Sick to fucking tears of it.

[wolven7]

Brokenkites - [Mourn No More]--- Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennet, Sam Harris:

Zealots.

Look at it with the objectivity and rationality that is so touted (as if it "means" something, in the mechanically materialistic world, other than a way for us to seek to-- always incompletely-- understand it).

They HATE God(s) and Religion(s) and believers. Why do they hate them? Because these things do not conform to their personal world-view of scientistic, materialistic rationalism, and they believe them dangerous and world-destroying. This is the view that they use to make sense of the world, and that they feel makes it a better place. Anything other than this is Wrong, and Must Be Eradicated.

Replace "scientistic, materialistic rationalism" with Allah, or YHVH, or Jesus, and you have what are daily labeled Zealots.

It's not a "turn-around." It's a proper application of a term.

Fuck you. I'm going to bed.

Comments

[nausved.livejournal.com]

I agree. They make the rest of the atheists look bad. We've got a serious PR issue on our hands, and our so-called "leaders" (that is, those atheists making the most noise) are only burning bridges.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Same problem had by Christians and other groups. The ones who yell get attention, because they are yelling. Calm, self-aware voices get shouted down.

[wacko1138.livejournal.com]

Fundamentalism is fundamentalism, regardless of the cloak it wears.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Spot-on.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Zealotry is only dictated by the fervour and exclusion one has, regarding one's beliefs. If you're a foaming at the mouth "rationalist," to the exclusion of all other forms of thought and belief, then you're a Zealot. Rationality is not sacrosanct.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

*shrug*

[raidingparty.livejournal.com]

The zeal with which one holds any belief, including rationalism, defines whether one is a zealot or not.
(Either that, or apparently the belief of the violent overthrow of the Roman government, but... been there, done that, got the t-shaped execution.)
Of course, where the line lies is wide open for interpretation, especially since most people would not consider themselves to be zealots. Of course, most people consider themselves to be above-average drivers.

Rationality is not inviolable because it is self-proving. Granted, logic is difficult-to-impossible to prove wrong, and it is usually a far more useful method of prediction than necromancy. But it doesn't work without making a few base assumptions that are then borne out with... tadaa... logic. And you couldn't have those assumptions without making a leap of faith.

The initial assumptions are based on people's experiences of the world. But some people's religious beliefs are based on their experiences as well.