Fundamentalist madness

[CovenantJr]

The top 100 quotes from a variety of fundamentalist "Christian" forums. Many of them are hilarious, some are quite unpleasant, almost all beggar belief.

www.fstdt.com//top100.asp

I really struggle to accept that there are people in the world who actually think like this. Men should wear blue and women should wear pink, because anything else is a sin? What. The. HELL?!

[rusmeister]

It is true that there are whacko 'Christian' groups out there. SRD even chose to portray such groups, and they are the only ones shown actively practicing their faith in his books.

There are a number of counter thoughts to consider, though.

If we compare the reactions of fundie Christians with fundie Muslims to insults to their faith (formerly known as blasphemy), we see that Christians mostly demand the ceasing of said insults/blasphemy and otherwise meekly putting up with it, while typical radical Islam demands the death of the insulters and Jihad.

Christianity is a popular target to bash because it is dominant in Western cultures - it is not exotic and people think they understand it, while Eastern religions, being exotic and mysterious, qualify for a greater level of respect. If I were to start bashing, say, Buddhism or Hinduism here, I think I'd get a lot more flack, whereas I will be applauded for attacking Christianity.

Finally, it is possible that not all Christians have a good grasp of their own faith (or actually have an inferior version) and represent it poorly. That would by no means mean that the faith is false.

See my siggies!

[sgt.null]

Cov: link does not work for me???

[The Laughing Man]

www.fstdt.com

[Loredoctor]

"One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it."

[rusmeister]

"One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it."

That appears to be a reference to popular evolutionism, which is a far cry from the scientific theory of evolution. The latter acknowledges that entropy is the rule and improvement the exception. The former is a popular myth. Has anyone read C.S. Lewis's "The Funeral of a Great Myth"?
Obviously, a conclusion based on such a myth can hardly be called anything but pseudo-scientific.

[Wyldewode]

Great title to this thread.

But seriously. . . a lot of these comments are rather sickening.

[rusmeister]

Great title to this thread.

But seriously. . . a lot of these comments are rather sickening.

I agree completely.
My objection is to people taking perverted forms of Christianity for the real thing and using it as a pseudo-argument to reject Christianity out-of-hand.
Christianity is the one religion that people think they do not need to learn about because they already "know" it.
Fundamental madness should not be confused with orthodox (or Orthodox) Christianity. F.M. is a form of Ch. that has gone wrong.

[Avatar]

My objection is to people taking perverted forms of Christianity for the real thing and using it as a pseudo-argument to reject Christianity out-of-hand.

But how, as atheists, are we supposed to know any different? You all can't agree among yourselves, but now we're supposed to know what is right and what is "perverted"?

We tend to react to what is presented to us. So is it any wonder that it doesn't fit any given brand accurately?

(Haha, I hope that doesn't come off as too serious...really, I'm laughing here, in a good way. )

--A

[Menolly]

My objection is to people taking perverted forms of Christianity for the real thing and using it as a pseudo-argument to reject Christianity out-of-hand.

But how, as atheists, are we supposed to know any different? You all can't agree among yourselves, but now we're supposed to know what is right and what is "perverted"?

We tend to react to what is presented to us. So is it any wonder that it doesn't fit any given brand accurately?

But Av...we're supposed to respond to whichever version of the "message" touches our heart. Then we too can join in the discussion of which is the truth and which is "perverted."

...I too am giggling here...

[rusmeister]

My objection is to people taking perverted forms of Christianity for the real thing and using it as a pseudo-argument to reject Christianity out-of-hand.

But how, as atheists, are we supposed to know any different? You all can't agree among yourselves, but now we're supposed to know what is right and what is "perverted"?

We tend to react to what is presented to us. So is it any wonder that it doesn't fit any given brand accurately?

(Haha, I hope that doesn't come off as too serious...really, I'm laughing here, in a good way. )

--A

Dealing with assumptions again...

First, if you honestly want rational answers to these questions that would take the risk of demonstrating the validity of Christian thought and teaching, rather than having already pre-judged them, I would read some of the sources I have already linked, rather than relying exclusively on what I post here. Please do not be offended - a true science, even a humanity, would be far more complex than could possibly be dealt with in the soundbite format of posting. I am just one man, but I see a lot of assumptions here that I have already found to be based on incorrect premises - and it took me several YEARS of mature thought to be able to understand all of those reasons.

You say 'we can't agree among ourselves' and in a sense you are right. But from the Orthodox position the Roman Church broke off from the other 4 Church centers, and Protestants broke off from them some 400-odd years later and went even further in the wrong direction, making all of them off. That doesn't relieve you of the responsibility of trying to figure out if one of the Christian churches is THE Church established by Christ - you can shrug off that responsibility, but by doing so you also shrug off the right to dispute Christianity, period, because you leave open the possibility that one of the faiths really does have what we call 'the fulness of the Truth', rather than merely pieces of it.

And right again, that we react to what is given us. I think that to a fair extent that is what we will be judged on, but we would also be held to account for using or failing to use our brains and the resources given to us. So, do we fall back on animalistic reaction, or stand up and use our human reasoning? (If you attack reason itself, you are cutting off the very branch on which your own thoughts sit.)

I don't, as I have said before, any particular hope of convincing folk here that Christianity is true - but I do wish to shake the unfounded idea that there is not rational thought and explanations for things you don't yet understand behind it - that fundamental madness is all that Christianity is or that it is a reason to reject the Faith.

[wayfriend]

I really struggle to accept that there are people in the world who actually think like this.

Actually, what scares me more is the people who teach other people to be that way. Ultimately, they're being used to achieve someone elses ends.

[rusmeister]

I really struggle to accept that there are people in the world who actually think like this.

Actually, what scares me more is the people who teach other people to be that way. Ultimately, they're being used to achieve someone elses ends.

Actually, American public schools do the same thing - only rather than openly teach some nuttiness in a subject, it covertly permeates the requirements of teachers and staff as well as texts/materials, and the result is to teach a dogmatic rejection of absolute moral truth. (I say this as a certified teacher who went through the state program as an agnostic)

It is telling that there is absolutely no subject of 'philosophy' or 'religion' in public schools, but as soon as you walk into a public university, there it is among the requirements for general education - 6 (or whatever) credits - REQUIRED (and there they more openly teach a pluralistic approach that dogmatically rejects those truths).

My thesis is that most people (a majority of children spend their formative years in public school) are thus indoctrinated to be just as fanatical about denying Truth as these extremist whackos are about insisting on their version.

[wayfriend]

Could it possibly be that public schools aren't allowed to teach religion in the US, due to the pesky church/state thing, rather than assuming an atheist plot to send children to hell? And that we leave religious teaching to the sunday schools and bible schools, of which there are many?

Could it possibly be that third graders aren't ready for philosophy?

Aren't parents responsible for what kids are/are not taught?

[Menolly]

Could it possibly be that third graders aren't ready for philosophy?

WF...I think some basic philosophcal concepts can be taught to kindergartners, much less third graders, depending on the approach used. Such as through methods such as Aesop's fables. I remember having those read to us and discussed in school starting in K, and going back to them every other year or so for deeper discussions on them. Yet, as far as I know, Beorn was just introduced to them formally in school in World History. As a 9th grader.

Now...this may be the Florida public school education he's had versus the New York public school education I had up through third grade before moving to Florida. But, I doubt it. I think rus has a point in that the American public schools are avoiding teaching any philosophical thought, much less religious philosophy, in their curriculum. But again, I can't speak for the entire country's schools.

[Loredoctor]

I really struggle to accept that there are people in the world who actually think like this.

Actually, what scares me more is the people who teach other people to be that way. Ultimately, they're being used to achieve someone elses ends.

Actually, American public schools do the same thing - only rather than openly teach some nuttiness in a subject, it covertly permeates the requirements of teachers and staff as well as texts/materials, and the result is to teach a dogmatic rejection of absolute moral truth. (I say this as a certified teacher who went through the state program as an agnostic)

It is telling that there is absolutely no subject of 'philosophy' or 'religion' in public schools, but as soon as you walk into a public university, there it is among the requirements for general education - 6 (or whatever) credits - REQUIRED (and there they more openly teach a pluralistic approach that dogmatically rejects those truths).

My thesis is that most people (a majority of children spend their formative years in public school) are thus indoctrinated to be just as fanatical about denying Truth as these extremist whackos are about insisting on their version.

Why should Christianity be taught any more than the philosophies of Hinudu, Islam, Animism, Israel, or Native American spiritial beliefs? Given that none of them can more prove that they are correct, and that everyone religion states they experience something that cannot be proven but still are correct, I believe every religion is as equal as the other. In that regard, teaching religion outside of history or philosophy classes is futile.

But I do not believe that there is some conspiracy to teach athiesm or deny religion. If anything, it's political correctness.

[balon!]

Because this country was founded on Christian values.

[Loredoctor]

Because this country was founded on Christian values.

Native Americans were here first: the country was founded on their values. Christians came along and butchered them (Columbus, for example).

[rusmeister]

Could it possibly be that public schools aren't allowed to teach religion in the US, due to the pesky church/state thing, rather than assuming an atheist plot to send children to hell? And that we leave religious teaching to the sunday schools and bible schools, of which there are many?

Could it possibly be that third graders aren't ready for philosophy?

Aren't parents responsible for what kids are/are not taught?

This incorrectly assumes that I am speaking of an 'atheist plot'. I said no such thing.

You speak of religion and philosophy as some 'compartment' of your life, such as history. Since it is the prism through which you see and interpret all of life, it is more like glasses, or the window through which you see history, and everything else.

A 2 year old is ready for philosophy. When we teach them what we believe about right and wrong, we are already teaching our philosophy.

[rusmeister]

Actually, what scares me more is the people who teach other people to be that way. Ultimately, they're being used to achieve someone elses ends.

Actually, American public schools do the same thing - only rather than openly teach some nuttiness in a subject, it covertly permeates the requirements of teachers and staff as well as texts/materials, and the result is to teach a dogmatic rejection of absolute moral truth. (I say this as a certified teacher who went through the state program as an agnostic)

It is telling that there is absolutely no subject of 'philosophy' or 'religion' in public schools, but as soon as you walk into a public university, there it is among the requirements for general education - 6 (or whatever) credits - REQUIRED (and there they more openly teach a pluralistic approach that dogmatically rejects those truths).

My thesis is that most people (a majority of children spend their formative years in public school) are thus indoctrinated to be just as fanatical about denying Truth as these extremist whackos are about insisting on their version.

Why should Christianity be taught any more than the philosophies of Hinudu, Islam, Animism, Israel, or Native American spiritial beliefs? Given that none of them can more prove that they are correct, and that everyone religion states they experience something that cannot be proven but still are correct, I believe every religion is as equal as the other. In that regard, teaching religion outside of history or philosophy classes is futile.

But I do not believe that there is some conspiracy to teach athiesm or deny religion. If anything, it's political correctness.

As I said in my response to wayfriend, I am not speaking of some active conspiracy. However, your response, if anything, only proves/reinforces my thesis. It is a denial of absolute Truth, as I have stated.