It's common knowledge.
It's untrue in every sense of the word and in direct opposition to your own definition. Continually trying to re-define a word doesn't make it so.
Shark Evolution
by metatron 135 Replies latest jw friends
-
Viviane
-
Vidiot
snare&racket - "A fundametalist atheist....REALLY doesn't believe in god..."
Hmm.
If a fundamentalist evangelical is a "fundagelical", would a fundamentalist atheist be a "fundamatheist"?
-
KateWild
Lol Vidiot!! Well done they're all fundies. Kate xx
-
Vidiot
I'm a fundamentalist agnostic!
And anybody who doesn't share my beliefs is never gonna go to hell!!!
-
Apognophos
Viviane, my dictionary defines fundamentalism as both a type of religious conviction and also in a more general way:
strict adherence to the basic principles of any subject or discipline
According to that definition, anyone who is sufficiently confident in their worldview is a fundamentalist. You might ask how it is that anyone could not be a fundamentalist according to this definition. I believe the implication is that one who adheres strictly to any principles is overlooking other principles. In other words the implication is one of narrow-mindedness. For example, when someone like Hitchens argues that religion is worthless and harmful, he is being fundamentalist because he is only looking at one side of the equation. Religion encourages comradeship and compassionate acts even though it also causes xenophobia and war. It's the narrow-mindedness or myopia that marks someone as a fundamentalist.
-
Viviane
Viviane, my dictionary defines fundamentalism as both a type of religious conviction and also in a more general way:
Exactly! I pointed that out much earlier and posed the very salient question of why are others in the sciences also refered to as fundamentalist? There seems to be a bit of a double standard as I showed and I appreciate you also helping me to show that.
The other interesting bit, given that definition, is that Dawkins is simultaneously accused of being a bad scientist, meaning he wouldn't be holding to the fundamental princicples of science and therefore NOT a fundamentalist whilst simultaneously being accused of being an excellent scientist, be definition holding to the fundamental princicples of science, sometimes by the same person.
As you said, you can't have your cake and eat it, too.
I believe the implication is that one who adheres strictly to any principles is overlooking other principles.
Slow down there, cowboy. You can't use the dictionary for a definition and then decide to modify it to mean something else if you want the dictionary version to carry any weight. You're undermining the very thing you are depending on to carry the weight of your modification. As you said, you can't have your cake and eat it, too.
-
frankiespeakin
You guys are fighting about word definitions that's a no no in Pauls book, jehovah our mascot don't like it when you think and then you argue and debate it takes away from those that claim religious authority over your mind. The Faithful need to march in lock step with perfect timing just like Hitler's soldiers fighting for God and country right or wrong.:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xcz-Oho0tlU
http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/w20140715/jehovahs-people-renounce-unrighteousness/
“REJECT FOOLISH AND IGNORANT DEBATES”
9. How did “foolish and ignorant debates” affect the early Christian congregation?
9 God’s Word gives specific advice concerning the types of unrighteousness that Christians must renounce or reject. For instance, in the immediate context of 2 Timothy 2:19, we find that Paul tells Timothy “not to fight about words” and to “reject empty speeches.”(Read 2 Timothy 2:14,16,23.) Some members of the congregation were promoting apostate teachings. Also, it appears that others were introducing controversial ideas. Even if the latter were not directly unscriptural, they were divisive. They resulted in bickering and arguing over words, creating a spiritually unhealthy atmosphere. Hence, Paul stressed the need to “reject foolish and ignorant debates.”
10. How should we respond when confronted with apostasy?
10 Today, Jehovah’s people are not often confronted with apostasy within the congregation. Still, when exposed to unscriptural teachings, regardless of the source, we must decisively reject them. It would be unwise to engage in debates with apostates, whether in person, by responding to their blogs, or by any other form of communication. Even when the intention is to help the individual, such conversation would be contrary to the Scriptural direction we just considered. Rather, as Jehovah’s people, we completely avoid, yes reject, apostasy.
-
rocketman
So let's summarize:
Cofty was called Coffy, but issued a correction. But perhaps this Coffy will convey an advantage and eventually appear elsewhere on this board in the future.
In fact, I put forth that in the future, Coffy will be called Coffe, and eventually, Coffee, with the obvious survival advantage of reminding us all of a aromatic beverage that many of us like to consume.
Evolution, explained!
I'm just playing around.
I find this thread very interesting, with many fine posts by Satanus, Ruby,OldHippie, Snare&Racket, and Coffy.
-
cofty
I have never been coffy or any other name. I have only ever posted here as Cofty.
-
snare&racket
fundementalism is a religious definition..... if you want to bastardise the word and say it applies to anyone vigourously defending a belief, how on earth does it apply to a population who DON'T believe? Evidence is all atheists have in common and all they go on, how can someome be vigorous FOR evidence?
It is a cheap attempt to make non belief a religion, a poor attempt to make it appear a 50/50 scenario, it makes believers feel better, atheism is just another opinion, just another belief system. I don't care if people want to spend their life thinking that.... but it's ignorant.
Tell you who are the worst fundementalists, non believers in Santa, they even tell their kids! Why not just let everyone believe in him, it makes people happy and it gives us a great tradition! ohhh those damn asantaists! Vigorous non believers who wont had it said santa exists. Well I say the greatest trick santa has every pulled is making us think he doesn't exist!