What does "atheist fundamentalism" mean?

[Iti oj]

Is "anti-theism" any more fundamentalist than "pro-theism" (i.e. most theism)?

I would say yes. ChristianES is different from a christian fundamentalist. A strong anti theist is more like the fundamentalist.

edit just choose a friendly theist at random.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would say yes. ChristianES is different from a christian fundamentalist. A strong anti theist is more like the fundamentalist.

edit just choose a friendly theist at random.

Wait - what do you mean by "anti-theist"? The definition I'm used to is "a person who believes that God does not exist" - is that what you're using?

 

[Quintessence]

9_10ths, I think at the end of the day you're going to be left asking specific people what they mean when they use the term. I'm going to borrow Dyanaprajna's post because I think they did a good job pointing out one of the issues here:

It depends on how you define fundamentalism. To a Christian or Muslim, fundamentalism simply describes the basic tenets of one's faith. To an outsider, fundamentalism generally is a derogatory denotation. It's this second definition that is generally in mind when people say "atheist fundamentalism". It's generally seen as an attitude that atheism is better than any other system, and is aimed at people who actively promote atheism.

I tend to avoid using fundamentalism as an adjective for anything both because the meaning of the term is problematic and because it has such negative connotations. In my country, it's a snarl-word, and snarl-words are generally not useful to use in conversations given the knee-jerk hostile responses they can elicit. But that aside, where I would want to use fundamentalism as an adjective, I pretty much agree with defining it as Levite did earlier:

Fundamentalism is essentially an absolutist and exclusivist position, combined with an aggressive tendency to proselytize that position, and to deride the positions of others.

In other words, a belief that one is absolutely right, that all other positions are wrong, and an aggressive willingness to try and change other people's minds to conform with one's own "right" belief, and to insult and demean those who do not agree.

This attitude is found in religious extremists and in atheist extremists. It is not about belief in God, but about extremism.

I'd also add that an important word to describe fundamentalism is dogma, particularly inflexibility of dogma that is usually coupled with black-and-white thinking that is hostile towards gray-area thinking, relativism, and the like. They tend to be anti-whatever doesn't fit their mold. To me, any and all ideologies could be described as fundamentalist, but in my country, we tend to only use it to describe a tiny minority of Christians. The truth is that all religions and ideologies have their fundamentalists. I've even seen it in Neopaganism, a religious movement that is about as non-dogmatic (if not anti-dogmatic) as you could get! Atheists - particularly religious atheists - could very easily be fundamentalist about their ideology. I've seen many fundamentalist atheists pass through our own doors here on RF. They never last long, because the rules of RF pretty much disallow their typical behavior: say nasty things about anyone who isn't of your group (trolling or personal attacks) and try to convince everyone else that you're right (proselytizing).

Again, I tend to avoid using the word fundamentalism entirely. When I run across someone who I could label an atheist fundamentalist, I will probably call them other terms that probably apply: anti-theist, anti-religionist, anti-paranormalist or anti-supernaturalist, guilty of scientism, and so forth. And by "anti" I don't just mean a contrarian position, I mean they stare down their noses at these groups in a bigoted, prejudicial way that betrays a arrogant sense of self-righteousness and "my way is the right way, period" mentalities.

 

[fantome profane]

Is "anti-theism" any more fundamentalist than "pro-theism" (i.e. most theism)?

Instead of just pro-theism, I think anti-atheism would be a better example.

But with that you can see that even most moderate, liberal theist leaders are anti-atheists in just the same way that Dawkins is anti-theist.

 

[Iti oj]

Wait - what do you mean by "anti-theist"? The definition I'm used to is "a person who believes that God does not exist" - is that what you're using?

No, I have never even seen it used that way before. Thats the/a definition of atheism. Heres an defintion

Antitheism is active opposition to theism. The term has had a range of applications; in secular contexts, it typically refers to direct opposition to organized religion or to the belief in any deity, while in a theistic context, it sometimes refers to opposition to a specific god or gods.

I am using it as that, and have always seen it used as such, or perhaps with a stronger connotation for the in opposition.

from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheist

 

[crossfire]

What makes you think that they were vandalized by atheists? There are plenty of other non-Christian groups.

I do know of atheist activist movements that are particularly active in my area. I've had discussions with some who have revealed of some of the strategies they employ--like trying to change zoning laws to confine churches to commercially zoned property (churches cause too much traffic in residential areas, etc.) They can be quite enthusiastic about it. Now, these groups will generally condemn such vandalization/destruction of private property, as it only gives their activism a negative image. I do know that they exist, as I have met quite a few.

Regardless, let's take that as a given: assuming that they were vandalized by atheists, is this where you set the bar for fundamentalism? I may be putting words in their mouth, but I'm pretty sure that Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Madalyn Murray O'Hair, and the other people typically held up as "atheist fundamentalists" would not support that sort of destruction of private property. Do you consider them to be atheist fundamentalists?

Would your definition of "atheist fundamentalist" include someone who thought that the nativity scene was silly but still condemn it being vandalized?

My bar for an atheist fundamentalist would be the "driven by aversion" factor and a bit of tribalism in the view that theists are considered to be inherently mentally impaired/deficient, barbaric, or not-quite-human. (In the tribal sense of the word--tribes often calling themselves "the humans/people," where non-tribal members are referred to as "non-humans/people.")

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Sad how these discussions always end up as semantic squabble over labels like "atheist", "antitheist" and so on, rather than discussions of the original topic. And I fail to see how someone who is strongly anti-theistic would thereby be a fundamentalist- or is it that anyone who believes anything strongly is a fundamentalist? This doesn't sound right; it seems like its quite possible to believe something strongly and nevertheless no be a fundamentalist about it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

9_10ths, I think at the end of the day you're going to be left asking specific people what they mean when they use the term.

That's what I thought I was doing.

I'm going to borrow Dyanaprajna's post because I think they did a good job pointing out one of the issues here:



I tend to avoid using fundamentalism as an adjective for anything both because the meaning of the term is problematic and because it has such negative connotations. In my country, it's a snarl-word, and snarl-words are generally not useful to use in conversations given the knee-jerk hostile responses they can elicit.

Judging by the way the word is often used, my impression is that "atheist fundamentalism" is usually a code word for "opinions I disagree with but would rather dismiss than respond to."

But that aside, where I would want to use fundamentalism as an adjective, I pretty much agree with defining it as Levite did earlier:

This definition seems to me to be either a straw man or describing something so extreme that no mainstream atheist meets it. Heck, even Richard Dawkins says that the certainty of his belief that God exists is only "6.9 out of 7".

And I think that what "insult and demean" means depends greatly on a person's point of view. For instance, I'd say that the old slogan "the family that prays together stays together" is just as insulting and demeaning to the non-religious as "religion poisons everything" (from the subtitle to the God Delusion) is to the religious.

I'd also add that an important word to describe fundamentalism is dogma, particularly inflexibility of dogma that is usually coupled with black-and-white thinking that is hostile towards gray-area thinking, relativism, and the like. They tend to be anti-whatever doesn't fit their mold. To me, any and all ideologies could be described as fundamentalist, but in my country, we tend to only use it to describe a tiny minority of Christians. The truth is that all religions and ideologies have their fundamentalists. I've even seen it in Neopaganism, a religious movement that is about as non-dogmatic (if not anti-dogmatic) as you could get! Atheists - particularly religious atheists - could very easily be fundamentalist about their ideology. I've seen many fundamentalist atheists pass through our own doors here on RF. They never last long, because the rules of RF pretty much disallow their typical behavior: say nasty things about anyone who isn't of your group (trolling or personal attacks) and try to convince everyone else that you're right (proselytizing).

I think there's something else inherent in "fundamentalist": the idea that the view being put forward is unreasonable. There are plenty of views put forward with certainty that the term doesn't get applied to. I've never heard anyone use terms like "fundamentalist abolitionist" or "anti-child abuse fundamentalism."

Again, I tend to avoid using the word fundamentalism entirely. When I run across someone who I could label an atheist fundamentalist, I will probably call them other terms that probably apply: anti-theist, anti-religionist, anti-paranormalist or anti-supernaturalist, guilty of scientism, and so forth.

And to an extent, this isn't entirely about the term, but more the mindset behind it: certain views are considered "acceptable" and some are "unacceptable"... and it seems to me that whether a view is for or against God makes a big difference as to whether it's commonly considered "acceptable" or not.

 

[Sunstone]

Just so we're clear: I'm not asking for confirmation that some atheists might be petty zealots; there very well may be some. What I'm trying to figure out is just how extreme or offensive an atheist has to be to get those sorts of epithets to apply to him so that we can compare the standard for atheists to the standard for theists.

I see. Well, in my experience, all an atheist has to do is say anything negative about deity, religion, or religiosity without explicitly mentioning that their remark doesn't apply to every damn deity, religion, or form of religiosity under the sun. And even if they do qualify each and every statement they make so that it only applies to chipmunks conducting worship services on islands in the Northern ocean, some fool theist is bound to get riled and declare them a anti-theist painting with too broad of a brush.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I believe fundamentalism is often used as a term to describe an extremist, and a person who is extreme in their lack of belief in God would be considered an atheist fundamentalist.

 

[George-ananda]

Quote, please. Just one example (or more if you want).

Do you claim to have never seen an ‘ATTITUDE’ of irrationally strong vehemence from atheists?

 

[Sunstone]

I've heard the term "fundamentalist" applied to people who advocate unregulated free markets.

Fundamentalism has actually been studied as a phenomena, though, and found to have several common characteristics, regardless of which religion it appears in. For instance, Christian, Muslim, Hindu and Jewish fundamentalists all reject modernity.

 

[steeltoes]

I believe fundamentalism is often used as a term to describe an extremist, and a person who is extreme in their lack of belief in God would be considered an atheist fundamentalist.

How is it possible for a lack of belief to be extreme? If you don't believe, you don't believe anymore or any less than the fact that you don't believe.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do you claim to have never seen an ‘ATTITUDE’ of irrationally strong vehemence from atheists?

I didn't claim anything. I asked you for an example.

My post to Sunstone is probably relevant here:

Just so we're clear: I'm not asking for confirmation that some atheists might be petty zealots; there very well may be some. What I'm trying to figure out is just how extreme or offensive an atheist has to be to get those sorts of epithets to apply to him so that we can compare the standard for atheists to the standard for theists.

Whether I can see what I consider to be unreasonable behaviour from some group of atheists tells me nothing about what you consider to be unreasonable.

 

[steeltoes]

Do you claim to have never seen an ‘ATTITUDE’ of irrationally strong vehemence from atheists?

If you can't provide an example, just say so.

 

[Quintessence]

Judging by the way the word is often used, my impression is that "atheist fundamentalism" is usually a code word for "opinions I disagree with but would rather dismiss than respond to."

I don't know. I haven't observed that. I wasn't following the thread this one was inspired by, but I'd be cautious about presuming to know someone's internal motivations for using any particular terminology.

This definition seems to me to be either a straw man or describing something so extreme that no mainstream atheist meets it. Heck, even Richard Dawkins says that the certainty of his belief that God exists is only "6.9 out of 7".

And I think that what "insult and demean" means depends greatly on a person's point of view. For instance, I'd say that the old slogan "the family that prays together stays together" is just as insulting and demeaning to the non-religious as "religion poisons everything" (from the subtitle to the God Delusion) is to the religious.

You might be interpreting Levite's description in a more extreme fashion than intended. Definitely more extreme than I would intend when using the adjective. In really simple terms, use of the adjective boils down to how much of a $#@% someone is about their ideology. It's not about their personal certainty of belief, it's being a dick about it. And Dawkins is definitely a $#@% about it, though not as bad as some of the other New Atheists. Anybody who can say crap like "religion poisons everything" pretty much earns a $#@% award in my book. Just like anyone who could say crap like "if you don't pray to God together, your family will fall apart" earns a $#@% award (note, this isn't the same phrase you used; the phrase you used doesn't strike me as troublesome in the least as it isn't a judgmental, threatening, or negative statement).

 

[Revoltingest]

Perhaps. I know that I expect those who purport to be defenders of reason to do an adequate job exhibiting that quality. Many do. Some come across as petty zealots.

I like the term "zealot".
It's more accurate than "fundamentalist" in application to atheists.

 

[George-ananda]

If you can't provide an example, just say so.

First sentence of the James Randi article called "The ‘Medium’ Is Not the Messenger"

Hardly does one talking-to-the-dead practitioner fade from view than another pops up, to the delight of the naifs who desperately need assurance that no one ever really dies but somehow instead just floats off to heaven, Valhalla, paradise or whatever Cloud Nine they fancy — to, um, “live” forever.

Do you not hear sarcasm and 'emotional vehemence' from this claimed 'investigator'. This is what I call Atheist Fundamentalism.

You will say, he's just stating the facts. I've looked into mediumship quite a bit and the strongest cases can't be rationally dismissed easily.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Strictly speaking, I think a fundamentalist is someone who starkly observes and adheres to the fundamental tenets, teachings, and commandments (for more dogmatic belief systems) of their religion. However, the term seems to be commonly used to refer to people who hold beliefs or opinions perceived by the person using the term as exclusivist, intolerant, or hostile toward other beliefs and/or people who hold them.

Using the first definition, I believe a "fundamentalist atheist" is nonexistent by definition: atheism, the lack of belief in a deity or deities, isn't a set of teachings or a religion that has any "fundamental" aspects except said lack of belief.

If one uses the second definition, then I think the line becomes more blurry: it seems to me that, while there's truth to the statement that there are many intolerant and narrow-minded atheists (as there are intolerant and narrow-minded people in every group, be it religious or not), the relative unpopularity of the atheistic stance compared to theistic one--albeit tending to vary from place to place--gets atheists more readily branded as "fundamentalists" in the sense of the second definition than theists.

As an example, I have yet to hear any atheist claim that even a single theist will suffer for any amount of time in another realm or life because of their theological stance, but I frequently hear the opposite. Furthermore, if the former claim were made, I have little doubt that it would upset and possibly shock more people than the latter would--again, because more people are used to the former claim, and also because of the aforementioned unpopularity of atheism relative to theism (and even more so when compared to certain categories of theism than others).

For something I'd consider enough to label an atheist intolerant, bigoted, etc., (basically applying to them the second definition of "fundamentalist" I mentioned), an example would be saying that all religious people are intolerant, or accusing them of being anti-scientific due to their being religious. Talking about all religious people as if they were a homogenous group that shared the same views on everything strikes me as bigoted, although it can also be a result of ignorance (or both bigotry and ignorance).

Generally, I think the yardstick most people use for measuring what constitutes militant or "fundamentalist" atheism is stricter than its counterpart against which theistic claims are measured. The more a statement or claim is made, the more people get used to accepting it... and the converse is also true, hence the contrast between the strictness of the two yardsticks, in my opinion.

 

[steeltoes]

First sentence of the James Randi article called "The ‘Medium’ Is Not the Messenger"

Hardly does one talking-to-the-dead practitioner fade from view than another pops up, to the delight of the naifs who desperately need assurance that no one ever really dies but somehow instead just floats off to heaven, Valhalla, paradise or whatever Cloud Nine they fancy — to, um, “live” forever.

Do you not hear sarcasm and 'emotional vehemence' from this claimed 'investigator'. This is what I call Atheist Fundamentalism.

You will say, he's just stating the facts. I've looked into mediumship quite a bit and the strongest cases can't be rationally dismissed easily.

Do you talk to dead people?