And I can go on with those examples, but I'll leave it there, as I think that's enough to start on--

If you OD believe in this monolithic entity known as "The Media"...

Why, and how?

You might call them bad news stations (with some justification) but MSNBC *IS* different from FOX, and both are different again from CNN, from ABC, from the BBC...etc...

So where is this monolithic "Media" with a capital "M" that the Right so often says everything against them and towards liberals?

To take the other one...

First--what would you say *is* Atheist Fundamentalism, if I may ask? O.o

It's not a religion, and as the shared common ground--to REALLY over-generalize--for atheists is at the very least a shared view that a deity or deities are unproven, unlikely, do not exist, should not exist for moral reasons, or some combination of those...that's the bare-bones basics, a view that rejects these supernatural claims and generally favors empirical views and skepticism, again, to be as basic and broad as I can be...

Where's the fundamentalism there?

There are no fundamental or founding texts of atheism...we can take some works by Ancient Greek and Roman skeptics and David Hume and Bertrand Russell and now the Dawkins/Hitchens/Harris Triumvirate, perhaps, as maybe a broad base of atheist texts...maybe throw some Mark Twain or Virginia Woolf or Douglas Adams in there as well for literature...

But it's not uniform and not a fundamental text you can (as I did before a couple years ago) love Hume and Nietzsche but despise Hitchens and Dawkins as atheists alike...

So where's this fundamentalism?

Who has ever said FOX was fair and balanced??? lol FOX gets bashed for being right wing more than any other news network gets criticism imo (and I'm not saying this bashing is undeserved =P).

You're looking for logic or coherence where none exists.

There has always been this idea among the conservatives in America and Europe that there was a cosmopolitan, Jewish, secular, cultural elite that wanted to de-Christianize and de-Nationalize their country (countries). They did this through the media and other cultural platforms like film, literature, etc. This has been going on for a long time now.

As for atheist 'fundamentalism', I would say there is a growing trend to formulate some kind of coherent united platform among atheists, notably among the Atheist+ movement, which started because of reactionary antics by many in atheist circles (notably sexual harassment).

@Tom:

Well, FOX says it's "Fair and Balanced." :p

I was mostly taking their tagline, but I use it here because of their commentary on the Clint Eastwood Chair Incident...

Their talking heads going on and on about how brilliant it was, but how "The Media" was sure to spin it and twist it and employ their liberal agenda to blah blah blah...

Next day, on the radio, from the past to the present tense--now, according to FOX, "The Media WAS spinning and twisting this (apparently) ingenious shtick of Eastwood's and how they were now employing their (apparently universal and completely uniform) liberal bias against Eastwood and Romney and Ryan and the Republican Party and, why, all of mankind and, indeed, the entire universe, it seemed!

;)

And all the while I sit there, and I have to think...

1. Do they not realize THEY are part of "The Media?"
2. Do their apparently-rabid viewers not realize this as well?
3. Anyone who says "No, no, FOX is different from the mainstream Media, they tell it like it is!"...

First, seek medical attention, you seem to have sustained a blow to head.
Second, the news outlet is one of the largest media empires in America, funded by Murdoch...they're as mainstream as it gets.

@Obi - A realist reralizes that Fox is no more Fair and Balanced than MSNBC is. They are both mouthpieces for their repsective sides.

As far as the atheism, I've never heard fundamental atheism, only militant atheism. And likewise, fundamental Christianity. Boith are also extreme views tryign to push their views on others at all costs. And both are fucked in the head.

My only trusted news source: http://ephemeris.alcuinus.net/

"There has always been this idea among the conservatives in America and Europe that there was a cosmopolitan, Jewish, secular, cultural elite that wanted to de-Christianize and de-Nationalize their country (countries). They did this through the media and other cultural platforms like film, literature, etc. This has been going on for a long time now."

True enough, that's the stereotype, but I still boggle at a media outlet using that term, "The Media"...

That's rather like Babe Ruth standing up and saying "The Fat Men of America" have it out for him. ;)

"As for atheist 'fundamentalism', I would say there is a growing trend to formulate some kind of coherent united platform among atheists, notably among the Atheist+ movement, which started because of reactionary antics by many in atheist circles (notably sexual harassment)."

Well, for starters--I think the Atheist+ movement barely even qualifies as a movement as of yet, it's a phenomenon some attention-seeking atheists started just a while ago, and it brings about an unnecessary division in the atheist community (paradoxically) by trying to institute a sort of dogma to bring about unity.

Dawkins once said that trying to get an atheist lobby was a bit like "trying to herd cats."

And, as much as I am NOT a cat person--could never stand the fur or the scratching, and damn it, if it's my pet and I in the room, *I* will be the one looking smug and superior, not some creature I have to scoop crap out of a sandbox for--I think the description fits a bit, given how individualistic and anti-group some atheists can be (and I'll say some to allow me to place myself in that box without boxing in all the other atheists on the site into such a stance...for all I know, Putin, you could be quite the people person and group-lover! ...For all I know.) ;)

One of the great things about atheism is that, by its very nature, by rejecting dogmas, it does invite a sort of skepticism, and oddly enough, allowing for different forms of that rejection and different speakers on the matter allows for a more cohesive group...and allows for that by NOT having a set dogma or direction.

You can (in theory, anyway) be an atheist Republican or atheist Democrat.

(For those quick to point out the Christian Right there, oddly enough, according to an interview Penn Jillette gave on the matter once, the president with the most references to God and appearances at churches and so on...was Clinton, not Bush, as many might suspect, or even born-again Jimmy Carter, so atheist Republicans are not such an oxymoron as maybe we might be cynically inclined to believe.)



All that Atheist+ nonsense aside, as that's really dignifying it with far more attention than its nascent "movement" deserves in trying to set up an artificial dogma and divide...

There's still no fundamental atheist "text," or fundamental atheist "leaders."

There are popular texts and leaders, but it's pick-and-choose...

Aside from belief in a deity, I'm not sure what could be counted as "fundamentalist" about atheism...it's pretty varied, again, you can pick and choose however you like, and the one rather solid-in-stone requirement--again, a lack of belief in a deity and the supernatural--is no more "fundamentalist" than a belief in said things...

So if belief and lack of belief ALIKE are fundamentalist positions...

Are agnostics, then, the only non-fundamentalists to be counted?

I doubt most employing the "Atheist Fundamentalist" tag would accede to THAT.

Obi, you're a real scroll-bar killer, ya know that? :P

Fez.

"I've never heard fundamental atheism, only militant atheism."

@Draug:

Yes, I've heard "militant atheism" as well, which I must say is nearly as confused as "atheist fundamentalists" as far as terms go.

After all, doesn't "militant" imply...well...a military?
Or force of some kind?
It's not as if I and my Hume-to-Hitchens-reading ilk are likely to go and pick up a gun and march on The Church of Latter-Day Saints or something.

(Why, I've never even picked up a gun period, much less fired one--the gun lobby here just asked "HOW DARE YOU OPPOSE THEM, THEN!" to which I remind them I don't oppose guns, just unlimited and unregulated guns, much the same way we don't oppose driving, but we still have industry, age, and zoning laws, federal, state, county and otherwise, but I digress--so I'm CERTAINLY not about to go and do that!) :)

For that matter...when has there EVER been an atheistic military?

The USSR and DPRK?
Atheistic state, but they weren't killing in the name of atheism and, I'd argue, these were/are somewhat highly religious states...or at least states high on the religious fervor...

Just a different kind or religion--cult worship of a "hero" (Stalin or the Kim family members) to the point of fanaticism.

I don't dare apply this too stringently to the USSR--lest I provoke Putin's love of Stalin--as I'm by no means an expert...I tend not to dwell all my life on a dead communist state, after all...

But the DPRK should certainly be called religious--what else CAN you say when the people of North Korea literally believe their founder is their "Eternal Leader" and is immortal, and that he and his son Kim Jong-il had supernatural powers...

And now there's even an Unholy Trinity of sorts--

The Father Kim Il-sung, The Son Kim Jong-il, and...well, Kim Jong-un is hardly slender enough to be a Ghost, even a Holy Ghost, but the point is made.

They pay tribute to them, they ascribe them supernatural powers, they teach a dogmatic belief about them...

DPRK's cult worship is NOT militant atheism, it's militant theism, just with human beings as deities.

So, if not from abroad, and not at home, I ask again--

Where are these gun-toting, goose-step-marching, "militant" atheists?

@Dubmdell:

The scroll-button manufacturers ought to pay me. ;)

@obi - Try using a dictionary, oh one of words (or so you claim).

Militant - Combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause (religion or anti-religion is a social cause).

I get my news from NPR, BBC, and The Economist. I'll freely admit these all have a liberal bias, but they are not sensationalist, which really annoys me about *all* cable news.

I would ask you to read this blog post, which started the Atheist+ debate, and then tell me that the Atheist+ers are the ones being "divisive" and that the movement is "nonsense".

http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/2012/08/how-i-unwittingly-infiltrated-the-boys-club-why-its-time-for-a-new-wave-of-atheism/

@obi - Two more in case they elude you as well...

Combative - Ready or eager to fight; pugnacious (in case you donm't realize it, fighting can be verbal like when my wife and I fight, it ain't physical, but can be rather brutal).

Aggressive - 1.Ready or likely to attack or confront; characterized by or resulting from aggression.
2.Pursuing one's aims and interests forcefully, sometimes unduly so: "an aggressive businessman".

Hopefully now you actually understand the word militant. One would think a high school graduate in college would have a grasp of English vocabulary. It's not exactly an unusual word.

@abge - I like NPR a lot. All Things Considered is my "ride home" show if I'm not in the mood for music.

@Putin - Who are you talking to? I never called atheism "nonsense". I only said both militant atheists and fundamental Christianity were fucked in the head. Neither can prove their point of view and so trying to force it on the whole fucking world is fucked in the head.

Not you, I was replying to Obi, did you mention Atheism+? No. Try to pay attention.

I'm pretty sure Obi Stalin-baits me more times than Giuliani says 9-11, at this point.

All things considered is really good. Do you get On Point where you are?

OK. Sorry Putin. I thought you were commen ting on my militant comments. Obi writes so long I nod off, so I skim sometimes and hope to catch what he is trying to say as he meanders around.

I find much Obi's writing to be a tale told by an idiot: full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

@abge - I don't know. I can't listen to NPR at work as I need music to work by (can't multitask coding and listening closely to words, my old brain just ain't what it used to be).

Well, if you ever listen to podcasts, you should consider adding that. On Point with Tom Ashbrook from WBUR.

Most of my lsitening is in the car using my Android (mostly Slacker or Rhapsody) or the radio, but I'll look into it.

@Obi - One more note upon rereading yuour first meanderings...

"atheists is at the very least a shared view that a deity or deities are unproven, unlikely, do not exist, should not exist for moral reasons, or some combination of those..."

No, atheism is a belief that no higher power exists, period. You mix agnosticism with atheism. There is no "should not" or "unlikely" in atheism, and especially not in militant atheism (and please reread the definition of militant above again in case you are confused).

@Draugnar:

Fair enough dictionary definition, but as was pointed out here a few days ago (can't remember the thread) when someone tried to support their point with a dictionary definition...

There's the dictionary definition, and then there's the growing understanding of the term, its implications in a culture, and its connotation.

I don't know about you, but ESPECIALLY in a post-9/11 world, when I hear "militant," I think of what I referenced--people with guns and bombs killing or threatening others over extremist dogmas.

"Combative - Ready or eager to fight; pugnacious (in case you donm't realize it, fighting can be verbal like when my wife and I fight, it ain't physical, but can be rather brutal).

Aggressive - 1.Ready or likely to attack or confront; characterized by or resulting from aggression.
2.Pursuing one's aims and interests forcefully, sometimes unduly so: "an aggressive businessman".'

Combative/Aggressive I'll take.

I'm just saying, militant has a different connotation, especially today, and I don't think it's a fitting term.

For more on Atheism+, there's this explanation by my favorite atheist - Richard Carrier.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/2412/

"I'm pretty sure Obi Stalin-baits me more times than Giuliani says 9-11, at this point."

Well, YOU have Shakespeare-baited me plenty in the past, Putin...

And Tutor propagandist or not--

Shakespeare never had the blood of millions on his hands and never started one of the absolute worst and most tyrannical reigns in history...ad populem is no way to go, but still, I'm sure even those that despise me here would agree...

Shakespeare > Stalin as a personal hero any way you measure it.

I reference Shakespeare enough that he's fair game to bait me with, as I've said before...

You've defended Stalin and his regime enough and espoused it enough that he's fair to bait you with it, especially when you bait me first.

So, "This is the short and the long of it," take it "As You Like It," "Or, What You Will," and, as "Our revels now are ended," "The Rest is Silence."

:p