Reply #150: Response to 125, 132, 137

[ironbark]

“…the content of this supposed philosophy is subjectively defined by those who apply the term as a pejorative. If fundamentalist atheism was really a self-existent system of thought…. ”

I haven’t proposed that fundamentalist atheism is a “philosophy” or a “system of thought” nor have I seen anyone else do so. As far as I can see it is little more than an ‘attitude’ or ‘a bigoted’ attitude.
This will constitute the 4th-5th time that I have put the proposition and thus far there been >zero< rebuttal/response/argument to-

“There is no good coming from America” is a statement of shallow bias and bigotry that is demolished by even the most cursory examination of the facts.

Do I have to fill in the rest of the argument?

“There is no good coming from religion”
“ There is no good coming from non whites”
“ There is no good coming from men”
“There is no good coming from atheists”

I don’t give a dam who takes it personally and is offended by it-
>ALL OF THE ABOVE ARE NARROW SHALLOW BLANKET STATEMENTS OF FUNDAMENTALY IGNORANT BIGOTRY<

Am I calling the author of any of the above statements a ‘narrow shallow ignorant bigot’? No I’m not….I’m referring to the pov and not the person.

I’m willing to discuss the potential good/evil content and outcomes from any group, cosmology, nation, belief, organization….but I’m not prepared to waste my time with (or remain silent in the face of) blanket bigotry that denies >any< good arising from these groups/systems.


“If fundamentalist atheism was really a self-existent system of thought rather than an ad hominem applied by those who intend to disparage other posters, its content would be “consistent and clearly definable”.

In the posts you linked to each author was not attempting to provide a “consistent and clearly definable” definition of a “system of thought” or “philosophy” but rather to identify (in HR’s post)- “ attributes of fundamentalism”. The link to my post reveals much the same- an account of encounter with and attributes of an attitude and set of behaviours that strike one as Fundamentalist-
“narrow-mindedness, intolerance, certainty, a willingness to believe counter-factuals that uphold their own world view” HR

Thus far, almost invariably, the atheist responses have been cantered on ‘defining
the alleged philosophy’ or speculating about ‘ad hom intent’ or complaining about (unspecified) ‘censorship, control of board or getting rid of’.

Can anyone explain to me why >no one< wants to talk about the specific examples of Fundamentalist atheist statements? >Even when< such statements are requested and provided they are subsequently ignored.


"the belief that Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao did not commit atrocities." That is just bullshit, who would say that or think that?” and-justice-for-all

NOBODY! That’s the problem. “That is just bullshit” and SPIN.

The proposition was that avowed atheists like “Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao” >HAVE<
committed atrocities and have done so in the context of seeking to eliminate religious groups as part of their formal pogroms.

One is obliged to wonder why what is clearly stated repeatedly turns up reversed and misrepresented.