Fightdirecto
Posts: 1101
Joined: 8/3/2004 Status: offline
|
quote:
Hardcybermaster wrote: ...but they all believe in god so they are all wrong. Based on your comment, you seem to be the perfect person to ask the question I commented on before. If Pol Pot of Cambodia, an avowed atheist, killed thousands based on his understanding of atheism (his understanding that all the religious were "wrong" and therefore deserved extermination) - was he better or worse than Mother Theresa of India who attempted to help the poor based on her understanding of her relgion? After all, by your standard, Mother Theresa was "wrong" because she believed in a God and Pol Pot was "right" because he believed there was no God. Further, as someone who expresses the belief that all who believe in a God (or Gods or a Goddess are "wrong", would you call yourself a fundamentalist atheist, as describes by atheist Resa Azlan: quote:
There is, as has often been noted, something peculiarly evangelistic about what has been termed the new atheist movement ... It is no exaggeration to describe the movement popularized by the likes of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens as a new and particularly zealous form of fundamentalism -- an atheist fundamentalism. The parallels with religious fundamentalism are obvious and startling: the conviction that they are in sole possession of truth (scientific or otherwise), the troubling lack of tolerance for the views of their critics (Dawkins has compared creationists to Holocaust deniers), the insistence on a literalist reading of scripture (more literalist, in fact, than one finds among most religious fundamentalists), the simplistic reductionism of the religious phenomenon, and, perhaps most bizarrely, their overwhelming sense of siege: the belief that they have been oppressed and marginalized by Western societies and are just not going to take it anymore.
|