Reply #93: And we're back to my original comment. [View All]

[laconicsax]

You might as well invent a charge of acableist fundamentalism for those who don't have cable TV and openly write and comment on the problems associated with and reasons to eschew cable TV.

I must be a fundamentalist speller because I try to adhere to a literal interpretation of a basic set of principles concerning spelling.

Either way, there is no basic set of principles that atheists share. Atheists are defined by what they do not have--belief in gods. What's more, you have defined all theists as fundamentalist by the exact same reasoning. If atheists are fundamentalist by not literally believing in any gods, then theists are fundamentalists by literally believing in gods.

As to my 2+2=5 analogy, imagine if you will (this shouldn't be difficult) that people who believe that 2+2=5 have considerable societal influence and political power. Imagine that these same people continually challenge education standards that hold that 2+2=4 and publish textbooks with a disclaimer stating that there's a controversy over whether the sum of two and two results in four or five--that 2+2=4 is just a theory with no more support than 2+2=5. Imagine still that people who believe that 2+2=5 have a powerful lobbying base and frequently try to enact legislation that supports their viewpoint.

If this happened, would you not be a fundamentalist mathist for speaking out against this? For insisting that under no circumstances does 2+2=5? Or would you perhaps, say 'que sera, sera' and accuse those who do of alienating progressive 2+2=5ists who don't literally believe that 2+2=5 and whose support is needed to oppose the efforts of those who do?

I don't respect beliefs that assert fiction in place of reality, only the believer's right to believe it.