The religious zealot

[Drich]

I fit some of those, you'll decide which ones no matter what I would say. Turn a few words around and atheist on this site would fit the same things an probably better than any Christian. The words would be for example science book, non-belief and ect.

GC

I was wondering who he was talking about...

[Brian37]

I already commented on this. Anyone who thinks ridicule or cussing is oppression is a moron. There are Christians and Muslims and atheists and gays that live in parts of the world where a mere peep can get them assaulted or murdered by mobs. There are places in the world where the state can arrest you for mere dissent and or murder you for blasphemy or apostasy.

"Atheist" is position on one claim, it is not a political party or loyalty oath. The word does not make claims about advocating murder or oppression. The word "atheist" merely means "off".

[Tonus]

4) They don't care whether what they say is true. Even when they make claims which are unambiguously refuted, they will either ignore such refutation or compound more lies on top to try and maintain the illusion of knowledge.

I think it's more the opposite: they care very much that what they say is true. Remember that they need for the things they believe to be true. There is bound to be some wiggle room due to the ability to interpret certain details one way or another, but the foundational teachings have to be true, or the whole structure comes apart.

This is why you often get explanations that seem to defy logic or decency. It may not matter if it sounds good or horrifying; if it can hold the narrative together, it will have to do. It's also why there's such a heavy reliance on "plausibility." Stuff like "it could have happened this way" and "you can't prove otherwise" help to keep the hope up that when such matters are finally settled, they will have been correct.

[Faith No More]

9) No matter how much contradictory information is presented or how poorly their reasoning is shown to be they always think they've won the debate.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I fit some of those, you'll decide which ones no matter what I would say. Turn a few words around and atheist on this site would fit the same things an probably better than any Christian. The words would be for example science book, non-belief and ect.

GC

I was wondering who he was talking about...

Settle down, Beavis. He wrote "zealot", not "idiot".

[robvalue]

4) They don't care whether what they say is true. Even when they make claims which are unambiguously refuted, they will either ignore such refutation or compound more lies on top to try and maintain the illusion of knowledge.

I think it's more the opposite: they care very much that what they say is true. Remember that they need for the things they believe to be true. There is bound to be some wiggle room due to the ability to interpret certain details one way or another, but the foundational teachings have to be true, or the whole structure comes apart.

This is why you often get explanations that seem to defy logic or decency. It may not matter if it sounds good or horrifying; if it can hold the narrative together, it will have to do. It's also why there's such a heavy reliance on "plausibility." Stuff like "it could have happened this way" and "you can't prove otherwise" help to keep the hope up that when such matters are finally settled, they will have been correct.

Ah yes, what I meant was they don't care if their arguments are true/valid. They will just say anything to maintain the illusion to themselves that the conclusion is true. You're right, I could have phrased that better.

[Drich]

...and what wrong with having zeal for what you believe?

[Norman Humann]

...and what wrong with having zeal for what you believe?

Letting it cloud your judgement, for example.

[Ryantology]

...and what wrong with having zeal for what you believe?

Your beliefs are stupid and wrong.

When 4000 years of claims produce exactly zero valid results, the absence of evidence starts to very closely resemble evidence of absence.

[watchamadoodle]

Here is a quote from wikipedia about the original Jewish Zealots FWIW.

In the Talmud, the Zealots are the non-religious (not following the religious leaders), and are also called the Biryonim (בריונים) meaning "boorish", "wild", or "ruffians", and are condemned for their aggression, their unwillingness to compromise to save the survivors of besieged Jerusalem, and their blind militarism against the Rabbis' opinion to seek treaties for peace. They are further blamed for having contributed to the demise of Jerusalem and the Second Temple, and of ensuring Rome's retributions and stranglehold on Judea. According to the Babylonian Talmud, Gittin, the Biryonim destroyed decades' worth of food and firewood in besieged Jerusalem to force the Jews to fight the Romans out of desperation. This event directly led to the escape of Johanan ben Zakai out of Jerusalem, who met Vespasian, a meeting which led to the foundation of the Academy of Jamnia which produced the Mishnah which led to the survival of rabbinical Judaism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealots_%28Judea%29