Raise your hand...

[TZ]

If you are a militant fundamentalist atheist who wants to destroy all religion, and kill believers in the name of your atheistic ferver! Cause you know, thats the majority view of atheists on this board.:banghead:
You know, from what people in R/T say sometimes, you would think that it was ATHEISTS who dominated this country and are the biggest threat to civil liberties. Amazing how often some people here (even some self professed "atheists") believe the fundie/RW propaganda.

[trotsky]

1. Been down that road before.

SCLB ("so-called liberal believers" as I think I might begin to call them) seem to relish the chance to pounce on "fundamentalist atheists," who of course are merely the atheists who announce their atheism, defend it on a message board, or simply fail to refer to religion in less-than-glowing terms.

But then of course the real religious fundie will wander in, and not a goddamn one will bother to confront him. No, they clearly don't want to engage their "brother in Christ", they save their special outrage for the non-believers.

[uberllama42]

2. It's amazing that the ad hom thread had no impact on any of the usual suspects

All it did was demonstrate that the definition of "fundie atheist" is completely arbitrary and liquid. It' just a shorthand for an aggressive critic of religion.

Here's a question: has anybody, any R/T atheist, ever called for all religious people to be violently eradicated? I'm sure that would get yanked, so I wouldn't expect there to be an example available, but then again I don't buy the assertion that it's ever been said.

[TZ]

3. Thats what REALLY pisses me off.

I don't think I've seen any atheist compared any of the believers here to the people who have done terrible things in the name of religion, but ALWAYS, ALWAYS we "fundamentalist atheists" get compared to Mao, Stalin and Hitler (even though he wasn't technically an atheist).
They can't even seem to understand that they are parroting RW tripe about atheists having NO morals and therefore are "dangerous".

[HamdenRice]

4. I'm an atheist, but I'm tolerant of agnostics and tolerant religious people

And I do accept the fact that there are "fundamentalist atheists."

[TZ]

5. and whom are those?

People like Dawkins who like to actually talk about WHY they are atheists and why they are mistrustful of religion and think its dangerous?
IMO--fundamentalist atheist=anyone who dares criticize religion.
I have problems with "liberals" who echo statements made by people like Pat Robertson, James Dobson and Joe Libermann, just to name a few!

[trotsky]

6. Name some on DU.

Go ahead. Put your cards on the table.

All you appear to want to do is antagonize atheists & other non-believers whom you don't like.

[HamdenRice]

7. This isn't about name calling but the existence of a phenomenon

Here is a perspective from someone who isn't one of the "regulars" on the Religion and Theology Forum:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=171766&mesg_id=171796

But if you insist that I name at least one person, then DUer trosky is a fundamentalist atheist -- but we've gone through all that before, and you know my arguments.

My goal is not to antagonize anyone. My goal is to have a forum where relgion and theology can be discussed without the bizarre fundamentalist atheist reactions that ironbark points out always occur on the R/T Forum in the above cited link.

Maybe if the fundie atheists accepted how disruptive their behavior was to rational, thoughtful discussion, we could have a functional R/T Forum.

[TZ]

10. You think TROTSKY is disruptive to rational thoughtful discussion .?!.

He's one of the smartest and most rational people on this board!!
OMG--Pot meet Kettle.....:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[HamdenRice]

11. "No, you are"

is not a rational response. We've gone down this whole debate before and we are not going to change each other's opinions.

But to put it briefly, the term "fundamentalism" is used in contexts other than religion, such as "free market fundamentalism"; it describes certain habits of thought; those habits of thought are on display by many atheists in the R/T Forum.

Beyond that, this debate always devolves into, "no, you are," "no, you are," "no, you are..." and you've just tried to go down that useless route.

[Warpy]

13. The fundamentals of the free market are written and well known

Where, pray tell, might we find the hallowed atheist texts?

Face it, your favorite phrase is just more flame-throwing that has no meaning outside of one that is meant to be as insulting as possible.

Screw it and the ass it rode in on.

[HamdenRice]

19. "meant to be as insulting as possible"

So you are a mind reader. I thought that you do not believe in the supernatural.

[trotsky]

21. Answer her question.

Where, pray tell, might we find the hallowed atheist texts?

[HamdenRice]

22. Straw man question

and a not very useful or penetrating question at that. While one aspect of Protestant Fundamentalism has to do with a belief in the literal inerrancy of a holy text, fundamentalism in general does not need a hallowed text.

Therefore the question is just not worth answering and you are wasting your time "demanding" an answer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism#Later_usage

"The term fundamentalist has since been generalized to mean strong adherence to any set of beliefs in the face of criticism or unpopularity, but has by and large retained religious connotations..."

"Some refer to any literal-minded philosophy with pretense of being the sole source of objective truth, as fundamentalist, regardless of whether it is usually called a religion..."

[trotsky]

23. LMAO

Congratulations, now everyone is a fundamentalist!

strong adherence to any set of beliefs in the face of criticism or unpopularity

All Democrats would be fundamentalists, according to your watered-down, bastardized definition of the word. Hell, the Christians persecuted by the Russian Communists were fundamentalists, since they certainly faced criticism and unpopularity by adhering to their beliefs, didn't they?

Excellent, you've done all the work of demolishing your position yourself. Thanks for saving me the effort!
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[HamdenRice]

24. You should try to read the entirety of the TWO sentences

You can do that, right?

I wouldn't even ask that you do the hard work of clicking on the link and reading the article.

[trotsky]

25. Your second sentence has nothing to do with atheism

so I ignored it.

Thanks, again, for arguing yourself into a pulp.

[HamdenRice]

26. Ignoring facts and arguments that conflict with your world view ...hmmmm

now where else have we seen that behavior ...

(Hint: it's the way certain groups deal with the theory of evolution.)

And your exceptionally silly comments about "arguing myself into a pulp" convinces absolutely no one. It's your sad little way of trying to "win" by saying "I win." It's about as effective as this:

[trotsky]

42. Posting pictures of yourself doesn't bolster your argument.

You have yet to link any of the verbiage you associate with "fundamentalism" to atheism.

[TZ]

14. Yeah right.

I'm in the sciences and I have NEVER heard the term fundamentalism applied to ANYTHING but religous folk. Although I hear people outside it use the equally ignorant term scientific fundamentalist.
Fundamentalist is used as an ad hominem when one side of a debate has no rational response or cannot comprehend the other argument. Its intellectually lazy and the message board equivalent of the old Johnny Cochran technique of using tactics that distract and cloud the issue. In other words using the term is the equivalent of Johnny Cochran saying "if it doesn't fit...you must acquit". Sounds nice but is ultimately a shell game..a distraction from the truth. And a major cop out for believers who can't bear to hear ANY criticism leveled at their beleifs.

[HamdenRice]

18. "NEVER heard the term fundamentalism applied to ANYTHING but religous folk"?

Then I can only conclude you are not well read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_fundamentalism

http://www.davidsirota.com/index.php/where-economics-meets-religious-fundamentalism/

"Unfortunately, faith-based fundamentalism is not the exclusive domain of terrorists. Some fundamentalists operate in the legitimate, nonviolent world of American politics where they wear suits, appear on television and are venerated as geniuses. Their religion is called “free” trade, which they zealously insist will lead America to economic nirvana. Yet, like other fundamentalists, their proselytizing does not rest on logical proof or material evidence, and their vision is apocalyptic, at least for most Americans’ economic future."

[TZ]

35. No. I just live in the RATIONAL world.

Even some of the more dogmatic folk I've tangled with have NEVER EVER used that term (nor have my "allies". Fundamentalist biologist! Fundamentalist chemist! Fundamentalist vaccinologist!
See how ridiculous that term is, in the scientific world?

[struggle4progress]

98. Googling "free market fundamentalist" or "Marxist-Leninist fundamentalism" generates hits

[greyl]

90. They say the same ridiculous thing about people with science, engineering, and critical thinking

backgrounds in the 9/11 Forum. Debunking shoddy arguments and bad science sure does bring the level of discussion down on a progressive board, doesn't it? If HamdenRice was a Dictator to these forums, everything would be fine.

[trotsky]

16. About what I expected from you.

My goal is not to antagonize anyone.

Bullshit. You relish it. You relish it so much you can't even spell your target's screen name correctly.

My goal is to have a forum where relgion and theology can be discussed without the bizarre fundamentalist atheist reactions that ironbark points out always occur on the R/T Forum in the above cited link.

That's ironbark's personal take on an event. Do you happen to have an actual link to the exchange so his version of it can be verified?

Maybe if the fundie atheists accepted how disruptive their behavior was to rational, thoughtful discussion, we could have a functional R/T Forum.

And maybe if the folks who rabidly try to censor negative comments about religion could refrain from throwing the oxymoron "fundie atheist" around as a way of doing it, they might just help make their case. But no, they'd rather fan the flames of ill will and keep the hostility going. Good job!

Finally, perhaps you could provide just a thread of a valid comparison between criticizing religion on a public Internet board, and slaughtering believers in Communist Russia. I mean, really. :eyes:

[Meshuga]

27. Bullshit

Your goal is to antagonize otherwise you would not insist with the ad hominem attacks and you would start discussing Religion and Theology in that forum for a change.

You can continue with what you are doing as long as it floats your boat. But at least cut the bullshit.

[HamdenRice]

29. More mindreaders!

Another mindreader who knows what my goals are. So many of these people seem not to be able to grasp that "fundamentalist atheist" is not an ad hom attack; it's a description, like "free market fundamentalist."

The fact this concept challenges the thinking of some atheists who cannot grasp the concept that there is such a thing and don't want to acknowledge it, should not be equated to ad hom, or insults or attacks.

It reminds me of the time I tried to explain to a Republican and Bush fan that Bush was fiscally irresponsible and therefore not fiscally conservative. She took it as a personal insult because it challenged her belief system and self-identification as a "fiscal conservative."

Sorry, but I'm not going to conceal a truthful insight as I see it because it makes people think thoughts that they don't want to think. If they don't want to think those thoughts, they shouldn't read my posts.

But outside this little clique on R/T, the overwhelming majority of DUers who have expressed an opinion on this matter seem to agree that there is a fundamentalist atheist clique on this forum who have pretty much ruined it for actual discussion of "Religion and Theology" through their intolerance.

[uberllama42]

31. Did you read the whole wiki article you posted?

"Free market fundamentalist" is a derogatory term popularized by George Soros ten years ago. He began using it precisely because of its pejorative nature. If you are looking for an application of "fundamentalist" that is objective and descriptive, keep trying.

And what's this supposed consensus among other DUers that we are fundies? Did you take a poll?

[Meshuga]

33. It's not a matter of mind reading

I wish I could read minds but in this case I can fall back on your record here in DU. It is amazing the amount of flame wars you involve yourself in these boards. You can't blame anybody but yourself if others come to the conclusion that your goal is to antagonize and get into flame wars.

Do you think your posts help improve the level of discussion in the R/T forum?

It's one thing if you were trying to challenge posts and ideas but, instead, you are using labels with intentions to attack people personally. I know you have the amazing ability to bullshit yourself but you cannot bullshit me into thinking that your intentions are not to insult and attack others.

[TZ]

37. amazing isn't it...

That whereever Hamdenrice goes be it R/T or here a flame war breaks out..hmm. I know WE are all Fundamentalist atheists, even you, a good Jew!:rofl:

[HamdenRice]

38. Yes, whenever ...

I or anyone else dares confront the self-appointed fundamentalist "forum masters," a flame war breaks out.

I know -- you guys like this place quiet, censored and unsafe for any theological discussion or any questioning of whether atheists can be fundamentalist.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[cosmik debris]

39. By your own admission your results are the opposite of your intent

"...I or anyone else dares confront the self-appointed fundamentalist "forum masters," a flame war breaks out."

You have prior knowledge of the expected outcome, yet you pretend that it is not your intent to achieve that outcome.

It's as if you jump up in the air and pretend that your intent is not to fall back down.

How stupid is that?

[HamdenRice]

40. You have no insight into yourself

How many times have you fundie atheists used insults in these threads? Who caused the flame war?

I simply stated challenging ideas. You guys respond with words like "stupid". I realize that challenging ideas are dangerous, scary, unsettling -- even hurtful to you (just as evolution may be scary and unsettling to a fundamentalist Christian).

But that's because of how you feel about those ideas, not how those ideas were intended. You don't seem capable of understanding the dynamic of your own role in these discussions.

You are also engaging in the logical error of the "fallacy of composition." You are assuming that everyone on R/T is the same -- extrapolating from your own sadly very limited experience and understanding. Perhaps the forum becomes too challenging for you to feel comfortable. But for others, these challenging discussions open a space for rational discussion about other topics. That's what has happened in the past.

In other words, it's a way of loosening the grip of the self appointed "forum masters" for a bit. We'll see if some new discussion emerges as it has in the past. That would be a good goal. Your being scared and unsettled is just an unfortunate by product -- but that emerges from your own insecurities and you can't blame anyone but yourself for your own feelings about ideas that are scary to you.

Hope this helps!

[cosmik debris]

41. So it is your intent to achieve the opposite of your intent?

Now I'm really confused.

Fact: You stated that it is not your intent to antagonize.

Fact: You stated that you do, in fact antagonize.

Fact: You stated that it is your intent to create a forum for discussion.

Fact: You stated that your posts result in flame wars.

And now you seem to want to blame everyone else but yourself.

It doesn't take a genius to see that you are accomplishing the exact opposite of your stated goals. And you know that based on your statements of admission in this thread.

So, either you are blowing smoke about your goals, or you are completely inept at achieving those goals.

QED!

[HamdenRice]

44. All of your "facts" are wrong

Your interpretation of the "facts" may be a problem with cognitive dissonance. It may be a problem with reading comprehension. Or it may be a problem with wish fulfillment.

It is not my intent to antagonize anyone -- not even you. But if you become scared, unsettled, or depressed (different from antagonized) by challening ideas, that's entirely your fault. That would be the result of an extremely under-developed sense of self, and uncertainty about one's world view, and vulnerability to logical, challenging ideas on your part -- not the result of having been antagonized by anyone.

My posts do not "result" in flame wars except to the extent that I post logical, non-inflammatory, challenging ideas, and as a result of the exceptionally fragile coherence of your intellectual framework, your only response is to throw insults.

I cannot be responsible for your starting flame wars, anymore than I can be responsible for a Christian fundamentalist going home to beat his wife because I mentioned the concept of evolution on the street.

[cosmik debris]

45. Too late, you already stuck your dick in the fan

You have contradicted yourself and now you have no argument but to blame others.

Your posts antagonize and disrupt. That seems obvious even to you.

Blaming others for your ineptitude is just an admission that you have failed to achieve your stated goals.

Do you have a better plan or will you continue to fail?

[HamdenRice]

46. How colorful your language is!

Too bad that language reveals an absolute lack of ideas, logic or truthful content.

While slightly amusing, debating you is always just a tad sad, because it reminds me that there are indeed minds that operate at the level of, say, the 24% of the population that can still rationalize supporting George W. Bush.

Usually I can't fathom that level of ignorance and illogic, but whenever we have these little talks, I'm a bit despirited to learn how such minds operate and that, yes, they do indeed exist.

[cosmik debris]

47. Again, it is always some one else's fault

You got caught contradicting yourself and you want to blame every one else.

Your posts are antagonistic.

Your posts are disruptive.

Either that is your intent, or you are inept.

[HamdenRice]

49. got caught?

antagonistic?

These things exist only in your mind. As I stated before, they are the result of cognitive dissonance, self-delusion, or wish fulfillment, but your pretending that you have demonstrated anything is shifting from the mildly amusing to the disturbing: are you sure you're cognitively OK?

[cosmik debris]

51. You keep saying it is someone else's fault

But you admitted that the results of your post are antagonism and disruption.

If that is not the intent, it is evidence of ineptitude.

How are things in Montana?

[HamdenRice]

53. I feel sorry for you

I am embarassed for you. I really, really am.

You seem not to understand the simplist concepts that I've tried to sketch out in a way that even the most limited intellect could grasp.

I'll try one more: I posted challenging ideas. Because of your severe cognitive and intellectual limitations, you have gone ballistic and are in a one-sided flame war.

That is not me antagonizing anyone or starting a flame war.

Sorry, you lose. And sorry you can't grasp these simple concepts.

[cosmik debris]

58. Your sympathy doesn't help your argument.

You have done yourself in by claiming to want one thing and working toward another.

And you crossed the line from pathetic to comical when you tried to blame the rest of the world for your screw up.

Boo Hoo, everybody is out to get you. Nobody understands you.

That used to be sad, now it's just funny.

[HamdenRice]

94. You never answered that question about your education

Really, it might help us understand your "limitations."

[cosmik debris]

96. You seem desperate

Have you run out of insults?

Has your desire to antagonize and disrupt been led you to this point of desperation.

Why do you feel so compelled to make enemies. Are you afraid of intimacy?

[cosmik debris]

48. I found out that HR lives in Montana

http://fwp.mt.gov/fishing/guide/q_Bloody_Dick_Creek__1132336450137.aspx

[TZ]

50. hehe.

You know, he kind of reminds me of Wil E Coyote..Don't light that match!;-) :rofl:

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TZ]

57. I bet he does.

I get along with people great in IRL btb and I'm a pretty good judge of character. CD is intelligent, funny and likes a good argument and argues politely IF YOU ARGUE COGENTLY. If you don't he does the humor thing and he's EXCELLENT with it.

[HamdenRice]

59. Because it seems to me ...

that some of the least socialized participants on internet forums often have hostile relations with family and unstable capacities to get along with co-workers.

Have you found that to be true in general?

[cosmik debris]

61. If that is true,

You probably couldn't get laid with $100 bill in a crack house.

[HamdenRice]

64. Is this an argument?

Again, I just have to comment, there seems to be something wrong with you. I wish I could see your educational or personnel file to figure out "what when wrong."

Is it endogenous? Was there something missing in your education/experience? What is it that causes someone to collapse into the kind of expression that you always collapse into.

I'm genuinely curious. If you have any insight into the causes of your cognitive deficiencies, it would be really interesting for you to share it.

[cosmik debris]

68. Argument? the argument was over a long time ago

You demonstrated unequivocally that you are either inept or malicious.

Nope, the argument is long since over. I'm just pointing out the jokes now.

[TZ]

63. Well, lets see...

I've now met a who truck load of DU'ers including Lydia Leftcoast from R/T and none of them struck me as having inadeguate social skills. Then there is Lizerdbits who I actually roomed with (and has VERY similar views to me) and shes a great friend and gets along great with family.
I suspect you have a very different view of what "unsocialized on the net is".
CD actually reminds me of my old boss at NIH whom I adored..he didn't suffer fools gladly either. And the fools (lazy and incompetant and dishonest..not you but some former colleages) all thought he was rude and a bully, while the rational people who did their jobs well loved him to death.

[HamdenRice]

66. I'm trying to understand the relationship between

rage on the net and rage in real life. Like a person who cuts himself off from his family in a rage might do similar things basically to unknown strangers online.

Do you think that might be something to think about?

[cosmik debris]

69. Well, if you are trying to get my sympathy, it won't work.

You may have more enemies than you have hairs on you ass, but that's your fault not mine.

[TZ]

73. *snerk*

You ARE funny. And my old boss would LOVE you...:)

[trotsky]

72. Did you cut yourself off from your family, HamdenRage?

Does that explain all of this?

[cosmik debris]

77. He can't get a lap dance at a strip joint

without using an alias.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[trotsky]

95. Why would I need to go there?

I'm not the one with rage issues, repeatedly insulting a group of people with a term they don't like and one which isn't even logically coherent anyway. You claim to despise the conflict, yet you stoke it and feed it. And then you level mental health accusations. What kind of example are you trying to set? When are you going to act better than that which you claim to hate? Why are you acting even worse than the "atheist fundamentalists" you claim are ruining everything?

[HamdenRice]

52. And this is an argument?

You are really looking exceptionally foolish at this point. Don't you think it's time to give it up? You're not making any sense at all. I mean, not even making the occasional appearance of sense that perhaps in the past you were able to pull off.

[cosmik debris]

54. I'm having fun at your expense.

You are trying sooooo hard to blame every one else for your own ineptitude that I can't help but laugh! You are becoming a comic staple in this forum.

[HamdenRice]

56. This is your idea of fun? Can I ask you a somewhat personal question?

about your education -- I'm just curious about the level of it. I have some concerns about whether high school and college students are mastering basic critical thinking and when I come across an "outlier" in terms of reasoning ability I'm always curious about its correlation to education.

There's just something so off in the way you express yourself -- like there's definitely something wrong, something deficient there, and I'm curious what it is.

[cosmik debris]

60. The only deficiency here is your humility.

You have been shown to be either a bullshitter or an incompetent rube.

When you get over yourself and realize that you are the problem, not the solution, things will improve.

[HamdenRice]

62. What is your profanity count up to in this thread?

The use of profanity (I've used none in this thread) is an index of general articulateness, isn't it?

People who get "confused" and angry often lash out with inarticulate "curse words." Can you see that in your posts here?

Do you have any plan to improve that aspect of yourself?

[cosmik debris]

65. Still blaming everyone else!

It has to be someone's fault and you are never to blame.

Just because you don't like my jokes doesn't mean that they are not funny.

And don't count Bloody Dick Creek as a dirty joke. It is a real place.

[HamdenRice]

67. Actually if no one laughs at your jokes...

by definition they are not funny.

As for blame, you are the only one trying -- badly, deficiently -- trying to place some sort of blame.

[cosmik debris]

70. I get my share of laughs

And you get more than your share of Boos.

[HamdenRice]

92. Only from your little support group

of fundie atheists.

As for me, aside from your little support group's sad little Bronx cheers, I often get a hundred or so recs and a few thousand hits to my numerous posts that have risen to the top or near the top of the Greatest Page.

Btw, I don't seem to recall ever seeing your posts on the Greatest Page. Now, why is that if you're so clever?

Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm getting the impression that you have nothing important or interesting to say to the general DU public.

[Goblinmonger]

99. OK, I would like

to see a link to some of your posts on R/T that get a hundred or so recs. Or are these threads of which you speak not religious in nature. I actually noticed that your most recent R/T post has been locked because of being flamebait (not because it was against the rules to bring up new group/forum ideas like that which is the reason many posts of that nature get locked).

[TZ]

74. Why do you think nobody laughs at his jokes?

He has done his share of entertaining people here and Skeptics and in health! Just because YOU don't find him funny, doesn't mean he is not.
That being said, I think I will just take a seat and watch..
:popcorn:

[uberllama42]

82. cd is the funniest poster I know on DU

The fact that you can't see it is your fault, not his. And yes, I have laughed even on the occasions when he has said nasty (but very, very funny) things to me.

[cosmik debris]

83. Well, to you I apologize

Because it is obvious you are not a Big Hole

http://www.nps.gov/biho/

(uncomfortably near the Bloody Dick Creek)

You can't make this stuff up!

[uberllama42]

84. Don't worry about it

I don't even remember what it was about, and chances are I was wrong anyway.

On another note, who named these places? I have no doubt prospectors and hardy frontier folk would not be squeamish about names like that, but wasn't there some prude in an office somewhere along the way who could make the maps all clean and wholesome?

[cosmik debris]

85. I have no idea

But to continue with the theme of dirty place names, did you know that the USA is the only country with a national park named for big tits?

http://www.nationalparkreservations.com/grandteton.htm

Just to follow up on HR's question, I have a degree in scatological humor from the College of Hard Knockers at the University of Titicaca. That's why I'm so anti-social.

[uberllama42]

88. I was thinking about the Grand Tetons when you first mentioned Bloody Dick

That's what got me thinking about frontier guys and their dirty minds. You have to be pretty fucking lonely to think those mountains look like breasts.

[cosmik debris]

89. You have to see them from the west looking east

Grand Teton does indeed look like a big breast.

I recommend the view from Driggs, Idaho.

If you are there in August you can attend the Grand Targhee Bluegrass Festival on the west side of the Teton range.

Bela Fleck will be there this year along with Tony Trischka's Double Banjo Bluegrass Spectacular. If gas is less than $5 a gallon, I'll be there. Shall I save you a camp site?

[TZ]

43. Yes, of course I *am* the forum master of R/T!

and I insult and put down all the beleivers in there. You might want to ask Lydia Leftcoast and temeah, two R/T posters AND friends of mine about my intolerance for believers....
Keep digging that hole HR...:rofl:

[Meshuga]

78. But it is not his fault

It is due to everyone else's inability not to respond to his insults.

[muriel_volestrangler]

91. Your own definition of 'fundamentalist' is 'narrow-minded and intolerant'

Of course that's an ad hom attack. What's more, you've said it applies to the majority of atheists in R&T; and you've now used it about one member in particular. You're attaching pejorative descriptions to people, rather than discussing a particular argument than anyone has put forth.

It's possible that other people don't mean 'fundamentalist atheist' as an ad hominem - they may think there are some basic beliefs that the people who they call 'fundamentalist atheists' are saying must be adhered to by any atheist. I'd say they're wrong, but it wouldn't have to be an attack. Your definition on the other hand, that you've made public, means you're attacking the people you apply it to, every time you use it.

[cosmik debris]

28. "My goal is not to antagonize anyone."

And yet you antagonize almost everyone here.

Are you bright enough to figure that out?

Why are your results so antithetical to your objectives?

How does being an insulting prick promote your goals?

[HamdenRice]

30. See post 29

But I have to add, it is utterly, hysterically hilarious that someone as intolerant and insulting as you should have such concern about my "antagonizing" anyone!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[cosmik debris]

32. But why are you such a miserable failure at your stated goals?

And why do you consistently achieve goals that are the opposite of your stated goals?

It's as if I poked you in the eye with a sharp stick and then said that I wasn't trying to cause blindness.

You always seem to achieve the opposite of your intent. Why is that? Is it the fault of everyone else? Are we all out to get you? Is that it?

[HamdenRice]

34. Counter-factual premise

What makes you think I have not achieved my goal? Of course, none of the fundie atheists are going to change their views -- heck, they're/you're fundamentalists. I cannot convince you of how rude, obnoxious and counter productive you are as an atheist, but I can and have successfully challenged your thinking. Just as when a religious zealot first confronts the idea that there might not be a god, the first reaction is emotional -- lashing out. I see that with you and other fundie atheists here, so perhaps there is a start being made.

But I, like many others, have pointed out that this problem is confined to a little intolerant clique, and that awareness is helping define and isolate the problem.

It's you who are not achieving your goal -- which is to completely shut down discussion, censor criticism of the fundie atheist tendency and completely wreck the R/T Forum.

[cosmik debris]

36. You didn't answer. Why are your results the opposite of your intent?

You say that you don't intend to antagonize, but you consistently antagonize.

You say that you want a forum for discussion, but you consistently disrupt that forum by antagonizing people.

You consistently achieve the opposite of your stated intent. And now you want to blame everybody but yourself?

And, ironically enough, you have become the mind reader telling me what my goals are.

I hope you didn't hurt yourself with that sudden twist.

[John Gauger]

100. "you're fundamentalists"

Who here is a fundamentalist? Am I one? I'd really like to know. You don't have to be afraid of calling me such. It's not against the rules, and hell, you've shown that you are not afraid to break the rules of this board. So if I am one, I'd like to know so I can discuss the matter. See, you keep making these accusations about people being closed-minded, intolerant, bigoted, and trying to shut down rational discussion. But you aren't giving any examples. Who is these things, and when? Is this an accusation against me? I would genuinely like to attempt to rectify my behavior if so.

You know what might help? If you defined "fundamentalist atheist." I've been combing through your posts, but I can't seem to find any definition of what a fundamentalist atheist is (maybe it was in one of your posts that got deleted.) I think the best way to alleviate the problem is to first have our definitions understood and then to discuss specific instances of the behavior you have judged unacceptable.

[YankeyMCC]

9. It's a nonsense term

it's impossible to be an fundamental atheist. There is no book of atheist principals or beliefs to attempt to judge and impose on others.

There are outspoken atheists

There are atheists who lack tack

There are atheists that are jerks

In short there is a whole range of humans that are atheists just as there is the full range among theists.

But atheists as a group have nothing to be 'fundamentalist' about. They might hold to other ideologies, communism, flying-spaghettism, that they take fundamentalist positions on but atheist fundamentalist is a nonsense term and an attempt by right wing religious fundamentalist to reframe the argument and ferment dissent among atheists themselves, create division between liberal theists and atheists and divisions with humanists etc...

[HamdenRice]

12. No, it isn't

See post 11 and google Yemelyan Yaroslavsky for one instance. Remember, you are saying atheist fundamentalism can't exist. Any one counter example proves you wrong.

[YankeyMCC]

15. That post does not address my point at all

I didn't say fundamentalism only applies to religion. You need to answer Warpy's question of where the atheist texts are.

[onager]

17. Are you under the impression this is a freshman logic class?

Remember, you are saying atheist fundamentalism can't exist. Any one counter example proves you wrong.

You forgot to add the ending to that sublime philosophical argument, "neener-neener-neener."

That's exactly why I refuse to get involved with the Junior Philosphers over in R&T. If a person really believes a god lived in a little box called the Ark of the Covenant, that a guy was born of a virgin and came back from the dead, or that a man used a flying horse to meet a god, then that person has absolutely no business even using the word "logic."

Let alone trying to lay down bullshit rules that he or she can flourish like a trump card to "win" the argument.

BTW, I'm proud to call myself a Fundamentalist Atheist. I have a lot of fun watching the believers point and say: "See? There's one! He said so himself!"

I can only modestly hope that it also pisses off a few of them.

[YankeyMCC]

20. Onager

you are evil! But in a good way ;)

we need a thumb on nose smilie to augment the use of "neener-neener-neener."

[varkam]

71. Hey, if the shoe fits wear it, buddy.

:rofl:

[TZ]

75. Hey varkam....

How do you like my skillz? Been a long time since I've hosted such an entertaining flame war...This is WAAAY more fun than R/T...:rofl: :hi:

[varkam]

76. All I know is that...

I think I'm burned out on flamewars. Modding GDP has worn me (and the others) pretty raw. I'm looking forward to a nominee being chosen.

[TZ]

79. I can imagine...

I made the mistake of spending time in the snake pit the other day..and The Magistrate posted a vent thread in the Lounge the other day...:scared: :hug:

[DavidDvorkin]

8. Raising hand halfway

Because I don't want to do the killing of believers part.

I certainly would love to see all religion vanish -- not by force but by a wave of enlightenment, of believers suddenly realizing that they've been silly.

Okay, maybe a quarter of the way, then.

[Rob H.]

80. I don't want to destroy religion or kill believers, but

I would like it if all the fundagelical fucknozzles represented by groups like Focus On the Family, the Family Research Council, etc., would stop trying to make their demented views the basis of public policy for everyone, especially for those of us who aren't religious.

[TZ]

81. Bingo. I think thats the majority view of atheists

:thumbsup:

[and-justice-for-all]

87. I can go along with that...nt

[struggle4progress]

97. Agree 100%

[Lost-in-FL]

103. yup!!

[and-justice-for-all]

86. Kill believers??

No, I do not want to kill anyone, but fundi nutters would if given the chance and they have.

I can not deny that I want to see religion go the way of the Dionsaures, why should I show any kindness for such a destructive ideology?

[Warpy]

101. Lunacy

It's thinking that the world can become more Utopian if some group of people is removed from it. It's how you know which leaders are intellectually and ethically bankrupt: they think they can make positive changes through murder. The same goes for message board "thinkers."

Another form of lunacy is clinging to a pejorative long after the people you are using it on tell you it's a pejorative and that they resent its use. The failure to accommodate the feelings of other people indicates the working of a narcissistic mind at best, a sociopathic one at worst.

A third form of lunacy is thinking one has sole ownership of the truth, any truth about any concept at all. Truth is a slippery commodity, even the truth of things proven by mathematics. Truth is perceptually bound as much as good and evil are.

Which brings me to the guiding principle of my own life, never argue with a crazy person.

And that is what has made me conspicuous by my absence in this and other flame wars.

I did notice, however, that my simple question was never answered.

[Lost-in-FL]

102. I won't raise my hand...

I wouldn't like to destroy all religion or kill believers but just make fun of their idiotic thoughts. I like going to the R/T forum but I don't like wasting my precious time and effort giving a response that will not be even read or considered. I really don't care if for being an atheist I'm told I'm a fundie atheist, it doesn't bother me.

[Deep13]

104. I can agree up until the first comma.

As far as killing people goes, there are enough religious fanatics to kill each other.