What's with all the "atheist fundamentalist" business?

[More Than A Feeling]

Can someone explain to me what people who believe in the following:

# Inerrancy of the Scriptures
# The virgin birth and the deity of Jesus
# The doctrine of substitutionary atonement through God's grace and human faith
# The bodily resurrection of Jesus
# The authenticity of Christ's miracles (or, alternatively, his premillennial second coming)

have in commmon with people who don't believe in any gods?

I just don't get it. Is it because some atheists are speaking out, and they aren't being shy about where they stand any more? Would you rather they shuffle along with their heads down, and mumble their non-belief in their collective sleeve? Is that it?

Or is it that you feel they are judging your belief, and they have no right to criticize?

Can I get a straight answer? I just don't see how the contradiction that is an "atheist fundamentalist" could exist.

[melody]

1. Fundamentalism is a form of "absolutism" in terms of philosophy

You can be a "fundamentalist anything".

[papau]

5. I agree :-)

:-)

[More Than A Feeling]

8. So I'm a fundamentalist democrat because I support a government of, by and for the people?

Who talks like that? Nobody who knows me would dream of calling me a fundamentalist for that reason.

[melody]

17. Nobody? That's a very fundamentalist response lol

Absolutes are the problem with fundamentalist thinking -- it is NEVER the case, and truly mean never ... "God" exists ... "God" doesn't exist ... stating these things as absolute fact when no one really knows the answer to any of these questions. When you choose to speak for all people, that's when fundamentalism plays a role.

If you insist that you alone are absolutely right under all circumstances, then yes, that's fundamentalism.

[More Than A Feeling]

18. Ok, which atheists are insisting that?

Which atheists are speaking for all people?

[melody]

20. It's not about ALL anything, including ALL atheists

Any atheist who asserts they know absolutely everything about anything (including
absolutes about the universe) is a fundamentalist. I have no idea if all atheists,
or even most atheists, think those things. I don't know most atheists. To suggest
I do, would be fundamentalism. To suggest that you know, in all cases, what all
atheists think, is fundamentalism.

[More Than A Feeling]

22. Perhaps you should do some research before labeling people, then?

After all, labeling people without knowing anything about them or what they actually think is...oh, what's the word...oh, yeah, stereotyping (not everything bad is fundamentalism ;))

[melody]

24. Fundamentalists label themselves

I'm not calling anyone a fundamentalist ... you're suggesting no atheist is one. That's a contention unsupportable by fact. I'm saying anyone (be they atheist or theist or plumber) who thinks in absolutes is a fundamentalist. No further assertion is being made. If you are refusing the idea that any atheist is a fundamentalist, then I'm saying that is fundamentalist thinking.

[cosmik debris]

25. I believe you are using a definition of fundamentalist

That I don't recognize. Perhaps you would be kind enough to define your terms for my benefit.

[melody]

40. Definitions

Here's the Word Web definition: Fundamentalism: The interpretation of every word in the sacred texts as literal truth

If you assume the canon of atheism (whatever you hold it to be) is the sole and literal truth, you are a fundamentalist. If I assume the canon of any philosophical construct to be the sole and literal truth, etc, etc. There are fundamentalists in all walks of life, including atheism. Dogma is what leads to the absence of logical processes and that's what leads to ignorance. Any philosophy can (and does) have "dogma" if its structure is fundamentalist.

[cosmik debris]

43. But there is no canon of atheism

There is no book or scripture of atheism. If you contend that there are fundamentalist atheists, what dogma do they hold to be "sole and literal truth"?

If I accept your definition of fundamentalists, I have to doubt your understanding of atheism.

[melody]

44. I have to doubt your understanding of "canon"

You're using a very simplistic definition of "canon". Philosophy is born out
of psychology -- concrete thinking can take many forms. Some of the most
closed-minded, fundamentalist people I've known consider themselves atheists, whereas
many of the most open-minded, liberal thinkers I've known consider themselves "Christian".
It's only when we stop identifying ourselves solely with groups and understand the relativity
among individuals, that we get away from primitive thinking. Until then, we're always going
to be locked in our own fears and reactivity, never finding our way to anything approaching
"truth". I don't accept the infallibility of ANY philosophy, including atheism. If you do,
you are positing beyond the evidence, which sounds like fundamentalism (or at least "magical
thinking") to me. BTW, I'm an agnostic.

[cosmik debris]

47. Well, You're certainly no fundamentalists.

You reject the literal truth of your own definition of fundamentalism by extending "sacred text" to mean "canon" and "literal truth" to mean "concrete thinking".

And you are right about my understanding of "canon". I haven't a clue what you mean by the canon of atheism. Would you be so kind as to enlighten me?

And BTW, I am an atheists. I don't have any canon. I do not believe. I can't imagine how anyone who doesn't believe can be accused of holding as literal truth "no belief" in "no sacred text".

[melody]

48. I don't care what you don't or do believe in

I am not saying all atheists are fundamentalists -- is that the interpretation you are drawing?
Not all atheists are fundamentalist any more than all "Christians" are Christian or all agnostics
agnostic.

I always get into this with the fundamentalist/die-hard atheists, just as much as I do with the Christians, when I try to discuss something from a truly agnostic perspective. You seem to be all bound up in your own beliefs.

As for the question of whether an atheist is truly an atheist, that's a question that can only be answered individually.

Tell you what, rather than waste our time discussing anything, if you really want a perspective on this, go pick-up a book by Robert Anton Wilson, "The New Inquisition". I agree with many of his assertions. That said, he pisses off almost everybody who comes from a dogmatic belief structure.

As such, I don't see any point in continuing this. End of thread on my side anyway.

[cosmik debris]

49. I'll take that as a compliment, thank you.

Since you can't even guess at what canon atheism might have, I will assume that you just don't know what you are talking about.

[melody]

59. And I assume you don't have the capacity to understand

... any other perspective but your own. I'm not surprised you are cranky about the fundamentalist association. LOL!! Zappa would be the first one to tell you that, by the way. I'm from his hometown. ;-)

Welcome to my ignore list.

[cosmik debris]

73. Thanks again.

I love it when people announce publicly that they are going off in a corner to pout!

[trotsky]

115. That's OK, now you and I can go make our OWN club!

No people who are absolutist about there being absolutists in everything allowed!

[cosmik debris]

120. Goblinmonger and cyborg_jim get to join too! n/t

[More Than A Feeling]

121. Me too! Unless I am also Goblinmonger or cyborg_jim.

Apparently, two of us on ignore are actually the same person. I'm very excited to find out which one of us is two people, aren't you?

[cosmik debris]

124. I'm getting confused

The list is too long. But I think we are all welcome in trotsky's club, as long as we are absolutely absolute about absolutism (insert vodka joke here)

[Goblinmonger]

130. I'm SO in.

I think ours will be the coolest club ever. We gots to meet up at a bar sometime.

[cosmik debris]

132. It's times like these that I really miss BMUS

She would be sooooo proud to be a member of this club, and she could meet the entrance requirements without even trying.

[Goblinmonger]

134. I say we take a vote to include her.

And since all of the members of the club are actually me (You?) then I think it is unanimous.

And I really, really miss BMUS.

[cosmik debris]

135. The motion is carried. n/t

[Goblinmonger]

136. Of course we (I?) already knew that. n/t

[cosmik debris]

80. Upon reviewing this conversation

I realized that things were going pretty well until I identified myself as an atheist. Then you went off like a Baghdad IED. Hmmmm?

[More Than A Feeling]

26. You're speaking in hypotheticals.

"If an atheist thought in absolutes, they would be a fundamentalist". But since you are not making any further assertion, you are not asserting that the hypothetical actually fits anyone who exists. If you aren't willing to say that it does, why should I agree to a claim you haven't made?

[melody]

37. You are a very concrete thinker

You're just not going to see things from any other perspective, so let us leave it at that.
There's no point in further discussion.

[cyborg_jim]

68. Concrete thinker? LOL.

It's kinda of a shame when people have the audacity to have prescion of thought isn't it?

I for one can see from your perspective. It is however quite wrong. It is no good complaining that the opposition won't give you any room to slip your beliefs in.

[cmkramer]

95. There you go proving her point.

Just where is she trying to shove her beliefs down your throat? Methinks that perhaps this is a case of "physician, heal thyself."

And really, why is is that many atheists cannot admit that many of them are arrogant and just as absolutist and intolerant in their beliefs as any fundie? Yes, many fundies stereotype anyone who doesn't believe in a Deity as immoral, etc. but not all of them do. And most people of faith don't automatically assume that either. But somehow, atheists get a free pass when they automatically assume all Christians consider Jerry Falwell a role model, are angry that creationism and intelligent design are not given equal weight in the classroom with evolution, etc. etc.

I remember one poster putting up an article by someone who pointed out that most major Christian denominations fully support the theory of evolution contrary to what many nonbelievers think. Nearly every post afterwards was some variation of " Why is this guy trying to force his fundie beliefs on us? If he wants to believe fairy tales, fine, but that's not for me." By the way, nowhere did the author of the article even imply that he was a creationist.

But that's par for the course. Any time anyone tries to point out that most believers are not "fundies" the usual suspects will start whining about not wanting religion forced down their throats. Point out that even among the most conservative Christians there is at least a small element that could be persuaded to support Democrats - if only because of issues on poverty - and you'll get the standard "sorry, but if my party sells out to rightwing freaks, I'm leaving."

[cyborg_jim]

97. Hey, are you reading the same post I wrote?

Just where is she trying to shove her beliefs down your throat?

Where did I ever imply that was the case?

And really, why is is that many atheists cannot admit that many of them are arrogant and just as absolutist and intolerant in their beliefs as any fundie?

Ah, so you are saying that if you are not a fundie or an atheist none of these terms can apply.

Gotcha.

But somehow, atheists get a free pass when they automatically assume all Christians consider Jerry Falwell a role model, are angry that creationism and intelligent design are not given equal weight in the classroom with evolution, etc. etc.

Again I must ask - where on Earth did you get this from? Not from me that's for sure. Maybe you should direct this to specific people rather than lumping all atheists together and engaging in precisely the kind of stereotyping you object to. Hmm?

[More Than A Feeling]

100. She didn't have a point.

She wasn't willing to say anything beyond a hypothetical. You are, so I will address your claim.

Interestingly, you mention that atheists have beliefs, but its not the claim that usually made ("the belief that there is no god"). Instead, you say that they are beliefs concerning Christians, that all Christians are radical Christianists.

I noted in a post below that you can see this in two different ways. Either the distinction is between people with the belief in a kinder, gentler god versus those who believe in a hateful god, or it is between people who believe in things that a reasonable person could conclude the evidence does not justify, and those who do not. With the second distinction, whether the god is kind and gentle, or hateful, it is equally likely to exist or not exist.

With the second view, moderate believers do have more in common with radical christianists than they do with non-believers. With the first view, moderate believers have more in common with religious minorities and non-believers. It's just a question of which distinction you think is more important.

Keep in mind that to the second view, there is no justification in believing in a kind and gentle god versus a hateful god. It appears to be based on things other than the question "which actually exists". How would you prove someone wrong who claimed that god approves of things that you would consider hateful?

[melody]

110. Wrong? Spoken like a true fundamentalist.

LMAO! Spoken like a true fundamentalist indeed.

I'd heard there were enclaves of closed-minded atheists around here, but hadn't actually encountered any. Most of the atheists on DU I've encountered have been people like Putty or the big guy ... in other words, rational ones.

Welcome to my ignore list.

[cyborg_jim]

138. So ignored

Doesn't make you any less wrong though.

[Evoman]

129. "You are a very concrete thinker. You're just not going to see things from any other perspective"

.
.
.
.
.
"Welcome to my ignore list."


?!!!


:rofl:

[trotsky]

144. BWAH HA HA HA

Great catch, Evoman/cyborg_jim/Heaven and Earth!

[PurpleChez]

29. Atheists, too, can be jerks when it comes to thinking that they know everything.

It's a personality trait that spans belief systems.

[More Than A Feeling]

30. Can you give some examples of atheists who think they know everything?

It would probably be best if you could find someone who has actually said, "I am an atheist, and I know everything." That would be much better than someone who you only think "thinks they know everything."

[PurpleChez]

31. I'm talking about a number of personal friends....

great people, great friends. But just as bad as the worst fundies I've known when it comes to insisting that they are right and everybody else is wrong.

I don't mean anything personal, but I'm intrigued and a little amused by the tone of your post. I've been a part of many threads such as this, and I'll admit that I'm always nonplussed by the number of folks who bristle at -- or simply reject -- the notion that there could ever be such a thing as an arrogant atheist. Face it, folks, they're out there, just as there are arrogant everything-else. I know it for a fact. My exceedingly small circle of friends has included a number of them (and I have loved them all); I must infer that they also exist elsewhere in the general population.

[cosmik debris]

33. Is arrogant the same as fundamentalist?

How do you define fundamentalist in such a way that it does not apply to every person who believes that their religion is right?

[PurpleChez]

36. I don't think I said that it was....

as for defining "fundamentalist," I don't believe it necessarily has anything to do with simply believing that your religion is right. Although the label is often used in very general terms I it is actually a very specific reference to adherents to a publication or school of thought called "The Fundamentals." I'm not sure of the specifics, but I'm pretty sure that most religious scholars (be they secular or believers) would NOT define "fundamentalist" as "every person who believes that their religion is right."

This thread is the first place I've encountered the term "fundamentalist atheist;" I have no idea what exactly it refers to, although elsewhere in the thread some folks have offered some helpful links.

[cosmik debris]

42. I was just curious because

people use the term as a derogatory comment on people's beliefs or behavior. But I have never been able to pin anyone down on what they mean other that that some people are hard to deal with.

You seemed to use "arrogant" as a synonym for "fundamentalist" so I thought it might be part of your definition.

[PurpleChez]

50. Thanks for the clarification (and did I spell that right?)

I am in no way trying to challenge or disprove my atheist friends' (or anyone else's) beliefs. Although I was raised Lutheran (and remain proud of that upbringing) my current affiliation is with lay buddhism, so it's not that I come here to defend traditional western theistic religion by any means. It just really bothers me when I run across posts that denigrate all religious people as superstitious followers of fairy-tales or, further, suggest that the writer is superior to such folks based on his rejection of those beliefs. I am not going to deny that I myself don't look around at my fundie baptist RW neighbors now and then and think "WTF? I'm so glad I'm beyond that...." But I try to be mindful of how I feel when I hear the fundies say similar things about me. And I really dislike the occasional message (by no means the norm) that says it's OK when WE feel that way because WE, of course, are right.

And I have always loved the salute to Zappa in your screen name. I have seen it often on the boards; nice to finally talk with ya.

[More Than A Feeling]

35. "The Arrogant Atheist" is a popular strawman.

People who use it say that the arrogance causes a "rejection of God". The pernicious idea is that atheists secretly know God exists, but think that they are better than God or know better than God, or that they don't need God, so they say they refuse to believe, as an attack against God. That probably explains the reaction to the word "arrogant" that you are talking about.

[PurpleChez]

38. Please note: at no time did I say that the friends in question secretly believe that God DOES exist

but rejected Him due to their arrogance. As far as I'm concerned, their atheism and their arrogance are two separate things. (The same people can be very obnoxious about "proper" pronunciation of words, undesirable physical characteristics, etc.) Thanks for that perspective; it's very illuminating.

[varkam]

56. Great post.

:D

[trotsky]

39. If you are absolutely sure that germs & viruses cause disease,

are you a fundamentalist? Should immunologists keep an open mind, that demons might actually cause sickness?

[melody]

41. You're completely missing my point

If you can prove anything to the majority of rational people, then you're not asking for belief.
Scientists have shown that germs and viruses exist ... that is a local, controlled phenomenon
that doesn't require any interpretation beyond a simple, clinical one.

[trotsky]

45. No, I'm showing why your "point" is ridiculous.

Scientists have shown that germs and viruses exist, yes. But there is still a sliver of doubt that they actually *cause* disease rather than just be present (coincidentally) at the site of disease. Always will be - that's the nature of science. But millions of professionals go about their business absolutely sure that microbes cause disease. By your initial statement, they too are "fundamentalists."

[melody]

46. You are bringing a reactionary response to a complex question

Listen, I admire all you atheists and theists ... the world still confuses me. I'm clearly
not smart enough to be an atheist or a theist. I have trouble enough sorting out my taxes
every year, rather than deciphering the mysteries of being and the universe. Really, I take
my hat off to you.

There may be a handful of scientists who disagree with germs and viruses, but there are a handful
of people who still think the earth is flat. Germs and viruses are definite points of existence
which can be located, tracked and deciphered ... it is clear they are implicated in disease processes. There is a scientific body of evidence that persuades the majority of scientists on a point that is crucial to human life.

There is no scientific body of evidence for whole systems philosophies. The only way you get to one
is by defying the scientific method by preferring to believe in a philosophical conceit ... that all phenomena are but aggregates of local conditions.

But hey, if you've figured out the world and everything in it, I take my hat off to it. You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din. ;_

[trotsky]

55. Where the hell did that come from?

When did I say that I've "figured out the world and everything in it"?

Take your passive-aggressive crap somewhere else, please. I'm just pointing out your ridiculous use of the word "fundamentalist."

[melody]

60. You are asserting absolutes

I'm saying some atheists may be fundamentalists ... you are saying none are. You've got the "extraordinary claims" burden on your side.

You're a very concrete thinker and there is genuinely no use in continuing this discussion. You want to win some argument and vanquish all opponents. If you need to do that, by all means, consider yourself
the winner. All you're doing is acting just like the fundamentalist Christians you dislike.

Once and for all, welcome to my ignore list.

[Goblinmonger]

63. Some christians are sociopathic demonic worshippers

that eat the spinal fluid of newborn babies in ritualistic orgies fueled by meth and necrophilia and these actions are due to their belief and worship in Jesus as God.

Now, I'm not saying all christians are like this, just that there may be some that are like this. I don't have any specific examples for you of people like this, I am just saying that it is possible. If you tell me that there are no people like this since I can't give examples, you have the burden of proof to show that they don't exist.

What if I went around saying this? You would be fine with it, right, because it is the same line of thinking as what you are saying.

[melody]

66. No, I'd agree with you

I'm sure there are some people who call themselves "christians" who are sociopathic "demonic" worshippers. Bohemian Grove anyone? lol

You are using an exact, specific, focused description where I am using a term that is common among all people. You're reacting emotionally, trying to protect all atheists from the accusation. I'm just saying fundamentalism is present in all segments of society, in different ways. It's not the Evil Fundamentalist Christians versus the good atheists. There are Christians I know who are far more open-minded than a couple of my atheist friends (one in particular). Incidentally, I'm not a Christian, I'm an agnostic.

[Goblinmonger]

104. Here's a little hint for you

when you think you are using a "term that is common among all people."

In order to do that, you actually have to be using the term in the manner that people use it and that makes some god damn sense.

I generally think basic dictionaries are for shit, but they do give us insight into how a word is commonly used (though there are a lot of faults).

Here is the dictionary.com definition of fundamentalist that doesn't deal with the specific movement (thought the fact that the first two entries ARE about the religious movement makes a pretty damn good point in my favor):
"strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles"

Please, tell me how in any sense "common among all people" is there a set of basic ideas or principles in something that is ONLY non-belief in any gods. Should be interesting.

[melody]

108. The minute people start using terms like "goddamned" and "ridiculous" ...

I sense a fundamentalist ... you appear to think you know what is right in all instances, for all people and therefore feel within your rights to use pejoratives. It's like when Perkins or some of the other pseudo-skeptical knuckle-walkers start using terms like "idiotic" and "moronic" about other non-western philosophies and cultures. They're revealing their biases ... they're as rigidly authoritarian and fundamentalist as the most simplistic Christian. And before you take me to task about "pseudo-skeptical", as anyone who carefully addresses the question would recognize, I'm discussing individual people, not whole groups and philosophies.

Let's face, some atheists are nothing more than fundamentalist practitioners of a religion. The very fact you are angrily protecting your "religion" underscores this. I have this same discussion with Christian (and Buddhist, etc) friends of mine. It's not the faith that matters, it's the mind that interprets it.

[Goblinmonger]

111. Atheism is NOT a religion

The fact that you keep repeating that just underscores your ignorance.

Some atheists are pricks. I'll give you that.

But it IS NOT A RELIGION. It is simply the lack of belief in any gods. Why is that so hard for people to understand?

[melody]

113. Who said all atheism was a religion?

You are reading into my words things you want to argue with. Atheism isn't any one thing -- it's interpreted subjectively by individual people. To some it's a religion. To some, everything is
a religion. I've known Buddhists who are fundamentalists, and they don't have a "god" per se either.

Your ignorance about perception and its subjective nature is what is causing the problem here.

[Goblinmonger]

123. It's not my ignorance

Atheism is the lack of believe in any gods. Period. That is it. There is no faith, nor religion, nor belief involved. Anyone who attaches more is creating a red herring. Or a strawman.

[Goblinmonger]

112. So you are a fundamentalist

because you certainly appear to think you know what is right. Or do you go around NEVER making a decision about anything because you just don't know what to do.

And you haven't answered my question as to what set of principles atheists are defending to meet the definition of fundmanentalist. Still waiting. And I'm not going to let you off the hook since you made the claim.

[melody]

114. Oi

I'm not saying anything is "right" or "wrong".

Listen, this is all philosophy 101. You're either very young or just not willing to discuss things honestly. I hope you find comfort in atheism, if that's what you need.

Till then, I have work to do. Welcome to my ignore list.

[trotsky]

116. Well one thing is obvious.

If "arrogance in believing one is correct" = "fundamentalism", the word most certainly applies to you.

[cosmik debris]

122. Well, sometimes....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=115189&mesg_id=115257

It is hard to be a full time fundamentalist.

[More Than A Feeling]

117. You're running out of people to talk to.

This is clearly an uncomfortable subject for you. Certainty bothers you a lot. But certainty does not a fundamentalist make. I listed the five beliefs that a fundamentalist has to have to be a "fundamentalist" in my OP. You've used a lot of terms, words like arrogant. Those are fine terms, and they can stand on their own. They don't need "fundamentalist" substituted for them. So why do it? Do you want to make an equivalence between everyone who doesn't share your particular beliefs, fundamentalist or atheist, that badly? Why?

[melody]

118. Hardly LOL

Actually, I suspect two of you are the same person since your writing styles are very similar.
I've added you to my ignore list, too.

I fear you're coming at this from a defensive posture. I stay away from Religion/Theology because I'm agnostic and its not a subject I have interest in (and here I thought the atheists would be more open-minded).

[More Than A Feeling]

119. Cool! Am I one of the two? If I am, who do you think is also me?

I can't wait to meet my alter-ego.

[Evoman]

126. "Actually, I suspect two of you are the same person since your writing styles are very similar."

:crazy:

[More Than A Feeling]

127. Excuse me, are you also me?

This is gonna bother me until I find out! :silly:

[cosmik debris]

128. I'm NOT you. I promise!

No offense intended, I just like being me.

[Goblinmonger]

133. "Actually, I suspect two of you are the same person since your writing styles are very similar."

:crazy:

DOH! I think I did it again. It's tough being three people.

[Goblinmonger]

125. How mature.

You were saying that fundamentalism is the belief that you are right. You are doing that. Therefore you are a fundmantalist.

Sorry that I don't understand philosophy or logic to the extent you do.



In case you didn't get it: :sarcasm:

[Goblinmonger]

131. You're running out of people to talk to.

This is clearly an uncomfortable subject for you. Certainty bothers you a lot. But certainty does not a fundamentalist make. I listed the five beliefs that a fundamentalist has to have to be a "fundamentalist" in my OP. You've used a lot of terms, words like arrogant. Those are fine terms, and they can stand on their own. They don't need "fundamentalist" substituted for them. So why do it? Do you want to make an equivalence between everyone who doesn't share your particular beliefs, fundamentalist or atheist, that badly? Why?

Oh, wait, did I already post that under my other account? Damn it.

[spoony]

151. She probably figured

you're other people because for not being a chartered group per se, atheists all seem to have the same nose-in-the-air tone and stale comebacks.

[Goblinmonger]

153. I know you are but what am I

Oh, wait, I'm not in elementary school anymore.

[Evoman]

157. "it's because YOU don't conduct yourselves in a civilised manner"

"atheists all seem to have the same nose-in-the-air tone and stale comebacks"

[cyborg_jim]

139. Philosophy 101? LOL.

LOL.

LOL.

What else is there to say on someone so proud of their ignorance?

[trotsky]

67. Nope, not at all.

Any more than asserting that there are no square circles. Using standard definitions, an "atheist" cannot be a "fundamentalist." You are using your own made-up definition for "fundamentalist" which appears to be "someone who asserts knowledge" or maybe it's just someone you don't like. Either way, thanks for the last few personal insults before the goodbye.

[skepticscott]

53. No, they aren't fundamentalists

What distinguishes scientists and rationalists from religious fundamentalists is that they always acknowledge that sliver of doubt in their convictions and are willing to change their minds, given sufficient evidence to warrant doing so. "Sufficient" evidence means evidence that outweighs or negates the evidence in support of what is currently held to be true, which in the case of well established theories like evolution or the germ theory of disease, is a very high burden, but never, in principle, insurmountable. On the other hand, fundamentalists, religious and otherwise, adhere to unalterable beliefs regardless of any evidence to the contrary.

[varkam]

57. Excellent post.

Wow - you hit the nail right on the head. Welcome to DU, by the way :toast:

[NMMNG]

70. Nice summation

And welcome to DU. :hi:

[cosmik debris]

2. It is just an easy insult.

It has no meaning.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

3. if such people exist, I suppose I would be a card carrying, proud member

and happy in my fundemental resistance to infiltration of ancient fairy tales into our schools, our society, and our political process. Religions are, simply put, irrational at heart. Being irrational, they can cause great destruction.

At the same time, Mark Twain's words were never truer: Does the human being reason? No; he thinks, muses, reflects, but does not reason...That is, in the two things which are the peculiar domain of the heart, not the mind,--politics and religion. He doesn't want to know the other side. He wants arguments and statistics for his own side, and nothing more.

Add a dash of fear, loathing and insecurity to the religious sheep, and what do you get? Among other things, intel design, the conditions for the appointment of George W. Bush as president, and war in Iraq and Iran.

[On the Road]

4. In a Broader Sense,

the term "fundamentalism" can mean strict adherence to any set of beliefs. What is more important is what it connotes -- blind faith, debate by assertion and ridicule, and imperviousness to contrary arguments.

I believe the term "atheistic fundamentalist" is meant to emphasize the connotations. It's a way of insinuating that a disbeliever in God can have the same negative traits as a true believer.

Although it may be used in a smarky way, I think it's an appropriate term. A a lot of the comments I see on DU do smack of atheistic fundamentalism. And I say this as someone who does not believe in God.

[cosmik debris]

7. Would you care to explain

Exactly what beliefs atheists are strictly adhering to?

[TheBaldyMan]

19. I disagree, if you proved the existance of God to an atheist then

they would admit he (or she or even they) existed.

Fundamentalism from what you assert, especially imperviousness to contrary argument would seem to be contrary to the definition for an atheist.

A lot of the snarky comments have to be viewed in the context of hostility that atheists are subjected to in the USA. Although I have never travelled or lived there my self I am shocked by testimony and video clips where atheists are derided, ridiculed and disparaged - usually by people of a very ugly demeanour themselves.

These commentators openly display every quality that you cite for fundamentalism, it is very unattractive and especially repugnant coming from (usually) 'Christian' spokespeople from the conservative right wing.

I don't approve of aggression but I can understand it under those circumstances. I would advise being assertive but not aggressive. But we are all merely human and so we stray over the line sometimes.

Perhaps if atheists were not openly vilified by every self-appointed spokesperson in the media then atheists might not express aggression so often. Respect is far easier to observe when it is reciprocated.

[Trillo]

23. And in a larger sense,

our entire hierarchical civilization is based upon promoting fundamentalists of all kinds. Think Fundamentalist experts. Fundamentalist rulers. Fundamentalist intellectuals. Fundamentalist controllers of every stripe. Even, it seems, fundamentalist liars.

This has forced the common person, the vast majority, to live as a fundamentalist laborers and be fundamentally poor.

[jgraz]

6. From the people who brought you "creation science"?

It's simple: you just redefine any word you want until it matches your belief system.

[More Than A Feeling]

12. You mean like when C.S. Lewis complained that "gentleman"

was being used to mean a good person, rather than it's original meaning of aristocracy, and "Christian" was likewise being altered to mean a good person, instead of one who believes specific doctrines?

[PurpleChez]

9. where and how has this term been used?

Just curious. I haven't seen it.

[More Than A Feeling]

10. Here's a recent one.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=115108&mesg_id=115179

[wryter2000]

11. I'm also curious

I haven't seen atheist fundamentalist. I imagine it could be used in the same way as the "science is a religion" lie that the rwers are pushing. But without some context, I can't tell.

[skepticscott]

15. Here's one

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/15-questions-militant-ath_b_37954.html

Eskow has written several posts like this

[TheBaldyMan]

28. the cover of 'The Dawkins Delusion' has the phrase.

[johnnypneumatic]

13. it is a typical right wing Rovian type technique,

attack their strongest points to counter your weakest vulnerability, blame your enemy first for the thing you are actually doing, so they they only look like copycats for blaming you back for it, don't defend yourself, always attack, do a preemptive attack first and make them defend, lie, smear, spin!
Also, it is the confusion of the paradox, postulate something that looks like a paradox to confuse your opponents rational thought (this is as old as Freud: you hate your father because you really love your mother)
thus atheists are attacked as fundamentalists, if Bush is caught doing something bad, don't apologize, go on the attack by saying "Clinton did it first", attack Al Gore's fight against global warming by saying he is a hypocrite for wasting so much electricity himself, so why listen to him at all?
etc, etc, etc

[peacetalksforall]

14. Are you referring to the U.S.? Christians in the U.S. are not living

St. Francis style Christianity - the hypocrisy of Christian values has gone over the cliff for me. I just have little to respect except that I know there are some out there who are humble and sacrifice for what I call honorable Christian values.

As to Robertson Dobson Falwell and millions of their wannabes - I feel disdain. They have ruined Christianity. There is nothing Christian in their incursion into government and their very dedicated agenda of generating, creating, and spreading bigotry.

Trying to dump their Christian agenda on this country in the form of domination and legislation - is making me a convert to something.

If I called myself an atheist (I never have), I would be speaking out. Why keep their mouth shut as they might have when most Christians acted Christian?

It would be interesting to learn that there are more atheists acting responsibly and with higher values than self- proclaimed, back slapping Christians in this country who are failing the nation.

I don't get combining atheist with fundamentalist.

[China_cat]

16. I feel that they can add 'fundamentalist'

to atheist on the day we start sending out teams to knock on doors and ask people 'do you know the liberation of giving up your belief in the supernatural?'.

Of course there are those who also insist that atheism is a religion. To them I say, atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color.

[spoony]

27. So far

the only thing stopping some of them from doing that is laziness. Or cowardice. Because many of them really, really enjoy trying to tear down people's faith. I imagine one day they will go door to door, they're already doing it online.

[skepticscott]

32. Not at all

What's stopped them is the fact that nobody, including people like Dawkins and Harris, would care a hoot what other people held in the way of religious beliefs if they kept them where they belong: in homes, houses of worship and private religious schools. These outspoken denunciations of religion are a backlash against the constant and intolerable attempts to force certain groups' religious dictates regarding marriage, sex, reproduction and anything else that gives them the willies down everyone else's throats in the form of law and public policy, to undermine well supported and objective scientific truths when they conflict with imaginary religious dogma, to violate the Constitution by demanding that public funds and government resources support and promote their own special brand of godliness and to justify the murder of people who don't conform to a particular religious doctrine.

Religionists complain that religious belief is being forced out of the public square as a result of this backlash...well, tough. This is what the public square is all about-criticism and debate. You can believe whatever you choose to in private and among groups of like-minded people, as long as it doesn't harm others, but if you want your religion to be a matter of public concern, expect to have it examined, criticized and dissected in every respect and expect to have it pointed out when your religion has no basis at all in fact or in reason. If it seems that your faith is being torn down, that's because it can't stand up to even the most casual critical examination without collapsing. Despite all of its flaws and its silliness and despite the many and egregious crimes it is responsible for, public religion has gotten a free pass for most of history, but those days are over.

[More Than A Feeling]

34. Fundamentalists dragging religion out into the public square

was the worst thing that could have have happened to believers who didn't want the Fundamentalist dogma, because it opened up religion in general to critique, not just Fundamentalist religion.

[spoony]

62. Hate to break this to you

but many atheists don't care if you're not a fundy. If you believe in God, you're just as dumb in their "bright" eyes as Falwell.

[More Than A Feeling]

98. I can see where both sides are coming from

For example, you can say that there is a substantial distinction that should be made between someone who believes in a god of love and mercy, and someone who believes in a god of judgment and hate.

What if the distinction turned on "is either of those conceptions of God more likely to exist than the other"? A person might reasonably conclude, based on the evidence, that there is no distinction. That is, such a person would say that both are equally likely to exist or not to exist.

[skepticscott]

145. I don't quite agree

I think what gets atheists most riled is the unwarranted intrusion of other people's religious beliefs into their lifespace. Most atheists I know would be happy to live and let live if the religionists kept their personal beliefs as largely a private matter (something guys like Falwell just can't seem to do). Most of my friends and family are religious to some degree, and I regard them with the same sort of smiling bemusement as I do people who don't like chocolate or Mozart, but I don't regard them as stupid or as objects of hatred. I'm not sure I could tolerate a close intimate who wasn't also an atheist, but as far as the rest, it's not a huge problem. Everybody, even the most rational among us, turns their brain off about SOMETHING.

[NMMNG]

147. Not true

And most atheists think the "Brights" is an asinine concept.

[Goblinmonger]

64. Wow

Do you even read what you type. Atheists would go door to door trying to knock people's faith but we're too lazy? I don't even know where this is coming from.

[spoony]

65. Well it's apparently easier

to just do the same thing online, eh? I mean go look at any forum on the entire internet. The atheists I'm talking about aren't simply nonbelievers, they are active anti-believers. Obviously they aren't going to knock on doors I was being facetious, but the idea of proselytising is still there.

[Goblinmonger]

74. It seems to me that the problem

is that atheists are actually talking about the fact that they don't believe in god and that pisses people off. Specifically their anger is aimed at Dawkings and Harris because they have set an example of actually speaking up.

I have NEVER seen an atheist on here trying to "convert" anyone. Most of the reactions I see from people like you is a response to the fact that the atheists aren't just shutting up like we have in the past.

And you could apologize for your bigoted comments at anytime.

[Imperialism Inc.]

76. I think the thing that pisses 'em off the most is that they

don't have good answers to the questions raised.

[spoony]

79. By all means

Continue to think so, you will anyway I know, and congratulate each other for being "bright" and "enlightened" and better than all of us stupid, uneducated, naive, etc etc etc...

There is nothing new under the sun and every argument, from your side or mine, has already been countered already. It's all out there for people to look at and then decide for themselves. And since you've already decided, why are you "asking" those questions? It wouldn't be to influence others would it now? No no, of course not. Atheists don't do such things!

[Dorian Gray]

160. No matter what we answer

to some questions, no matter how honest or earnest, faith is not science. We can not prove what we believe or feel to be truth. So, we can only share the theology that we know or what our hearts believe. If the response to that is simple dismissal, it's frustrating.

[spoony]

78. Nah.

I sure as hell won't be apologising for a joke that at its heart held the truth that atheists are every bit the proselytisers Christians are, and here at Du far moreso because the latter type would never be allowed. It isn't because you won't shut up, it's because YOU don't conduct yourselves in a civilised manner. You routinely slam believers--not criticise them, not question them, but ridicule and insult them--and then you faint away with the vapors when someone calls you on it and dares to kick pebbles at you.

[Evoman]

81. "it's because YOU don't conduct yourselves in a civilised manner"

"Poor, poor thin-skinned bitter atheists lol. Gimme a break. You guys routinely make the most ferocious attacks against the intelligences of billions of people, yet you can't deal with me pointing out that atheist proselytising is real. Where's my little violin for you..."

[Evoman]

82. Again..."it's because YOU don't conduct yourselves in a civilised manner"

"So far the only thing stopping some of them from doing that is laziness. Or cowardice. Because many of them really, really enjoy trying to tear down people's faith. I imagine one day they will go door to door, they're already doing it online"

[Name removed]

83. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Evoman]

84. "it's because YOU don't conduct yourselves in a civilised manner"

"By all means Continue to think so, you will anyway I know, and congratulate each other for being "bright" and "enlightened" and better than all of us stupid, uneducated, naive, etc etc etc..."

[spoony]

87. Correct.

I am one man in a sea of uncivilised slurs against religion. What are you so afraid of?

[Evoman]

99. ........

:rofl:

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Evoman]

86. ......

:)

[cyborg_jim]

88. Ah, tu quoque. That makes you better how now? Oh right, it doesn't.

[Goblinmonger]

107. What was that you said in another post

about your violin? I think I found it

:nopity:

[Random_Australian]

168. Hey spoony, care to back up some of those assertions? I'm hearing a lot of noise but

I'm not seeing anything solid.
:)

I know from memory there are a threads where atheists leapt in to defend believers, so I'm currently thinking your 'ideas' about how purely evil atheists are carry little merit.

:)

But please, feel free to prove me wrong. Perhaps atheists do do that kind of thing; and perhaps you are not here to aggravate and cause arguments instead of debate. Perhaps you'll be able to quote some examples.

[Dorian Gray]

159. I know I'm breaking into a conversation here...

but you said something that interested me... and I know I'm coming from my own POV and can't speak for anybody else...


In my case, I don't think that this: " is that atheists are actually talking about the fact that they don't believe in god and that pisses people off" is necessarily the problem. I think that followed by adjectives which may be condescending are the crux of the problem. Nobody likes to think that others find them ignorant. When things are spoken of in a way that makes me believe you may find me so, I may strike back in a similar way. Then the misunderstanding takes off on a level of its own.

Now I know I can't speak for everybody. To be honest, I don't care what anybody does or doesn't believe in, as long as they are kind to other people. And the point of my post is not directed at you. (In other words, I'm not accusing YOU of being condescending.) I'm just saying that we may perceive, with frustration, that view is held of us religionists. While you may be frustrated because you think that we think you are godless and evil sinners.

In my mind, I think we're missing the true provocation. Or refusal to give an inch to the other side, put ourselves in each other's shoes, and try to find some middle ground to work toward.

[trotsky]

69. Imagine, for a moment...

if someone had posted that homosexuals would go door-to-door trying to promote equal rights, "but they're too lazy." Or maybe blacks would go door-to-door lobbying for their rights, "but they're too lazy."

Unbelievable, the bigotry exposed right here on DU sometimes.

[spoony]

77. Poor, poor thin-skinned bitter atheists

lol. Gimme a break. You guys routinely make the most ferocious attacks against the intelligences of billions of people, yet you can't deal with me pointing out that atheist proselytising is real. Where's my little violin for you...

[cyborg_jim]

89. Quote one

You guys routinely make the most ferocious attacks against the intelligences of billions of people

[spoony]

90. Every time

One of you shows up with your "sky daddy" and your "imaginary friend" and all that crap, posted on DU hundreds if not thousands of times a week, you dismiss the intellects of the billions of people on earth who believe, including many, many good Democrats. No one who's been here more than a few hours can claim to not have seen it.

[cyborg_jim]

91. Quote one

[spoony]

92. Why are you trying to get me to break DU rules?

I told you what kinds of things I'm talking about, and you know you've seen it. We all have. Your hiding behind feigned ignorance is not very convincing in this case, jimmy.

[trotsky]

94. And we've seen believers make equally nasty comments about atheists.

Like calling them all "lazy," for instance. Just to use a random example. I don't think anyone can claim that it's always one side saying bad stuff.

[spoony]

148. It's getting quite lame.

Really, do any of you have reading skills? When I said I was being facetious about being "lazy"? The point is that atheists here prostelytize, and no one can argue against that, you just swoon that someone made a joke about you.

I'm more confident than ever that I'm right here: the lot of you are whiners, and high-pitched annoying ones at that. You stomp on theists then cry like children when someone gives you a teeny-tiny (and not even seriously meant!) taste of your own medicine, and the only comeback you have is: Well you're not being a good Christian! Well guess what? I don't care if people unfamiliar with a community say I don't meet their arbitrary standards about what that community should be.

[Goblinmonger]

154. I will let trotsky handle the bulk of your post

because I am sure he is quite able.

But the fault of your assumptions I want to point out is the end of your post. What evidence do you have for the fact that atheists aren't familiar with Christianity? For someone who rallies against atheists have tired, stale reponses, you toss out the old theist canards pretty quickly.

For the record. I'm an atheist who was raised catholic and spent 4 years in a catholic high school seminary. I am quite familiar with Christianity, thank you (unless you are a member of one of those accepting christian sects that does not recognize catholics as christians). I think your argument was basically

[trotsky]

156. Wow, what a nasty attitude.

"Love thy neighbor" - who needs it? Believe it or not spoony, you're a great example of a Christian. A bad one, but an example nonetheless!

I don't care if people unfamiliar with a community say I don't meet their arbitrary standards about what that community should be.

I was once a Christian. You are totally unlike the "good" Christians I have known. You are stereotyping, accusatory, vengeful, and just plain nasty. Would Jesus be proud of your behavior?

[Evoman]

158. "it's because YOU don't conduct yourselves in a civilised manner"

"Really, do any of you have reading skills? When I said I was being facetious about being "lazy"?"


"I'm more confident than ever that I'm right here: the lot of you are whiners, and high-pitched annoying ones at that"

:rofl:

[cyborg_jim]

96. I have not seen it here

If you're talking about GD then frankly complaining about atheists being nasty is redundant cherry-picking.

I do not see any of this sort of thing here on a regular basis.

[spoony]

150. Not even fun anymore.

Arguing with a dodgy character isn't very satisfying, and you perfectly illustrate why. You alter context, feign misunderstanding, shift words, etc etc. It's like fencing a breeze.

[cyborg_jim]

164. You seem to be imagining someone else

Although if making me up to be something I am not is enough to get you to quietly disappear into your hole of hate then so be it.

[trotsky]

93. Hey, I'm fine with all the abuse you want to heap.

I'm just curious if you subscribe to the "eye for an eye" model of justice, which apparently you do. But in this case, because some OTHER guy took out your eye, now you feel justified in going after MINE. I know some "Christians" have much more developed moral guides than us atheists do, so maybe I just don't understand because I'm too lazy. :eyes:

[Evoman]

101. ......................

:thumbsup:

[cosmik debris]

103. I believe it is the "do unto others" model

spoony is treating others the way he wishes to be treated. It is almost like he is giving permission. :)

[Goblinmonger]

105. Let me just sit in the sweet, sweet irony

of your post.

You are mocking atheists because we are attacking the "intelligences of billions of people." You do realize that you are using the bandwagon fallacy. Just because billions of people believe in gods, there must be gods. And of course, you can't find a billion people that believe in the same god which, I would think, is an argument against every one of the gods that those billions of people who are intelligent belive in.

You are hilarious. Not in the "you are really funny" sense, but in the "you are trying to be all smart but keep making ridiculously ignorant, bigoted, and inane comments" sense. Keep it up. Many of us are enjoying it. I'm sure Evoman will keep quoting you just to make it obvious to you when you are being bigoted, ignorant, and inane because I'm sure you don't get it on your own.

And I doubt you have the culture to know how to play the violin.

[spoony]

149. I play the cello instead

For ten years. I like the throaty resonance better.

And your grasp of logic seems to lack any sense of appropriate placement. For I, of course, was NOT appealing to the "bandwagon" to say that my religion--or religion at all--is CORRECT, which is what that fallacy is about. It isn't surprising you missed the point, you were too busy being superior, but I'll state it again:

You have contempt for the intelligence of billions of people. Not that you disagree with them, no, that you think they're stupid. While Cyborg Jim has amazingly never seen this behaviour, I trust that you are a little too smart to dive behind the ignorance bunker too. You've seen it, maybe even participated in it. You know damn well the comments I'm talking about.

[Goblinmonger]

152. I think that for reasons

that are mostly cultural, billions of people believe in some god. This belief in a god, with no evidence whatsoever except that someone told them so, is silly to me. Does that mean that everyone of those people is not intelligent? Of course not. The fact that you, and others that are "offended," can't seperate belief in god from general intelligence is your problem and not mine. If I walk around saying that the sun orbits the earth and you tell me that isn't true, are you therefore telling me that you are superior to me in every way? No. Same applies here. It's just that some theists tend to be very wrapped up in their belief and don't want it questioned whatsoever and when it is, they feel their whole being is being questioned when it is not.


And you were implying that those billions of people must be right. Otherwise why is it an insult? If billions of people believed the world was flat, would I be "insulting" their intelligence to say that they were wrong? Hardly.

[cyborg_jim]

155. Right, let's sort this out shall we?

You have contempt for the intelligence of billions of people.

WRONG.

I for one DO NOT have contempt for the intelligence of billions of people who believe in various theistic ideas. Why? Because intelligence is irrelevant here.

Stupid people can be right.

Intelligent people can be wrong.

It must, and can only be, the process of argument that is important. That theistic ideas are based on an underlying vacuousness spouting from ancient beliefs that have been superceeded by new ideas is the basic issue. I maintain that a love of nostalgia and tradition that transcends any sort of logical or intelligent reasons for holding these beliefs is key. As such when I see intelligent people engaged in post-hoc justification for these concepts I cannot help but shake my head - it is a waste of effort on grounds that have been shown by time to be unproductive. It is time to let go and move onto more fertile regions (and that doesn't just apply to theistic beliefs but a whole range of other notions that have failed to show any promise). Stupid people just become cannon fodder in belief wars.

I *KNOW* intelligent people can hold stupid beliefs because I have *INCREDIBLY* close experience of this; i.e. I am fully aware of stupid ideas I previously maintained about the world. You will find many of the atheists who hang out in RT of of a similar ilk - even if I was never caught in any ultra-religious trap.

Frankly if I didn't think it was possible to persaude intelligent people that their theistic beliefs are ill-justified I would not bother.

Your actions here do nothing but escalate a counter-productive tit-for-tat mentality. You cannot possibly achieve anything but making yourself look like an ass - you will not teach the 'nasty atheists' a lesson other than you are someone to put on an ignore list. You will certainly not acheive this by attacking people who are not looking to blindly lash out at any sort of theism as it comes.

[Random_Australian]

167. Care to back up your broadbrush of atheists as cowards? And lazy?

:)

I gotta see this. If anyone can back up a statement that dumb, they should get a medal.

[Goblinmonger]

171. It's good to see you back in here

I've missed you.

I should have had you on my "who would you like to be list" because the things you think of are so different than anything that comes to my mind I always get to see the world in a different light when I read your posts.

[Random_Australian]

173. Why thankyou. It's nice to be back, though it's not nice to find that

these claims about "atheists are so unlike the theists" are still going around. I tell you, it's like the influenza, when it stops in one person it starts in another!

Btw, did I ever tell you that Goblinmonger is a great name?


And the one really good thing about me "seeing the world in a different way" is that most everyone shows me a completely different perspective to my own. :)

[heidler1]

21. I've been an Atheist since the 5th grade and sort of looked at

religion as a wish was need of most people, it was pretty harmless. Then came Bush and the big push of these people to make the world pure for those who believe and more dangerous for those who did not believe. The battle lines were clear: the Bush crusade in the mid/east was bent on sacrificing our men and women in this charade, the real Bush purpose was/is oil. IMO neither the glue of peak oil nor a religious war could/would hold the Bush supporters loyalty long enough to complete this insane task.

Atheists who tend to be non-followers saw this early on and reacted by voicing their arguments much more vocally against religion in general. I believe it has helped.

[eppur_se_muova]

51. It's more wingnut BS, just like "secular fundamentalist".

They know "fundamentalist" carries big negative connotations, so they project it outwards, never mind that it applies best to their own religious extremists.

[NMMNG]

52. They have nothing in common

The term "atheist fundamentalist" is used as nothing more than an insult by hateful and/or uninformed people.

[Meshuga]

54. "Atheist fundamentalist" is an oxymoron n/t

[varkam]

58. It's nonsensical.

And when it's used, it's meant to portray atheists in generally the same light as religious fundamentalists - whom none here agree with. It's an insult - and not a very well thought out one at that.

[hyphenate]

61. I think part of the problem

is absolute thinking--i.e., in this case, narrow-mindedness. You can be a fundamentalist at any rate, regardless of whether you are you are Christian, atheist or some other belief system.

Dictionary defines "fundamental" as follows:

a. Of or relating to the foundation or base; elementary: the fundamental laws of the universe.
b. Forming or serving as an essential component of a system or structure; central: an example that was fundamental to the argument.
c. Of great significance or entailing major change: a book that underwent fundamental revision.


Those at either end of the spectrum can be considered a "fundamentalist" as per the definition--a closed mental system, unwilling to accept or even consider something that flies in the face of their beliefs.

As such, "atheism" is a belief system--it is the belief that there IS no god or deity. And the fundamental "truth" for those who atheists is that there is no empirical data to assume or believe that a god exists.

On the other hand, most people have some belief that perhaps there is more than meets the eye--they are not sure, but they don't have enough evidence to be a stronger believer in a potential god, at the same time, they might look at the complexity of the real world and think it is too complex to be random.

In fact, each person might have his or her own break with a true "system" of belief, and have never brought their own unique thoughts into a tangible viewpoint, and only know that there are many things they aren't sure of, or question.

If someone uses those absolutes, however, they are being fundamental about their beliefs, and won't sway from them, regardless of what proofs might come at some point in the future. It's sort of similar to those who even now fully support and "worship" GWB, even though it's gotten clearer every day that the man is an imbecile. They refuse to deviate from their opinion and faith in the man, and the more people argue about it, the more obstinate they become.

[muriel_volestrangler]

71. And you were doing so well by looking at the meaning of 'fundamental'

But you ruined it with a non sequitur:

a "fundamentalist" as per the definition--a closed mental system, unwilling to accept or even consider something that flies in the face of their beliefs

No! There wasn't anything in your definition about "closed mental system"; they're about foundations, bases, and essential components. Why do you suddenly pretend there's something in that definition about 'closed minds'? You just made that up.

As such, "atheism" is a belief system--it is the belief that there IS no god or deity.

But, even accepting your definition of 'belief' and 'atheism' (and many here will dispute them - it's 'belief' as in 'judgement', not as in 'faith'; and the definition of 'atheism' includes 'lack of belief in gods'), it's not a system - because there's only one 'belief' there. One thing on its own cannot form a system.

And the fundamental "truth" for those who atheists is that there is no empirical data to assume or believe that a god exists.

I, an atheist, have concluded there is no empirical data to assume or believe that a god exists, after years of observation of the world, and consideration. So who are the atheists who regard it as a fundamental truth, rather than a result they've arrived at? Interviews with Richard Dawkins clearly show he became an atheist after looking at evidence, not assuming something as a 'truth' (when he was a teenager). Yet it is Dawkins who is particularly attacked as a 'fundamental atheist' by McGrath's book.

[trotsky]

72. As far as I can figure out...

if you are outspoken in your atheism, you're an fundamentalist atheist. The "nice," non-fundamentalists are the ones who know their place and keep their mouths shut.

[Rhiannon12866]

102. That's an interesting way of looking at it. I never thought of it quite that way.

I don't have a problem with people who are believers, since it's pointless to object to what someone else believes, or doesn't, since it's what they believe. My problem is with those who proselytize, try to get others to think what they do. That's nobody else's business, IMO. Most of my relatives are Catholic and I don't have any problem with them. They're secure in their faith and just believe what they do, certainly don't feel the need to talk to anyone about it... It's the people who stand on street corners, handing out leaflets, or come to my door, that I object to...

[varkam]

146. Bingo!

Chuck, tell him what he's won!

[jgraz]

162. I agree, but you don't go nearly far enough

In most theists' view, the only way not to be a "fundamentalist atheist" is to not be an atheist at all. If you say you believe there is no god (the dictionary definition of "atheism"), then you are an absolutist or fundamentalist. The only way to avoid this designation is to qualify your atheism in such a way that you're really an agnostic.

And BTW, anyone who says "there's no proof either way" is not an atheist.

[trotsky]

165. Yes, you're absolutely right.

Just plain atheism is far too often portrayed as the unreasonable, "extremist" position whereas agnosticism is the "acceptable" position. But I think that comes more from a misunderstanding about what "atheism" and "agnosticism" really mean - what most people understand as agnosticism (not being convinced that god exists) is really just weak atheism.

[More Than A Feeling]

169. I think you are both talking about the same thing, whose proper name is "agnostic atheism".

The definition of "agnostic atheism" would be lacking belief in a god because of the lack of knowledge about that god. My theory is that which part of the title you choose to accentuate depends on personal preference, but both are equally correct and incorrect.

[Imperialism Inc.]

75. Basically it is this.

Some religious people have recognized that there is a negative strain of believers known as fundamentalists. Even though they may not be fundamentalists themselves, they consider this a poor reflection on religion. So they wish to paint their "opponents" (atheists) with that term so they can say "See it is no different in atheism". This is much the same as when some butcher the definition of faith in order to be able to say that non-religious people also have faith.

I looked around for dictionary definitions that might explain it but I didn't find any. As the Wikipedia noted, "The idea of non-religious Fundamentalism almost always expands the definition of "Fundamentalism" along the lines of criticisms." And, yeah, I think that is right. It is just redefining a word for polemical purposes.

Why the term is even here on DU I don't know. I guess the polemical aspect of painting an opponent with a negative term is just too tempting to refuse.

[Goblinmonger]

106. I'm an atheist fundamentalist

The only thing that identifies an atheist is a non-belief in any god.

And, as for me, I really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, don't believe in any gods.

Therefore, I must be a fundamentalist. And because I really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, don't believe in any gods I must be a bad person. And mean. And confrontational. And proselytizing. Why? Cause I have to be, cause I'm a fundamentalist.

Oh, wait, isn't that begging the question? I think it is. Oh well, the theists say it's true, so it must be.

[redqueen]

109. When I see that term,

I see an attempt to define a type of atheist who asserts for a fact that there is no God, like the believers who go around stating that they know for a fact that there is.

Also, I think it implies that atheists labeled with that tag employ the same kind of inflexible intolerance to other views that is so often displayed by fundamentalists.

[muriel_volestrangler]

137. Would you call all believers who assert there is a god 'fundamentalist', then?

eg Martin Luther King, Jimmy Carter, the Pope, C.S. Lewis, Jim Wallis, and so on? This would make 58% of American internet users 'theist fundamentalists'.

[redqueen]

140. Well... I wouldn't personally, no...

but if I saw the term used that way, it'd seem to be fairly used, to me.

[muriel_volestrangler]

142. Fair enough - I hadn't read your post carefully enough

I think you're right there's also an attempt to imply intolerance - but it would be clearer and more honest if that was stated (giving an opportunity for rebuttal), rather than hinted at by another word which then gets argued about. Perhaps "convinced atheist" or "committed atheist" would be a term without the pejorative implications.

[redqueen]

143. Definitely agreed...

the term certainly doesn't seem to be a very useful way to get one's point across.

[Dorian Gray]

161. Redqueen and Muriel...

I think that you guys both reached the crux of the definitions with little wrangling here, and you both have reached the obvious conclusion that fundamentalist is a pejorative used here. Your posts were a breath of fresh air! :)

[varkam]

163. Seconded eom

[JerseygirlCT]

141. Yes, this would be what I'd see as well. nt

[More Than A Feeling]

166. as the OP, I don't feel bad about semi-hijacking my own thread to say that

I like your "Cheese" avatar.

[Rabrrrrrr]

170. An atheist who absolutely insists that their position is correct, and the only correct,

position, is a fundamentalist. Like a fundamentalist muslim who says his version of Islam is the only correct version, and the only correct religion. Or the fundamentalist Packers Fan who insist that the Packers are the world's greatest team no matter how they actually perform, and that anyone who roots for another team is a shitbag.

To be a fundamentalist is to believe BOTH that one is absolutely, utterly correct in one's belief, AND that what one believes is the only correct and right thing in which to believe.

So, the fundamentalist atheist says that he is absolutely and utterly correct that there is no god, and that the position that there is no god is absolutely and utterly the only correct belief system.

The fundamentalist Christian says that his version of Christianity is the absolutely and utterly correct one, and that the only absolutely utterly correct form of belief is his version of Christianity.

The non-fundamentalist might be pretty confident, but always leaves room for doubt (modesty) in their belief system; and also leaves room for the possibility that other beliefs can be just as viable.

Whether it be fundamentalist atheism, Christianity, sports teams, plumbing (to use an example from above), or whatever, the tactic and methodology is the same: refusal to entertain the notion that one could be wrong at all, and refusal to entertain the notion that there might be another viable way of thinking about it.

[Goblinmonger]

172. The problem that I have with that

and I am in no way saying that you are arguing this, is that the "room for doubt" is kinda tricky. I know that my statement of atheism is that there is no god because there is absolutely no proof for the existence of one. I can leave open the doubt that there may be some proof that comes up later (though I highly doubt it, ha ha). The problem then is that a level of "scientific" doubt like that gives way to the god of the gaps so to speak (I know that is not the traditional usage of that term). Many theists will say that that doubt is equal to the faith that they have in the existence of god, which it is in no way similar.

Again, I am not saying you are doing this nor arguing this.

And the name for your football scenario is not fundamentalism but is more aptly named 99% of Wisconsin residents. The percentage is smaller when the FIBs come up in the summer to their vacation park. :evilgrin:

[nickols_k]

174. believe vs faith

Please understand that there is difference between to be believer and to be faithful man!
Many from us are believers but not every from us is faithful men!

Be bless!