5810Singer
New Member
I believe the correct usage is "radicalism".Squawk said:radicality (is that a word?)
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I believe the correct usage is "radicalism".Squawk said:radicality (is that a word?)
Case said:Main Entry: fun,·da,·men,·tal,·ismAndiferous said:I rather like the term 'Athiest fundamentalism'.
Pronunciation: \-tə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1922
1 a often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b : the beliefs of this movement c : adherence to such beliefs
2 : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles <Islamic fundamentalism> <political fundamentalism> (Merriam-Webster)
It's not fundamentalism, as there are no basic principles to atheism in the sense of maxims.
Not quite, group dynamics are more intricate than that. The flock will disperse into subgroups, some will abandon the 'movement', some will try to keep what they think the idea to be going, others may further radicalize it. Which is pretty much the same thing that happens to any existing group formed on an idea rather than survival/necessity.popovich said:All it takes is for their role model to recognize his/hers mistake, and to admit it publicly. And the fanboys will submit. That's all.
In my dealings with theists my ultimate goal is usually to free them from the stigma of religion, to free their minds from the controlling influence that is the doctrine of their own brand of faith. I have long been of the opinion that the best way to do this is to teach critical thinking. Rather than demonstrating the absurdity of the positions religion takes, I prefer to help the person come to that conclusion themself by getting them to address their own beliefs in an unbiased way. These events have only strengthened my conviction that this is the correct approach. The messages sent by atheists here shows clearly that atheism is by no means a guarantee of rationality and is evidently not a sign of tolerance. Atheism might be the rational position, but you do not have to be rational to be atheist. Teach rationality, teach critical thinking, teach tolerance.
Yes, you're correct. These people can accept the extremism other people "preach" and take it to a whole new level.Squawk said:Personally I'd argue they are more extreme by far, but I agree entirely with your deductions.
I concede. (because it did took a lot longer, no point in arguing that)5810Singer said:Whilst I agree with what you say, I'm sure you'll concede that what you just wrote took a lot longer than: "They're arseholes..."
But ultimately "arseholes" is what you've described, wether you used the word or not.
That's true. I do agree with the statement that group dynamics are more intricate than what I simply described.Case said:Not quite, group dynamics are more intricate than that. The flock will disperse into subgroups, some will abandon the 'movement', some will try to keep what they think the idea to be going, others may further radicalize it. Which is pretty much the same thing that happens to any existing group formed on an idea rather than survival/necessity.
popovich said:I concede. (because it did took a lot longer, no point in arguing that)5810Singer said:Whilst I agree with what you say, I'm sure you'll concede that what you just wrote took a lot longer than: "They're arseholes..."
But ultimately "arseholes" is what you've described, wether you used the word or not.
But then again, you'll have to concede that making a post with the content no longer than "They're arseholes..."
would just make me look like an idiot that just likes to insult people, thus making himself look bad without actually
addressing the issue at hand and making his point substantiated with logic reasoning.
Also, it's easier for you to latch onto previously made arguments and just add a few insults.
c0nc0rdance said:One repeated theme observed in behavioral research is that of "inferior agent thinking". People inherently attribute their own reasons for behavior to some cerebral logic, and the motivations of the others around them as less logical, more emotional or ignorant. We're seeing that in these posts. For some reason, people who agree with a popular blogger must be doing so for fundamentalist reasons, because they could not have thought out their positions as thoroughly as "we" have thought out ours. They must be militant, or fundamentalist, or fanboys, all words that evoke a mindless subscription to a position.
I propose an alternative. Perhaps each side has clearly thought through the issues, arrived at conflicting conclusions, and now fundamentally disagree.
Just my thoughts.
And because they disagree they have carte blanche to make death threats?c0nc0rdance said:One repeated theme observed in behavioral research is that of "inferior agent thinking". People inherently attribute their own reasons for behavior to some cerebral logic, and the motivations of the others around them as less logical, more emotional or ignorant. We're seeing that in these posts. For some reason, people who agree with a popular blogger must be doing so for fundamentalist reasons, because they could not have thought out their positions as thoroughly as "we" have thought out ours. They must be militant, or fundamentalist, or fanboys, all words that evoke a mindless subscription to a position.
I propose an alternative. Perhaps each side has clearly thought through the issues, arrived at conflicting conclusions, and now fundamentally disagree.
Just my thoughts.
I'm confused by this post, as you seem to be supporting both positions. And not necessarily arguing against Squawk's article.c0nc0rdance said:One repeated theme observed in behavioral research is that of "inferior agent thinking". People inherently attribute their own reasons for behavior to some cerebral logic, and the motivations of the others around them as less logical, more emotional or ignorant. We're seeing that in these posts. For some reason, people who agree with a popular blogger must be doing so for fundamentalist reasons, because they could not have thought out their positions as thoroughly as "we" have thought out ours. They must be militant, or fundamentalist, or fanboys, all words that evoke a mindless subscription to a position.
I propose an alternative. Perhaps each side has clearly thought through the issues, arrived at conflicting conclusions, and now fundamentally disagree.
Just my thoughts.
"The proteans are the result of the DNA-RNA and cell reproduction. I thought you had a degree in this shit. You cannot refute my hypothesis of human parent of chimps. It fits all the evidence. Random is not a scientific term, because it violates the foundation of science that you supposedly use. There is only cause and result. There is no random. There is no directed either. Determinism is just more religious bullshit. There is no magical, mystical bullshit in science. Evodelusionism is bullshit. Clad is one of the spellings. Go look. Diamonds are not digestible by anything. Nylon is, because bacteria "digest" anything with digestable carbon and they also use carbon in photosynthesis. But you should know that. If it remains as bacteria, it did not evolve. I hope the lessons of your life are not too bad, that you turn all of this shit around and wake up before horrible events happens to you. When you operate out of ignorance, the results, according to science is bad. But that is the fate of deeply fearful weak and ignorant people. Ignorance is the conditions in which really bad karma (the laws of life) comes to people.
I am going to make videos about you. I am going to make you look as stupid as you are. I already have the stuff for the videos. I have a following of people who want this shit out of science. I am going to continue to mock this crap pseudo science of yours and I intend to get my law degree and sue every school that has this religious bull shit in it.
Which university did you go to. I will make that the second school I go after.
c0nc0rdance said:One repeated theme observed in behavioral research is that of "inferior agent thinking". People inherently attribute their own reasons for behavior to some cerebral logic, and the motivations of the others around them as less logical, more emotional or ignorant. We're seeing that in these posts. For some reason, people who agree with a popular blogger must be doing so for fundamentalist reasons, because they could not have thought out their positions as thoroughly as "we" have thought out ours. They must be militant, or fundamentalist, or fanboys, all words that evoke a mindless subscription to a position.
I propose an alternative. Perhaps each side has clearly thought through the issues, arrived at conflicting conclusions, and now fundamentally disagree.
I didn't think you were criticizing me, even though I wouldn't have anything against it.5810Singer said:Popovich,.....you seem to have found my previous post irksome, I really don't know why despite reading what you've just written.
Did you feel I was criticising you? I wasn't, other than in the most flippant and "not-to-be-taken-seriously" way.
As far as "latching onto previous arguments",.......the only argument I was referencing was my own from some posts previous to yours,..........I have the right to "latch on" to my own statements, wouldn't you agree?
Finally, I'm going to expand on the point I made in my previous post.
We can call these people "atheist fundamentalists", but there are problems with the accuracy of that phrase,...."militant atheists" has similar problems,....but,...."arseholes" is universally understood and accepted, and describes the demeanour and behaviour of the people we're talking about.
And,...it's actually a fundamentally more accurate description of these people and their motivations.
We aren't talking about "noble atheists who have broken under the constant strain of fighting theism",.......we're just talking about arseholes.
We're talking about the sort of people who think that everybody should agree with them, and anyone who doesn't should get stomped on,.....they're not rationalists,....and considering their fascistic attitude, they're not free-thinkers either.
You will find people like this of all religious and political types,....again it is irrational, unrealistic, unhelpul, and misleading to come up with specialised identifiers for all those people,....they ALL act like arseholes regardless of their religio-political views.
If you want to take this to the root causes of their behaviour, then the arsehole explanation is still going to beat any of the others in terms of frequency.
You have to accept that there are many unpleasant people in the world, and whatever experiences led to them being that way, they don't suffer any form of mental illness or indoctrination.
So what word do we use to identify deeply unpleasant people with no mental illness, and no doctrinal basis for their actions?
We call them arseholes.
After all the wrangling about how to describe these people I think you will find that that one simple, colloquial, easily understandable, and widely accepted word is still the best descriptor for the people we're talking about.
c0nc0rdance said:This is not my first day on the Internet, but I am still amazed at what passes as acceptable behavior on the YouTube forums. I made a video on the scientific understanding of the origin of HIV. The last eight or so commenters have all been of the "it was people humping monkeys" variety. I regularly get hate mail from AIDS denialists, creationists, and, of course, GoodScienceForYou. Here's a favorite from him:
"The proteans are the result of the DNA-RNA and cell reproduction. I thought you had a degree in this shit. You cannot refute my hypothesis of human parent of chimps. It fits all the evidence. Random is not a scientific term, because it violates the foundation of science that you supposedly use. There is only cause and result. There is no random. There is no directed either. Determinism is just more religious bullshit. There is no magical, mystical bullshit in science. Evodelusionism is bullshit. Clad is one of the spellings. Go look. Diamonds are not digestible by anything. Nylon is, because bacteria "digest" anything with digestable carbon and they also use carbon in photosynthesis. But you should know that. If it remains as bacteria, it did not evolve. I hope the lessons of your life are not too bad, that you turn all of this shit around and wake up before horrible events happens to you. When you operate out of ignorance, the results, according to science is bad. But that is the fate of deeply fearful weak and ignorant people. Ignorance is the conditions in which really bad karma (the laws of life) comes to people.
I am going to make videos about you. I am going to make you look as stupid as you are. I already have the stuff for the videos. I have a following of people who want this shit out of science. I am going to continue to mock this crap pseudo science of yours and I intend to get my law degree and sue every school that has this religious bull shit in it.
Which university did you go to. I will make that the second school I go after.