Help
Sign In
aqal
November 2009 
Ever dealt with an Atheist Fundamentalist?
Posted on Nov 3rd, 2006
by 
~Matthew
~Matthew
I have. She sent me an e-mail a couple of weeks back angry that we were using "Ayn Rand's name in our commercials." We don't actually have any "commercials," but I don't think she was coming from a place of healthy rational reasoning, to begin with. I assumed she was some sort of Christian Fundamentalist who wanted us to remove Ayn Rand from our site because she was against anything Godless. So, I replied telling her to allow us the same freedoms we allow her :) It turns out she was just an Atheist who, ironically, worships Ayn Rand as her God. Hence, an Atheist Fundamentalist, whom I'll refer to as "D-dub," for the sake of anonymity.
The weird thing about this whole e-mail conversation is all the irony and shadow-projection in D-dub's responses. For one thing, she mentioned how Ayn Rand was a supporter of Rational Objectivism. Yet, everything she said wreaked of irrational, baseless, Subjectivism. Example (yes, she really wrote in all-caps... *sigh): "YOU ARE NO MORE THAN BLATENT RELIGIOUS CON ARTISTS! I WILL TELL YOU EXACTLY HOW TO USE YOUR STUPID WEBSITE, WHEN YOU ILLEGALLY, AND IMMORALLY AND BLANTENTLY [sic] TRY TO USE THE COPYRIGHTED NAME OF ANOTHER PERSON AND THE AYN GROUPS...FOR YOUR OWN SELFISH, IDIOTIC MYTHOLOGY AND CARTOON EXISTENCE." I'll let you spot all the shadow projections in that statement, but I find it slightly curious that, as an Atheist, she doesn't want us quoting her God.
I'd really like to hear from some of our Zaadzster Atheists and Secular Humanists on what their opinion is of us allowing members to add Ayn Rand's inspiring quotes to our database. I should mention that I sent this e-mail conversation to one of our Atheist Wizards here on zaadz, and he was equally baffled by the behavior of D-dub.
Here's my quick AQAL interpretation:
When it comes to stage development, everyone starts from level one. No one is born at the top, and people must navigate through the stages in sequential order, with no stage being skipped. The Rational stage, which we could call Level 4, is usually reached some time in early adolescence. To complicate matters, there are different lines of development that accompany growth. AND, when there is a large gap in stage-development between different lines, certain types of pathologies can develop. D-dub's cognitive line seems to be at a Rational level. She believes in and understands Ayn Rand's theories, cognitively. Yet, her Spiritual (her religion is Atheism) and psycho-emotional levels appear to be at an Absolutistic and Egoic level 2 to 3. Thus, she believes her development is Rational (because that's where she is cognitively) without realizing the magic-mythic aspects of her other lines of development. Consequentely, she projects those inadequacies onto others, particularly when she finds people who use a different type of spirituality/belief system to navigate the spiritual line of development.
Make sense? What are your thoughts? I'd like to point out that I am not, in ANY way, attacking Atheism. I believe that to be a perfectly fine belief system to navigate the Spiritual line of development, with Secular Humanism, probably being its richest tradition. It's also been shown (in studies done by the Monroe Institute) that meditation/contemplation helps people advance through stages of development (taking 2 to 4 years, on average, to advance one stage), and that without some type of contemplative practice, that between the ages of 25 and 55 (roughly), stage development is stunted. So, I'm curious. For you Atheists/Secular Humanists out there, what are some of the contemplative practices you engage in?
"When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit."
-
Source: Atlas Shrugged, 1957
Access: PublicTagged with: Atheism, crazy lady, secular humanism, fundamentalist, fundamentalism, meditation, AQAL, levels, lines, stages, development
seeing that atheism is not an organised system each atheist will probably have his/her own spiritual/contemplative practices like meditation, excersize, visualization, conversation, debate, research and in general self and community improvement, however secular humanism is a high moral tradition with some excellent principles.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=affirmations
some favourites:
We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance, joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality.
We believe in the fullest realization of the best and noblest that we are capable of as human beings.
Sounds like a pretty cool tradition to me! :)
I can't get very excited about calling myself a “secular humanist,” first, because I can't wrap my head around identifying my perspective in terms of what I'm not (secular meaning not religious) and second because it's such a dull, dry, sensible-shoes designation, isn't it. I'm truly agnostic, I guess, also not a very thrilling word, because it seems to me that convictions that require faith are about as likely to turn out to be false as true, maybe leaning a bit toward wishful thinking overall, and also because it opens the doors and windows wider to explore all beliefs equally and play with wisdom where it turns up. I know there are people who find that offensive, because their belief is “correct” and my dilettantism is “disrespectful,” but I mean really, c'mon. If it were possible to really know, then faith and belief wouldn't be an issue, and if it turns out to be true that there's a god who cooked all this up, including my consciousness, is the trick really going to be to pick out the correct god from the pantheon available by suspending the use of what I've got to work with? Is she rocking back on her heels, smirking and muttering “Now that was a good one”? Seems a bit small-minded for a god, but who knows. Small-minded god is in the running too, I guess, that's only fair.
So if you throw everyone's rules into the same hat and don't have to follow any of them, everything becomes a contemplative practice. Meditation opens doors, maybe especially because it's a practice and the dailiness and discipline transcend a lot rambling and equivocating. Yoga keeps my body and my spirit awake and fluid. Dancing and drumming and fire circles are all transformative experiences. My dreams are secret codes of wisdom, artwork is a direct link to the cosmos, and poetry is magic woven with words and rhythms. Kindness is sacred, sex is a sacrament and I'll take my communion with ripe strawberries and chocolate please.
It isn't so much that nothing is sacred as that everything is sacred, and that if I can stay awake to that, not get overwhelmed or go numb, there might not be a chart of development that will be big enough.
Thanks for your thoughts, rapunzel!! I think, as we have this conversation, we're going to find that there's a lot of common ground between the various paths people take. Kindness seems to be one universal truth (whether it be in the form of masculine or feminine compassion).
I, myself, would not want to throw out any of the wisdom traditions. I went to Dharmapalooza last week, and Genpo talked about the importance of balancing the Traditional mind with the non-Traditional mind. In Japan, Zen Buddhism, with its strict and uncompromising Eastern approaches, nearly disappeared while its (Westernized) popularity soared in the States, and non-traditional Western approaches to Wisdom soared in Japan. The conclusion: A balance of the Traditional mind with the non-Traditional mind is important in order to sustain any practice. There's richness in tradition, but it can be smothering and anachronistic. There's freedom in non-tradition, but it can lead to undisciplined laziness and lacks tradition's richness. It's ”both/and…”
Having been associated with academic science for a few years of my career, I have encountered quite a few Fundamentalist Atheists. I always found it strange that such intelligent people could be content to have their curiousity channeled through only one system of questioning (i.e. the scientific method). Granted, most of them were more articulate and truly rational than the D-dub you quoted, but their minds had blinders on all the same. I guess I was kind of like that when I was a lot younger, but I never was that successful academically…
The only church I have ever consistently attended was the Unitarian/Universalist. I found that community congenial because it is very fluid; personal religous beliefs are considered just that, to be shared if desired but not dictated. The spiritual answers were not as important as the willingness to keep asking questions, and listening to the answers, and changing the questions as necessary. Of course, this leaves one open to charges of dilettantism (thanks Rapunzel, love that word;-), and the Unitarians have been the butt of jokes about religious fence-sitting for ever. There was even a joke on “The Simpsons” once.
Contemplative practises? Well, I'm definitely on the non-traditional side (i.e. lazy). Walking my dog at a local seaside park, singing, cannabis and firelight, and I recently started Bikram Yoga (love it!). I used to practise TM, but never was consistent. Now I use EFT (Emotional Freedom Technique) for emotional healing, it sort of overlaps across the contemplation/meditation/psychotherapy sprectrum, if there is such a thing. Mostly I just try to stay open all the time.
The one thing that has become overwhelmingly important to me of late is kindness (I guess it really is a universal truth). I have only recently begun to understand that Mother Teresa type consciousness, I never really valued it in my younger days. Now I am much more averse to mean-spiritedness, I find myself shying away from many “entertainments” and opinions I might have enjoyed/agreed with earlier in my life.
I think my faith/spirituality pretty much boils down to this: If there is a God, if there is life after death, the nature of that truth will be revealed to me soon enough. This here and now is all I have, here and now.
I guess I'm still very new to this spiritual thingy.
Vicki
Hi
I am not atheist but still wanted to give my 2 cents … If some other religion or group will have phrases from my religion I would feel great. It would be an honor… specialy if the group is promoting a better world…
Now, if for some reason I the words or my “religion” were used to harm some one else I wouldn’t like it but I would ask very politly and giving reasons to that group not to use them. Insults and calling names dosn’t help anyone.. The phtrases are still there and I didn’t understand wh they shouldn’t be…
to summarize everything in a sentence I am going to use a quote that my brother told me once….
YOU CAN BELIEVE IN ROCKS AS LONG AS YOU DON’T THROW THEM TO OTHER PEOPLE !!!!
CHEERS
HAVE A NICE WEEKEND
Oren Stambouli
www.TRUST22.com
-Believing in a dream is the first step to seeing it, and not the last one-
Okay, I really liked what Oren98's brother said: “You can believe in rocks as long as you don't throw them at other people.” That's excellent.
I'm a non-practicing atheist. (Ultimately, religion and spirituality don't interest me as much as society/culture etc. They are inexorably intertwined, but I don't focus on them.) I honestly think this person is taking this issue a bit too far. It seems like she's venting and you're the target.
I think you're right, though.
Your analysis of this person's development sounds quite plausible. Do you know of any resources which explore this phenomenon in detail? I am particularly interested in how people seem to advance through the stages with part of their development arrested at a lower level. I have found this, to my dismay, in my own life.
Wilber says, “One of the most striking items about these multiple modules or streams is that most of them develop in a relatively independent fashion.” The difficulty of this reality is that some streams back up, while others run dry.
What I need is a comprehensive guide to growing all the streams at the same rate and identifying gaps and lags. I suppose this would be a Psychology of Everything….or something like that…
In my understanding, it would really be impossible (and disadvantagous) to develop all streams at the same rate. The cognitive stream always precedes all other streams in its development. So, trying to keep other lines up with the cognitive may actually hinder cognitive development. I believe the important thing to do is to make sure that all streams are clear of obstructions (pathologies) that may hinder development. One way to aid this process would be to shine light on shadow elements that tend to arrest development. Further regression in service of the ego may be required to fully integrate the broken-off pieces. Then, some type of contemplative practice (as per the Monroe institute) should act as a catalyst for raising the center of gravity of one's development.
As for developing specific lines, differences between transformation and translation should be taken into consideration. Transformation would be, for example, going from ego-centric to ethno-centric to world-centric to kosmo-centric. Translation would be developing the skills at each stage. Higher stage-development would still allow for translation at lower stages, while it would not be possible for translation of higher stages.
Cool subject! When I first read the title I was puzzled until I remembered that fundamentalism is an attitude – a mind set – and basically there are fundamentalists in every aspect of our world. Since fundamentalism basically stems from the idea that one has all truth about a given subject (I'm right and you will be when you join me) and all else is “other” and not “truth” , and since designating someone or something as fundamentalist usually indicates a closed mindedness toward a balanced discussion of any opposing opinion, I would hope it is, indeed, one of the stages of development for this person.
Having been raised as a fundamentalist Christian, it was a hard awakening when I came to realize that all of us have the right and the privilege to choose the beliefs we wish to hold. However, doing no harm as we hold them is essential. It does seem like there is an attempt to jab you for the purpose of hurt….. not good – I think you are on the right track with your idea of stages of development.
WOW, talk about heavy absolutist opinions! I just finished reading KW's new book, “Integral Spirituality”, and while it is a real challenge to digest with total understanding, I found his argument that ONLY an “integral spiritual” view can even allow for increased spiritual development to be both “rational” and “compassionate”. I strongly recommend this book for those interested in this subject. Repression of any kind in the area of spirituality is surely a great danger in an already dangerous world.
Yeah, I read Integral Spirituality a while ago… I'll have give it a second run-through when I get the time to read for recreation again. It's kind of a lot of material in a short book :)
that person you dealt with are the easy ones to deal with. just ignore :)
seriously, D-dub's version of Atheism is silly. i think you should focus your analysis and integral eloquence hacking it with uber-rational and uber-logical atheists: aka The New Atheists.
check out the latest issue of WIRED for more context. i have more to say about this later. in the meantime, i'd like to hear your thoughts on this as well. i think that would be a more interesting heady conversation :)
~C
Yeah, ignoring would probably be the smrt thing to do in this case. But I did want to point out that Fundamentalism spans the belief systems, and is not confined to religion… something I'd like Richard Dawkins to become aware of. So, in this case, I consciously and purposely fished out a bit of D-dub's pathology. And she reacted just as expected. As a side note, Franc had a small e-mail conversation with her, too, in which she revealed that she's also a racist. Again, I definitely think “The Root of All Evil” needs a little revisioning :)
As for your links, I'll have a look at them when I get some time…
Until then, ”Respek!”
Wow! certainly I'm not an atheist. I'm writing in response to the negative energy around her projections, and how you, an “innocent” or random person, ended up on the receiving end of it. I agree with Ponysong that no matter what the belief system, kindness is important, and I loved what Oren98's brother said about you can believe in rocks if you want to, but just don't throw them! C4Chaos jokingly suggested that such off target nonsense can simply be ignored.
A 23 year old woman got elected 2 days ago to a public office that directly affects me and how I do my job. She is a “fundamentalist” Christian who has noted that, in the way we do our jobs, we “give little value to morals.” She has made it clear that she wants to “aggressively investigate” my CEO, who is a decent man. She has freely admitted to the press that her approach is “controversial because everything is black and white.” This approach, also, is violent. I don't plan to ignore her. Maybe we need a pod about this. Oh! I know! I'll go post about this at the Moonlight on the Owl's Wing pod, because she is a great example of the negative animus! (Sorry, just thinking out loud.) BTW, I think D-dub is a great example of negative animus, too!
I think a pod about this would be great! i am not big on ignoring fundamentalism when it influences other people's lives. ignoring d-dub is one thing as long as she is in no position to enforce her stupid racism and warped ideas on decent people around her. but when someone in public office (i'm also thinking of certain countries' presidents) is a religious fundamentalist, then that really scares me. I am always afraid of christian fundamentalist, cause i never know if they seriously follow biblical morals (as they claim - in which case they are suppose to stone me to death) or if they follow standard universal humanist values of peace and acceptance and just happen to have an unreasonable, irrational world-view.
check this for ultimate evil
maybe we'll get similarly silly games soon where Tibetan Buddhists beat Chinese soldiers with trout? would that cause more or less of an upset? for some reason i think that would be considered less socially acceptable than religious fundamentalists killing people based on religious beliefs or lack there of.
sorry i'm rambling.
i'm thinking of starting a secular humanism pod.. as soon as i get some time. all rational, reasonable, responsible and compassionate humans welcome, as well as others interested in any way.
I don’t agree about the ignoring part either … I think part of our responsability is to open discussion and at least try to let people understand.
I am not saying we have to convince them but just show them what are you al labout…
intresting experiment by the same guy that speaks in what the bleep about the water…
he had 3 containers of something (don’t remembe what now) 3 of the had same light and ambient conditions one he had loving sounds positive thinks like love beauty etc … second one negative one the third one he just left alone NO positive or negative…
As you might expect teh positive was the most amazing one after a few weeks
the negative was really damaged and not very nice
The most intresting part for me was what happen to the 3rd one…
from all 3 vases that was the one that suffer the most that was the one that had more damage the one that grow the least nad was the uglyest one…
intresting … some time even negative feedback is better than ignoring something what a great lesson :)
Oren
www.TRUST22.com
-Believing in a dream is the first step to seeing it, and not the last one-
This message is for Oren:
When not applied to water containers - negative feedback generally creates a discussion. Especially when applied to someone's voiced opinions (worldview or value structure representative opinions, we would assume). And if you doled it out everytime you ran into irrationalism or fundamentalism you'd have too many discussions to follow in the course of a day. However I trust this negative feedback, from me to you, is far more worthwhile than engaging a developmental problem from flatland.
Or I could just be being an ass. :-) Peace to you, my brother.
B~
Someone in a recent discussion i had refered to Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins (and i think they were making a stab at me) as fundamentalist atheist.
This is Richard Dawkins' reply to such critisism and I felt it needed to be shown here to show the contrast with D-dub's true fundamentalism.
Franc-
I'm so glad you posted this. The reference to Richard Dawkins as an example of fundamentalism really irked me, as his entire point is that holding a perspective that is defined by information and therefore open to change is the exact opposite of fundamentalism.
Have you started that pod yet?
If one wants to find some fundamentalist athiests give evilbible a try they kicked me off three different times, because my understanding of religions and spirituality did not fit their mold. My reading the bible as full of allegory, metaphor, and parables…drove them nuts. Using metaphysical, ancient Judaic or Huna references to interpret scripture is completely not allowed amongst the evil bible crowd.
I enjoyed the conversations, tried the Covey seek first to understand. But they preferred to ask me pointed questions to which I answered honestly and truthfully, but it didn't mee their criteria for discussion and I got the boot, thrice. (snuck back in using different logins, third time they actually figured I was the same as my second incarnation…if they see this they should be able to put 1,2 and 3 together)
Wil,
At least you had air time to get kicked off three times. I am coming out of the closet here to divulge for the first time that the same has happened to me—right here at Zaadz! It happened just last week on the new pod, creating change, by marc. as a social worker, i took issue, albeit very respectfully, with his assertion that social programs should be canned. i agreed with him about the analogy he used about giving a person a fish vs teaching them to fish, but hey, since i am waxing metaphor here, i told him and his pod that we shouldnt throw out the baby with the bath water (but not in those words) and i shared a personal story from my background of how, without the temporary hand up i got when i was a dirt poor single mother striving to finish college and create a career, i woudlnt be where i am today.
i didnt flame the guy or his pod, but added diversity and attempted to spark meaningful diologue. well, my comments were disappeared by him twice so i wrote him privately and he told me the pod was only for people with similar views…is this kind of censoring welcome at zaadz? i was a bit stunned. and i have been silent about it, until now…
Any of you who know me here from my posts around zaadz since i joined around the same time Peggy Joyce joined, i hope you have experienced me as respectful, open and loving person….(which i am for the most part)…i am open to your feedback (and support!)
cus there is always the chance that maybe i was being an ass, so i did a reality check with someone but they didnt think so, hmm….
anyway, thanks for “listening” here, it felt important enough to flag this pod to your attention.
feel free to write me here, at z-mail or at rives59@gmail.com
Hi Mary,
I'll just comment on Zaadz's role here. Zaadz gives the moderators ownership of their pods. So, they can tweak it as they like. We only step in if there are terms of use violations (i.e. if the pod itself is disrespectful, members of the pod are posting in violation of our TOU, etc.) Otherwise, it's up to the moderator to control what kind of content is permissible. And, of course, we've given everyone the opportunity to create up to three pods, of their own… to run how they see fit.
~M
yeah, i am aware of that. its not like he did something explicitly wrong according to zaadz guidelines…its just that it was a bit of an ouch, a first time thing that i promise not to perpetuate here as i welcome all voices, (unless abusive, of course). its just too bad that a pod exists here that has specifically stated that it is not open to those with different views, but then again, maybe its not too bad. i just needed to share my experience of being silenced and that it felt rather unzaadz-like…my intention was not send to the zaaadz team after the guy or anything.
thanks for responding, Matthew.
Mary
I hear ya.