Atheist Fundamentalism

[genkaus]

Or, essentially, that cherry pickers should not have to face up to the inconsistency of their position.

Rather, you shouldn't expect them to be consistent with what you deem their position to be.

---

I understand but I'm wondering how we can make a reasonable inference otherwise? Surely taking it prima facie that they read their scripture as the word of their deity and follow it to the letter is the only reasonable position until proven otherwise? There are, after all, passages in most holy books about what happens to people to ignore [insert god's] word.

And to a larger extent it indicates a real fallacy in the New Atheist movement, that is part and parcel of the lack of a religious education among these critics of religion, which is that they tend to read the scriptures more literally than any literalist I know. And when confronted by some particularly savage line in the scriptures, their conception forces an understanding [that says], “If you do not follow that little bit of savagery, then you’re not really a Muslim, you’re not really a Christian, you’re not really a Jew.”

Ignoring the fact that it's not atheists saying that, it's their own fucking holy text and/or believers!

He's saying that the fact that most people don't follow the scripture to the letter is sufficient to make the reasonable inference otherwise. And since they don't follow it to the letter, how the holy books define the religion becomes irrelevant.