully forgotten and need to get back to.

[trotsky]

92. Would that pertain, then, to the volunteers in the 60s...

who risked their lives to go down South and register blacks and make sure they could vote? Damn those were a bunch of fundies, huh? Shoving their beliefs on racist whites down there! :sarcasm:

[pegleg]

93. Yep, They were attempting to teach them a lesson. The times -

they were a changin'. Too bad we couldn't keep it going.

[Silent3]

96. You're either being deliberately coy...

...or what trotsky is saying is flying right over your head.

By your own overly-broad use of the term "fundy", you are an anti-racism fundy. There's a WHOLE lot more to the notion of fundamentalism than merely speaking out loudly for what you believe, and being critical of what others who disagree with you believe, unless you want to employ a definition that makes you a variety of fundy too.

[trotsky]

105. The times were a changin'...

but you said the guiding philosophy was "live and let live." So which is it?

Would it have been OK to let Jim Crow laws and poll taxes and literacy tests stand, then? Live and let live, you know. Gotta tolerate cultural, religious, and historical differences, right?

Since the voting rights volunteers DIDN'T take a "live and let live" attitude about those things, they qualify as fundies in your book.

Maybe you can clarify, or just admit that you totally misused the word.

[pegleg]

125. I think you and I are looking at the same issue from different angles.

voting rights volunteers did portray a live and let live attitude in the sense that southern minorities were not allowed to live and let live according to their potentials in life and they(volunteers) needed to hasten that reality . No I don't admit that I totally misused the word fundie. From the white point of view at that time,I suppose being a fundie would have meant keeping blacks in their annointed places. They(blacks)certainly weren't allowed to live and let live according to their points of view. So here we probably had the clash of two groups - southern whites who were quite content to live and let live in their white world and who thought that blacks should be content in the same world. The second group - southern blacks - were beginning to see that their fundamental potentials could only be realized in being allowed to live and let live - free to set their own courses in life without hindrance from the old constraints. So yes, I think we can all be called fundies in a certain way, if we are allowed to live and let live.

[trotsky]

132. No, I think you've just contradicted yourself.

Because now you admit that everyone could be a fundie. So you DID use it incorrectly, because if it applies to everyone, then it loses any meaning whatsoever. Fundie.

[pegleg]

133. Something tells me you were very difficult as a child

[trotsky]

134. Something tells me you've lost this argument...

and are looking to humorously insult me as a way of saving face.

[pegleg]

136. Tell ya what. I'll stand by my original statement. This 'argument '

has gone absolutely nowhere.

[trotsky]

137. Fine by me. Since you contradicted yourself, you look pretty silly that way. n/t

[knitter4democracy]

116. Please don't use that term.

Look downthread for an explanation. It's wrong, and it's insulting. Insulting our atheist sisters and brothers here on DU is counterproductive and mean.

[pegleg]

143. Fundamentalism certainly is not a derrogatory term in itself.

Certainly there any number of groups who adhere certain ways or fundamental beliefs or principles. What we are dealing with here is bigotry and not all fundamentalists are bigots. But those that purposely incite or attack in order to demean, or make an example of, or single out are indeed bigots. There's certainly nothing wrong with criticism, but when a single religion or philosophy is targeted then it is quite obvious. Atheism is fine. It can be very liberating and very rational and absolutely normal. But not all people think that way and they too are allowed their beliefs, which can be very rational - to them.

[knitter4democracy]

148. Please read my post #111 with the definition of fundamentalism.

Fundamentalism refers a belief system, and since atheism is defined as non-belief and has no defining text, it cannot be fundamentalist by definition.

Someone being judgemental or bigoted or whatever is not necessarily being fundamentalist. If you think someone here is being judgemental or bigoted, use those terms instead.

Oh, and here at DU, calling someone a fundy is an insult, especially if that person cannot, by definition, be a fundy. If you haven't noticed, not a single atheist here has claimed the term "atheist fundamentalist" as his or her own. The only people using it are Christians attacking atheists on the board. Let the atheists define themselves, please.

[pegleg]

151. Well then refer to post #120

[knitter4democracy]

152. Did you not read my response to that post?

Random House does not cite sources, but the OED does. The only sources the OED lists are ones that refer entirely to religion.

[pegleg]

150. deleted

[Lydia Leftcoast]

49. Not anyone I've seen on DU

:shrug:

[physioex]

75. Not blaming any DUers......

I am referring to society in general..... :hi:

[dmallind]

52. Yeah you have it rough

You guys have to deal with all kinds of rudeness, intolerance, and enforced conformance to the beliefs of others.

83% of the nation and 99.9% of all political leaders are atheists

Fully half the population would never consider voting for a Christian, regardless of how much they agreed with such a candidate.

Christians outstrip all other minorities in being distrusted and unwelcome in opinion polls.

The very language tells you that you are worse than the atheist majority because of phrases like "it's the Ingersoll truth" and "thanks, that's mighty atheist of you".

For at least two months out of the year, every store, building and public place has piped in music prattling on about how wonderful atheism is.

There are dozens of tax-free atheist meeting halls in every burg in the nation, who get sweetheart deals on everything from gun laws to zoning, yet if you manage to find a group of Christians who have scraped together enough cash to rent or buy a place of their own, it will of course be fully taxed, and of course vandalized within a week to boot.

Darwin fish on thousands of cars and yellow pages ads are taken as signs of ethical behavior and moral rectitude. Dare to sport one withoout the legs and guarantee your car will be keyed by those "moral atheists" within days.

If you have to give testimony or worse stand trial in court, you are expected to swear on The Origin of Species, and if you don't of COURSE that nice guy in the black robe who spent his own money erecting a bust of Darwin in teh court will give you a fair trial or hearing, right?

A US President-elect said on record "I don't think Christians can be considered patriots or even citizens". There was no media outcry or any fallout at all.

Despite being massively underrrepresented in prison populations, The term "Christian" is used as a synonym for immorality and criminality. When graves are vandalized, a comment from an official stating "it must have been Satanists or Christians or something like that" is printed without comment and without objection.

Overzealous officials, with no correction despite blatant constitutional lapses, had "We trust there is no god" placed on the only currency used by everyone, even those who believe, during the height of the paranoia about "godly communism" in the 1950s.

Depsite clear and compelling evidence that atheism was syncretically developed from other beliefs, co-opting their holidays, their prophets and even their beliefs all of which predated atheism by centuries) it is considered intolerant and hateful to even hint that atheism is not 100% original and unique.

[tbyg52]

95. Very good!

Like my mamma always said: "How would you like it if somebody did that to you?"

[Realityhack]

117. **Applauds** Well said n/t

[varkam]

128. Oh for want of nominating a reply...

:yourock:

You should add that to your journal.

[dmallind]

53. It's especially ironic

that you object to characterizations of stolen/syncretic celebrations in the Christian faith by specifically calling out Easter, where the early Christians didn't even bother changing the name of the celebration dedicated to Eos, a deity associated with dawn and renewal (imagine that - another coincidence it being vernal equinox and all that).

[muriel_volestrangler]

54. Who are these early Christians you speak of?

Presumably not the ones who derived their celebration from Passover (not surprising, since the Bible is very specific that the story happened at Passover), and called it 'Pascha' , 'Festa Paschalia' and so on. I can't see 'Eos' in there.

[Meshuga]

55. I think the only link to paganism is the name

And this because the name "Easter" is derived from old English and not because of pagan origins of the holiday. It is like changing the holiday name to reflect the month of March or April:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter#Etymology

[dmallind]

57. Jeez all you had to do was click on the cross link for Eostre

Bede:

"Eosturmonath has a name which is now translated "Paschal month", and which was once called after a goddess of theirs named Eostre, in whose honour feasts were celebrated in that month. Now they designate that Paschal season by her name, calling the joys of the new rite by the time-honoured name of the old observance."

So lemme guess - it's coincidence that a whole slew of religions, which influenced each other greatly, from Zoroastrianism to Judaism to Christianity in a direct line most germanely, had celebrations at the vernal equinox about renewal and rebirth, and that pagan beliefs in other societies which became syncretic influences only far later, like Anglo Saxon paganism with Eostre, also did?

But of course NONE of this did anything to determine why Christians celebrate Easter when they do?

Again, proximal cause is not root cause.

[Meshuga]

73. I'm not saying these festivals don't have pagan roots

I'm saying that Easter has roots that comes from a Jewish holiday that has roots to paganism:

"On the ancient Jewish calendar, Passover was the original Jewish new year. Many ancient near eastern cultures celebrated the rebirth of spring as the beginning of the year. Our Passover is actually a combination of two older holidays, and the two names in the Bible for the holiday reflect our dual roots. One holiday, Hag Hapesakh (holiday of the pascal lamb), is a shepherd¹s holiday, and in ancient times was marked by the late-night sacrifice of a lamb as a blessing of the new flocks. The other holiday, called Hag Hamatsot (holiday of matsas), was an agricultural festival in which farmers offered the fruits of their fields in hope of a good harvest. These two ancient holidays provide the combined symbols of our modern Passover celebration... " -- http://www.shj.org/passover.htm

The Eostre angle seems to work only if you live an country where Germanic languages is the main language. And it is a name of a pagan Goddess developed between 5th to 7th century England. While you may hear people say Happy Easter in an English speaking country if you go to Italy you will hear Buona Pasqua! Go to Brazil and you will hear Boa Pascoa! Pascoa and Pasqua are linked to Pesach (Passover) not linked to Eostre at all.

In other words, I think the Eostre argument is weak and it has some ethnocentrism attached to it as well.

[dmallind]

76. So you swallow a whale and strain at a gnat?

The main point is that these religions are syncretic and that to point out that these celebrations are not original - even stolen - is not just NOT intolerant but accurate.

We are communicating in English, no? The poster I responded to was hurt that Easter - the word he used - was described as a stolen celebration, no? He used words like intolerant for pointing this out, even though he was using the term that nobody can argue was lifted directly from another celebration. THAT is what is ironic, and quibbling about what Easter is called in other countries only means that they use terms that are adopted from different earlier celebrations than the English term, right?

Again the sensitivity about being reminded that Christianity and its celebrations are not unique and original is the issue, along with the irony of complaining about this when using a term for an earlier celebration.....

[Sanctified]

103. So let me get this straight, Pagans where the sole owners of spring,

And every other religion stole spring from them? Did Pagans give their offerings of the first fruits of the fields to their Gods and did they only eat Unleavened bread during this time? The only similarities I see between Pagan Holidays and Jewish holidays is that a couple of them take place around the same time of year which is no surprise since there only 12 months in a year.

[dmallind]

56. Venerable Bede for one

Since we are speaking English after all,

How many "Festa Paschalia" services did you see advertised this weekend? Do you see the ""Eos" in "Easter" a bit more easily?

But in effect you prove my point - the fact that an earlier religion also had a festival based on the vernal equinox, as well as the absence of specific dating for any putative events that started the holiday in the first place, indicates that it's not only Christianity that is syncretic. Many religions hold festivals around equinox and solstice times. That's kind of the point.
Tell me - where is the date reference to Passover on 14 Nisan in scripture again?

Essentially you're trying to say that if somebody sample "U Can't Touch This" they have no connection whatsoever with "Super Freak".

[knitter4democracy]

61. I'm Orthodox, and we call it Pascha.

Ours is in a month, so you haven't seen it a lot yet (or might not see it at all, our numbers being small). We've always called it Pascha. In fact, after the midnight service, everyone's to greet each other as the early Christians did (to know they were Christians--a kind of code to make sure they weren't speaking to a spy or someone who could get them killed) with, "Christ is Risen!" Then, the answer back is, "He is risen indeed," or, "Truly He is risen," depending on your translation.

[trotsky]

62. ???

If someone was trying to hide the fact that they were a Christian, isn't starting a conversation with "Christ is Risen!" kind of a giveaway?

[knitter4democracy]

65. It's about the response, though.

If you didn't know the response, you weren't shown where the church was or introduced to the rest of the church members.

The fish symbol was also a code symbol, as were certain letters and such. We still use those, too.

[trotsky]

67. So instead the spy waits for a "real" Christian to answer,

then uses the secret code himself to shut down the church or kill the believers or whatever it is they did. The point is, I think it's safe to say that code greeting wasn't really used.

The fish symbol actually has its roots in pagan fertility and sexuality - rotate it back to its vertical position and you can probably guess what it symbolized.

[knitter4democracy]

106. Of course it does.

Christians, throughout the millenia, have been great at taking symbols common to the culture and putting their own meaning on them. The Greek word for fish also was an anagram for Jesus's Name.

According to stuff written at the time, the code stuff was used. We still have those writings, and people look back to them all the time to see how things were done when Christianity was illegal.

[muriel_volestrangler]

70. See, Bede isn't an 'early Christian'

since he lived 400 years after the major conference for determining the date of Easter - itself well after Christians started celebrating it. Yes, the point is that 'Easter' and similar words are just the names used in Germanic languages - chosen, it seems, because that was an easy way of getting the converts to celebrate the Christian festival rather than their old ones.

"Many religions hold festivals around equinox and solstice times". True, but that doesn't make them syncretic. It means they had calendars based on observable astronomy. A good indication of living on the same planet, but not much more. If there was the sign of something local to one place being used elsewhere - the annual flooding of the Nile, or the start of the monsoon in an Indian city, say, being used in somewhere like Denmark - then you'd have some evidence of a societal connection between them.

"where is the date reference to Passover on 14 Nisan in scripture again?" In the Torah, as far as I know. Your point would be ... ?

Your music reference goes straight over my head, never having heard of 'Super Freak'. And I probably haven't thought about 'U Can't Touch This' for 20 years, so it's unlikely it's going to help.

[dmallind]

72. You are conflating three issues

1) the determining date for easter was set at Nicea and specifically referenced the vernal equinox.

2) the fact that earlier religions celebrated remarkably simlarly themed holidays at the same time - renewal and rebirth at the vernal equinox is hardly a coincidence, nor can you "explain it away" by saying those poor ignorant savages based it on observable astronomy but of course the enlightened Christians abjured that and it just HAPPENS that their rebirth celebration, based on of course real historical events, falls at the same time as.....observable astronomy and those pagan renewal celebrations

3) The fact that the name "Easter", or it's linguistic sibling at any rate, was used prior to Christianity in the area whence our language sprang, and that the name currently in use for English speaking Christians co-opted that.

My claim is not that Bede set Easter's date, just that he commented on the name origin and preexisting celebration (my sole initial point which remains effectively unchallenged despite quibbles about what is early or not)

Music (or rather "music") references aside, what you are asking me to accept is that it's not at all an example of synbcretism that Christianity has a celebration based on rebirth, at the same time and with the same name as an earlier rebirth celebration. How other than wild-eyed exceptionalism can that be supported?

[muriel_volestrangler]

81. It's when the northern hemisphere spring starts

but that's not 'syncretism'. It's nature. You're the one talking about "poor ignorant savages"; I'm saying that separate cultures were able to work out when the vernal equinox was, and base anniversaries on that. They didn't have to talk to each other to do this - your implication seems to be that they did, and thus must have all based their religions on some common 'ancestor religion'; or that one culture took the celebration from the other (which would be what your talk of 'syncretism' would mean).

Christianity set the dates of Easter based on the Jewish Passover dates. The Jewish dates may have been because of spring growth (not necessarily, because 'escape' isn't exactly the same as 'renewal'), but the point is that anyone observing the seasons will think 'renewal', without either inheriting that as an earlier religious belief, or having some other culture tell them.

'Christianity' doesn't have "a celebration based on rebirth, at the same time and with the same name as an earlier rebirth celebration". That's the point. The name chosen for a translation into English uses an old Germanic name. That's not syncretism, that's PR. And the timing is no more specific than "very roughly the time of the vernal equinox". That's not syncretism either - it's very simple observation of nature.

[dmallind]

84. I disagree

Christianity did not spring from the whole cloth and just coincidentally adopt dates that happened to match existing celebrations (and what else is the resurrection about but a renewal - just like any other northern hemisphere celebration based on spring after a "dead" winter?) It's straining beyond reason to think it's coincidence that the messiah was born on the winter solstice and resurrected on the vernal equinox when celebrations symbolizing analogous transitions abound in other earlier faiths.

What is PR but syncretism? An adoption of an earlier name, or earlier trappings like the Xmas tree and so on, is taking and absorbing aspects of earlier faiths into your own - syncretism.

[muriel_volestrangler]

88. No, using a local name for an imported practice isn't syncretism

There's no merging of beliefs. The Christian beliefs about Easter have nothing to do with the ancient Germanic 'easter'. They are the same in countries that don't call it 'Easter', but 'Pâques' and so on. I think you're being too Anglocentric.

Yes, Christianity adapted the date of Passover because it's the feast that was going on when it happened. It's not just the vernal equinox - it's the full moon after that - and that comes from the Passover date, and the Jewish calendar. It comes from that tradition, not a Germanic festival.

The celebration of Christmas is different - that was a case of taking an existing festival from a different religious tradition and adapting it.

[dmallind]

140. If it was JUST a name you may have a good point

but again we have that coincidence of spring = renewal to swallow. You are also taking as axiomatic that the crucifixion actually happened. I don't take that as proven at all, especially when it's that nice coincidence again with earlier savior sun-gods.

It's not Anglocentrism to refer to the English origins of a word used in an exchange in English - it's the only relevant etymology. Especilaly when we have a Christian saint cited saying that the celebrations were adopted.

[knitter4democracy]

60. Please read some of the original letters and works by the early church.

We still have them, and you'd probably be pretty amazed at what's in there.

[dmallind]

71. What is it you think I am missing for example?

I've read some but by no means all.

Are you saying there are any that would change my mind about Christianity being syncretic? If so which?

[knitter4democracy]

107. Oh, no, I just think you'd find them interesting.

I find in odd that people post links to sites and books here that don't reference the early material that the Church still has around. Christians do it, too, to be honest. A good place to start looking around is conciliarpress.com, an Eastern Orthodox publisher that has some of the early sermons and writings for people to read for themselves. Stspress.com is a seminary bookstore that has many interesting books, too.

[knitter4democracy]

127. Can't edit--here's an interesting sounding text

http://www.svspress.com/product_info.php?cPath=43_4&products_id=3028

And I had no idea St. Tikhon's Seminary was sooooo conservative! St. Vladimir's seems to be better.

[dmallind]

138. I confess have not gone too deep at all into the Eastern writers

I know a bit - no expert - about the Origens and Irenaeus' of the world etc, but have gotten to neither of those you name. I'll get around to it. Thanks.

[knitter4democracy]

145. Enjoy--Eastern Orthodox stuff's a bit more interesting, I think.

It's really odd. Some stuff is just ultra-conservative. Other stuff is seriously Eastern (repetitive prayer in contemplation being a biggie). And other stuff is just plain confusing. I like it, though, since the Eastern church takes a more laid back view of things and has a more merciful theology based on mystery.

[crawfish]

63. Imagine that we, all of a sudden, decided to eliminate Christmas as a holiday

...because Christianity became a minority view. It would screw up schedules, traditions and history. Most likely, the attempt would be made to "redirect" it...call it by a different name but keep some of the same traditions that didn't depend on the Christian background. It's likely that even though Christmas would no longer be celebrated as a Christian holiday, it would still exist in some form and with some traditions held intact.

Same with Easter. The spring celebration was co-opted with the Passover because they came at the same time, and the non-pagan elements were kept purely as a matter of convenience.

[dmallind]

69. exactly - and in fact this happened

Much of the trappings of Christmas, and Easter, even the non-commercial and supposedly religious ones, are syncretic adaptations.

The issue is that some hypersensitive types apparently think it rude or even "intolerant" to point this out. The sensitivity seems to be that if Christianity is not unique and original then it is not worth so much. If I were a believer, this would still puzzle me. I mean really there's a pretty finite set of ideas over what sort of interactions gods and men should have, especially if you have a faith that includes the concept of salvation/judgement. It is I suppose merely another facet of exceptionalism. There are no new ideas, not even divine ones. That's just the way it is.

[crawfish]

79. Agree partly...

I have no problem accepting that some elements of Christianity are not unique. It actually makes sense that they wouldn't be - why wouldn't God use things that have deep cultural meaning in order to express himself?

However, to deny there are some serious innovations in Judaism and Christianity is to deny reality. Interestingly, those innovations - such as monotheism and grace - are the very foundations of each religion, respectively.

[dmallind]

86. monotheism

In the E traditions Yahweh speaks in the plural and refers to other gods, and not just in a putative sense. Even Judaism is only incrementally monotheistic, and is henotheistic throughout a large part of scripture. The Egyptians got to an established monist belief before Judaism did.

Grace? Might have to define that to avoid confusion later. Do you mean grace as an intercessory to salvation? Then Zoroastrianism is an earlier example, and obviously there are some pretty acrobatic scriptural apologetics to undertake before grace can be said to be uniform in Christian scripture even in itself. That argument isn't even settled now according to all the "no true Scotsman" crap we see on DU which posits works as the definition of Christian.

Again I must point to Occam's razor. In any other field of study, earlier texts or oral histories from contingent civilizations are assumed to have influenced succeeding ones which have similar attributes, agreed? Why is it only Christianity and Judaism (by griudiging extensoion in most cases) where we must posit that the latter was in fact the original and just "used things that had deep cultural meaning to express itself"? Can you think of anywhere else that would pass muster

[Meshuga]

98. Can you expand on your last couple of sentences?

I'm not exactly sure of what you mean. There is extensive material from religious Jewish sources that covers influences and source of Jewish belief and practice. There are a lot of obvious syncretist tendencies that had been used for what many rabbis describe as creative survival (which is what Judaism is about). The sects that rejected changes faded away. Rabbinical Judaism is around today mostly because it did what it had to do in order to survive.

It is obvious, for example, in the structure of the babylonian Talmud (that was put together by Jews living under Sassanian rule) we can see the influence of Zoroastrianism. Later we can see influence of Islam in Judaism from the fact that Jews lived under Muslim societies, the same goes for Jews who lived in Christian societies.

Pick up a copy of Etz Hayyim (Torah translation with commentary from the Jewish Conservative Movement) and you will see that a lot of your "debunking" is nothing really new to Jews.

[dmallind]

139. Sure

Again (and I love saying this to anyone who has even tangentially gotten into apologetics with me) you have to read in context. Remember that this subthread began by my responding to someone who was obviously bothered by being reminded that a particular religious belief was neither unique nor original, and had many aspects in it taken from earlier faiths. That's my audience. The folks who have made any kind of deep study at all of either Christianity (where I have certainly spent much more time) or Judaism (I have a passing knowledge, but mostly in the context of origins and then influence on Xianity rather than Judaism's history or development per se) are never surprised by this. They may quibble about the extent of Zoroastrian influence or the specific authorship of certain texts, but the disagreement is only in degree.

However you folks are not the norm. Perhaps less of a minority in Judaism than Christianity, but still not the norm. The very fact that this sensitivity exists tells you that many people have not internalized the syncretic and sponge-like nature of all major faiths (even Hinduism as the oldest major still extant). It is amazing how often the assumption is taken for granted that everything in the Bible is original, unique, and not dependent on what came before (and true of course). I have shocked people by citing artifacts showing that Yahweh was originally seen as a married deity with many children, or that El was originally a Canaanite chief deity absorbed by the Hebrews originally henotheistically before monism was adopted. Come to think of it I've shocked many people by telling them that there even ARE multiple traditions with different names, natures and stories for God in this supposedly cohesive and unique Bible. Now I'm not exactly going to shock a learned Rabbi with this, but hang around your local megachurch and say such things and see how many people - even the ones in the pulpit - have the first clue.

[Meshuga]

141. I see what you mean.

Especially within the context of the thread.

But I just want to make a point that 90% of religious Jews are affiliated to non-orthodox movements where Biblical scholarship and history are important element of weekly Jewish study. The amount of scholarship provided by the HUC-JIR and JTS are amazing. The Documentary Hypothesis, literary analysis of Hebrew texts, archaeological findings, the acknowledgment of different "Judaisms" that have existed, all the mutations, etc. are part of the study. The difference in the non-orthodox world is the way the different movements decided to approach Judaism with the information they have.

The conservative movement decided to become a halakhic movement (respecting Jewish law) for the sake of passing down tradition and creating a meaningful Jewish experience. The Reform movement is not a halakhic movement so it allows the individual to choose what aspects of the tradition are meaningful to the person. The different movements have their different approaches but at the end of the day it is more about identity than certain faith. So, like you said, we're not exactly going to shock a learned Rabbi with these facts. The orthodox will certainly resist and that is expected. But the funny part is that some non-affiliated Jews, who are not so learned about Judaism, are sometimes shocked when these things are presented. :-)

[dmallind]

142. I confess my exposure is decidedly more to Christianity but I wonder

Without casting aspersions, am I just then being unlucky in encountering Jews who are mostly less well informed than you suggest? The sample size is not large - I have spent much of my life in the upper Midwest where the Jewish population barely registers, and have tended to encounter Jews even in that limited number of two polarized types - either interested laymen or true scholars I have met in lectures, debates, etc, or varyingly (non)observant and generally not Orthodox Jews in the workplace etc. None of the latter whom I've discussed such things with - and here the sample size certainly becomes small and decidedly anecdotal - have been all that informed. In fact even the few I know who attended services seemed to look at it more as a social thing akin to the less fundamentalist Xian denominations. None of them had more than a passing knowledge of Hebrew for a start, as I recall from my forays into discussing the ratsach transalation debate with them.

On a pure aside what avenue would you suggest for someone like me who is, highly improbable epiphany aside, never going to accept the faith or laws, but who has some interest in getting some of that learned knowledge? I fear it would be a bit presumptuous to say "hey can I show up to weekly study so I can be a better informed atheist" but hey who knows?

[Meshuga]

144. It would not be presumptuous at all...

...for an atheist to go to a local shul and attend classes. It is not a requirement to be interested in Jewish faith or Jewish law to attend. Rabbis (specially Reform) are usually wacky and interesting people who like to teach and like probing questions so they can tell you the story behind the story.

[knitter4democracy]

113. I like this idea. Can we do this as a nation?

Like the Soviets did. They made May Day and New Year's the big holidays instead. That left the Christians to keep their faith to themselves (didn't happen everywhere, but in the provinces, it did).

I would love to secularize or eliminate Christian holidays here. That way, Christians can celebrate for themselves and not try to force their beliefs on everyone else. In fact, that's mostly what we do in our church, considering the Eastern Orthodox Church is still on the old calendar. Our Easter is in a month, and I love it when our Easter is so much later. All of the usual silly stuff is out of the stores, and my kids don't get as confused about the Easter Bunny (though we do have baskets, mostly because I spoil my kids ;) ) and instead know Easter for what it really means in our faith.

[DeSwiss]

87. As I said upthread.....

....most http://www.pocm.info/">don't want to know.

[knitter4democracy]

58. Yes, isn't it? I mean, belief is just the most horrible thing ever.

Doesn't it just feel wonderful to feel all squishy and self-righteous about how much better you are than most of the rest of the people on this planet? I mean, you're sooooo enlightened and all, and that obviously makes you better than everyone else. So, pat those silly believers on the head and call them little children, 'cause only little kids believe in fairy tales, right? Doesn't that make you feel even more enlightened? Sure it does! Infantilize your friends and neighbors and dehumanize them, because that's so empowering!
:sarcasm:

What amazes me in today's modern world is that people still take pleasure in being mean to people they don't even know. Huh. Interesting.

[crawfish]

64. Heh. And they bristle at the term "fundamentalist atheist".

It's because they're essentially the same type of judgmental, closed-minded person, just on the other side of the issue.

[knitter4democracy]

66. I don't like that term, personally. It's wrong.

"Fundamentalist atheist" is just an insult, and it doesn't foster dialogue or debate. It's also wrong, based on the meaning of "fundamentalist"--atheists have few foundational "beliefs" and no text to base them on.

If someone's being judgemental or nasty, I'll call them on it, but I respect and love my atheist brothers and sisters here. They've made that choice based on their life-path, and I respect that.

[trotsky]

68. Wow, thanks, k4d.

That was very nice of you to chime in on. Thank you.

[crawfish]

77. I respect that opinion

...and to me, "fundamentalism" is simply a manner of thinking that reduces one's ability to be open-minded on a topic.

If we need a new word, then so be it. But that won't change the fact that the personality types and thinking styles of religious fundamentalists and some atheists are incredibly similar, and it is that makeup that leads a religious person into fundamentalist thought in the first place.

Heck, I would say that the problem with religious fundamentalists isn't a strict adherence to fundamentals but judgmentalism, inflexibility and close-mindedness. Those things are dangerous no matter what your personal beliefs are.

[trotsky]

82. "a strict adherence to ... judgmentalism, inflexibility and close-mindedness"

Kind of like applying a word to a group of people, and stubbornly refusing to listen to them, or even fellow Christians who think it's incorrect?

Yeah, that's a fundamentalist for sure.

[crawfish]

85. Nice paraphrase.

You'd do Faux News proud.

[trotsky]

91. Let's see...

Judging others... check.
Inflexibility in using the word... check.
"Close-mindedness"(sic).... check.

If the shoe fits, well, I guess all you have left is insults.

[crawfish]

94. Hmmm...you left the paraphrased part out

I think I have the right to complain when you misrepresent my views.

[trotsky]

97. "I think I have the right to complain when you misrepresent my views."

You don't extend that right to the atheists whose views you are misrepresenting, now do you?

[crawfish]

100. Dude...

I really don't want to be in a flame war with you.

I have never misrepresented the views of another poster. I simply express my opinion.

You have gotten into a huff because, obviously, I'm a jerk for daring to hold opinions that differ from yours, and to continue to defend them.

You used the ellipsis (...) to paraphrase my sentence in a way that completely changed the meaning of the sentence. That is misrepresentation.

[trotsky]

101. Here's a helpful hint:

To avoid flamewars, DON'T INSULT PEOPLE.

"Fundamentalist," as you have chosen to personally define it (and let's not fool ourselves, it is your own PERSONAL definition), is an insult. You have not apologized, not ONCE, to those who have told you such.

When you want to show some of that trademark Christian good behavior, by apologizing to those you have insulted, and promising to stop doing it anymore, THEN we can quibble about how you've been somehow misrepresented.

'Til then, dude/dudette, quit pretending you're on the high road here.

[crawfish]

102. Again,

Yes, it is a personal definition. However, as with many words there is both a literal meaning and an implied meaning; my personal definition sits closely to the literal. Certainly, the term in its implied meaning cannot be implied to atheists. Implied meanings, however, tend to shift with the times; I see no need to hold the word to what society has biased it to be.

I have not called ANYBODY ON THIS BOARD a fundamentalist. I have gone out of my way to declare that the type of person I am targeting is not the norm. In fact, I have only referred to two people personally by the term: Hitchens and Dawkins, based on what I've read by and about them. That's hardly an attack on anybody here.

I have nothing to apologize for. I have done nothing except to say that "some atheists out there are just like fundamentalists". If you want to take that personally, then so be it, but it wasn't intended for you. Or anybody here. You should stop jumping to conclusions. Then, perhaps, you'd be better able to see my point.




p.s. Actually, I do have something to apologize for. When I got frustrated at how my views were being misrepresented, I closed the conversations in a pretty sarcastic tone. I wasn't intending to be mean-spirited but it might have come across that way. For that, I am sorry.

p.s.s. I have learned one lesson - I will disassociate somewhat from that word in the future, even though I believe that it aptly applies. It just distracts from the reader's ability to perceive the greater point.

[trotsky]

104. Say what?

I have not called ANYBODY ON THIS BOARD a fundamentalist. I have gone out of my way to declare that the type of person I am targeting is not the norm.

I direct you to your post #64 on this very thread. Oh no, of course you didn't refer to anyone on this board by name. But there is no way you can say you were referring to Dawkins or Hitchens there.

Your apology is accepted, but you have no reason to be angry about being "misrepresented." Your full quote was:

Heck, I would say that the problem with religious fundamentalists isn't a strict adherence to fundamentals but judgmentalism, inflexibility and close-mindedness.

Let's break the sentence down into a more basic form.

"The problem (with fundamentalists) isn't strict adherence to fundamentals but judgmentalism, inflexibility, and closed-mindedness."

You're negating "fundamentals," or in other words, making it irrelevant to the point you're trying to make, which is:

"The problem is (a) strict adherence to judgmentalism, inflexibility, and closed-mindedness." Which is my paraphrase.

Your fit over being "misrepresented" is a red herring. I suppose you could say that you were also negating "strict adherence", so if you correct for subject/verb/object plurals the paraphrase is:

"The problems are judgmentalism, inflexibility, and closed-mindedness."

Which is far, FAR from a "misrepresentation" of what you said and instead just a distilled version of it. Or do you disagree with that sentence? *Is* the problem really a strict adherence to fundamentals? Because that would be disagreeing with yourself.

Your insistence on using an insulting term when MANY have told you to stop - even if you don't THINK it's insulting but somehow "aptly" descriptive - is rude, arrogant, condescending, judgmental, inflexible, and closed-minded. Like when Fred Phelps' gang keeps using the term "fag," or right-wing jerks call Democrats "bed-wetting liberals." Oh I'm sure those folks think those terms most definitely apply to the groups they are demonizing or mocking, but does that make it right?

[crawfish]

118. *sigh*.

In post #64, "they" referred to "fundamentalist atheists". NOT to the board members. Just a misunderstanding. There was no attempt to label anybody with that statement - just to point out that the elements that make a religious fundamentalist a "dangerous" fundamentalist are evident in many atheists. It's a point I've hammered at over and over and over again. I do see how that could be taken out of context, though, given the title.

Your paraphrase implied that "strict adherence" applied to "judgmentalism, inflexibility and close-mindedness". Which it did not, in my case. I was pointing out that it was NOT the strict adherence that made them dangerous, but the latter qualities.

The difference is, I'm not using it as a term of derision or mocking, just an identification of a type of person. I have tired over the years of hearing atheists and others use it as a mark of derision, when many of the outspoken atheists exhibit the same behaviors and tactics as those they deride. I have seen an increasing anger and hostility toward Christians over the last ten years; the internet is providing a gathering place - and organization - that has never existed before for them. I do not doubt that this will lead to some "judgmental, inflexible and close-minded" individual or group of individuals to take the hostility to the next level, all it will take is the open hostility of some well-known leader to push them over the edge.

I actually spend most of my time trying to convince my Christian brethren to have the level of tolerance I want from you. I am disturbed by the polarizing behavior on both sides.

[trotsky]

123. Polarizing behavior...

Like using an inappropriate term that several people have told you they find offensive - EVEN if you don't "intend" for it to offend?

You just don't get it. And you choose to keep insulting, keep attacking, keep hurting with words. Does that make Jesus proud?

And truthfully, there is no one other than other DU members that you could have been referring to in #64. You insult our intelligence by trying to pretend otherwise - as IF Dawkins or Hitchens could have been the "they" who "bristled" at your use of the term on DU. Please.

I actually spend most of my time trying to convince my Christian brethren to have the level of tolerance I want from you.

That's great. Start showing it by saying you won't use the term to refer to atheists anymore, and you'll be taking a great big step. You say you don't want to polarize, well, here's a great way to show your sincerity.

[crawfish]

126. Believe what you want...

The "they" in the title was aimed at a different target than the "they" in the message.

[trotsky]

131. What a great opportunity to show your commitment to non-polarizing behavior.

And you shit all over it. At least I know what brand of Christian you are now.

[cain_7777]

162. Always entertaining, Trotsky

:popcorn:

[knitter4democracy]

112. Oh, for the love of Mike.

Please listen to what he's really saying before pulling out the Faux News quip.

[crawfish]

119. He doesn't know me...

any more than I know him.

I'm more than happy to have a cordial discussion, but I have a sarcastic side that WILL pop out when I am the target rather than the message.

Of course, sarcasm is dangerous on DU. It got me in trouble before, and I suspect it will get me in trouble again.

[knitter4democracy]

122. So? Why not keep it respectful, then?

I post sometimes before I think it through, sure. But I do what I can to stay respectful when I get into a debate with someone. I've found it works better.

[knitter4democracy]

111. You need a new term, then.

Fundamentalism means that you strictly abide by the fundaments of your faith (and yes, it always applies to faith).

Oxford English Dictionary definitions:
a.A religious movement, which orig. became active among various Protestant bodies in the United States after the war of 1914-1918, based on strict adherence to certain tenets (e.g. the literal inerrancy of Scripture) held to be fundamental to the Christian faith; the beliefs of this movement; opp. liberalism and modernism.

b. In other religions, esp. Islam, a similarly strict adherence to ancient or fundamental doctrines, with no concessions to modern developments in thought or customs.
(I really cannot see how that one applies to atheism at all. They are all about developments of modern thought and customs.)

Here's an interesting list of recent uses of the term:
1922 Contemp. Rev. July 20 The fundamentalist creed. Ibid. 21 The Fundamentalists have been fortunate in their non-ministerial leader . 1925 K. LAKE Relig. Yesterday & To-morrow 60 The most energetic..group, but the least well educated, is the Fundamentalist. Ibid. 62 The Fundamentalists have zeal, but it is certainly not according to knowledge. 1926 H. F. OSBORN Evol. & Relig. in Educ. 12 The fundamentalist movement..sought to re-establish the Biblical literalism of the time of Cromwell, Milton, and the Puritans. 1955 Times 25 Aug. 14/1 The dangers of the new fundamentalist movement. One of the encouraging developments for Christian teachers to-day is the new relationship which is growing up between scientific and religious thought. 1957 Middle East Jrnl. XI. 391 Less well known is their part in the development of non-Christian fundamentalist movements through their translations..of the ancient sources. 1961 L. BINDER Relig. & Pol. in Pakistan xiii. 378 The fundamentalist movement is a lower middle-class movement..oriented to the institutions of a..passing age. 1961 WEBSTER, Fundamentalist, an extreme conservative; esp: one who attacks any deviation from certain doctrines and practices he considers essential (as to a religious, political, or educational system). 1969 New Yorker 14 June 45/1 I've never been a flashy stylist, like Arthur. I'm a fundamentalist. Arthur is a bachelor. I am married and conservative. 1973 Economist 15 Dec. 106/2 The fundamentalists look at a company's product, balance sheet, record and management before deciding whether the stock market has put the right value on the shares. 1981 Times 26 Sept. 4/2 The measures are designed mostly to curb the influence of Muslim fundamentalists. 1985 Daily Tel. 29 Mar. 22/4 Fundamentalist Jews are limbering up to oppose the plan on the grounds that it will depict scenes from the New Testament as well as the Old.


How does any of that apply to atheists at all? It really doesn't. If you want to say they're judgemental, use that term. If you think they're close-minded, then use that term. Don't use a religious term that has nothing to do with them at all.

[crawfish]

120. Random House Dictionary has a third definition

3. strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles: the fundamentalism of the extreme conservatives.

This can apply to atheists on a personal level, if the individual has a set of principles that they adhere to in a strict sense. There is no requirement that the ideas or principles come from a book or from any organized source. Certainly, there are no official "universal" principles of atheism.

[knitter4democracy]

121. Sorry, I only use the OED.

I know, that makes me an English major, but I've found other dictionaries to be quite lacking. The OED uses actual references to back up their definitions, and Random House doesn't.

Look again at what you posted: if an individual atheist is a "fundamentalist" by strictly adhering only to that person's set of principals, then how can you use it as a blanket term to apply to a group of people?

[crawfish]

124. I don't.

The term "fundamentalist" in the implied sense doesn't refer to one contiguous group of people anyway. It refers to many disparate groups with similar traits.

I'm not as picky as you over dictionaries, so I'll accept the RH addition. :)

[SidDithers]

130. You damn OED fundamentalist...

:)

Sid

[knitter4democracy]

135. Best laugh I've had yet today!

How do I nominate that for a DUZY? :rofl:

[pegleg]

153. I'll take random house - it's more logical.

there are the fundamentals of baseball, the fundamentals of flying, the fundamentals of eating spaghetti - whatever, so I think it can be said that those who observe these are fundamentalists of those actions.

[trotsky]

154. Hello, fundamentalist!

:hi:

[pegleg]

155. Hi Buddy. How ya doin'?

[knitter4democracy]

156. Even when it's not sourced?

Applying the term "fundamentalist" to anything ignores the history of the word, which is a huge part of its definition.

So, someone who only uses olive oil when making spaghetti sauce is a fundamentalist? I don't think so.

[pegleg]

157. no, that would probably be a spaghettiologist

[pegleg]

160. I realize my posts are bordering on the ridiculous, but that is to emphasize

a point - that bigotry is unacceptable in any form. Against atheists and christians or any other group. That's not to say it isn't deserved sometimes. And I also think that no one is immune from criticism, but when an attempt is made to demean, to degrade , or to cause fear or harm, or deny their freedom to be - then boundries have been overstepped and it becomes bigotry.

[knitter4democracy]

164. How ironic, then.

In naming atheists "fundamentalist atheists," a label they themselves have never chosen (unlike fundamentalist Christians, who did back in the early 1900s), you are trying to demean and degrade them. It is a form of bigotry to choose to name a group something they themselves would never pick and argue against, is it not?

Look, I'm not saying that there haven't been posts from atheists here that haven't crossed the line into rude or bigoted territory. I don't think they speak for the majority, though. Either way, it is not the job of someone outside the group to name the group.

You've made it clear that, when you call them fundamentalists, you intend to insult them; you're calling them out on the bigotry and judgemental attitudes you've seen by comparing them to a group with similar behaviors that you know the atheists don't like. In doing so, however, all you're doing is ticking off the very people you're trying to communicate with. Insulting them isn't going to get their eyes opened.

[pegleg]

165. Point taken. But I was trying to defend Christians, not "fundie"

Christians who certainly can make it difficult for all of us at times. Refer back to the subject line of this thread. But in any case, I don't necessarily see "fundamentalist" as a derrogatory term, but equal to the word -say- 'pragmatist'. However, if you were to capitalize the word, that would emphasize the point and imply a different attitude. And certainly there have been and are organized atheistic movements around for years, it's nothing new. And I say that with respect, out of a strong belief of freedom of thought, and freedom of and from religion.

[knitter4democracy]

166. Here, at DU, fundamentalist is a derogatory term, though.

I understand what you were trying to do. As a Christian, I certainly get more than a little steamed at some posts here. I don't remedy that by name-calling, though. I'm not going to convince anyone that their behavior is wrong by name-calling. If it's the behavior you don't like, call attention to that.

Oh, and "pragmatist" and "fundamentalist" have two entirely different histories as words. "Fundamentalist" is a fairly recent addition to the lexicon, almost entirely because of groups of Christians using that term to refer to themselves and their interpretation of the Bible. "Pragmatist" is an older word that refers to a much older philosophy.

This is why I posted the definition from the OED--people need to know where words came from and what they really refer to instead of thinking they know the meaning from general use.

[pegleg]

167. Modern English is not a static language. Rather ,new words are being

added all the time. Now isn't it much more pleasant to argue over something like language or how I can't seem to spell 'derrrogatory' correctly?

[knitter4democracy]

168. That's why I use the OED.

They cite their sources, and they use current sources as well.

As a language lover and dabbler in linguistics, I would totally agree that English is not at all static. However, words get their meaning from current and past usages. That's why one person can't just magically change the meaning of the word, just because she wants to. It takes a lot more to change a word's definition than just to think your meaning makes sense. Otherwise, we'd all be like Humpty Dumpty in "Through the Looking Glass" and just using words randomly and making no sense.

[trotsky]

169. Your attempts to help are greatly appreciated, k4d.

What makes me most upset is how the people who are quite clearly TOLD that their use of a word is insulting, don't give a rat's ass and insist they're going to keep using it no matter what because THEY think it should apply. (And yet these same folks get angry when an atheist lumps them together with some other kind of Christian or believer. Go figure.)

[pegleg]

170. Don't play coy Trotsky, Again I would call your attention to the

subject of the thread. Also, Webster's dictionary does use a generic form of "fundamentalism" with a small 'f' when referring to other than religious movements.
"a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles <Islamic fundamentalism> <political fundamentalism>". So, if it be said that someone adheres to the fundamentals of atheism, it is certainly not at slam, but if an atheist is referred to as a fundie atheist or as a atheist as a (F)undamental atheist - you can pretty well bet that it is an insult.

[trotsky]

171. If your problem is with the subject of the thread,

take it up with the person who wrote it. You are broadbrushing, insulting, and you don't give a crap. You're perfectly happy with making others mad because someone made YOU mad. Nice work!

[pegleg]

172. Relax. I'm doing this in a spirit of camaraderie and orneriness not adversity.

delete

[trotsky]

174. Then quit insulting people.

Pretty simple.

[pegleg]

175. that works both ways . Again I take you back to the 1st line.

[trotsky]

176. Which goes back to my point.

Take it up with that person instead of taking it OUT on everyone else. Sheesh. Good thing I don't judge all Christians based on YOUR actions.

[pegleg]

177. You are in denial

[trotsky]

178. And naturally, all you have left is an insult.

Jesus must be so proud of your behavior.

[pegleg]

179. No. Just an observation. you are trying to justify discrimination for one

group while ignoring another.

[trotsky]

184. And the observation about you is that you want to insult another group

because you felt insulted. Feel better yet? I'm sure Jesus is smiling at all the anger you've brought rather than trying to make peace, wouldn't you say?

[pegleg]

185. deleted

[pegleg]

186. You have yet to show me where I have insulted anyone

I mean other than someone who can't stand what they consider improper english.

[trotsky]

187. That would be the multiple people who have told you

that it's an insulting term. But fuck 'em, who cares? Your definition of them is much more important than how they see themselves, right? Liberalism is all about defining and categorizing people! :sarcasm:

I'm glad these conversations have happened, though. I've identified two more nasty Christians on this board.

[pegleg]

188. Let me see now. The thread starts off flaming Christians and you

end it by flaming Christians - yep, real cavalier there bubba!

[trotsky]

189. Only the two who have acted like rude, nasty assholes.

You just keep beaming Jesus' love, don't you?

[knitter4democracy]

190. No, I can't stand it when people use words to hurt others.

I made it clear in my posts that using the term "fundamentalist atheist" is insulting. It's not insulting because it's improper English. It's insulting because of what the words mean.

People are telling you that using that term is insulting, derogatory, and mean, and you're choosing to ignore that.

[pegleg]

191. Then why are you accepting of this thread and its criticism for Christians?

The word fundamentalism (lower case)is far too common when used to describe other groups, besides religious groups, to be called derogatory and should not be taken that way.

One example among many: Molly Ivins noted that the psychological testing procedures used to judge whether individuals were competent to serve as policemen included fundamentalism as a disqualifying personality trait. That makes sense: if you get pulled over for a speeding violation, you don’t want to find yourself facing a livid cop who is outraged that you have violated his sense of order and perfection in his cosmos. You want, at the very worst, a cop who is mildly disgusted at you for being stupid in public and who is going to write you up no matter what excuse you give him.

Baseball is a good example. Baseball has seen quite a few changes since 1957, when the Giants and Dodgers moved west. That wasn’t the first change in baseball since 1876, but it marked the point where change markedly accelerated. With nearly every change that brought baseball of 1957, with its eight teams in each division, early October World Series, no DH, wool or cotton uniforms, and higher pitching mound closer to the baseball of today, there is legitimate room for debate about whether the changes improved or hurt the game. Any of the changes. All of the changes.

But fundamentalists will point to a time when baseball was pure and holy (yes, some people will use the word “holy”) and describe every alteration made since then as the work of the devil, a communist plot to turn American youth into soccer fans, proof of a general decline in morals and public good taste. (Soccer fundies can be even worse; at least rooting for the “wrong baseball team” in some areas won’t get you killed). http://www.zeppscommentaries.com/Sociology/fundies.htm

[Meshuga]

192. In defense to knitter4democracy

Here is her response to this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=167103&mesg_id=167264

I don't think you can conclude that she accepting of the thread. You are only looking for justification in order to insult others. That's pretty obvious.

[pegleg]

194. No I'm not looking for any justification , On the contrary, there is no

justification for insulting any entire group or religion if their motives and methods are respectful, atheists included. It's not okay to insult atheists for being atheists. But more DU posters, in general, are becoming more accepting of open contempt toward certain religious groups than was the case years ago. And that isn't a positive sign. There are good and bad people in every group. The thread itself is evidence of that.
No,I will not use term 'fundamental atheist' - nor any form of it again, because it is considered offensive. But, we all should be aware that it is also wrong to 'blanketly' dispose of any religious or ethnic group without second thought. It's dangerous when it becomes the norm. And to those who defend a targeted group - they should be shown at least some respectful acknowledgement for their opinion.

[knitter4democracy]

193. I already posted a reply to the OP, and stop telling people how to feel.

Telling someone that the insult you're using isn't really an insult and then telling them they shouldn't feel bad about it is just plain wrong. If you wouldn't like it done to you, don't do it to others.

[knitter4democracy]

173. I'm trying.

I don't think I'm getting anywhere, but I'm trying.

I know that I don't like being lumped in with other Christians, and I know that I don't like being labelled anything that doesn't properly apply. I'm still working on making my language as faith/non-faith neutral as possible, though. If you catch me doing anything wrong, please, please, please let me know and help me know how to say it instead.

[Silent3]

129. So, someone who absolutely refuses to torture prisoners...

...is an anti-torture fundamentalist, due to his strict adherence to the basic principle that torture is wrong.

You clearly mean "fundy" as an epithet, but in order to try to extricate yourself from an untenable position, you have to resort to a definition for the term which doesn't at all describe a person inherently worthy of disdain, a definition which in fact could describe the kind of person you'd likely consider worthy of praise.

[Meshuga]

89. It is great to read this

People are people and nastiness does not come from groups but from individuals. Nasty labels only serve the purpose of grouping people in order to attack them in one shot.

For example, in the past couple of days I have been called out in another forum (that I don't even participate) as being part of an "atheist Jihad" just because I have defended atheists here in R/T. And there were malicious suggestions of a Jewish-Atheist anti-Christian alliance in R/T.

But the bottom line is that I have defended Christians and atheists alike in this board. And there are a lot of atheist and believers who I have learned to respect and appreciate in R/T.

Silence is akin to assent so thank you for your post! :-)

[knitter4democracy]

108. What the heck is an "atheist jihad"?

:wtf: That makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.

I think some here think any questioning of Christianity is bad. I don't. I think it helps those of us on that faith walk to think and question and talk with those who aren't on this faith walk. My best friend's pagan, and we manage to get along just fine. :)

I'm so sorry someone was that horrible to you. That's just plain horrible, nasty, and wrong. Did you alert on them? Personal attacks like that are against the DU rules.

[dmallind]

159. Jewish-atheist anti-Christian alliance? Who gets the Muslims and the Buddhists? ;) NT

ljlj

[varkam]

99. Thanks for that.

It's always nice to see that someone else values correct use of language over hyperbole and insults.

:hi:

[knitter4democracy]

109. That's the former high school English teacher in me.

:D

[uberllama42]

182. Yes, thank you.

You are being very even-handed, and I appreciate that.

[knitter4democracy]

183. When all else fails, we're all still Dem brothers and sisters.

Regardless of everything else, we have that. It's easy to forget sometimes.