Some atheists are just like religious fundamentalists

I'm not religious, nor American. I physically get to see the situation from a different perspective.
It's interesting to me to see that there are people who consider me religious. It suggests, for starters, that they have strange criteria for what constitutes "religiousness."

If (some) others assert their constitutional rights, that is fundamentalist.
When you and your camp assert your constitutional rights, that is not fundamentalist.

...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am saying that his statements to the effect that there could be a god and that no one knows for sure are simply ploys to avoid the obvious philosophical pitfalls of his hard atheism and outright hostility to anything remotely theistic

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nope, that's not what fundamentalism means.

 

You're not surprised that she doesn't actually know, are you?

And what fundamentalism is was not the question posed to her. The question was "What is a fundamentalist atheist?" which implies that there are some core principals of atheism.

I'm curious to see what Wynn thinks these alleged principals are. Of course, she has no integrity, so she won't actually give a straight answer, but it's worth asking.

 

If that's all there is to it, then why do atheists oppose it?

The name 'fundamentalist' comes from a set of religious tracts published in Los Angeles in 1910-15, entitled 'The Fundamentals', setting out what the authors took to be the fundamental principles of Biblical Christianity, which the authors feared were being swept aside and dismissed by more avant-garde Christians.

Then the use of the word kind of broadened out over the years, coming to refer to the wing of (usually Protestant) Christianity that held tightly to such fundamental ideas as Biblical literalism and inerrancy, belief in Christ's miracles and physical resurrection, justification by faith, the physical second coming, and literal heaven and hell. The word was already turning into what some philosophers call a 'family-resemblance concept', since fundamentalists didn't neccessarily share belief in the same exact same list of fundamentals, but they agreed on enough of them to have a family resemblance to each other that justified use of the same word to refer to them.

(Human cognition often works by association, so family resemblance concepts are very common in our language and thought.)

Gradually, the use of the word expanded further, to embrace religious expressions in other religions that resembled the Protestant traditionalists in what were perceived to be significant ways. There are obviously Muslims, perhaps the majority in some places, who are Quranic literalists, place great emphasis on strict adherence to Shariah law, and so on.

And in yet another broadening of the term, the word 'fundamentalist' has come to be associated with some some broader psychological similarities that fundamentalists often seem to share in common and the word has taken on a more perjorative tone.

There's typically a very strong insider-outsider distinction. The world is divided into Christians and non-Christians. (Or whatever the distinction is.) There are often strong negative judgements projected at the outsiders. There is a kind of psychological grandiosity, an unshakeable belief that the chosen ones have access to unique and absolute Truth. There's a drive to proselytize, to convert the heathen, and to remake the rest of society in the image of their faith. These are people who think about religion much of the time, feel very strongly about it, and hence aren't exactly secularized individuals.

My point has been that a certain kind of atheist spends a great deal of time thinking about religion and cares very passionately about it. They can have their own style of grandiosity, often believing that they are more intelligent than other people and that they possess the one saving Truth of reason and science. They dream of the day when religion, with all of its intellectual obscurantism and moral evil, is swept off the Earth entirely and forgotten.

Even in matters of smaller theological detail atheists sometimes resemble the religious fundamentalists. Some atheists study their Bibles for hours on end and quote Bible verses to illustrate whatever their anti-Christian point is. They read their Bibles with a fundamentalist-style literalism and stoutly reject the kind of allegorical and historical interpretations that many non-fundamentalist Christians favor. They are as opposed as any Christian fundamentalist to what both call "picking and choosing", selecting some Bible verses to believe and follow while dismissing others.

These kind of atheists are rarely aware of it, but there is a distinct and narrow Christian theology implicit in how they themselves perceive and interpret Christianity.

 

Yazata

Atheists don't oppose religion because they are ignorant of it, often they know what a religious text says better than most adherents of that faith. And there is an argument to be made that not believing in talking snakes, donkeys and burning bushes is at least more reasonable, logical and even more intelligent(at least showing and using more of it)than doing so. As to the evils, I think the world will be a better place without religious nuts flying planes into buildings, I'm funny like that.

"By their acts thou shalt know them" I don't care what outlandish and childishly ignorant things religionists believe, I do care what evil and bigotted things they do. While you have every right to believe as you wish, you have no right to impose those beliefs on those who do not choose to share them or on our mutual society. Down that path lies the Taliban and the failed society in Afghanistan. And as long as fundies try to impose their views on all a little fundamentalist fervor in resistence is appropriate. The only acceptable intolerance is intolerance of intolerance. When religionists stop such efforts I can go back to giving religion little thought or effort.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It's not our job to debunk every flavor of Christianity. But we are heartened when Christianity is watered down from what it was, thanks to the influence perhaps of secular society.

 

Of course, fundamentalists are known for being lovely daisies - always kind and happy, compassionate, empathetic, always ready to see things from the other person's perspective, walk a mile in the other person's shoes ...

 

Not all scriptures talk of talking snakes or donkeys.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

As for those who commit extreme acts that's not due to fundamentalism that's due to extremism because strictly adhering to literal interpretations do not equate to outrageous acts fundamentalism is infamous because it inevitably leads to extremism. To be an extremist is to overdo something or commit an unnecessary act.

 

Certain forms of fundamentalism are inherently extreme, because the fundamentals of the religion are extreme.

 

this + fundamentalism = fundamental atheism

I don't understand why this is so difficult to understand ....

 

Because strict adherence to literal interpretations of religious texts is dangerous.

I appreciate the thoughtful response. I've grown too used to the "Yeah, whatever" juvenilia of Wynn and the like. I'll try to raise my game.

I see a problem here immediately, in that you seem to define "fundamentalist" two different ways.

Yes, the word began as the name for a specific movement, but that movement was defined by its literal interpretations of the bible. It is used in other contexts today, but the definition has not changed. What you're trying to do is change the very definition of the word to mean someone who is passionate about their beliefs, but even in a colloquial sense this is incorrect.

But, oddly, you change the definition again later in the post, claiming that "fundamentalist" atheists are the ones who view Christianity in narrow terms. This is a better try, but still wrong. Atheism has no principals, no tenants. This is why, despite being among the fastest-growing populations, they have no political influence. There is simply nothing to bind atheists together. Disbelief by itself is not a tenant, it's simply a status. Just as being a believer isn't enough to bring people together; there must also be some code or system, and it is by that which theists define themselves. Without these things, belief is little more than spiritualism. You've never met a fundamentalist spiritualist, have you?

We should get away from trying to make atheism fit into some dogmatic mold. It isn't simply an alternative to Christianity or Islam, it's the opposite of belief. While I do agree that many atheists in the US have a very Christian-centric approach, it's only because that's the world they live in, and I would not simply assume that they would not hold the same opinions if it was a different conception of Christianity they were presented with (since it is always religion pushing against secularism, not the other way around), or another faith entirely. Their arguments may differ against more benign faiths like Buddhism, but their hostility is nothing more than the equal, opposite reaction to the opponent. In other words, if theism were not responsible for, say, the oppression of homosexuals, then atheists would not react so strongly in opposition.

I have heard the argument that so-called "strong atheists" (a term I have no patience for) are really anti-theists, but I don't think this designation fits. Anti-theism implies a desire to rid the world of theism, which I don't think anyone would say they truly desired. It isn't religion that atheists have a problem with, after all, but the enforcement of religious tenants in society.

But, should anyone say they really want the eradication of religion, I suppose it would be acceptable to call them radical atheists. Certainly not fundamentalists, though.

 

Atheism has no principals or tenants or texts which could be interpreted literally, so there is nothing about atheism that which one could have fundamentalist view. Belief and non-belief are not principals, they are simply statuses. If belief itself was enough, where are all the fundamental spiritualists?

There needs to be some set of laws or guiding principals for there to be fundamentalism.

 

Of course it does. Richard Dawkins is a principal of atheism, and JDawg et. al are its tenants.


Given how much you fret, pointing out your spelling errors is perfectly in place!

 

Truth is when an idea or notion in your mind matches actual reality... not when you declare an idea or notion in your mind to be true.

Oh? Please ellaborate on what exactly this dogma is.

Do you have evidence of your claim?

 

To quote Sam Harris:

"The rise of fundamentalist Islam is only a problem because of the fundamentals of Islam."

 

Fair enough. I got lazy at the keyboard.

 

I take it you didn't read the link then
:shrug:

 

Oh, I did. I'm guessing you didn't? Or maybe you just didn't understand them?
:shrug: