Comments by "CynicalBroadcast" (@CynicalBastard) on "Florida Gun Shop Now “Muslim Free Zone"" video.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
you can fight for your lack of beliefs (and no one said that you fight the beliefs of deities; that has nothing to do with anything and you're misunderstanding me), in order to denote that lack of belief as the thing to think. that's fundamentalism. you are dead wrong. if you fundamentally believe that you are right and anyone thinking differently is wrong (and anything that goes along with that) that is precisely fundamentalism. sorry you can't see that.
and i don't if this was you or not, but...i think i made the distinction here that Athe-ISM, cannot be fundamentalist by it's nature of being an ideal. an atheIST on the otherhand is a person, who can be as fundamentalist in their views as anyone else, religion or no.
(and sometimes literally is just used for emphasis, so as you can see, language has clearly evolved beyond your understanding. literally.)
essentially Atheist who presume that religious people are dangerous or nuts simply because of their beliefs (as opposed to their actions) are being fundamentalists.
you can call them fundamental materialists, too, but they identify as Atheist, so it's just as fitting. you can refer to it as merely a pejorative, but i think it's rather well suited considering the in-group mentality of Atheists and their disregard for logic in determining whether they're correct in their views or not.
you cannot prove there's no God, it's inherently an illogical point of view to believe that you can assume "it" doesn't exist. meaning you're just about as bad as any Christian fundamentalist. crazy eh?
1
-
you are going LALALA. you can't even understand logic or words.
let me break it down for you more.
first off: Literally is used for emphasis. it's not wrong. it's not formal English but it's not "unacceptable" to say something like "your ass is literally stupid" and have that not be clear in it's intended message. the literally is for EMPHASIS. read a dictionary.
two: "Nowhere does it say: the desire to spread your opinions"
and nowhere did I say that. so can you just learn how to read?
i said that if you THINK that someone else's THINKING is wrong because you think your's is right, fundamentally, without any proof or rationale, you are being fundamentalist. also that you think that you can insist there is no God via your orthodox belief systems, rather than empirical proof. that's another great form fundamentalism from Atheists, because they think they CAN. but yet, they can't. ever. because it's illogical and unreasonable.
three: i already said definitions change all the time, and fundamentalism isn't solely about believes, it can apply to viewpoints and thoughts as well. you can be a fundamentalist religious person or political person or doctorate, or whatever, i don't care; if you're fundamentally sticking to your metaphorical "guns" with no rationality involved, and refuse to change your adherence to these "guns" and irrationality, than you are being FUNDAMENTAL in your beliefs, thoughts, ideals, actions, ect ect ect
you don't get this though...right...even still?
(and what does any of what i'm saying here, or the definition of fundamentalism, have to do with being MORE ATHEIST?)
you can call them fundamental materialists, too, but they identify as Atheist, so it's just as fitting. you can refer to it as merely a pejorative, but i think it's rather well suited considering the in-group mentality of Atheists and their disregard for logic in determining whether they're correct in their views or not.
you cannot prove there's no God, it's inherently an illogical point of view to believe that you can assume "it" doesn't exist. meaning you're just about as bad as any Christian fundamentalist. crazy eh?
1
-
"The WRONG use of "literally" is only a few years old, and incredibly fucking annoying. You need a word like "literally" to mean exactly instead of just another word for emphasis. I'm going to ignore this, because it's largely irrelevant."
annoying sure. but language isn't fundamentalist. it can't be. it doesn't come from a place of strict adherence.
and you can keep saying "by definition" but you're still wrong. my definition holds up. religious doctrine and precepts to be held to strict adherence, is the EXACT same thing as INSISTING and ASSUMING all the while that god doesn't exist. you'd be far safer in your presumptuous attitude without the whole unsubstantiated claims department running amok.
"How can I strictly adhere to the idea of lacking a belief in deities? It doesn't make sense."
by presuming that God doesn't exist and presuming that everyone should follow that logic or be wrong/dangerous/whatever else you can think ect.
that's how. like i said Fundamentalist Atheism is distinct from the concept here of your being a fundamentalist Atheist. two different things.
"You pulled this right out of your ass, so I'll ignore this drivel."
=( oh no you can't understand words again. go get that dictionary.
"Since atheism has no rules, claiming strict adherence to "their rules" is nearly meaningless."
oh really, no rules? how about the rule of thumb that there is no God? there is no evidence of that BTW, which makes the presumption illogical on the face of it. it is a precept in Atheism, and thus there are rules.
like i said, if you think that someone's thinking is wrong simply because you BELIEVE your thinking is more correct, that directly delineates to the same exact type of thinking that Christian or Muslim fundamentalists have in tandem with their views on the world. which form of thinking is in the precept's definition; it's a BELIEF, because there is no evidence to support the claim; which BTW i am not claiming here that there is a God, i'm just pointing out your insistence in the belief that there isn't one.
you can be SUPER SUPER Atheist, because according to you, you can't not not believe in non-beliefs, while apparently you can. Atheist do it everytime they insist that God doesn't exist, and everyone who thinks it does is wrong and must be ostracized.
Dawkin Militants are the most grandiose fundamentalist Atheist, even though Dawkins isn't even fundamentalist in his views. he's an actual intelligent Atheist. it's amazing. but it's also like wow... the following. DUR.
1
-
i don't wanna do this again.
look i told you already... AtheISM, AtheIST. two different things. Atheist do much against their own precepts when they, in fact, claim there is no God. they do this. this is what the guy in the video was referring to as "fundamentalist".
"An atheist does not insist that god doesn't exist. You don't know what you're talking about. "
right. but yet many do. they aren't doing a good job are they?
"That is not, by definition, fundamentalism. "
then what is it?
"Being agnostic atheist is not a lesser version of atheism. "
no it isn't, it's a greater form of Atheism.
"The atheist does not claim that there is no god. He simply rejects the belief in deities. It's not the same."
that's the purport, but that's not what many Atheists do. so you're telling there are fake Atheists? well that hurts the perception of the there being no fundamentalist Atheists.
"Which is why so few atheists claim to know that there is no god. They can't, and they accept that."
and yet so many do and they are the fundamentalists i'm talking about. they make up a huge proportion of those whom write Atheist literature and on broadcasting.
"You're confusing agnosticism, gnosticism, and atheism; distinctions that are very important. "
i don't think so. i am merely addressing those who do what they shant do to believe what they will fundamentally, and that is believe that there is no God and to tout that belief as absolutely correct. i know that's not what Atheism is supposed to be about, and maybe that'll change, but for now that's the overall rally cry. you should probably talk to those people and tell them to hold up with their fundamental beliefs on...non-beliefs. which is just absurd, of course.
people who claim to be just "atheist" should even be discussing God. but this again, is what the guy in the video was addressing. not YOU and your specific Atheism, specifically. he as talking about gnostic atheists whom believe that they know that there is no God, with no proof. they are almost militant in their process. that's why he called them fundamentalists. because they will tell you that you're wrong and their right, and never wriggle from that position, no matter how much it makes no sense, and stick with that as a rule of thumb, that God does not exist, which is fundamental in it's viewpoint.
1
-
"Very, very, very few atheists claim to know there is no god. You don't know what you're talking about. A gnostic atheist is not a "fundamental atheist". Atheism is not fundamentally about gnostic atheism. You don't know what you're talking about."
you keep saying i don't know what i'm talking about, yet you admit that "very very few claim to blah blah" well, those very very few (which are more than very very few) are the ones i'm referring to. so no...no i'm not wrong. by your very logic. you dolt.
so if it happens it happens.
and i am talking about fundamentalism in thoughts and viewpoints. if i said "if you don't do or think what i think you should do or think you should be removed from making decisions" that's a fundamental point of view and thus a fundamentalist point of view to adhere to.
plenty militant atheists (the ones you claim are so so very few and yet don't exist, hmmm how does that work again?) proclaim that God DOES NOT EXIST. they are the fundamentalists i am referring to. and i am just explaining the guy in the video's perspective reasoning in calling them Atheists. i am explaining to you, because you can't understand the concept.
good day.
please no more telling what Atheism means, i know what it means. too bad so many "Atheists" don't. and no, before you come back with a response, no, i'm not referring to you. i was never referring to you, and if you can't gather what the explanation was for, i'll assume it's probably because you're slightly offended. so just don't bother.
1
-
"Which are nonexistant"
making the fundamentalism extremely stupid.
"That is not what fundamentalism means."
uhh what is fundamental and/or is touted as fundamental and is adhered to, equals the term fundamental-ism. the word does not solely apply to religious sects. you are just sooooo damn wrong, and can't fathom how or why. the word it's so confusing for you because it's not expounded on in whatever dictionary you're reading. LOL you can't ENGLISH.
"I'm trying to make you understand why you're wrong, too."
by assuming that Atheists have no fundamental points of view. LOL but yet they do. you may not...but that's arguable as well...though whatever the case, it doesn't change the fact of those who treat Atheism as a fundamental belief structure. didn't i say that already, or was it another Atheist trying to say that "Atheist is strictly defined by having no beliefs". lol, yes true. i already said that was true but this doesn't stop people from entreating their fundamentalism into their Atheism. if you don't believe me, good for you. i have had experience with many a type of flagrant ignorance from Atheists, both falsely touting there is absolutely no God, and those like you whom say i'm confusing the term...no i'm not. i know that Atheism means Lack of Beliefs, BUT that's not what MANY Atheists ACTUALLY believe; NOR even when that IS the case; they do not "not believe", they merely SAY IT, and then tout that anyone who thinks there is a God is wrong; and how would they know that. they are incorrect in calling themselves Atheists. that is what the guy in the video was describing. it's what i am describing. you still insist that i am talking about you. you're really daft. and stupid.
"So basically, "fundamentalist" doesn't mean what you want it to mean"
no, a fundamentalist means someone who adheres to fundamentalism, and what is fundamentalism, it is the adherence to values, believes, thoughts, feelings, ect that are fundamental to the person. that's it.
it's very simple and it's not as simple as what you tout it to be, because you're a simp.
1
-
dude i'm not talking with you i'm running circles over your head. "Atheism is not an ideology" it's certainly held as one. and Atheism as merely a "proposition" is still adherent to the ideology that "no Gods exist". it's in the word...A - THEISM. Theism meaning belief in a God, so hence A-Theism is the lack of a belief in A GOD. SPECIFICALLY. Atheists have reclaimed the word, rightfully so, and i agree with the proponent here, only i'm explaining what the guy in the video was referring to, i wasn't looking to wax philosophical on how the word has come to mean "a position which holds no beliefs" nor pontificate about the changing of the meaning of the word from it's root definition. it's ACTUAL definition...seeing as though i find words to be malleable, i have no qualms with that, at all.
" It is not possible to "strictly adhere to" a lack of belief in deities"
no, but like i said, it's possible to adhere to your desire to have people think like you do, which is entirely ... wait for it... a FUNDAMENTAL point of view for many Atheists who DO claim there is ABSOLUTELY NO GOD. and those are the "Atheists" (and i use the term lightly here) that the guy in the video was referring to. it's a pejorative.
you guys and your "but it means no beliefs ugh!" do you even realize what Theist means? it means belief in a God... and A-Theism means... SPECIFICALLY... THE LACK OF BELIEF IN A GOD.
SPECIFICALLY. the meaning has just merely been commandeered, which is totally ok. just so long as the original meaning isn't lost. which it seems to have been with many louts who think that they can bowl over logic with pure insistence of, ironically, their beliefs.
you believe that Atheism means "no beliefs period" and that's good...good for you. doesn't change the actual meaning of the word, however, in ecumenical discussion.
PS: you've not actually addressed anything i've said and just been repeating yourself, so i'll assume you have no idea what i am saying.
1
-
dude, i know the definition of words simply more precisely than you do. you're pigeon holing yourself into strict, lousy, and incomplete definition. here i'll repeat myself again so you can bask in how little you can grasp. A-THEISM. A for Antithesis, Theism for Belief in a God.
that's the original definition. it's been beleaguered into being re-defined as "a lack of any and all beliefs", but that doesn't erase the actual word's semantical purpose.
"This is what I mean. Atheism isn't an ideology. Anyone who claims it don't understand it. It's fundamentally dishonest to have this as a starting point."
i know, i was explaining how the guy in the video used "fundamentalist" as a pejorative against the kind of people who DO claim it to be an ideology. what the flying fuck is so hard to understand here? we are arguing for no reason.
"Atheism does not say: "I believe no gods exist". It says: "I lack a belief in gods".
still an ideology. the ideal here being that you lack any beliefs in Gods, and the ideology here being that you insist on that as the lens in which you view the world.
"He, and you, are using the words flat out wrongly."
no, we are using words in a malleable way, using "fundamentalist" as a pejorative for "crazy believing person".
"Not once have I said this. I've said over and over and over that atheism is a lack of belief IN DEITIES"
that's funny, what a strange ideology. you believe in the lack of something that you can't prove the lack thereof? kinda crazy.
but you know in even STRICTER definitions Atheism is defined as having a lacking in ANY BELIEFS at all. as you can see the word does not mold to exactly your astringent idea of the word.
and you are really quite abjectly not objective. you can't grasp simple concepts of language, semantics and the argument here in general. you are completely oblivious to what's being told to you, though i am not. take care.
1
-
your lack of a belief in deities is still a belief. a belief is essentially an orthodox opinion, and a lack of belief in deities would still be a belief, considering there is no empirical evidence that there is no deity.
PS: i hear alot of different arguments from Atheists about what the word means, everything from it means i don't believe in BELIEFS (which is astounding) to anti-Christian, to your much more accurate definition.
but i'm not arguing that the definition you use is wrong, and i never did. i just A: explained why the guy said what he said in the video, truthfully he was correct; and B: that Atheists are usually unaware of the precise definition of the word and thus the word means alot of things informally. just like words do.
but please don't type out another long comment, just save yourself the trouble. you don't need to tell me what Atheism means, i know what it means. i'm just telling you that A: what the guy said wasn't false, he used Fundamentalist as a pejorative and B: that Atheists are often as confounded by the definition of their own word that they attribute to themselves, and C: that the specific lack of a belief in a God is still a BELIEF. it is an unfounded proposition to even claim to be an Atheist, because you couldn't possibly regard your thoughts on the specific lack of belief in a God or Gods, without believing yourself to be right; again...a fundamental fact and a fundamental trait.
1
-
1
-
"And if not, we might as well light dictionaries on fire. What's the point, if words don't actually mean anything?"
dictionaries are merely records.
"He did, and it was the wrong use of the word"
no, it was a perfectly legitimate use of the word.
"How can you be a fundamentalist atheist?"
you're still not cluing in. you can be an Atheist and still be fundamentalist, because you can rightly believe you're an Atheist, while still believe in the notion that you lack any beliefs of any Gods, and still not actually know for sure, which entails a fundamental perspective on the finality of the belief, whether it's a believe of a lack of a belief or not. it cannot NOT be a belief because it's simply a lack of belief by definition because whether there is a God is still something unconfirmed to be true or false, and you'd have to take whatever position you hold as a belief, because there are no facts pertaining to the proposition that there is or is not any Gods.
you require the fundamental conviction that you are right, in order to say that the lack of any beliefs in a God is NOT a belief in and of itself, which you can't have, because this concept is unknowable. Agnosticism is much more rational than Atheism.
1
-
"Just not an atheist fundamentalist, but sure."
my point being there is fundamentalism within Atheism, as a sub-set, a group. there are really really stupid Atheists who do not understand a thing about what's logical.
"because there are no rules or tenants or dogma"
save the dogma of trying to militarize the incentive to bash Christians and Muslims. it happens all over youtube. don't act like it doesn't happen.
"You don't know what you're talking about."
nah, i'm pretty sure you're just offended. Atheism (lack of belief in Gods) is much less sensible than Agnosticism (the uncertainty of the existence of God) because one is scientific the other is just assumption without evidence. which dogma follows rampantly, because there is no way to actually say "i'm an Atheist" without being slightly misinformed about the scientific method and about religiousness in general. you can't lack a belief in something that you say you don't believe but yet acknowledge in other people, that their thoughts are wrong based on absolutely no evidence. you can call that the dogma and fundamentalism of Atheists. (again not Atheism, but Atheists who are too stupid to recognize how circular their logic is)
it's much better as a backlash to Christianity, because at least then you're being honest.
or just presume to not have any knowledge at all. then you're not not believing a lack of belief that you insist upon, yet is in question everytime it's said "i don't believe in Gods". how? you seen how there's no God? i don't think so. you just wish you did, so you can say "i know there's no god, i'm right, anyone who thinks there is one is wrong".
that's pretty much the only reason for Atheism. to promote there is no Gods. or to simply lack any belief in any God, but then again, as i said...you can't know, so it's illogical on the face of it.
and i'd say there is certainly a dogma following militant Atheism because people form coalitions and aim to change society and it's rules based on a presumption by an in-group of people who want to believe there is nothing to believe about Gods, under assumption that there is none, which is essentially a belief. and it's touted as a belief structure as well. "i don't believe in Gods" (which is exactly the same as saying "i lack any beliefs in Gods"; it's the exact same line of reasoning and the way it's worded doesn't change a single iota of fact about the statement) is in fact a belief. it's just a stand alone statement like "i like chips". if you can believe in God, if you can believe in the Sun, if you can believe in Doritos, you can believe in Atheism, making it quite the untidy little ideology indeed.
again, not saying YOU do it. but you don't speak for all Atheists, whom i guess haven't gotten the memo.
1
-
1
-
1
-
yet you posit it positively as something that you have and regard for yourself. you don't reject your own belief in the lacking of a belief, so there's your belief right there.
a belief is just an instance of thinking something is true or right, formulated by nothing, by your mind. you do that very thing by insisting on that you lack any beliefs in Gods. that in itself is a believe, simply because you can't know whether you're right or wrong.
and there are alot of weird Atheists who think that the world would be better off Atheist, and that other people's beliefs are dangerous and stupid. i'd say belief, in general, is dangerous and stupid.
which is a fundamental precept of Atheism in general.
you can twist words as much as you'd like to support your thesis here, but it's just again recombining the different beliefs you have into a sense of "lacking any beliefs" which wouldn't be a belief if it was true that to "lack belief in Gods" is sensible and rational, but yet it isn't because you couldn't possibly know if it was or not. that's your problem with belief. that you need it in order to justify your lack of belief in a God or Gods.
if you think you are right about something you cannot proof, that's a belief. and of course again fundamentalism isn't an Atheist trait. it's a trait of belief. you have to presume you are right, without any evidence, in order to believe you are right, which is a fundamental precept of belief in the lack of beliefs in Gods. so in that way, while Atheism isn't a fundamentalist idea, AtheISTs on the otherhand can hold fundamentalist ideals.
you'll never really understand the concept here. but you really are a good Atheist. so bravo.
but Atheism cannot be incontrovertible in it's assessment of the belief in no God, because there is no evidence to support that proposition. you can say there i don't believe in Gods, and that's perfectly rational, but then to think that you're right about that, is not. because you couldn't know.
1
-
Atheism is not a belief, it's a belief structure. those under this presumption of belief, they are called Atheists. calling yourself an Atheist is a belief, just the same as calling yourself a Hindu.
they (Atheists) belief that there is a wholly lacking instance of any Gods. which is a belief.
you're wrong about your definition of fundamentalism. fundamentalism, the word, is not solely related to belief structures, but also beliefs in general, thoughts, feelings, ect.
if you fundamentally think/feel that there are no Gods, that is a fundamentalist perspective on the existence of Deities, one that excludes the criteria in believing deities, but nonetheless is still a belief structure.
you identify as Atheist, you're proposing your convictions that you are correct in your presumptions, which is considered a belief and which is illogical.
you aren't going to get any farther in this discussion. you think Atheists do not hold fundamental beliefs about the world, yet they do. that's why there is fundamentalist Atheists. they aren't fundamentalist because they lack belief in Gods, they are fundamentalists for believing they are right about their presumptions about the world, having no evidence to show that they are right.
ie militant Atheists. and you, for carrying on so long trying to convince me a belief structure isn't a belief structure but just a stand alone position of nothingness. you can't think nothingness. it's impossible. you do not know Nothing. so hence there is Something. the preponderance of your belief that you lack any belief of Gods, whilst you couldn't possibly know the truth of that. without knowing the truth, or any facts, it is therefore not a fact, nor truth, but a belief in and of itself. maybe not so bad as believing that Atheism is the "correct way" to think, but it's nonetheless a belief structure you adhere to. if you didn't, you'd be able to discern between the lack of a belief and your conviction that you are correct in your assertions that there is no Gods, because your lack of a belief in Gods tacitly implies there was something right about the assertion that there is no Gods, which you cannot know.
1
-
1
-
religion is simply in-group collectivist mentality in regards to believing one's coalition to be grander and more "true" than another.
it doesn't necessarily denote to Gods. Buddhists like to say they aren't religious either, that they are not a religion, but they are.
the definition you have for religion needs an update.
and the vestigial trait of non-belief in deities connotes to having an assertion of belief, at it's very core, because you have to had believed in a non-existent God in order to not believe it. if you didn't, than you wouldn't assert anything regarding this topic, because you will have not believed in God/Gods. in this case though, you obviously believe in something, just not Gods. that belief is a fundamental belief, because you adhere to that as a belief you hold for yourself.
sorry.
that and you and other Atheists form a collective of like-minded in-group thinking. which thus makes it a religion, in terms of it's religiousness, which is it's collectivism and fundamentalism within the collective belief structure.
PS: bald is a hair style. not riding motorcycles is a decision...based on the belief that it wouldn't be fun, or that it'd be dangerous, or that it's just simply not for you, ect ect.
1
-
1
-
i guess the color would be the color of your head, but no, no a hair style and a hair style's color are two different things while referring to them separate, though of course they are both PART of the same thing, that is hairstyle. if you had to list your hair style, you can either be a fucking pedantic idiotic and say "well since i don't have hair i'd have to say none, i'm bald" or you could just accept the idiom and say "what style? oh bald". both sentences make perfect sense. but one is obviously catered to a shortening of your answer.
and no it's not babble. it's semantics. you do not understand the concept here. and BTW, you asked if someone could consider having no hobby's a hobby, and i said, well depends if they consider it one. because why not? if they think sitting and relaxing in the midday Sun is a hobby, that's fine. and it's not really a "hobby" per se, maybe it's just a routine, or it's a happenstance, but if the person considers any sort of routine like that a "hobby", then it's a hobby to them. again semantics.
and no you're very very wrong because you don't understand the concept of...Bird? bird is the word? oh and how language works and what makes sense and what is merely being a pedant.
bye, looooser. :D
1
-
my hair doesn't think, so it doesn't know it's hair, so it can't ever be a style...lest i attribute style to hair. a hair style is isn't for hair, it's for people. people idiomize terminology like hair style to "what's naturally on top of your head", the hair part is distinct from that, philosophically speaking, because hair doesn't concern itself with style, as it's not conscious, at least, not past your say bloodstream being conscious because it's a part of your being.
to say that bald isn't a hair style because it involves no hair is mere sophistry.
bald is called hair style because it involves the style of that which is on top of your head, where the hair is being connoted to, in the terminology.
i hope you can see the connection here in the language and semantic meaning of what i was telling you. your propositions were sound, but my arguments were better.
BTW.
1
-
no, you're just ludicrously misinformed about language.
i am arguing that the idiom "hair style" refers to what is naturally on top of your head, so minus the dunce hat...not that bald is a style of something that is not on top of your head.
not collecting stamps is not a hobby, no.
but it can be said to be your hobby, however sarcastically. it makes perfect sense, because you can call anything you want a hobby. you may find that not doing something is as much a regular activity you enjoy, as is doing something. again the semantic argument goes over your head, but, that's neither here nor there. i was merely trying to point you in the right direction in understanding the argument.
words are more powerful than any belief, or lack thereof.
a lack of belief in a deity is not a belief. the belief that you are under the correct assumption IS however, making your belief a fundamental FACT in your perspective on beliefs. which in turn is a belief.
you are stupid. shut the fuck trap already. :P
and yeah i'm crazy...CRAZY LIKE A FOX!
1
-
1
-
1