I agree there are some things you need to be accepted in a community of believers. I'm an independent person, and I think for myself. That is not to say the millions who all believe, or profess to believe, the same exact things are wrong or mindless.

I have analyzed, since I was 10, the "guidelines" or "requirements" of many religions. In Catholicism, my upbringing, there are some things which you cannot deny, otherwise you are not truly Catholic. Well, unlike most of my friends who just blindly accepted this and eventually got Confirmed, I decided that no, I don't believe these certain things. If you want specifics, I'll go there, but they aren't required.

At the same time, I questioned the ONLY fact you need to believe to be a Christian - that Jesus is divine. I do not debate that Jesus existed, but that he was divine is a whole new question.

So, relating to the topic, fanaticism may not be mainstream, and therefore seen as incorrect, extreme, or ignorant. However, those groups share a common bond. For Christians, it is the belief that Jesus was divine. That, in and of itself, has severe ramifications, which has led into all the various sects, denominations, and cults within the larger group of religions, collectively known as "Christianity". The same has occurred in Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. For Muslims, you believe that There is One God, Allah, and Mohammad is His Prophet. (I am sure some one will re-quote me with a more precise phrase.) However, some Islamic denominations believe in jihadism, while others do not.

Now think about the opposite thought. Stemming from Hinduism, we have the Jain Dharma (which may be considered it's own religion, I think). They are fanatics. However, they are radical in benevolent ways. Do we have anyone up in arms about their fairly non-mainstream views? No, because their views aren't belligerent. However, I find no reason why their views are more correct than the opposite end of the spectrum. Can you?


As for language, I do not think language is useless. The same piece of scripture can be interpreted many different ways. No one, and I mean no one, can say which is the correct interpretation. Since I am most acquianted with the Bible and Biblical history, let me expand on that. A long time ago, someone decided what would be in the Bible and what wouldn't. The Torah and Talmud were the same way. Someone decided, based on their own belief system (and I am sure a few other individuals had input), which scriptures were going to be forever taught and prescribed as affirmation of their faith. I stated in another thread, that anyone could find a piece of scripture to support almost anything they desired.

However, my only beef in this case with the language is that religion and fanaticism are not intrinsically related, and they should not be used in the same contect. All fantics aren't zealous about religion, and and religious aren't fanatics about their religion.

And as for the Cubs fans example, they would never burn down Shea stadium. They would invade Busch Stadium and make a sea of blue. I assure you fights occur, lots of random items get tossed, and general partisanship prevents fruitful relationships from taking firm stance. Not everyone is like that though. But those who are, even though sometimes criminally responsible for brawling, are not necessarily wrong in their beliefs about their team. On the other end of the spectrum you have people who abhor baseball and believe it to be the worst sport ever created. Are they wrong in their beliefs? No. It is what works for them. It might make them look like a sourpuss in a crowd of baseball fans, though.



As for atheism not being a religion, it IS. It may not be organized, but it is still a religion. If having a religion means belonging to a named group of people having the same beliefs, then ok, maybe atheism isn't a religion. However, religions do NOT require organization, large quantities of believers, or a name. Agnosticism is a religion. JustSayHi has the following information: "Religion : Atheist" in their profile information.

Agnostics are not any more "weak atheists" as they are "weak believers". They are fence sitters, truly not knowing if god exists, or god doesn't exist. I am leaning more towards god does exist. Or something of a metaphysical realm existing. I base it totally off of experiences in my own life, but I am not sure what it is even after advisement from various religious teachers.

Would someone call me a fanatic? Probably. I believe in free expression and tolerance. That's pretty radical these days, right?

Also, you can not be theist and still not be atheist. Score one point for deists everywhere.

gorgeous!

-------------

and yeah, i was waiting for someone to mention "look at me, surrounded by women!!!" or something close.

i changed my picture, but i still dont take crap...

is there something in my hair?

i'm genuine!

i dont take crap!

edit: lack of MATURITY...

sorry, but i need to queue up the sarcastic internet speak...

OmG, PeePlZ talks on da iNtARwebz!!!!~~11!!one!!~!`!


Seriously though, there is a different between gossip, rumor, difference of opinions, and ignorance. I believe all are a result of a lack of immaturity in the speaker, and a lack of self-confidence in the subject.

Also, there are these things called trolls. Some people deliberately threadjack and troll, looking for a fight or argument. This is different that devil's advocate, in that the troll usually isn't trying to prove a point by counter-example.

I think if somoene puts their ideas to the rail, they should expect it to be refuted and argued. I think that is healthy. If you cannot argue for your point, even against people who are deliberately malicious, then you need to re-tool or learn tolerance. Or you could do what most societies do when they feel threatened... but where has that gotten everyone?

I invite you all to NOT claim it as a male-based apathy here.

i just wish he was more listenable. lyrics are fine, but some of the instrumentation sure makes me wanna DIAF.

and, oh, yeah, not a woman.

what movie had the same plot or threreabouts?

two words: charitable foundation

my name, emblazoned on some important organizations building, park, or whathaveyou... creates a story that will live out until the end of that organization. i wouldnt have really died in spirit, yet.

i'm always honest almost to the point of complete disregard for other's emotions. it's a quality that is detrimental to my romantic relationships ("do you love me?" "no..."; "does it feel good?" "not really"; "am i doing it right?" "here, do this instead"; "is my makeup ok?" "i prefer you without it"; "am i perfect for you?" "um..."). but it works wonders on friendships.

but the list of 5 reasons seems to explain why anyone lies about anything. not just men, and not just to people of the opposite sex.

sue.

I believe I can find a scripture somewhere that supports just about any belief I want to have. Mckeachie, if you're serious, go for it man. Just don't get caught.

I don't have an attitude. As an agnostic it means I don't know if God exists. However, agnosticism IS a religion. Atheism is a religion. The fact that one has no beliefs is, in fact, having a belief system and, therefore, a religion.

So as an agnostic, I have a system of beliefs that I practice. It doesn't mean that I should debate the zeal present in other's belief systems. Why are you NOT zealous/fundamental/fanatic about your beliefs? It is obviously something personal that you feel strongly about, and that is completely acceptable.

My point is only a bit more blunt than spider's actually, though I'm not as learned in the various denominations of the world religions to have given hard examples.


*shakes his etch-a-sketch*

To start over...

Why some religions skew towards fanaticism... I am not a theology master, I have no answer. I liken it to sports fan(actic)s. The Cubs fans will always love thier baseball team and say it is the best damn baseball team in the world. However, they haven't won a World Series in quite some time. Why are they so zealous? It's probably got something to do with having a cause.

Ok, perhaps you don't understand what a rhetorical question is. My point is that why does it matter if anyone cares if you think the words are being misused? Maybe to someone else, religion can only have effect if it is practiced in the characteristics to which you define fanaticism.

Despite language, for some, religion IS fanaticism, and you really CANNOT say it's wrong, right, or purple.

why does anyone care?

you been lookin for love in all the wrong places... hope this one isnt that!

try watching "Lost in Translation" without falling asleep. it gets me every time.