Thanks for the example of what I called 'sarcasm' and 'emotional vehemence'. You couldn't have been more helpful to my point.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What does "atheist fundamentalism" mean?
- Thread starter 9-10ths_Penguin
- Start date
Thanks for the example of what I called 'sarcasm' and 'emotional vehemence'. You couldn't have been more helpful to my point.
There is the lack of belief, which is rare, then there is the disbelief, which is more common. Often, the two are confused.
The lack of belief occurs in atheists who have either 1) never heard of the concept of God or, 2) do not give it any thought. Otherwise, the stance of atheism includes the belief that God doesn't exist, however it is usually coincided with the admitted lack of knowledge - that while this disbelief is present, they do not dismiss that the concept of God completely, these people do not place full bets on their stance.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
Clearly, "zealot" can be either a good or a bad thing.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
Not when I'm full of it!
No, you're a force for good.....usually.
I don't care to break it down, not believing is not believing.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
Sometimes the devil gets in me, yeah.
It was a simple question.
"Zealot" is the better word, I agree.
That is still very much a double standard, unless you consider, say, pretty all televangelists as fundamentalists.
Personally, I see an ocean of difference between someone claiming that religion poisons everything (and letting people be) and a fundamentalist (who goes out of his way to cause people problems).
It is just such a clear distinction.
Wouldn't you rather call him a d*ck or something? It is far more accurate and at least a bit more honest.
That too
A couple posts up I agreed with Revoltingest's point that 'Zealot' is a better word than 'Fundamentalist'.
Frubal. This is by far the most enlightening post in the thread so far. Thanks!
Alceste
Vagabond
When someone uses the word fundamentalist or fundie to refer to a group that is not religious, I interpret it to mean "true believer" - see The True Believer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Sunstone recommended that book to me. It is a very good book.
From wiki:
Mass movements aggressively promote the use of Doctrines that elevate faith over reason and serve as "fact-proof screens between the faithful and the realities of the world".[13] The Doctrine of the mass movement must not be questioned under any circumstances. Examples include the Japanese holdouts who refused to believe that WWII was over, or the staunch defenders of the Soviet Union who rejected overwhelming evidence of Bolshevik atrocities.
To spread and re-enforce their Doctrine, mass movements use persuasion, coercion, and proselytization. Persuasion is preferable, but practical only with those already sympathetic to the mass movement. Moreover, persuasion must be thrilling enough to excite the listener yet vague enough to allow "the frustrated to […] hear the echo of their own musings in the impassioned double talk".[14]
The urge to proseletyze comes not from a deeply held belief in the truth of Doctrine but from an urge of the fanatic to "strengthen his own faith by converting others".[16]
Successful mass movements need not believe in a god, but they must believe in a devil. Hatred unifies the true believers, and "the ideal devil is a foreigner" attributed with nearly supernatural powers of evil.[17]
The True Believer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There are very few atheists that description could apply to, IME, but not zero. They roll through here from time to time, start a few troll threads trying to goad religious members into a bitter, pointless argument, then roll back out again to find a less carefully moderated outlet for their anger.
From wiki:
Mass movements aggressively promote the use of Doctrines that elevate faith over reason and serve as "fact-proof screens between the faithful and the realities of the world".[13] The Doctrine of the mass movement must not be questioned under any circumstances. Examples include the Japanese holdouts who refused to believe that WWII was over, or the staunch defenders of the Soviet Union who rejected overwhelming evidence of Bolshevik atrocities.
To spread and re-enforce their Doctrine, mass movements use persuasion, coercion, and proselytization. Persuasion is preferable, but practical only with those already sympathetic to the mass movement. Moreover, persuasion must be thrilling enough to excite the listener yet vague enough to allow "the frustrated to […] hear the echo of their own musings in the impassioned double talk".[14]
The urge to proseletyze comes not from a deeply held belief in the truth of Doctrine but from an urge of the fanatic to "strengthen his own faith by converting others".[16]
Successful mass movements need not believe in a god, but they must believe in a devil. Hatred unifies the true believers, and "the ideal devil is a foreigner" attributed with nearly supernatural powers of evil.[17]
The True Believer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There are very few atheists that description could apply to, IME, but not zero. They roll through here from time to time, start a few troll threads trying to goad religious members into a bitter, pointless argument, then roll back out again to find a less carefully moderated outlet for their anger.
Like I said, I avoid using the term fundamentalist to begin with, but I'm just not seeing the double standard you are.
For example, I don't consider claiming that religion poisons everything - = then publishing an entire book about it and giving lectures (aka, sermons) about it worldwide - to be "letting people be," exactly. Nor would I say the hallmark of a fundamentalist is going out of one's way to cause others "problems" (whatever that might mean). A hermit living at the top of a mountain who is a rigid, dogmatic exclusivist could still be appropriately called fundamentalist in spite of his or her lack of human contact.
Maybe other people have a double standard, but that's not how I would use the term - if I happened to use it routinely.
Fair enough, I suppose.
I still wish people stopped brandishing such an odd expression around, though. It is harmful for pretty much everyone.
I still wish people stopped brandishing such an odd expression around, though. It is harmful for pretty much everyone.
I certainly hope not--the two terms can be widely contrasted. To me, fundamentalism is simply upholding what is fundamental about an idea or cause. I can see some taking that to mean "whatever a person finds to be fundamental about a cause," but in any case taking it to extremes can defy what is fundamental.
What is fundamental about atheism is a belief that there is no god, so I can see the term "fundamentalist atheist" applying.
I agree that the word fundamentalism is more trouble than it's worth even where such terms might be properly descriptive. Snarl-words tend to be that way, and I try to make a point of not using any words of that sort.