ozoneoceanNot all “fundamentalist Christians” are crazed extremist nutjobs like you see in the movies.
The other side is of course that Fundamentalist Christians don't represent “religion” any more than people who spend their lives investigating UFOs, perpetual motion devices, and ESP are the representatives of all science.
People who investigate UFOs etc aren't all crazy either, a lot of them are quite serious, very intelligent and follow a rigorous scientific method in their studies, but they don't represent all
science are are seen as being a bit on the outside. This is obviously why I used them as a comparison. Please don't go off on a tangent and derail the discussion.
I think the intention was pretty obvious: in this
discussion it is unhelpful, uninformative, and uninteresting to justify atheism by picking on extremely soft and irrelevant targets.
And so a thread about atheism turns back
around to talking about Christianity… I wonder why this always happens? I suppose Christianity is just THAT
much of an important framework in our Western culture that you can't help but return to it. It's so important to people that they define their lives by it even in rejection
The irony… lol!
I'll just respond to Stacey…
So you'd say you were more “anti-religious” than atheist then? Because when we're talking about atheism
, I would personally define that as being a way of looking at the world that excludes the existence of any supernatural “gods” in any
form, regardless of cultures of worship or dogma. If there is an opposite of this (rather difficult), it wouldn't
be a particular religious belief system (like say orthodox Judaism for example), because that would be like saying the opposite of no light is blue light (rather than just “light” )*, it would have
to be the general idea or acceptance that divinity is possible; so NOT
some kind of abstract “theism” , but rather a world where it is possible
that at least one of the gods that the various faiths believe in could exist
, or even some other
kind of supernatural “god” presence- because, afterall, if that kind of existence is
possible, could it be defined in human terms?
If I were to reduce this to the old binary system we like so much I'd have to say that “yes and No” just doesn't cut it. When talking about gods, atheism is “NO” and in this case the opposite isn't
“YES”, the opposite is “not NO”.
-This is because if not
atheism, then the case can not be that all
religions are correct. You see? Atheism just closes off the ability that any of them could ever be.
*Regarding the light/no light example: this is merely to illustrate the the folly of nominating an “opposite” from among a larger group. No meanings are intended by the further symbolic meanings of the terms “light” and “no light”. :P