137th Gebirg wrote:
The fundamentalism of some of this board's posters is both incredibly scary and depressing.
While I would not consider myself a fundamentalist, I do profess a belief in a Supreme Being. How can what has been posted by anyone here so far be classified as "fundamentalism"? Others here believe in God. Why can't they be allowed to say so without being labeled? There has been no advocacy of snake handling, speaking in tongues, self-flagellation, or any of the other things that most people would ascribe to a fundamentalist way of thinking. Some people are unapologetic in their spiritualism. Why should that automatically categorize them as a fundie by your or anyone else's standards?
Wow, hold your straw horses, please.
I have no idea why you want to portray me in a bad light here, but I have said nothing that denotes disrespect or verbal abuse towards theists.
I might live in "heathen lands", but I'm not out of any contact with theists, in fact I went (against my will, but that's another matter) to catholic schools.
I was fed a lot of bible (disbelieved in it all from a young age), I am not unfamiliar with christian dogma.
As a matter of fact, it's interesting you concluded I was an atheist - I didn't say it and my post could easily have been made by a moderate believer.
My catholic entourage certainly wouldn't bat an eyelid (after translation) to any of it.
I respect faith, even though I do not have it nor can really understand it.
But the gnostic theist does not operate on faith, he operates on misinformation.
To answer your question, on this board I've seen:
- Someone refer to the historicity of jesus as having more evidence than the historicity of Caius Iulius (not in this thread) -> that's patently false and evidence of extreme brainwashing; the kind of discourse held by creationists.
In fact, I seem to remember that individual ascribing to creationism (but maybe I misremember).
- The power of prayer held as a proven fact.
Once again, this isn't your average believer statement, this is fundamentalistic.
- The old cliché of "Atheist Dogma" being invoked.
Either the user doesn't realise how preposterous it is, in which case a fundamentalist mindset is involved or the user does and it was a troll comment.
That's not very civil.
If the word has pejorative connotations I'm not aware of (not a native english speaker), I'm fine with not using it, but one needs a substitute. Creationist? Not an exact match.
Gnostic theist? Fine by me, but a bit heavy.
Atheism is doubt without belief; dogma is belief without doubt.
"Atheist dogma" isn't "inappropriate"; it's just complete nonsense.
The internet does give me insight on how atheists are treated in the US; though: on several US-dominated boards, I often see theists provoke then cry offense when (very measured in this case!) answer comes.