From The Fundementalist Discussion
millinniummany3k: The God Delusion is a fictional portrayal of religion written to be as fundamentalist and fanatical as possible. Seeing as the religion portrayed in it is clearly a work of Dawkins' imagination what arguement is there against his fantasy of religion being used as an example? If Jack Chick then Dawkins. Majin Gojira: There is so much wrong in that sentance I don't even know where to begin... Edited to add: Here's a few things 1. The God Delusion is no more fictional than any other book on philosophy. 2. It was not written in a "Fundementalist" manner in any definition of the word. 3. The second sentance betrays the fact that millinniummany3k has not encountered true fundementalist movements in any Abrahamic or Vedic religion. 4. If Jack Chick than Dawkins does not count because Atheism is not a religion to begin with, as I described below. millinniummany3k: There are so many inaccuracies within the book, from Bible verses to misrepresentation of religion to cutting and pasting quotes so they say what the author wants to portray, that it comes across as a satirical fiction on religion. The Gid Delusion is not a factual book, rather it is the imaginings of a bitter and twisted old man who wants to take the gloves off. Majin Gojira: Yeah, thanks for confirming my suspision that you haven't read the book at all (much less the Bible). Until you have something substantative to add, or think of an effective coutneragument that acually addresses the point that would make that book, regardless of 'factual nature', appropriate for this trope entry, post again. Otherwise, if you just want to add more natter regarding your vehement hatred towards Dawkins, yell into a pillow first and trhen walk away. I neither have the time nor patience to deal with anything as juvinile as that. And for the love of Mike, sign your entries. I can't keep cleaning up after you. millinniummany3k: Well tell you what, I won't keep editing in atheist fundamentalists if you don't put back in the religious fundamentalists I saw fit to remove, how about that? Majin Gojira: Okay, first of all?SIGN YOUR DISCUSSION EDITS. Second of all, the very definition of Fundementalism is that it is Religious, so you might as well delete the entire trope if you do that. Since Atheism is not a religion, an atheist cannot be a Fundementalist. So, no. millinniummany3k: Hmmm, you cannot handle The God Delusion as an example of fundamentalism, yet you must have the Jack Chick example. Interesting...interesting...you want it both ways, to have examples of beliefs that oppose your own and not have examples of beliefs you share. Either we have both Jack Chick and The God Delusion up or we exclude real life examples full stop. Majin Gojira: Thanks for playing "I actually have no idea what the definition of Fundementalism is and simply impose my own definition on the world" game. You've won! Belief does not equate to religion, as I defined below. To repeat, Fundementalism applies only to religious doctrine. Atheism lacks Supernatural Explinations, Doctine, Dogma, Fables, Rituals, Traditions, Holidays and leaders. Ergo, it cannot be a religion and thus cannot be Fundementalist. At best, any Jerk Ass Atheists belong in Strawman Political. Unless you want to argue that Conservative Politics, Liberal Politics and your opinion about Star Wars are also Religions. Its not an either/or scenario. Richard Dawkin's work, no mater how inflamatory, cannot be defined as Religious and therefore is not fundementalist. Furthemore, if you truly cared about the article instead of inforcing your own opinion on it, you would not keep trying to revert it back to your edit instead of reverting it to the way it was before you decided to edit until the mater is resolved. Also, SIGN YOUR GODDAMN EDITS IN DISCUSSION! millinniummany3k: Given how sensitive people get about religion and atheism it would be wise to have no real life examples, not even Jack Chick. If you cannot handle him being edited out then we need to discuss an arrangement that everyone can be happy with. Majin Gojira: Dope Slap. Sensitivity has NOTHING do to with it, Atheism is simply inapplicable to a trope regarding religion since it is the lack of a religion. You might as well be saying "But Baldness IS a hair color!" For the record Fundementalism: noun 1.religious beliefs based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, regarded as fundamental to Christian faith and morals 2.the 20th-cent. movement among some American Protestants, based on these beliefs Literally, there are people who will GLADLY call themselves Fundementalists (and be PROUD of the negatives about this trope), and Jack Chick is one of them. Furthermore, as ascribed below, it is not his personage that generates the trope, its the characters in his writing. The God Delusion contains no characters and thus, again, is inaplicable to this trope. Finally, Until you actually address the points being made, I deeply suggest you refrain from answering because at this point, I'm tired of cleaning the extcrement from your rectum. millinniummany3k: First of all, don't be rude. It doesn't help and only makes you look childish. Secondly, there was discussion on whether or not to include The God Delusion and on the basis of Belief Makes You Stupid it was included. There was no concensus or discussion to remove it. If you cannot handle the example being up then discuss it here and we can reach some form of agreement. If you are not prepared to be fair and do that however then we cannot help you. Majin Gojira: I would be a lot less rude if I did not have to continually correct you on proper etticuit regarding this wiki. Sign your discussion posts. It's really very simple, and very annoying when you do not. Since you decline to actually address the counterpoints being made and instead focus on trivial maters and irrelevant comparisons, the only conclusion I can reach is that you have no effective counterarguments and are simply refusing to change in light of new evidence?part and parcel for Fundementalism. Atheism cannot be fundementalist because it cannot change. "The true scientist, however passionately he may ?believe?, in evolution for example, knows exactly what would change his mind: evidence! The fundamentalist knows that nothing will." - Richard Dawkins. As established below, Belief =/= Fundementalism. If you can provide coutnerevidence to show that Belief is the same as Fundementalism, I suggest you bring it up?and merge most Strawman Political examples into this one, or vice-versa. I know what evidence you need to convince me of changing my position, how about you? millinniummany3k: And yet you ignore the point raised that this was something discussed and agreed on. For the sake of argument however if we were to include The God Delusion then we could say that the religion portrayed in it is fundamentalist, dogmatic, in short very much the dim view Richard Dawkins has on religion, so that in itself would qualify it. If we were to take the stance of the book itself being of fundamentalist belief, it might be helpful to research fundamentalist atheism. http://www.mahablog.com/2007/01/04/richard-dawkins-and-fundamentalist-atheism/ With that said, in removing real life examples the argument of whether or not we can claim atheism as fundamentalist is moot. Majin Gojira: Are you ever going to sign your posts, or am I going to habitually whipe your ass every time you want to discus something? That is the only way you could include it, as a discussion ABOUT religion and nothing more, but because so many people dislike seeing the Emperor's Nude Body and thus start Edit Wars over it Fundementalism really IS like that in segments, as things such as Jesus Camp prove in spades. Fundementalist Atheism is a misnomer and malapropism, since it fails at even being DOGMATIC, as the Richard Dawkins quote I provided explained already. But I see it's easier to cherry pick than to actually try and learn something new. We've defined Fundementalism, gone over how Atheism cannot be Fundementalist (especially Empirical Atheistic Views as opposed to Semi-Pagan Atheist views?yes, there are Buddhists and Shamanists who do not believe in gods, are often labeled "Atheists" but still classified as a Religion where Secular Atheist Traditions are not). Clearly, you Did Not Do The Research and are just parroting. So, millinniummany3k, I to make this simpler: 1) Fundementalism has yet to be shown to apply to Irreligious/Areligious Doctrines (Remember, if you do that, you have to merge this article with Strawman Polticial?Every action has implications on the wider front). 2) Richard Dawkins admitted to a point where he would change his views (and most legitimate Empirical Atheists will tell you what that point it). Repeated, legitimate fossil bunnies in the Cambrian period, for example would disproove evolution in a heartbeat. Because of this willingness to change, he cannot be defined as a Fundementalist. 3) Jack Chick, by comparisonm, fits every prerequisite set forth by this trope, and there is no legitimate reason to discount his work. So, you have to 1) Show that Fundementalism can be applied to Irreligious/Areligious Doctrtines (taking into account the implications). 2) Show how, even in light of the main discounting factor, Dawkins counts as a Fundementalist (and no, Being a Jerk Ass doens't count). 3) Bring up reasons why Jack Chick should not counted as A Fundementalist. Until you do that, I have little more to add other than Mockery of your refusal to accept defeat in light of overwhelming evidence. And once again, Passion and Belief do not equate to Religion, and without religion, Fundementalism cannot happen. millinniummany3k: Given that you are clearly going as much out of your way as you can to be a cunt despite my best efforts to help, I really have little else to say to you. It might be a misnomer to refer to atheism as fundamentalist, however it is only your concensus that we should not include The God Delusion, thus any real life examples will be removed. Any further rudeness on your part will result in this discussion being deleted as well as locked. Majin Gojira: Please address the points listed in order to futher the discussion. I have clearly laid them out for ease of understanding and eagerly await your coutnerproposal. I have multiple times listed what it would take to effectivly counter the arguments provided, yet your refusal to do so as well as ignorance of the ettiquite here (IE: Signing your posts) are quite baffling. One or the other is easy to understand, but in combination as well as the obvious threat being imposed over wiki editing are really quite beyond the warrents of this discussion, especially since all you are reacting to is a few "dirty words" and empassioned responses. In fact, the combination contains such a dichotomy of behaviors that it leaves me skeptical of it, and believe it will lead to another Edit War. Simply provide counters to the points listed and be done with it.