Fundies. Put A Lid On it!

a reply to: infolurker

What the hell is an Xtian?

A cult follower of a Nazarene who was deified by the Roman Emperor Constantine

a reply to: Nyiah

and once again you are twisting my words.

I didn't say catholics and atheists cant be friends I said it was UNLIKELY for them to meet online and become friends.

I didn't speak in absolutes.

I always remember to never use the words always or never

originally posted by: Grimpachi

Instead of trying to make such statements fit atheists turn it around or twist words instead I would have some respect for your post if you actually addressed such a statement.

You strike me as very fundamentalist Grim, hope thats not offensive
You have a complete lack of evidence in your comments and in your post, I forgot the question mark to indicate my sarcasm, point taken and apology offered.

Irrespective you use your words condescendingly or to bully people.
Yes a Fundamentalist threatens hell, you call them outright stupid or demean them, no difference at all
Understand the word equivocation, use it much, your statements were and still are baseless.

a reply to: Tangerine

there isn't 'an iota of contemporaneous documentation (ie. historical evidence) proving that he did exist.

Yes there is, one whited out correction in Josephus. There, proof enough!

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Grimpachi

Instead of trying to make such statements fit atheists turn it around or twist words instead I would have some respect for your post if you actually addressed such a statement.

You strike me as very fundamentalist Grim, hope thats not offensive
You have a complete lack of evidence in your comments and in your post, I forgot the question mark to indicate my sarcasm, point taken and apology offered.

Irrespective you use your words condescendingly or to bully people.
Yes a Fundamentalist threatens hell, you call them outright stupid or demean them, no difference at all
Understand the word equivocation, use it much, your statements were and still are baseless.

I don't get you at all. I responded to you about your fundamental atheist bit showing the term is really only in the urban dictionary and some weird website that would label any atheist that has the gonads to make any statement about religion to be consider a fundamental atheist. So my evidence to that effect was how that term was defined something you had declined to define yourself.

Then you follow up to me by quoting and complaining to me about someone elses post. Which invited me to comment on your take on that. I gave you my 2 cents worth on your complaint/rant or whatever you want to call it.

So call me a fundamentalist atheist if you want to because based on what I have seen it defined as for lack of you defining it then I agree that yes I am an atheist unafraid to speak. Have fun with your make believe labels they mean nothing.

Whenever if you ever start to actually address the content of others posts instead of doing what you have been doing which is twisting meanings and others words to make yourself feel better maybe I will care a little more about your opinions.

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Grimpachi

Instead of trying to make such statements fit atheists turn it around or twist words instead I would have some respect for your post if you actually addressed such a statement.

You strike me as very fundamentalist Grim, hope thats not offensive
You have a complete lack of evidence in your comments and in your post, I forgot the question mark to indicate my sarcasm, point taken and apology offered.

Irrespective you use your words condescendingly or to bully people.
Yes a Fundamentalist threatens hell, you call them outright stupid or demean them, no difference at all
Understand the word equivocation, use it much, your statements were and still are baseless.

I don't get you at all. I responded to you about your fundamental atheist bit showing the term is really only in the urban dictionary and some weird website that would label any atheist that has the gonads to make any statement about religion to be consider a fundamental atheist. So my evidence to that effect was how that term was defined something you had declined to define yourself.

Then you follow up to me by quoting and complaining to me about someone elses post. Which invited me to comment on your take on that. I gave you my 2 cents worth on your complaint/rant or whatever you want to call it.

So call me a fundamentalist atheist if you want to because based on what I have seen it defined as for lack of you defining it then I agree that yes I am an atheist unafraid to speak. Have fun with your make believe labels they mean nothing.

Whenever if you ever start to actually address the content of others posts instead of doing what you have been doing which is twisting meanings and others words to make yourself feel better maybe I will care a little more about your opinions.

maybe i presume to much.

Your post I quoted is a clear indication of what I would consider an atheist fundamentalist.
Your words indicate an attitude that is self centred and lacks any consideration, evidence, logic and sense.

You have and justify your prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism and direct it those who disagree with you, you use abusive or aggressive behaviour towards members who dont accept your beliefs

You are right, I dont address your issues, I used other peoples words to address the issue, here for instance I used your words to define a atheist fundy.
Maybe I was to vague for some people here, maybe just to subtle.

Issue addressed.

Irrespective if its in the Mirriam Webster or not, its a colloquialism.

Atheist fundys are as bad as Christian fundys, I detest both. They feed on and off of each other

a reply to: borntowatch

Fine then what I take from that is the definition of a fundamental atheist must mean any person who doesn't believe in gods that will speak the truth about religion.

And here I thought you were trying to say it was a derogatory term.

We can now apply to whatever dictionary so they can add

see also. truthful atheist.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: borntowatch

Fine then what I take from that is the definition of a fundamental atheist must mean any person who doesn't believe in gods that will speak the truth about religion.

And here I thought you were trying to say it was a derogatory term.

We can now apply to whatever dictionary so they can add

see also. truthful atheist.

The issue is not based on the truth as I see it, its based on the attitude.

Anyway as you will, its not my job to temper your bitterness.

I an not about winning or losing, I am content, its not based on your opinion

a reply to: borntowatch

Yes well we can rest easy that your whole hoopla about Fundamental atheists is nothing but your opinion.

Now I would appreciate if you just took a few moments and review our conversation because you seem to be hung up on attitude and would claim I am abusive. I don't think I have called you any names accused you of being... well have a look and tell me if I accused you of any of these things here.


Bitter, self centred,to have a lack any consideration, to have lack of logic, lack of sense, have I called you prejudice, discriminatory or antagonistic?

You may not be about winning or losing but just in the last two posts of yours you certainly have hurled a lot of insults towards me. I try not to be hypocritical I wish you would do the same.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Tangerine

there isn't 'an iota of contemporaneous documentation (ie. historical evidence) proving that he did exist.

Yes there is, one whited out correction in Josephus. There, proof enough!

Apparently, you're unaware of the meaning of contemporaneous documentation. It means documentation produced when the person in question was living. Josephus wasn't even alive when Jesus allegedly lived and could not possibly have witnessed Jesus living and documented it.

originally posted by: Tangerine


Apparently, you're unaware of the meaning of contemporaneous documentation. It means documentation produced when the person in question was living. Josephus wasn't even alive when Jesus allegedly lived and could not possibly have witnessed Jesus living and documented it.

So tell me in your opinion, what makes a historical document
What does it have to contain, not contain.
Who is capable of being considered a valid author, what credentials, what university must they have attended?

I have a feeling you play this as a game very loosely, very much on your own terms, very fundamentally by your design

I would be interested in seeing your rules

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Tangerine


Apparently, you're unaware of the meaning of contemporaneous documentation. It means documentation produced when the person in question was living. Josephus wasn't even alive when Jesus allegedly lived and could not possibly have witnessed Jesus living and documented it.

So tell me in your opinion, what makes a historical document
What does it have to contain, not contain.
Who is capable of being considered a valid author, what credentials, what university must they have attended?

I have a feeling you play this as a game very loosely, very much on your own terms, very fundamentally by your design

I would be interested in seeing your rules

If we're referring to a person, it would be some sort of documentation produced while the person lived by a person who witnessed that person living. It could be a coin with the emperor's picture on it or a hieroglyph depicting a particular pharoah or a letter saying, "I saw Jesus of Nazareth at the well today. He's got some nice new sandals." One piece of documentation is suggestive, two better evidence, and three strong evidence.

The person documenting the existence of another need not have any particular status although someone with special credentials would, depending on the context of the information, be preferable. For example, an official record of an individual being tried, sentenced and executed would be good evidence that that person actually lived.

The important thing to remember is that the person doing the documenting had to have lived at the same time the person in question lived and have had the ability to witness the existence of the person in question. The documentation has to clearly refer to the specific person in question.

I hope this answers your question.

originally posted by: Tangerine


If we're referring to a person, it would be some sort of documentation produced while the person lived by a person who witnessed that person living. It could be a coin with the emperor's picture on it or a hieroglyph depicting a particular pharoah or a letter saying, "I saw Jesus of Nazareth at the well today. He's got some nice new sandals." One piece of documentation is suggestive, two better evidence, and three strong evidence.

The person documenting the existence of another need not have any particular status although someone with special credentials would, depending on the context of the information, be preferable. For example, an official record of an individual being tried, sentenced and executed would be good evidence that that person actually lived.

The important thing to remember is that the person doing the documenting had to have lived at the same time the person in question lived and have had the ability to witness the existence of the person in question. The documentation has to clearly refer to the specific person in question.

I hope this answers your question.

So you dont deny the bible as a historical document then.

I somehow dont think you mean what you are saying, sounds like you are saying something and then something else, can be awfully confusing to me around here sometimes

Whats Josephus got to do with contemporarys when there seems adequate valid evidence.

a reply to: borntowatch

Atheist fundys are as bad as Christian fundys, I detest both. They feed on and off of each other

Not to stir the pot, and I mean that, but I take exception to this statement. Normally, I would be inclined to agree that two wrongs don't make things right, and that "fundamental atheists"(anti-theists), are similar in tactics, and therefore birds of a feather, but in this case, I must disagree.

Athiests haven't spent the last 2000 years trying to take over the world, by any means necessary. Atheists don't knock on doors, stand on street corners, and threaten people with eternal punishment for not believing their particular sect of atheism. These attributes, and more, are of the religious domain. Xtianity specifically. That said...

That atheists, and specifically atheists/anti-theists have become more militant in their stance in the 21rst century, is from their perspective, a response to the still ongoing onslaught by Xtianity, specifically fundamentalism, against the population of the world. Which is part of what this thread is about.

The idea that atheists and anti-theists would begin openly defending themselves, and going on the offense, should come as no surprise. Poke a hornets nest long enough, they will go on the offense, and someone is going to get stung.

Xtianity is the overwhelming majority in Western civilization. But that isn't good enough. They want every last man, woman, and child. And by god they're going to have them, one way or another. But there are a growing number who don't want to be Xtian, and don't want to live any longer under its oppressive and antiquated ideas of morals, ethics, and "love". That growing number has decided to fight back in whatever way they can.

And when the oppressed fight back, they become(are labeled) terrorists.

a reply to: sweord

4 of them have shown up here to say they have made friends with people of another faith.

seems like a open and closed case.

Oh, well! Shut my mouth! *another rolly-eyes* Did you personally poll every one of those 304,000 members? What a silly "case". Whatever. Have your worldview, then. I don't even know what your point is anymore.

originally posted by: Klassified

Not to stir the pot, and I mean that, but I take exception to this statement. Normally, I would be inclined to agree that two wrongs don't make things right, and that "fundamental atheists"(anti-theists), are similar in tactics, and therefore birds of a feather, but in this case, I must disagree.

Athiests haven't spent the last 2000 years trying to take over the world, by any means necessary. Atheists don't knock on doors, stand on street corners, and threaten people with eternal punishment for not believing their particular sect of atheism. These attributes, and more, are of the religious domain. Xtianity specifically. That said...

Xtianity is the overwhelming majority in Western civilization. But that isn't good enough. They want every last man, woman, and child. And by god they're going to have them, one way or another. But there are a growing number who don't want to be Xtian, and don't want to live any longer under its oppressive and antiquated ideas of morals, ethics, and "love". That growing number has decided to fight back in whatever way they can.

And when the oppressed fight back, they become terrorists.

I think you overstate the issue.
Christianity is not militant and the fundamentalist Christian is not in the majority.
Atheists have taken control of country's and people with weapons and decimated populaces, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot to name a few, street corners with bibles or guns and little red books.

Christianity is not and can never be forced on an individual, not according to scripture,atheism has been and has also been ratified that way by some governments.

Blinkers much?

Atheist terrorists hey, no surprise there.

a reply to: borntowatch

Christianity is not and can never be forced on an individual

^^ Load of Crapola ^^

ANY CHILD who is born into a religious family and taught from the cradle that they are worthless losers, sinners bound for hell, and guilty of what some fictitious people in a story supposedly did (or alternatively, being told that raping, killing, torturing and beheading others who believe differently is expected; or that having eight limbs due to a parasitic twin not developing fully means the child is some Hindu goddess incarnate; or that being 'untouchable' is just what they deserve) - is having that religion FORCED UPON THEM. (READ: Terrorism)

Small children absorb whatever information is given to them - it becomes part of their "wiring" - and short of sustaining a TBI that wipes out the memory, nearly impossible to eradicate. Like forgetting your native language. SAME THING.



As for your post accusing Grim of being a 'fundy-atheist' - with which I STRONGLY disagree, btw - just because he says it like it is - all of your colored text being your 'evidence' - it also is crapola.

Comtemporary documentation of Jesus' "life and actions" is lacking anywhere except in "the Bible" - which is NOT a 'historical document', any more than Dante's Divine Comedy, or Homer's Ulysses, or Harry Potter are 'historical documents'.

Nevertheless, Egyptian records (permanently etched into stone) show the VERY SAME STORY, whether you like it or not. It is undeniable that Christianity is an amalgamation of other ancient stories, the origins of which are lost in the mists of time.

Deal with it. The stories told by Christianity are no more "true" than any other mythology. Sorry if that hurts your delicate sensibilities, but that's just the way it is. You call it attacking; I call it EDUCATING.

a reply to: borntowatch

I think you overstate the issue.

I respectfully disagree.

Christianity is not militant and the fundamentalist Christian is not in the majority.

Again. I disagree. Xtianity has been quite militant, historically. There are at least a thousand posts on ATS outlining the multiple millions of deaths directly linked to Xtianity. Let alone those directly linked to god himself, if one believes the bible to be true.
I would also refer you to BuzzyWigs post outlining just the psychological militantism alone, and not just against children, But by street corner preachers and door to door witnessing for generations.

Atheists have taken control of country's and people with weapons and decimated populaces, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot to name a few, street corners with bibles or guns and little red books.

Granted.
Now tell the South Americans several hundred years ago how benevolent Xtianity is. Tell those who suffered through the inquisition how benevolent Xtianity is. Tell the Iraqi's how benevolent our "Xtian" nation is. Tell them we're sorry that George Bush only thought God told him to invade. Tell those African Men, women, and children being put to death right now by professing Xtians for "witchcraft" how loving God is.

Christianity is not and can never be forced on an individual, not according to scripture,atheism has been and has also been ratified that way by some governments.

I would refer you to the aforementioned Inquisition, and BuzzyWigs post.

It is true that fundamentalism is not by any means the majority of modern Xtianity(Thank God for that). But they don't have to be. All they need is for their brothers and sisters in Christ to shutup and be quiet while they make every Xtian alive look like a megalomaniacal fool, who drinks the blood of heathens for breakfast, and can't wait to watch the birds pick at their dead carcasses before they are thrown into the lake of fire which burns forever. Wringing their hands in glee that they have now inherited the earth, and there is no more opposition to their vengeful and morbid god.

Christianity is not and can never be forced on an individual, not according to scripture,atheism has been and has also been ratified that way by some governments.

It is you kind sir, that cannot see that Xtianity has been forced upon generation after generation of people. Not according to scripture you say. You would be correct, except Jesus made it very clear what happens when you choose otherwise, and Xtians have spent centuries expounding on that, to scare the heathens into submission. Shaken the dust off your feet lately?

Atheist terrorists hey, no surprise there.

I rest my case.

As soon a ideology rises asking people to question a indoctrinated way of life, insult terms ensue.

feminazi
millitant atheiest or terrorist atheist (lol)
white racism
blah blah

This is all really quite silly.

Anyhoo,
I've had to re read some posts because when emotions flare typing furiously ensues and you may think you know what you mean, but it comes across aggressive or nonsensical to silly 'ol me and probably others.
By all means, be the Atheist or Christian you want to be, and know changing someones else mind is never going to mean ' saving them '. The process is simply reaffirming to self the validity of your own beliefs.

I've been guilty of it too at times.

a reply to: zazzafrazz
Thank you again, Zazz. We often need an injection of common sense and common courtesy in these threads to keep them from being a bad rerun of the previous hundreds of threads with the same arguments ad infinitum.