I think atheists have gotten the terms down they have reduced knowledge to one thing: atheism. If you are not an atheist you have no knowledge; even science is worthless unless it's conducted by an atheist ideologue.
Scientific methodology is not improtant. the only way to do scinece is not spout the party line of the atheist movement, being careful not to call it a movement but foment the idea that is' real diverse all the while saying nothing but the approved opinions.
There is one thing and one thing that is knowledge that is atheism's party line. But you are supposed to call it "science."
The one and only alternative to being an atheist is being a fundie.
Atheist have called me fundie. they call atheist watch fundie. they call me a fundie. so they don't know what the word means. it's come to mean something else in their parlance, it means "you are not imitated."
Atheism is a cult int he sociological sense. If you are not initiated into the cult you are an outsider and outsiders are called "fundies."
clearly being a fundie has nothing to do with holding a particular set of Christian doctrines becuase I'm obviously not a funide that my measure. The one thing that would entail is inerreancy and I don't hold to inerrancy. First they began using the term for anyone who takes any aspect of Christianity seriously, no matter how learned or liberal one is. That's enough of a departure form the real meaning of the term. Now they begin to use it it o mean anyone who is not an atheist.
That's pretty much how I define ideology: the only alternative. Not accepting it is not a valid position regardless of the details. That's the way I see them thinking all the time.
this starched because I defended the idea that Luke's geneaology is Mary's rather than Jo's. So they began saying I'm a fundie. regardless of the reasons for saying it. they just say it.
I used Alfred Edershiem as my reason for saying so
Originally Posted by backup
Hey look there was this one guy 100 years ago that I claim agrees with me.If you have done any sarong on Rabbis or had any dealings whit them (what am i saying?) you would know (something for a change) that they know the Talmudic stuff far better than non Rabbinical readers can. So for a Rabbinical trainee to say that it's far more important than just saying some guy.
Of course you leave out the fact that Edersheim just happens to be one of the greyest schoalrs of the 19th century who was a professor at both Oxford and Cambridge at the the same time! very rare and proves he was the top of the line scholar of the day.
Originally Posted by backup
you just prove I'm right. you don't give a damn abou truth, you admitted you don't. you only care what the cult tells you to say, you just said it.
"everyone says this." one knowledge, one pinon between you never mind the truth rep resat what everyone says.
14 comments:
An example of the atheist mindset is right here. This is from a link you posted on the side that says "Skeptics opening their eyes to the faults of the Atheist thing". However, when I read this, he doesn't find fault with Atheism and Scientific Reductionism, he just fell out of love with the Pseudoskeptics. Check this out, and look at his site:
http://plover.net/~bonds/nolongeraskeptic.html
Also, here is a good article from Jime on the Subversive thinking blog. He said that all the evidence for parapsychology doesn't conflict with science, but with Atheism and Naturalism, which is why that camp tries to suppress it:
http://subversivethinking.blogspot.com/2011/05/moderate-skeptic-chris-french-concedes.html
yes but I never the less like his view. I mean I agree with him that the new skeptical elite is not accomplishing anything and it jut becomes another truth regime.
Hence all of the debunking efforts put forth by those people against things like psi, remote viewing, and the afterlife.
As for Bond, he is right about the skeptical elite, but he seems too arrogant as far as Christianity is concerned.
In that article, he seemed to write it off as debunked, he said the world would be better off without religion, and he seems to refer to Christianity as a "warm blanket" for stupid people who don't want to see reality.
In my book, that view is very arrogant and ignorant.
Meta, I read this on refutation of Infidels, and I figured you would be interested. It is right up your alley as far as Genesis and creation is concerned:
http://refutationofinfidels.blog.com/2009/10/evolution-isnt-an-atheist-theory/
In this article, the author quoted Paul Willamson, who basically said that Genesis was written to give a doctrine of the creator, not of creation.
I'll check out that other deal. As for Williamson, I don't link to this blog out of admiration for his views. I just think it's funny the even their own guys are getting tired of them.
I looked at that article on evolution. It's a good one! I agree with him. I wish more people would say that: evolution is not an atheist theory. Ahteists think they own science, they see science as the enforcement mechanism of atheism.
Too many Christians are willing to let them have it.
I also found another article about Evolution and Genesis on a link from that article. It makes pretty good sense:
http://www.oldearth.org/evolution_bible.htm
thanks man I appreciate it. hey email me at metacrock@aol.com?
I would like to exchange private email.
I sent a message to your e-mail.
thanks
If I'm understanding you post correctly, I think the reason you are being called a "fundie" is because some of your views are similar to those of fundamentalist Christians. For those not versed in the various different types of Christian, the specifics of your beliefs may not distinguish you as much as you think. I very much doubt that the majority of atheists - or even the majority of Christians - have any idea of what a "Moltmannian view of Atonement" is.
As for why they would jump to such a snap judgement - well, from the header of the blog, it's very easy to get the impression that you are calling all atheists a "hate group", something that will clearly generate a negative reaction.
First of all that is on message board and most of them have never seen this blog.
Secondly, it's obvoiusly they are not careful, thoughtful, or interested in getting it right.
what's the difference in labeling everyone withe views on the surface a certain way and not caring to understand the differences? Either way it's still bigotry. For them that term is not about a set of theological propositions it's the like the N word it's something to call those you hate.
as for distinguishing the hate group segment from other atheists I've done that plenty of times. several atheists told me it doesn't matter, if I say any antsiest is hateful then I'm hateful. I think that is a totally irresponsible position.
I don't think most atheists care weather I qualify it or not.
It may be that many of them genuinely don't care about getting it right - after all, from a position of non-belief, many theological positions can appear extremely similar. Can you tell me what differentiates Sunni and Shia Islam? I certainly can't, without reaching for Wikipedia.
I think the binary view that you are attributing to some atheists (I am presuming you are referring to some atheists and not all atheists) is nonetheless inaccurate, as there are moderate branches of Christianity that do not subscribe to many of the tenets that more conservative forms of Christianity adhere to, notably the notion that evolution is false in some way.
Most atheists will be able to (and choose to) distinguish between moderate and more conservative brands of religion - although there are exceptions to every rule, and some atheists probably lump them in all together out of ignorance or due to some philosophical position or other.
Basically, what I'm saying is that I think you should qualify your statements when you say "atheists", generally speaking. Without qualification, it reads as if you are referring to all atheists, rendering statements such as "Ahteists think they own science, they see science as the enforcement mechanism of atheism" extremely problematic - many atheists work in scientific fields alongside religious scientists, and have no such illusions that science is limited only to those without faith.
It may be that many of them genuinely don't care about getting it right - after all, from a position of non-belief, many theological positions can appear extremely similar. Can you tell me what differentiates Sunni and Shia Islam? I certainly can't, without reaching for Wikipedia.
yes actually I can. One group followed Mohamed's family as the heirs to his authority the other followed his second in command. Just like the split in the Mormons.
I think the binary view that you are attributing to some atheists (I am presuming you are referring to some atheists and not all atheists) is nonetheless inaccurate, as there are moderate branches of Christianity that do not subscribe to many of the tenets that more conservative forms of Christianity adhere to, notably the notion that evolution is false in some way.
so because there are moderate Christians it's incriminate to say there moderate atheist? what? Argument from analogy is not proof of anything, Christians and atheists are perfectly analogous.
Most atheists will be able to (and choose to) distinguish between moderate and more conservative brands of religion - although there are exceptions to every rule, and some atheists probably lump them in all together out of ignorance or due to some philosophical position or other.
I think the people who call me a fundie are able to distinguish. they don't care. they are not interested in accuracy they just want something insulting to call me.
Basically, what I'm saying is that I think you should qualify your statements when you say "atheists", generally speaking.
I do. anyone can see I say "the hate group segment." how could it be a segment and refer to all atheist?
Without qualification, it reads as if you are referring to all atheists, rendering statements such as "Ahteists think they own science, they see science as the enforcement mechanism of atheism" extremely problematic - many atheists work in scientific fields alongside religious scientists, and have no such illusions that science is limited only to those without faith.
If you are willing to look you can see the qualifications all over the place.
all atheist should be ablet o understand that fudnies are the extremely version and there are liberals, moderates and even conservatives who are not fundies. that's not hard to understand. they should know that inerrant and creationism are traits of fundies. when I tell them I'm not a creationist and I don't believe in incoherency that should be enough for the see I'm not a fundie. period. end of discussion.
the fact that they don't see it means they don't care. those who don't care (not all of them but those who don't) are not interested in truth they are interested in hurting opponents.
Post a Comment