[002]
MajinGojira
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
to:
It\\\'s because I can re-categorize them so easily into the other fields that I asked if anyone had anything. Most times, authors like to make Atheists stubborn to the point of absurdity in a pot-keettle-black sort of shallow parody which is really just the FlatEarthAtheist again.
The closest I can think of is already on the trope page:
* South Park inverts and parodies this trope and gives us the rare fundamentalist [[spoiler:agnostic]] family, The Weatherheads.
If you see the episode, you see them going to extreme lengths to argue and enforce their viewpoint on the nature of reality. Atheism, having only one thing to say and being generally of two definitions (There is no Gods/Gods or There is Insufficient evidence for a God/Gods) generally makes it hard to have set views on things. As I said, the terms\\\' to broad. The [[spoiler:agnosticism]] in the episode is taken to an extreme for parody purposes so that the concept of uncertainty is applied to everything.
South Park\\\'s episodes on Atheist has a version of this in the future, but goes on to prove my point. Atheism in the Future isn\\\'t the source of the problem, its conclusion is basically \\\"people will find stupid reasons to hate each other\\\" as the big \\\"Fundamentalist\\\" war in the Future Cartman finds himself in is about how one opens oysters--on a table or on your belly.
The war, of course, is being fought between humans and super intelligent sea otters.
So yeah, they could be called Fundamentalists here, but their Atheism had nothing to do with it.
But, if one were to do the same with an Atheist, it might would generally take the form of an extreme form of skepticism, but that would, again, lean more towards FlatEarthAtheist than anything else. It would have to be handled very, very delicately--heck it might even end up at AgentScully. It\\\'s basically argument 2, how wouldn\\\'t these instances also meet the definitions those give?
Which is why I initially called for the separate philosophies to be put in place of Atheism if it were to be used. A Secularist Fundamentalist might, for instance, ask for the banning of religious iconography in churches in such a parody. A Absurdist would woft through such a parody, taking very little as concrete or \\\'real\\\' or take issue with/lazily decry people trying to understand anything.
The closest I can think of is already on the trope page:
* South Park inverts and parodies this trope and gives us the rare fundamentalist [[spoiler:agnostic]] family, The Weatherheads.
If you see the episode, you see them going to extreme lengths to argue and enforce their viewpoint on the nature of reality. Atheism, having only one thing to say and being generally of two definitions (There is no Gods/Gods or There is Insufficient evidence for a God/Gods) generally makes it hard to have set views on things. As I said, the terms\\\' to broad. The [[spoiler:agnosticism]] in the episode is taken to an extreme for parody purposes so that the concept of uncertainty is applied to everything.
South Park\\\'s episodes on Atheist has a version of this in the future, but goes on to prove my point. Atheism in the Future isn\\\'t the source of the problem, its conclusion is basically \\\"people will find stupid reasons to hate each other\\\" as the big \\\"Fundamentalist\\\" war in the Future Cartman finds himself in is about how one opens oysters--on a table or on your belly.
The war, of course, is being fought between humans and super intelligent sea otters.
So yeah, they could be called Fundamentalists here, but their Atheism had nothing to do with it.
But, if one were to do the same with an Atheist, it might would generally take the form of an extreme form of skepticism, but that would, again, lean more towards FlatEarthAtheist than anything else. It would have to be handled very, very delicately--heck it might even end up at AgentScully. It\\\'s basically argument 2, how wouldn\\\'t these instances also meet the definitions those give?
Which is why I initially called for the separate philosophies to be put in place of Atheism if it were to be used. A Secularist Fundamentalist might, for instance, ask for the banning of religious iconography in churches in such a parody. A Absurdist would woft through such a parody, taking very little as concrete or \\\'real\\\' or take issue with/lazily decry people trying to understand anything.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
to:
It\\\'s because I can re-categorize them so easily into the other fields that I asked if anyone had anything. Most times, authors like to make Atheists stubborn to the point of absurdity in a pot-keettle-black sort of shallow parody which is really just the FlatEarthAtheist again.
The closest I can think of is already on the trope page:
* South Park inverts and parodies this trope and gives us the rare fundamentalist [[spoiler]]agnostic[[/spoiler]] family, The Weatherheads.
If you see the episode, you see them going to extreme lengths to argue and enforce their viewpoint on the nature of reality. Atheism, having only one thing to say and being generally of two definitions (There is no Gods/Gods or There is Insufficient evidence for a God/Gods) generally makes it hard to have set views on things. As I said, the terms\\\' to broad. The [[spoiler]]agnosticism[[/spoiler]] in the episode is taken to an extreme for parody purposes so that the concept of uncertainty is applied to everything.
South Park\\\'s episodes on Atheist has a version of this in the future, but goes on to prove my point. Atheism in the Future isn\\\'t the source of the problem, its conclusion is basically \\\"people will find stupid reasons to hate each other\\\" as the big \\\"Fundamentalist\\\" war in the Future Cartman finds himself in is about how one opens oysters--on a table or on your belly.
The war, of course, is being fought between humans and super intelligent sea otters.
So yeah, they could be called Fundamentalists here, but their Atheism had nothing to do with it.
But, if one were to do the same with an Atheist, it might would generally take the form of an extreme form of skepticism, but that would, again, lean more towards FlatEarthAtheist than anything else. It would have to be handled very, very delicately--heck it might even end up at AgentScully. It\\\'s basically argument 2, how wouldn\\\'t these instances also meet the definitions those give?
Which is why I initially called for the separate philosophies to be put in place of Atheism if it were to be used. A Secularist Fundamentalist might, for instance, ask for the banning of religious iconography in churches in such a parody. A Absurdist would woft through such a parody, taking very little as concrete or \\\'real\\\' or take issue with/lazily decry people trying to understand anything.
The closest I can think of is already on the trope page:
* South Park inverts and parodies this trope and gives us the rare fundamentalist [[spoiler]]agnostic[[/spoiler]] family, The Weatherheads.
If you see the episode, you see them going to extreme lengths to argue and enforce their viewpoint on the nature of reality. Atheism, having only one thing to say and being generally of two definitions (There is no Gods/Gods or There is Insufficient evidence for a God/Gods) generally makes it hard to have set views on things. As I said, the terms\\\' to broad. The [[spoiler]]agnosticism[[/spoiler]] in the episode is taken to an extreme for parody purposes so that the concept of uncertainty is applied to everything.
South Park\\\'s episodes on Atheist has a version of this in the future, but goes on to prove my point. Atheism in the Future isn\\\'t the source of the problem, its conclusion is basically \\\"people will find stupid reasons to hate each other\\\" as the big \\\"Fundamentalist\\\" war in the Future Cartman finds himself in is about how one opens oysters--on a table or on your belly.
The war, of course, is being fought between humans and super intelligent sea otters.
So yeah, they could be called Fundamentalists here, but their Atheism had nothing to do with it.
But, if one were to do the same with an Atheist, it might would generally take the form of an extreme form of skepticism, but that would, again, lean more towards FlatEarthAtheist than anything else. It would have to be handled very, very delicately--heck it might even end up at AgentScully. It\\\'s basically argument 2, how wouldn\\\'t these instances also meet the definitions those give?
Which is why I initially called for the separate philosophies to be put in place of Atheism if it were to be used. A Secularist Fundamentalist might, for instance, ask for the banning of religious iconography in churches in such a parody. A Absurdist would woft through such a parody, taking very little as concrete or \\\'real\\\' or take issue with/lazily decry people trying to understand anything.
