runner,

Fundamentalism is “The interpretation of every word in the sacred texts as literal truth” (Word Web) Even you should be able to recognise that using the fundamentalist word in reference to Atheism is only an attempt to justify your own intransigent views.

You have however, pointed out one of the strong and good points about Atheism. As Madalyn Murray O’Hair stated, “Organising Atheists is like herding cats.”

This point of view was recently supported by an Atheist suggesting the bus slogan should read, “Atheists are free-thinkers. So we couldn't agree on a slogan” Both humorous and partly true.

Far from this being a bad point about Atheism, it is its strength and a safeguard for democracy. Atheists make up their own minds and vote accordingly, unlike religious folk in many instances, who just follow the leaders of their religion. When autonomous thinking process is not employed, it is very dangerous for democracy. Democracy means free choice, the opposite being tyranny where no choice is allowed.

Of course, when Atheists make a choice, even with their differences of opinion, they are very unlikely to vote for some proposition that forces others to follow that choice.

Examples such as some Atheists are opposed to abortion but they would never consider taking away the right of a female to have one. Or some Atheists are opposed to voluntary euthanasia but they are hardly likely to vote to stop others from making that decision if necessary. Or some Atheists may be uncomfortable with same-sex-orientation but would not vote in a way to produce discrimination on those grounds.

Now this is not all Atheists as some have just as hardline views as many religious folk. But I can confidently state that most Atheist do not vote to impinge on the rights of others.

I hope I have cleared this up for you and you now have a better understanding of why Atheism is important in protecting the rights of citizens, even yours, runner.

On the other hand, when religion has political power it tramples on the rights of those who disagree with it.

David

david>>Now this is not all Atheists as some have just as hardline views as many religious folk.But I can confidently state that most Atheist do not vote to impinge on the rights of others.

I hope I have cleared this up for you and you now have a better understanding of why Atheism is important in protecting the rights of citizens>>

ALL citizens bro?

or just those who dont believe in god?
your fun-demon-talism,was triald in soviet-union

it failed there too.

im not happy with your definition,from
http://web.archive.org/web/20060615010407/religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/fund.html

Defining Fundamentalism:Given the many disparate uses of the concept, it is not surprising that fundamentalism has not been easy to define. Several recent works are helpful in developing a conceptual understanding of the phenomenon...

..Origin of the Concept:The term`fundamentalism'has its origin in a series of pamphlets published between 1910 and 1915.Entitled "The Fundamentals:A Testimony to the Truth,"these booklets were authored by leading evangelical churchmen and were circulated free of charge among clergymen and seminarians.

By and large,fundamentalism was a response to the loss of influence traditional revivalism experienced in America during the early years of the twentieth century..

..biblical criticism and the encroachment of Darwinian theories about the origin of the universe,prompted a response by conservative churchmen.The result was the pamphlets.

In 1920,a journalist and Baptist layman named Curtis Lee Laws appropriated the term`fundamentalist'as a designation for those who were ready"to do battle royal for the Fundamentals."

Jeffrey K. Hadden has identified four types offundamentalism.First, theological fundamentalism was the Christian theological movement concerned with defending traditional Christian doctrine against modern thinking.

Political fundamentalism is a combination of theological fundamentalism and the personal commitments of religious adherents to combat worldly vices..

..These two types of fundamentalism melded together to combine a caricature of culturally unenlightened individuals bent on preserving tradition at the expense of progress..

..The political activity engaged in by fundamentalists invited comparison to other religiously motivated groups around the world.

Accordingly,global fundamentalism as a phenomena denotes many religiously[or anti-religious];motivated politically active groups existing in a variety of religious[ly] held opinion/traditions and political,belief'or non belief-systems.

david quote>>Far from this being a bad point about Atheism,it is its strength and a safeguard for democracy. Atheists make up their own minds and vote accordingly,>>

a ha ,so we have 50/50 athiest/believer's voting like automotons[as they are told]

so if you can rally 51 percent of the party vote you can bring back lennonism/marxism communism[who knows with a bit of luck you can be in the same position as family first?]

>>unlike religious folk in many instances,
who just follow the leaders of their religion.>>

george busche is the only recent egsample who rallied neo cons extreemist xtians[i have not seen ANY sussie priest saying vote rudd[or cowhard]laOUR or liberal.

please confirm where this political interferance has been documented

you get sheeple [they follow the leader] your after sheep [but cats dont herd when i was athiest i was more like the goat[im still a goat ,just now my passion is correct my earlier ignorance

autonomous people [sheep]cant think,they are mindless party stooges]

but you say when
'it is NOT employed'?

so your planning of employing'autonomous thinking[sounds more like mind programing,[oops forgot you admitted that in the previous post [re education camps]how would you feel if it were done to you?

>>when autonomous thinking process is not employed]>><<it is very dangerous for democracy.>>

please explain how atonomous Democracy means free choice?

>>,the opposite being tyranny where no choice is allowed...<<

how is forced RE-education NOT Tyranny?

where is my choice to believe as i chose?
only in making sure you dont get voted into power?

you seem to have an 'evangelistic' like zeal on the topic

-1-David: “No, the Oxford dictionary doesn’t supply a correct definition of Atheism.”-

Yes it does. You don’t have more authority over words than the Oxford Dictionary. Surely you understand this?

-2-David “I’m reasonably sure you would not be in opposition to most of the content.” -

You can only be reasonably sure that we’re both atheist. Assuming my political/social/religious opinions are akin to yours cuz of this is arrogance.

Do all black people eat gumbo and boogie-woogie?
No.

-3- David: "Which Atheist orientated one are you in?" -

Do I need one to discuss the nature of existence? It’s ok to have theists in this conversation/debate too. Why segregate?

-4- David: "I assume you are saying, … Atheist organisations should not exist." -

No. Are you hinting I *must* be part of a *group?

-5-David: “Who then is going to represent people adversely affected by religion?” -

All sorts of people.

-6-Pegusus: “The only shared issue is we know there is no God.” -

So take the politics elsewhere.

-7-Pegasus: “Exactly what you want to impose. Shame on you.”-

I’m imposing the Oxford definition of Atheist.

I resent the hijacking and claiming as support of *Atheist* for these militant POV's re religion, abortion, euthanasia, war etc. These are highly contentious issues, which anyone can hold but not as atheists which has no stance on any issue but exist stance of god.

-7-Pegasus: "Such attitudes from atheists indeed." -

Do I need attitude adjustment, to fit your athiest doctrine? I bet that is what you hate about religion isn‘t it?



-8-David: "...will continue to fight on your behalf even if you do not want us to..." -

Would you like to vote for me too?

Examinator is right, you’re really slipping now. Do you think it’s a big conspiracy and evil lizard people made up the dictionary? Or maybe, until we are atheists as you dictate we won’t be freeeeeeeee? Talk about rightious and controlling.

Sorry to be sarcastic but you can’t be serious? Or is all just a big angry chaotic blur.

one under god,

I have been kind up to now but one can take so much.

Only stupid, ignorant, misinformed or wilfully mischievous people equate Stalinism with Atheism freely chosen in a democracy.

Aligning fundamentalism with an attitude that requires proof for propositions is beyond absurd.

Apparently you believe a whole lot of supernatural mythology without evidence for the premise or the baggage which follow it, i.e. that there is a god etc. It is your life and it is you’re right to do that.

But if you are not against the idea of indoctrinating such un-evidenced carrot and stick personal beliefs into the minds of children and imposing those beliefs via politics onto one and all, then I am your ideological enemy. You have no inherent right to do that.

My conjecture would be that someone has placed the fear of hell into you and this terror overrides any rationality you may posses. The AFA is attempting to stop this kind of child abuse. Those so abused go on to abuse others in like manner thus becoming a threat to people and planet.

Why not stop and think for a moment and entertain the thought that maybe what you are supporting is only culturally sustained arrogance in believing you have some kind of profound truth, which others, such as me, don’t.

As long as people like you peddle absurdity, there will be people like me pointing it out. Although going by the quality of and the rationale presented in your posts, this hardly seems necessary.

I wonder what you think about that it is your efforts and the machinations of your fellows, which has resulted in the very steep increase in an interest in Atheism. Kinda ironic, wouldn’t you say!

I think you should take my advice and retire from this thread if only because you are not winning anyone over to a religious point of view. In fact, religious fundamentalism is the greatest support for Atheism that Atheists could hope for. When your numbers decrease, as they will, ours will do likewise. Bring on that day!

David

David you are so right, Atheists do not vote to impinge on the rights of others, as an example, voluntary Euthansia is a right that we all should have,it is not being passed by Parliament because of the religious right, if any one wishes to die in extreme pain and loss of dignity then that is your decision, I am happy for you, but I do not wish to, and that should be my decision, no one elses.
Being an Atheist I do not fear death as was mentioned earlier, I do not need a minister of religion standing over my coffin telling everyone that I have now gone to a God and fairy tale Heaven, all of this is from a book that was written a long time ago by men, if religious people really believed in the Bible they would still be out stoning people to death on a regular basis, or killing insolent children, Gays, people who wear mixed clothing, who work on the Sabbath and so on, this is not relevant now, do we live by the rules of the Bible or do we reject them and substitute our own, the only heaven is rotting in the ground, or 900 degree heat from a furnace.
David is trying to bring the bus Avertising on Atheism to the attention of the people, the same as I am forever having Church signs selling their religious beliefs to me. Atheists should not be discriminated against, we are a very large group of people, more than most people think.
I look forward to seeing the bus Atheist sign soon