Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,920 Year: 4,177/9,624 Month: 1,048/974 Week: 7/368 Day: 7/11 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is there a correlation between religious fundamentalism and holocaust denying?
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 96 (433927)
11-13-2007 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Hyroglyphx
11-02-2007 9:02 PM


Re: A false dichotomy
Maybe the term fundy should be placed over the heads of extremists of any sect, denomination, group, ideologue, or affiliation.
Of course. We have several fundamental atheists on this board that are just as much, if not more, annoying and dogmatic than the religious fundies.

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
En el mundo hay multitud de idiomas, y cada uno tiene su propio significado. - I Corintios 14:10
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
A devout people with its back to the wall can be pushed deeper and deeper into hardening religious nativism, in the end even preferring national suicide to religious compromise. - Colin Wells Sailing from Byzantium
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
[Philosophy] stands behind everything. It is the loom behind the fabric, the place you arrive when you trace the threads back to their source. It is where you question everything you think you know and seek every truth to be had. - Archer Opterix [msg=-11,-316,210]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-02-2007 9:02 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by crashfrog, posted 11-13-2007 4:48 PM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 96 (433969)
11-13-2007 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by crashfrog
11-13-2007 6:50 PM


Re: A false dichotomy
That would make them dishonest, not a "fundamentalist", unless you're redefining words,
quote:
Dictionary.com (emphasis added)
fun·da·men·tal·ism
-noun
1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.
2. the beliefs held by those in this movement.
3. strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles: the fundamentalism of the extreme conservatives.
Oh well.... looks like you can't win 'em all .
Jon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by crashfrog, posted 11-13-2007 6:50 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by crashfrog, posted 11-13-2007 8:24 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 96 (433983)
11-13-2007 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by crashfrog
11-13-2007 8:24 PM


Re: A false dichotomy
Speaking of redefining words, since when did "willing to be convinced at any time by sufficient evidence" mean "strict adherence"?
So... can there be such a thing as a 'fundamental atheist'?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by crashfrog, posted 11-13-2007 8:24 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by crashfrog, posted 11-13-2007 9:13 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 96 (433987)
11-13-2007 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by crashfrog
11-13-2007 9:13 PM


Dictionary of Crashisms
It's just an empty insult used to belittle people who don't show adequate deference to religious nonsense.
"Militant atheist" is the exact same way.
Man... you'd think someone broke your rattle or something.
Perhaps you should start a thread in which you take each word of the dictionary and give us all a crashfrog denition. That way, when we debate with you, we can all be in an agreement on what word to use. For example, when we need to say "dishonest" we can use "fundamentalist"; and when we want to say "describe" we can use "belittle". Otherwise, I do not see how every debate with you is not going to end up breaking down into a semantics disagreement in which you refuse to accept a denition of a word that is otherwise agreed upon by every other speaker of English.
Sounds good, eh?
Jon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by crashfrog, posted 11-13-2007 9:13 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by crashfrog, posted 11-13-2007 9:37 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 96 (434004)
11-13-2007 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by crashfrog
11-13-2007 9:37 PM


Re: I've had about enough of your nonsense
God, I can't imagine why you find my approval so necessary, though.
don't expect people to be bowled over by your arguments.
Sorry, you're consistently the one on the other end of the 'people'... unless you think that the 'people' here are generally arguing in favour of your position
What explanation can you possibly have for your outrageous behavior? Who am I to you that you feel the need to insult me in two different threads just to get my attention? What, you think you're going to insult me into liking you?
It's kind of sad and pathetic.
/a *returns rattle to its rightful owner*
Jon
Anyway... This should stop in this thread so we can let these good folk continue their meaningful debate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by crashfrog, posted 11-13-2007 9:37 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by crashfrog, posted 11-13-2007 11:25 PM Jon has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024