4 ms·
Both sides come to the discussion with fixed ideas, and you have what amounts to a contest between different types of fundamentalism Sorry, I can't let that go
by jeromec 16y ago
Both sides come to the discussion with fixed ideas, and you have what amounts to a contest between different types of fundamentalism
Sorry, I can't let that go without correction. Fundamentalism is interpretation of every word in sacred texts as literal truth. There is no sacred text for atheists by definition. Atheist beliefs can change, and indeed would change, if verifiable proof of a diety was forthcoming. Fundamentalist beliefs can't change -- big difference.
- DLWormwood 16y ago> Atheist beliefs can change, and indeed would change, if verifiable proof of a diety was forthcoming. How do you know this, when many simpler things in life have “proof”, yet many still are in denial about them? (Read: the moon landings and the Holocaust.) Stubborness is stubborness, regardless of origin of belief. Whether or not a text is considered “sacred” or not is irrelevant if people dogmatically follow what is written anyways. For the record, I consider myself agnostic. I tried being athiest in the past, and found their writings, Internet fourms, and discussion culture just as poisoned and tedious as the “born again” types I spent much of my life around. A plague on both your houses!