Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

Do you think this person is right about fundamentalism?

Update:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/31/kathleen-...

Had to ask this question this way in order not to get censored by Yahoo's pointless auto-filters.

8 Answers

Relevance
  • 7 years ago

    I half agree. Yes, I don't agree with fundamentalists, but that is a choice of their free will. They're just stubborn. With that mentality, smokers and porn addicts that don't think it's wrong should be labeled with a "mental disorder" but you didn't hear a word about that didn't you. Like wise, people in a cult need therapy to cope with why their beliefs are wrong. Only the leaders need to be labeled as having a mental disorder.

    About what she said about beating kids, what some people don't realize is some people needs their @sses whooped, others don't.

    If people like this say people with beliefs have mental disorders, then soon anyone not an atheist will have a mental disorders.

  • ?
    Lv 7
    7 years ago

    The Pope, Catholic Church, Church of England and mainstream churches all accept the big bang and evolution!

    Lord Carey the former Archbishop of Canterbury put it rather well – “Creationism is the fruit of a fundamentalist approach to scripture, ignoring scholarship and critical learning, and confusing different understandings of truth”!

    Nice that Christians and atheists can agree and laugh together even if it is at fundie expense!

    But behind the laughter is the despair at the fundamentalists striving so hard to destroy Christianity by turning it from a religion to an ideology!

  • ?
    Lv 6
    7 years ago

    Yes! Absolutely.

    Source(s): ex-xtian
  • 7 years ago

    Anyone who accepts as true, religion fable such belief can and does control the mind and the persons becomes addicted to such. This can and has led to insanity. Well, by any other name religion would surely be seen as a form of insanity.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 7 years ago

    What is fundamentalism?

    Seems it is simply following simple Bible direction.

    Without adding anything in the way of tradition.

    Like...did Jesus say you had to wear expensive flashy robes to be a church leader? [ RCC????]

    Is it necessary to have expensive buildings????

    Should not all excess funds be used on the poor????

  • Grace
    Lv 4
    7 years ago

    I'm certain of it. It is already known that fundamentalists (of any Abrahamic religion) have larger amygdalae (fear/anxiety center of the brain). withered hippocampi (impulse control and memory functions), along with smaller frontal cortexes. (rational thinking - executive center - which is why fear blocks rational thinking).

    There is a proven cure for this. Meditation. Now, thanks to technology, we can do brain scans to test the hypothesis that daily meditation undoes the brain damage that fundamentalism does to people. Not a hypothesis any more. It's proof - a law.

    I see the day coming when that's the only way we can protect ourselves from them. Stop hating them and forcing them to get treatment for their curable mental illness.

  • Anonymous
    7 years ago

    a lot of beliefs we have could be treated as mentall illnesses. but if we all are irrational how can one of us be deemed good enough to "correct" someone elses beliefs?

  • ?
    Lv 7
    7 years ago

    I do not know; they didn't say much.

    "Update : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/31...%22

    I still don't know. I would have to look much deeper into the research before I could say.

    Still, while I would categorize fundamentalism as being qualitatively disparate from mental illness, that doesn't rule out the possibility of it (and this is the focus of the article, if I'm not mistaken) being *treated* as if it were.

    Interesting. I'll have to look more into it.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.