Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Manchu wrote:

Orlanth, it is supremely dishonest of you to accuse me of sewing fear and hatred of religion. Aside from your appeal to the dictionary, that is the dumbest thing you've said so far.

Manchu, it would'nt matter if you defined fundamentalists as polar bears in pink tutus. However were you to claim said polar bears were out to get us in a way that others might beleive it might attract attention.
I can only go by what you write and very consistently you have claimed fundamentalists to be universally negative based on blatantly erroneous information. This isnt a good sign frankly.

biccat wrote:
Well, yeah. If you ignore all the horrible characteristics of Nazism it's not too far outside the political mainstream.

Sure, and if you ignore all the horrible characteristics of murderers they're really not that different from you and I.

biccat wrote:
I appreciate you assuming the worst of me, however. It's always nice to have one's perceptions confirmed.

The best way to approach an accusation of ulterior meaning is to make a statement laced with ulterior meaning.

@Orlanth: My information is not erroneous.

Moving along, you yourself in this very thread have distinguished between fundamentalism and religion. By your own logic, my statement that fundamentalism is an ideological conveyor belt to tragedy is not a statement about religion.

Manchu wrote:@Orlanth: My information is not erroneous.

Moving along, you yourself in this very thread have distinguished between fundamentalism and religion. By your own logic, my statement that fundamentalism is an ideological conveyor belt to tragedy is not a statement about religion.

Already made reference that fundamentalism is not necessarily religious.:

Orlanth wrote:I am not the one confused. Fundamentalism isn't a good or bad thing, its an application of religion or other doctrine firmly.

Consequently I am not limiting my defence to religious fundamentalists exclusively, though I do have them mostly in mind.

I have made distinction between fundamentalism and religion, but I in no way imply they are seperate sets.

I don't understand what you mean by sets.

Manchu wrote:I don't understand what you mean by sets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_(mathematics)

You probably remember sets, just need a reminder.

In context here fundamentalism with a bubble around it and relgion with a bubble around it are not intended to be drawn as seperate bubbles.

I think we should call a truce, this is getting too heated and I dont think either of us will back down.

Well, if nothing else I now understand why you think fundamentalism is the only "honest" application of religion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I guess I'd just ask for one more clarification: would you say that fundamentalism is just taking your religion seriously?

Manchu wrote:Sorry, I still don't see what you want her to explain.

I suppose she can speak for herself, if she chooses to respond.

dogma wrote:Sure, and if you ignore all the horrible characteristics of murderers they're really not that different from you and I.

And if someone says "Well the murderers did all that terrible stuff because of their beliefs" then one could rightly ask what beliefs they're referring to.

dogma wrote:The best way to approach an accusation of ulterior meaning is to make a statement laced with ulterior meaning.

It's nice that you think that.

biccat wrote:Apart from numbers 3, 4, 8, and parts of 23 (and the anti-Jewish rhetoric in #24, although that's not a separate point), could you point out which "fundamentals" were the problem?

I'm not doing this.

No.

Also shut up.

And no.

This is stupid and I will have no part in it.

Sigh yet another thread that proves
1) Melissia hates religion
2) Dogma hates religion
3) Cannerous hates religion
4) Manchu likes religion that he agrees with
5)Orlanth likes hitting his head against a wall

GG

generalgrog wrote:Melissia hates religion

You are free to believe that.

People, after all, certainly the right to be completely and utterly wrong in every way.\

And if you believe that you certainly are eye-roll-inducingly wrong.

But as said, wrong is certainly something you can choose to be.

generalgrog wrote:Sigh yet another thread that proves
1) Melissia hates religion
2) Dogma hates religion
3) Cannerous hates religion
4) Manchu likes religion that he agrees with
5)Orlanth likes hitting his head against a wall

GG

And GG ... well, forgets to lampoon himself.

On a serious note.

The whole term fundamentalist is subjective beyond compare. Yes even manchus guys definition of fundamentalism is his own subjective view. One persons fundamentalist is anothers liberal.

Some people are vegetarians while others are vegans. Is the vegan a fundamental fundamental (assuming you accept vegetarianism as a type of fundamentalism)?

GG

GG, none of that is meaningful or helpful, unless you're just trying to distract M & O by being silly.

Nothing means anything and anything can mean everything and everything means nothing.

Shameless relativism, GG. But I guess one persons's relativist is another's absolutist.

Manchu wrote:Shameless relativism, GG. But I guess one persons's relativist is another's absolutist.

Or absudist.

Hoisted by my own Camus.

biccat wrote:
And if someone says "Well the murderers did all that terrible stuff because of their beliefs" then one could rightly ask what beliefs they're referring to.

Which would be a reasonable question, if one did not simultaneously eliminate those beliefs which are widely held as being responsible for said terrible acts from the set of valid responses.

There is a meme, an old one, about obvious trolls that would be apt in this case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:Hoisted by my own Camus.

The pretension in this thread is positively existential.

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote:Apart from numbers 3, 4, 8, and parts of 23 (and the anti-Jewish rhetoric in #24, although that's not a separate point), could you point out which "fundamentals" were the problem?

I'm not doing this.

No.

So you're just going to compare religious fundamentalists to Nazis and not back up that comment? Figures.

Orlanth wrote:

Manchu wrote:I don't understand what you mean by sets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_(mathematics)

You probably remember sets, just need a reminder.

That doesn't make sense. Considering fundamentalism and religion as mathematical sets necessarily indicates that they are separate from one another. They might intersect, but they are not conjoined.

Of course, considering these concepts as sets is itself misguided (What is the set of fundamentalism?), but that's another thread.

Mhmmm a fox news link. They'll just blow the thing out of proportion. Its a sad thing to see but when fox news covers it I don't know what to believe really.

biccat wrote:So you're just going to compare religious fundamentalists to Nazis and not back up that comment? Figures.

No, I'm ignroing you because it's better for my sanity than to answer blatantly loaded questions..

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:What I meant in the worst of times is not only when times are bad for everyone, but also when the fundamentalists gain power and motivation to use it. While I know that it's breaking Godwin's law, think about the fundamentalists of the Nazi party. It had nothing (most of the time) to do with religion, but rather, political viewpoints based off of a philosophy of intolerance.

Apart from numbers 3, 4, 8, and parts of 23 (and the anti-Jewish rhetoric in #24, although that's not a separate point), could you point out which "fundamentals" were the problem?

One doesn't take into account whether certain groups of "Germans" want to join the Greater Germany. I think it's justification for warring with the Czechs. Two is also a warmongerer, but it at least has some justification. I don't particularly care for seven's anti-alien bit; it seems a bit draconian. Nine implies (from my perspective) that they will force people to work. Eleven through fifteen are all a bit too severe. Seventeen will be stealing from land-owners. I'm certainly not for killing all profiteers with eighteen. I don't know enough about German common law to form an opinion on nineteen. I'd shy away from the compulsory bit of twenty-one. Like nineteen, twenty-one is beyond my ability to comment on. Twenty-five is too absolute. Only a sith deals in absolutes.

What exactly was the point of this exercise?

generalgrog wrote:Sigh yet another thread that proves
1) Melissia hates religion
2) Dogma hates religion
3) Cannerous hates religion
4) Manchu likes religion that he agrees with
5)Orlanth likes hitting his head against a wall

GG

Don't forget matty.. matty thinks it is a boil on the arse of the world.

I think it's a festering pustule upon a boil on the arse of humanity, myself.

I don't need it, don't care for it and don't regard it as a necessary thing in my life.

My wife does - but she's Catholic and obviously delusional (because she married me.).

Ahtman wrote:Speaking of annoying atheists, everyone's favorite (living) is at it again.

People like that dude are the reason why im not even an Atheist.

Tazz Azrael wrote:People like that dude are the reason why im not even an Atheist.

Are you saying that Bill Maher is evidence that God exists?

Frankly, I find that blaming religion for intolerance perpetuated in its name, often in contradiction to the broader teaching of that particular religion, makes as much sense, logically, as blaming the Catcher in the Rye for the murder of John Lennon.

OTOH, in hierarchically structured religions, there are authority figures who have a responsibility to dissuade adherents of their faith from fundamentalist outlooks. The temptation of fundamentalism is that it will provide for and preserve order, which is a big concern for most hierarchies, so they don't always live up to that responsibility. And of course many religious authority figures actively promote fundamentalist attitudes to a greater or lesser extent. I agree with you that the trouble isn't necessarily the religion itself but rather the mode of its adherents, a point entirely glossed by Russell and now the New Atheists. Of course, for them -- like Orlanth -- there is no appreciable difference between religion and fundamentalism; i.e., they see fundamentalism is "the honest application" of religion.