View Full Version : Religious & Atheistic Fundamentalism: A Bigoted Pathology of Polar Oppo-Sames

02-26-2014, 12:18 PM
Expression of Individuality does NOT have to come at someone else's expense.

Yet, this pathology of self-elevation of particular groups/sects above others seems to be reaching increasing levels, on a global scale.

From this perspective of perpetual conflict, there may well be as many 'Utopias' as there are groups/sects/individuals. Reason and Harmony are odd strangers in the reality we are currently experiencing.

The technological instruments of conflict, hatred and destruction evolve faster than human nature. Yet, human nature is and has always been the key factor at setting the world stage.

In the sense in which this terminology is used today, I am neither 'religious' nor 'atheist'.

Both are fundamentalist, bigoted and self-elevating belief systems, and if they serve an evolutionary purpose (which I think they do), this purpose may not be what most adherents (from either side) may think it is.

Like I stated somewhere else, evolution/advancement is (IMO) optimal at the level of the Individual.

Here is a lecture by Chris Hedges, which I personally consider quite brilliant in dealing with these topics:

Chris Hedges on New Atheism, the God Debate, Science and Religion, and Self-Delusion (2008) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEPvUAFqydE)


This is the first YouTube comment that jumped forward under this video:

"New Atheism" and the "Christian Right" are both Cults of Ignorance. Each with a narrow minded view of religion and God, both externalizing evil upon others,
both idolizing charismatic leaders, and both posturing for their own visions of Utopia. They are simply opposite ends of the same spectrum.

I am not endorsing the whole lock, stock and (non)barrel of his suggested implementations, but this is nevertheless a great talk, highly recommended!

(By "his suggested implementations", I am referring to his mass-movement activism ideology, to which I do not particularly adhere.)

However, those concepts are not prominent in the above talk - which is altogether quite balanced - and that's why I felt OK to post it.


02-27-2014, 10:26 AM
I posted this in another thread, I think, but I like the quote:

"The atheist who proudly and persistently strives to convince others that there is no God does so out of a devotion to the absolute, to the highest of values, to the divine. It is an old maxim — one that infuriates many unbelievers, but that happens to be true nonetheless — that one cannot meaningfully reject belief in the God of classical theism. If one refuses to believe in God out of one’s love of the truth, one affirms the reality of God in that very act of rejection." - from The Experience of God by David Bentley Hart.


10-10-2015, 12:34 AM
A little stream of consciousness/rant...


Half my life I have been annoyed at the believers in God, and the other half of my life I have been annoyed at the non-believers in God.

I have to just accept that they are all right and wrong... the only reason they stand on opposite sides of the argument is because they don't see the awesome reality that is standing right there before them.

There is a "God"... but "it" is not there just as the atheists claim.


I will explain it in allegory (and for this to work you have to pretend we can't see the Sun):

Some people believe that a divine being is flying across the Earth giving light to the day, and they can only prove it with faith.
Some people believe that the light that makes day only happens because darkeness evolved into light, and they can prove it with experiments.

None see that what is really going on is that there is a Sun, and that it is conscious.


Maybe not the best allegory, but I can't think of any other example at the moment to illustrate what I mean.

It is very easy to poke holes in the beliefs of religious people... just watch some Dawkins videos. But it is just as easy to poke holes in atheism.

“We are asked by science to believe that the entire universe sprang from nothingness, and at a single point and for no discernible reason. This notion is the limit case for credulity. In other words, if you can believe this, you can believe anything.” - Terence McKenna

The main difference when arguing these points with believers or non-believers is that the former can actually somehow understand a little, whereas the latter - the atheists - simply call you a "dude high on his own insanity" (which I told recently).

11-18-2015, 12:15 AM
Been watching some atheism YouTube videos. They all share one common argument that they are right... they all say "show me the evidence" or "prove it".

And then of course the stupid religious people are trying to come up with evidence or proof... which they usually fail to do because nothing can be proven. Not even the atheism view.

This is very funny.

Imagine you have a mother that loves you and she dies, and then ten years later you tell some dude that when she was alive she loved you, and the guy goes "prove it".

1. there is no need or reason to prove anything
2. that atheists are so concerned with proof is proof that they are anally retentive
3. an atheist has no more proof about anything than a non-atheist

It's like watching two people blind from birth arguing over what the Mona Lisa looks like.


08-05-2016, 08:17 PM


08-10-2017, 12:21 PM

Commandment number one is dedicated to JDP. ;)


08-10-2017, 03:12 PM
I like the example of Plato and how he somehow managed to elude the "religious debate".