Religion has no placed in modern society.

your understanding of "religious guys" is sadly shallow. that phrase is so obscenely broad it must include Muslims, Christians, and Jews all together.

I can't speak for the Muslims and Jews, but I can speak for what I've heard from conservative Christians, even though I am an agnostic.

Christians generally believe "hate the sin, love the sinner". The vast majority of the experiences I've witnessed where Christians talk about the topic, they believe that homosexual behavior is a sin, it is negative and destructive, but they do NOT go around "fag bashing".

It is NOT a sin to look at a "skinny young thing", even if you are married. To appreciate beauty and sexiness is not necessarily a sin. It IS if you nurture lust for that woman. And there is a difference.

As for forgiveness, Christians repeatedly say, all humans are weak, they are all sinners, but can receive forgiveness when they admit their sins and try to atone for them.

Think of it from a different perspective. My daughter struggles with math. She often gets lazy and writes sloppily, does not carefully mark down each step in the solution, and although she's often going in the right direction, she makes mistakes. What I'm trying to do with her is show her how some apparently innocuous behaviors--like not lining the numbers up in straight columns, skipping steps, etc--lead her to make mistakes that in the end cause her to fail. She will say "I have a problem with math"--and that's the first step toward "admitting the mathematical sins". She then needs to train her mind to be aware of how she errs and avoid it in the future.

Moral sin is very similar, except that there is no elegant "right answer" at the end that is eas to see. So many people convince themselves that their drinking is not a problem. Their lust is not a problem. Their sexual proclivities do not cause a problem.

that does not mean that there is no problem; they are just unaware of the consequences of their decisions.

Wrong, Jesus said that if you so much as look at a girl with sexual desire you are committing adultery in your heart. And he also said that if you curse your neighbor you are committing murder.

LOL then I guess like when you have two minuses in an equation, they cancel each other out and become a positive. LOL

I truly love your comment//// the true is always refreshing:D

forgive me, but that phrase seems trite and mistaken. we know that people CAN live without human affection, they won't just wilt and die, although we also know they won't be very happy.

I personally live without religion, or at least without practicing it, but religion was key in forming my sense of morality and right and wrong, so it may be self-delusional to try to proclaim that I "live without religion". I just don't attend church, but every time I refrain from stealing because I was taught NOT to steal, perhaps I am in effect living with religion I just don't acknowledge. That may be true to you and others as well.

to live without any meditation means to live a life without reflecting upon life or one's own actions. Can you really tell me that you live a life where you act without reflection, and when you wrong others, you simply ignore it and go on?

if so, then you are living the life of the protagonist of The Stranger, Albert Camus' book in which a disaffected Frenchman living in Algiers murders an Arab an essentially doesn't care. To live, to die, to kill, it all means absolutely nothing. (The Cure wrote "Killing an Arab" about that book).

If so, you are a nihilist, and I doubt you'd be proud to admit that. So I suspect that you cherish a phrase the Dalai Lama has said that deep down you probably realize is not true.

Wrong, if a baby doesn't receive love and affection immediately, if it is left alone without human touch for a couple of days, it will die. Humans who live without affection become psychotic.

Didn't you say that you weren't the touchy feely type? I wonder if that is why you seem to have a major psychosis going on.

that simply has to be the most ignorant thing i have ever read.
thinking that no religion would cause no moral stucture or saying moral stucture wouldnt be without religion is just plain stupid.

'a world without religion', i agree. but the rest of your comment has nothing to do with organised religion, but are from man made laws of each country, state, etc. all of the behaviors you mention would be, and are, controlled by secular laws.

Have you ever heard of the golden rule ? It is a perennial philosophy , much older than any modern religions . Treat others the way you want to be treated . Much less divisive than dogma .

Do you really need a memo from the almighty to know that "thou should not kill"? Is that not obvious to you as a human being?

I'm an atheist. I have no desire to kill anyone. I am empathetic and I care about my fellow man because I am a human being just like you. Morality comes from within. Our laws were not based on the ten commandments. Our laws were based in part on human morality that exists independent of that fictional icon. Ignoring the parts commanding you to worship god, the ten commandments were created by man based on morals that are inherent in the human condition.

The most serious implication of a world without religion is not that there will be no sense of right or wrong, but that correct behavior becomes subject to the whims of popular belief, of changing opinions, and of fickle emotions. The notion of humans being endowed with "inalienable rights" vanishes in smoke. If humans were not created--through whatever mechanism you want to believe in--with a set of rights that are immutable and eternal, then rights must be granted and withdrawn by the state. Whatever state is in existence at any time has ALL the authority it needs to grant or deny "rights". They are not "rights", then, but "privileges".

This is at the heart of European rights, where only Kings had god-given rights, and the kings bestowed privileges, at their whim, upon their subjects. A king could change his mindfrom year to year, and when he left his kingdom to his heirs, they could rewrite the rules.

People who respond to your post by saying "I don't need religion to know 'thow shalt not kill'" are fooling themselves. Does it NOT occur to them that, whether God actually spoke to Moses on the hill or he made them up himself, the FACT that over the course of TH"OUSANDS of years of civilization the Jews realized that they had to WRITE DOWN and codify rules of conduct implies that there MUST have been a time when it was NOT obvious to everyone. Those first rules were the basis for all our laws afterward.

How can a secularist say "I don't need religion to know that killing is wrong" as they return from the abortion clinic?
How about euthanasia? Is there anything wrong with it?
How about suicide? How about doctor-assisted suicide?

Allthese are forms of killing that secularists have at different times condoned. So clearly it's not such a black & white issue. Humanism simply does not give any moral perspective on these issues.

I read a post by a humanist the other day who essentially said that we should NOT assist the poor around the world, since the world is overpopulated, we should simply allow the weak and feable to die. Why should we support the poor? If they are not strong enough from an evolutionary perspective to thrive, let them die.

All you who claim that society will do well without religion are smoking from the same humanist hookah and fail to see that there is no moral compass without the world's religions. It may sound great when you focus on the MICROCOSM, but we live in a MACROCOSM and your proposals are a recipe for disaster.

"People who respond to your post by saying "I don't need religion to know 'thow shalt not kill'" are fooling themselves."

No. I'm not. I have empathy. I would not kill anyone, for real, and I think the ten commandments story is just about as true as Santa.

"Does it NOT occur to them that, whether God actually spoke to Moses on the hill or he made them up himself, the FACT that over the course of TH"OUSANDS of years of civilization the Jews realized that they had to WRITE DOWN and codify rules of conduct implies that there MUST have been a time when it was NOT obvious to everyone."

The question is whether or not "thou shalt not kill" was inspired by an actually-existing god. My answer is no. Humans came up with it all by ourselves. Do you think everyone thought murder was OK before that? Do you think that if the story of moses never existed that murder would be legal in America today? You are the one fooling yourself. Your assertions lead to absurd conclusions.

"Those first rules were the basis for all our laws afterward."

No they weren't. People knew it was wrong to murder before the story of moses was invented. Do you deny this?

"I read a post by a humanist the other day who essentially said that we should NOT assist the poor around the world, since the world is overpopulated, we should simply allow the weak and feable to die."

You either totally made that up or that person is not really a humanist, and even if you could argue that he was, you cannot imply that is the conclusion of most humanists, or you are lying to yourself and everyone else to make your point.

Given that you are "agnostic". Do you think we need religion even if it is false? It's pretty sad that you don't think humans are capable of being good without concocting a ridiculously stupid story to justify what is already inherent in human beings - a moral system based on emotions and empathy.

When religious extremists, who think it would be really great for the end times to happen now so they can see god or want to kill everyone who disagrees with them, get access to a nuke that is a recipe for disaster. When people reject science because they prefer their stories of talking snakes, that is a recipe for disaster. When everything we base our society on is false, that is a recipe for disaster.

We have morals whether or not there is a god. We don't need fake stories to create civilizations that don't oppress people. People don't want to be oppressed. That's reason enough, is it not?

noxi, you have 'empathy'. swell. really? what empathy do you have for aborted children? do you think that is OK?

if so, then your 'empathy' is already flaking and you're starting to rationalize moments and means by which killing a human--even the most vulnerable and innocent--is OK.

YES, I believe that killing in ancient history was NO WHERE near as repugnant to people as it is today. History is rife with examples of it. From the gladiators to the crucifictions, mass murders of tens of thousands of people by governments from Rome to Greece, Tureky and Persia, as well as across Asia.

in your twisted revulsion for religion, you fail to see that whether or not Moses got the 10 commandments from God or made them up, or if others made up the story, is totally irrelevant. The story became on of the central tennants of Jewish and subsequently Christian and Muslim morality because it clearly stated a code of conduct that, if it hadn't been needed before, would not have been documented and would not have been treated with such reverence.

This myth, if we deign to call it that, is also found across the world. Every religion I know of codifies correct behavior and admonishes incorrect behavior.

Whether or not the actual events are historical or mythical is irrelevant. Like Carl Jung explained, these are archetypical images that explain fundamental and undeniable truths about human nature.

I didn't make anything up about the humanist quote, he published it last Wednesday or Thursday on Current. And I suspect that his opinion is far more common that you think. I've heard MANY non-religious liberals lament the overpopulation of the world and how we would be better off letting millions die to reduce our damage to "mother earth". You can squirm if his statement makes you uncomfortable, but it's the discomfort of someone who knows that MANY people who claim to share his "faith" in humanism are perfectly willing to take that "faith" to extremes that perhaps you are not.

But that is the very point. Many humanists like you might NEVER agree to that, but if you eliminated religion as a whole from the world and installed a purely humanist government, in the end you would, in FACT end up with those "death panels" determining who was worth saving, who is not, and finding "humane ways" of letting people die "with dignity" etc

I do not want to eliminate religion. I have said many times I come from a religious family. People should be able to believe what they want. However, their stupidity should not spread like the plague into our government.

"Whether or not the actual events are historical or mythical is irrelevant. Like Carl Jung explained, these are archetypical images that explain fundamental and undeniable truths about human nature."

Uh, no it isn't. That is exactly my point. Morality comes from ourselves. It is not commanded from on high. That is my point. People know it's wrong to kill, whether or not there is a god. We don't need to pretend our big daddy in the sky is going to burn us to know that. We can dispense with the fantasy in its entirety and still know that murder is bad.

What you said about humanists/liberals is not even close to representative of those groups, but yet you are trying to make it seem like it is. You are being dishonest. It doesn't make me uncomfortable at all. I alone am a reflection of myself. The straw men you are throwing up there are not me, nor are they indicative of progressives, atheists, humanists, or secularists. Straw manning makes for an extremely weak argument. Whoever says we should let the poor die, regardless of what they call themselves, are not humanists/liberals - they are libertarians.

For the last time, we do not need religion to know that killing is wrong. We do not need the bible for the vast majority of people on this earth to know it is wrong to ignore the poor and let them die, if you think you needed to be told that, and you didn't just feel it naturally, then in my opinion you are not really a moral person, but an obedient person. There is a contrast between obedience and sincerity here.

It's like you're saying there is no rational justification for a peaceful society or against an oppressive one, and that is sad my friend. Sad, sad, sad.

... not to mention that society is an invention. The idea of rights is an invention as well. Rights are nothing more than individual instances of not-being-oppressed by man-made authorities who have enough power to oppress you. In no way does atheism lead to the conclusion that our governments should oppress it's people.

"YES, I believe that killing in ancient history was NO WHERE near as repugnant to people as it is today. History is rife with examples of it. From the gladiators to the crucifictions, mass murders of tens of thousands of people by governments from Rome to Greece, Tureky and Persia, as well as across Asia."

Really? When did the holocaust happen again? How many people died when we dropped the atom bombs in Japan? When was that again? How many Iraqi civilians died in our little holy war we have going on over there? When were the crusades? Christopher Columbus discovered America? Wow, I guess all the natives here didn't count. How many of them died? What was the justification for that? Manifest Destiny? What about Gaza? Darfur? Yes, killing happens. It is wrong. It always has been and it always will be, even when people try to justify it using religion. There are 2 sides to that coin. Religion might motivate some bad people to be good, but it also is used by some to justify murder.

I wish you would labor and give birth some day , and be responsible for that life . Then you would have empathy on the women who do it .

damn, that's a pretty wide swath u cover...degenerates, inequitious, uneducated wannabee pretenders...r u sure u read the bible?...soundz like sumthin i heard fum da mullahs lol...ur the prototypical xtian who assumes himself the enlightened expounder of GOD's gift to man...no wonder so many of todays youth r turned off...u need to get a grip there bud!

"people who either DON'T believe there is a God so they won't be accountable for their degenerate lifestyles and may continue in doing what they do best, which is iniquity at full speed.."

is this REALLY why you catholics think we atheists dont believe in god? so we can justify our "sinful" lifestyle to ourselves? that shit doesnt make any sense.

but its not like anybody has used gods name to justify their evil ways right? oh wait they have.

in the same way atheists like Mao, Lenin, and Hitler used their irreligious arrogance to commit the worst attrocities in history.

don't cast stones if you live in a glass house, robot

and just because im athiest i must think that its ok to kill religious people right curtis? i must be just like Mao and Stalin right? i was just pointing out to BIGDADDY that he is very ignorant. Im sure if you read my other posts on this thread you might find that im not an intolorant asshole

stalin a GOOD communist?

i hope thats sarcasm.

if you want a good communist its good 'ol Josip Broz Tito

but hitler, mussolini,castro, etc. were Catholic.

no, ryan, Mussolini was a Catholic, Hitler was NOT religious and the Nazis were anti-religion.

some of the best internal resistance against the Nazis came from within the church. Some just ignored it out of denial, others out of complicity, others out of self-preservation. But many saw it for what it was and fought back. And some hung for their good deeds.

"We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out." - Adolph Hitler. 10/24/33 Berlin.

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." - Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

you can't quote someone who used any and every form of manipulation to rally support behind him...cmon now

AMEN!

hey i liked your post and voted it up.

yeah, i can't stand to see two guys kiss either. i won't hate them if they like it, but YICK I don't want to see it.

anyway, i think you're mistaken here: "(BTW marrige is in no way a religious union, it started as an economical union)"

Marriage is, by its very nature, a religious institution. If it's simply economic, then a civil union will do. But marriage is the sanctification of a union before God and the community. It is "holy matrimony", and to my knowledge, it is in every society.

Which is why I believe that the solution is the OPPOSITE of the one you mentioned.

If marriage is a religious definition, then government has NO business regulating it.

In that case, the government should NOT issue "marriage licenses" to ANYONE. The government should issue "Civil Union Permits" to any consenting adult couple, and that's it.

If two guys or two girls have a church that is willing to marry them, that's up to them, their church, and their version of God. Government has NO damn business getting involved.

He dicho.

i like your point. and i did a little research.

here is the Etymology of the word "marriage." It derives from Middle English(which was english in the middle ages duh lol) mariage, which first appears in 1250–1300 C.E. This in turn is derived from Old French marier (to marry) and ultimately Latin marītāre (to marry) and marītus (of marriage).

so yes "Marriage" is definitely a religious term but originally when the term was "marītus" it was just a civil union

perhaps for the romans it meant a simple civil union, but I doubt that means anything like what we know today. and it certainly would seem irrelevant to the 300 million Americans who certainly don't see marriage as a strictly secular event, or it would not be conducted in churches FAR more than in a courthouse.

I'm "married", but only through a civil union. I see no point in worrying about whether it's a "marriage" or a civil union. And I don't understand why gays are so fricking upset about it. Who gives a shit? If you get all the benefits and rights, quibbling over a term such as civil union and a marriage seems like a silly waste of time.

but to make things 'fair', my suggestion above would put us all on equal footing. everyone would be united like I am, and if anyone wants to have the religious marriage, go find a church or synagogue or whatever and get it done.

Marriage was originally created for economic reasons, religion is secondary.

But marriage today in the modern world is far from being a religious institution at the secular level. If it is then the government needs to get out of the marriage business and give everyone a civil union. If marriage belongs to churches then that is where it should be, in the hands of churches.

Lets stop playing semantics. Civil Union or Marriage, if you are talking civil rights, they are exactly the same thing. But if you are talking religion then marriage is a religious institution of that religion. But it cannot be a religious institution of a secular government.

"I don’t know of Any government in history that has been ran by or greatly influenced by a religion that has not oppressed a segment of their society just because they do not agree with their point of view. "

equally, I don't know any secular government that has not done the same. Can you?

Good point,

not at all arrogant. nope. and very persuasive.

All religion is fiction. That is a fact.

In much of Western Europe the majority does not believe in god.

The USSR was an atheist society from 1928-1939. Since they then they have had a 66% irreligious population.

gotcha, I've never heard that before.

and just LOOK how fucking prosperous they are!

smoke another one

don't be fooled, rory. their arguments are hollow. note how guyatthebusstation points out that the USSR was "an atheist nation" from 1928-1939, as if that makes it an example of a prosperous atheist nation, which in fact it collapsed under the oppressive secular socialist government.

additionally, while guyatthebusstation tries to present it as an example of a successful experiment, you should note that this very same government is one that Brava quoted as having committed the religiously inspired attrocities. She screwed up: Lenin was an atheist, and the attrocities he committed were a perfect example of the HORRORS of secularist ideas run amok.

and yet that is not only overlooked, but even after it was criticized for the attrocities, it was later praised as an example of how great secular atheist societies work.

Do you see the insanity of their thinking?

a 'higher power' is awesome!...i have one...but totally different from 'organised religion'.

You need to be careful with making blanket statements. You don't know what was in the minds of the people under Soviet Union. There were and still are millions of religious people in the areas governed by the former Soviet Union. Just because their official position as a government was not to believe in a god, it doesn't mean that the entire population was atheist.

"The arrogance in comments annoys me"

You are guilty of it right here, right now. You are demeaning issues that are truly important to people just because they are not important to you. Comments are opinion, get over it. Should people make their opinions all nice and fluffy so they fit into your world view? Arrogant.

... as if the fact that the war on drugs hasn't failed and all the people in prison belong there?

That attitude is why America imprisons more of its citizens than any other country. We have more prisoners than China does. But no, I guess it's too arrogant to want to change that and help the economy and base our policies on facts and science rather than propaganda and profits.

owned imo

I'm not sure I agree. From the time I joined it was already filled with that kind of stuff, you're dealing with the far left here, what do you expect? Of course they hate on America all day long, hate on religion, bow and scrape at the altar of Obama and the Religion of Divine Climatology.

really, it couldn't have gone much lower.

so, you may ask, why do I come back? why do I remain? Because it's so damn much fun to be the spoiler in the Liberal echo chamber.

really? it's arrogant to say that someone is arrogant?

if someone writes an article that makes sweeping statements that are not based upon facts and is historically innacurate, and at the same time slanders and insults an entire class of people, it is "arrogant" to call that "arrogant"?
So, for Brava to have published a poorly researched, poorly written article that treats people who subscribe to ANY religion as if they are retrogrades and troglodytes, that woudn't qualify as "arrogant"?
Hmmm. The definition of arrogant is:

1. Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance.
2. Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others

I guess in your book, if you read a sloppy piece of shit you should say "good job!" because to honestly say "this is crap" is somehow arrogant.

I'll take that chance.

Which conversation are you reading?

the word "lulz" is pretty much my favourite internet-speak of all time. Well, after 'lollerskates'.

Indeed. I am an atheist, but I don’t believe that religion is a cancer. Everyone needs something to feel optimistic about. I would be happy if people could just keep it to themselves and out of my secular government.

which is the point made in this post.

that song is a childishly naive anthem and is nothing more than drug-induced socialist poppycock

It's one of the greatest songs ever written, actually. (subjectively speaking).

really? it's about as nihilistic as can be. an anthem that whines endlessly about trying imagine the wonders of a world where there are no possessions, nothing to fight for, no countries, nothing but sky above us, yada yada.

wow, a world without any meaning, a world where there is nothing right or wrong, just the NOW...

and that somehow sounds like a mature song? it's fricking Kumbaya for stoners.

one of the worst beatles songs i've heard. makes me sick to my stomach.

"wow, a world without any meaning, a world where there is nothing right or wrong, just the NOW"

That is a juvenile interpretation of the song and not the intended meaning by any stretch of the imagination. It's so simple to understand too. If we did not divide ourselves with superficial concepts, the world would be more peaceful. You still do not have to like it or agree with it, but it is what it is, and not what it's not.

noxi, the world is what it is. " If we did not divide ourselves with superficial concepts, the world would be more peaceful." kumbaya, if Christians and Muslims and Jews would all just get together in a great big dope smoking circle jerk the world would be a better place.

that's a FAR more absurd thought, than what the world religions teach. They at least teach that the world is a complex, difficult place, that there IS true evil and that the good people of the world must fight it.

I much prefer living in the real world than some drug-enduced stupor that John Lennon lived in.

"Christians and Muslims and Jews would all just get together in a great big dope smoking circle jerk the world would be a better place."

Again with the childish non-sequiturs. Fine, be a child. I can't hold your hand and try to explain this to you any more.

You really do get off on your own vomit, don't you?

"Fundamentalism" is just a word. It is useful to describe an extreme religious view point. Some people are fundamentalists. They take the bible literally and they want to kill gays and force people to obey their religious views (as an example) by whoring our criminal justice system to a theological John. In short, I wholeheartedly disagree with you. The fact that fundamentalism is a very real thing negates your assertion that we should not use the word. It is a very real phenomenon in this world, and it has very real consequences. Not all religious people are fundamentalists.

Your response leads me to think you may not follow my logic. If I am understanding this properly, you are using the antithetical position to suggest that we should use the word fundamentalism so that we don't have to engage in constructive discourse. The irony is palpable.

I'm saying denying the fact that fundamentalism exists is counter-productive. Are you saying that there is no such thing? Words are merely labels. You cannot engage in constructive discourse with someone who, for example, murders abortion doctors. Fundamentalism exists and we should not exclude it from our conversations. You are the one saying that the very word "fundamentalism" is a stop gap. Not me. Denying facts is not constructive. In order to have an intelligent conversation about religion, we cannot deny that fundamentalism exists. We need the word "fundamentalism" in order to be constructive.

noxi, I think what necro was saying is that, like you said, it's a label. But it's used more often than not like the word "racist" as a way of labeling someone as being so "radical" or even "insane" that only a fool would have a discussionwith him. (as in: only a fool will argue with a crazy person).

in short, a person may not be a fundamentalist, as you pointed out, but may share some conservative beliefs--some of which may be true, by the way--and if one simply replies by caling them "fundamentalists", then one has simply tried to evade a difficult conversation by engaging in an ad-hominem attack.

BTW, I dont' think that you can really say that fundamentalism = "radicalism". A fundamentalist generally wants to get back to the "fundamentals" of the religion, the "original interpretations and practices".

The Amish, for example, could be called "fundamentalists", but as extreme pacifists, would you really call them "radicals"? I wouldn't. In fact, I think they tend to be the most harmless of all the Christian sects and in a way are the ideal model for how religion should be. They live with an extremely small carbon footprint, very low impact on the environment, do not meddle in other's affairs, do not go around converting people, will not participate in wars, won't even kill an attacker who is killing them (which I personally find to be going a little too far, but I sure respect their dedication to their beliefs).

Good point. I suppose I was using the word fundamentalist differently and "radical" would have been more appropriate. I agree people should not be generalized. When I use a word like "radical", I am only talking about actual radicals (like people who would kill another person based on religious differences), not everyone who is religious, like my born-again mother and extended family. I guess the lesson is words should be used in their proper context.

I recommend that you revisit some analytic theory. language and syntax do not enjoy the same concreteness as math and science. Making the argument that fundamentalism is a fact is impossible, like saying truth is a fact, it is more prudent to ask: what do you mean when you say "this thing is true?"

The irony is that when you use this word in the way that you are using it, you become the pervasive tyrant in the debate. "Words are merely labels," this is a wildly irresponsible sentence and it further supports my original point. When you use the word "fundamentalist" you get to enjoy the intellectual high-ground without providing supplementary synthesis. However, while you marvel at how astute your moral compass is, you are unaware of the hegemonic position you have now declared. Much like the "fundamentalist's" perspective, you use labels with immovable definiteness to frame the debate and to not feel obligated to entertain that which is alien to you, and in the process stifle a mutual understanding of both parties perspective. Despite how self-assured you might be in the righteousness or correctness of your position, communication is progression and empathy and it is more valuable than your sense of ethical certainty.
So, if words are machines used for communicating, we can agree that a more dynamic machine is one that both transmits and receives data. "Fundamentalism" is a machine that only transmits data, it suppresses the transmitter at the other end. Therefore, It is intrinsically not a constructive word for interpersonal, socio-economic or socio-political advancement.

P.s. This also applies to the word "radical."

Radicals exist. Fundamentalists exists just as much as atheists do. Or trees. Or anything else. Fundamentalists call themselves fundamentalists. Fundamentalism is not alien to me. I grew up a born-again Christian. You use a lot of words to say not much of anything. When you focus on the words as much as you do, you totally lose the meaning of the conversation. This conversation has lost any meaning. Communication is not empathy. Empathy is empathy.

Fundamentalism and radicalism are words that we use to describe concepts that exist, whether you grasp it or not. If those words did not exists, we would have different words for these concepts. While you marvel at how astute your ability with words is, you are unaware that you are not making any sense. I will continue to use words for things because that is how language works. You can focus on the words and lose the forest through the trees if that is your will, but it is not mine.

How did that not make sense to you? My argument is very simple and you have not even come close to addressing the rudiments of my thesis. No use trying to fit a square shape in a circle hole I suppose.

You should try being more critical of convention, its good brain-food.

Yes my rebuttal is "relax, they're just words", therefore one would be correct in assuming I think your thesis is wrong. How did you not understand that? I'm starting to think you're good with words, but lacking in substance or understanding. I answered you multiple times, wording it differently, giving you basically the same answer each time, but yet you still don't get it. I do not use words to avoid talking about substance. I use words to convey substance. If you still don't get it, don't bother responding because I'm so done with this conversation. I'm sure you are too.

PS I am far from conventional. If we were all sheep, I'd be the one and only purple one. That thing you said about fitting a square shape in a round hole is the story of my life.

I am certain you are not understanding my argument, I assure you, read it again, you've consistently missed it and your inane rebuttal proves that. I'll give you a hint because it seems like you're stuck: I'm not arguing whether or not fundamentalists exist, I agree, they do.
That thing about fitting a square shape in a circle hole is a metaphor for being stubborn and ignorant in the face of reason, I wouldn't embrace it too tightly, although I'm sure it is the story of your life.

JJammer? Is that you?

No I have not missed, nor have been unable to understand your argument, JJ. You are the one not following. Perhaps I have to spell it out more simply for you. Given the fact that fundamentalism exists, it is valid to use that word. The use of that word does not discriminate, nor does it take away from the conversation in any way, shape, or form. It does not shut down part of the conversation, nor does it magically relieve anyone of their "duty to think". What has been missing from this conversation all along is you understanding what I have been saying. There's only one person I know who mangles a conversation the way that you do, JJ. Whether you are JJammer or not, that is what I am going to call you.

Oh and you failed to realize that while I OBVIOUSLY understand your square shape in a round hole thing, what you failed to grasp is that I twisted it to mean not fitting in... If you stubbornly continue to ignore the obvious (just like a JJammer would), then I have no desire to talk to you anymore. Neither of us can gain anything from this useless thread. Have the last word, JJ. I know how much you need it.