What does "atheist fundamentalism" mean?

[LuisDantas]

I agree. While I technically agree with Willamena above as well, I feel that this boat has long sailed already.

Edited to add: On the other hand, Willamena may also have pointed out an important detail.

Technically, "fundamental" atheism is to be expected and quite unremarkable. The default, so to speak. No different than, say, "fundamental" appreciation for a certain color.

Yet the association of the word with poisonous extremism has become so well settled that it may have escaped many that fundamentalism is far more dangerous in active stances (in this case, theism) than in absential ones (such as atheism). It is also possible that some people feel unconfortable or even offended by the simple fact that an atheist does not necessarily holds doubts.

The high irony of it all is that the association of fundamentalism with nocive behavior began (far as I can tell) from the need to be accurate yet not immediately confrontational while describing abusive religious people.

It is way past the proper time, I think, to let go of those relutances and call things for what they are.

 

[steeltoes]

There appears to be a need to label the people that challenge faith based beliefs, followed by a need to demonize them.

 

[LuisDantas]

Indeed. I do not know how common that is in the USA, but here in Brazil the belief in the need for faith is so widespread that it was only in the last ten years or so that people actually began to dare to admit in public that they are atheistic.

And that is still just the start. Respect for atheists is simply not something most people are bred to have here.

 

[nazz]

There's been a bit of a side discussion in another thread (http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/comparative-religion/158960-why-do-you-do.html) that I think deserves more focus.

On many occasions, I've heard people say things like "I disagree with fundamentalism, whether from theists or atheists." However, whenever I've asked these people what they mean by "atheist fundamentalism" or for some examples of what they're talking about, I've never really gotten a reply. At best, they rattle off names of people they considered "atheist fundamentalists" (e.g. Richard Dawkins or Madalyn Murray O'Hair) as if we're supposed to automatically recognize their fundamentalism, but don't actually explain what about them or what they say is supposed to be "fundamentalist".

So... can anyone give any actual examples of atheist fundamentalism? Statements that you consider to be fundamentalist?

Also, do you agree with my assessment, i.e. that people tend to be much more eager to slap the "fundamentalist" label on statements (and people) against faith than those in favour of it?

To me it is mindset. It's dogmatic thinking and intellectual dishonesty whether it is a theist or atheist. Unwillingness to consider one could be wrong or to honestly consider another point of view. I slap it on religious people just as much as I slap it on the non-religious.

 

[psychoslice]

To me all atheism is just the disbelief in the existence of any deity, and no big deal.

Yep, that's all it is, anything else is just projection from those who just cannot stand their beliefs being questioned.

 

[Quagmire]

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.

In common usage though, "fundamentalist" has come to be synonymous with "fanatic".

What is fundamental about atheism is a belief that there is no god, so I can see the term "fundamentalist atheist" applying.

Seems like it would be redundant though.

 

[Quagmire]

There appears to be a need to label the people that challenge faith based beliefs, followed by a need to demonize them.

It depends on:

A. How they challenge them.

B. How challenged they happen to be.

 

[Levite]

Perhaps the better term might be "fundamentalist anti-theism." The issue is not those atheists who merely do not believe in God, or do not believe religion should be imposed or mandated-- or even those who think belief in God is ridiculous. The issue is those atheists who have decided that since they personally find no justification for belief in God or value in religion, there is none to be found, and therefore the former should be ridiculed and treated with contempt, and the latter eradicated wherever it is to be found.

They are every bit as counterproductive and intolerant as religious fanatics who have decided their particular theology, their specific sect or religion, represents the sole and absolute truth, which must be imposed on everyone, and in the face of which all other beliefs and views must be erased.

Rabid anti-theists of the Madalyn Murry O'Hair, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins variety are every bit as un-nuanced, as rigid, as intolerant as the televangelists, the ultra-Orthodox Israeli politicians, the Muslim theocrats in various places, or whatever other religious extremists there are. They all wish to shape a world exactly like themselves, with no room in it for what they disagree with or do not understand.

 

[Sunstone]

I used to think "fundamentalist atheist" was a useful or descriptive phrase, but after reading large parts of this thread, I'm now thinking it's rather more misleading than anything else. Is there any reason to keep it? Seems zealot or anti-theist would work better than fundamentalist atheist.

 

[Revoltingest]

Perhaps the better term might be "fundamentalist anti-theism."

The prefix "fundamentalist" is still without meaning since "anti-theism" lacks any
fundamentals to observe, other than the singular trait of being anti-theist.

Rabid anti-theists of the Madalyn Murry O'Hair, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins variety are every bit as un-nuanced, as rigid, as intolerant as the televangelists, the ultra-Orthodox Israeli politicians, the Muslim theocrats in various places, or whatever other religious extremists there are. They all wish to shape a world exactly like themselves, with no room in it for what they disagree with or do not understand.

Note: O'Hair seems quite the prickly human being, but she managed to stop government from trying
to force me to pray in school. One person's intolerant fundie is another's civil rights crusader, eh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abington_School_District_v._Schempp

 

[Sunstone]

Perhaps the better term might be "fundamentalist anti-theism." The issue is not those atheists who merely do not believe in God, or do not believe religion should be imposed or mandated-- or even those who think belief in God is ridiculous. The issue is those atheists who have decided that since they personally find no justification for belief in God or value in religion, there is none to be found, and therefore the former should be ridiculed and treated with contempt, and the latter eradicated wherever it is to be found.

This looks like the first draft a possibly useful distinction. Especially if you throw out the term "fundamentalist anti-theism".

They are every bit as counterproductive and intolerant as religious fanatics who have decided their particular theology, their specific sect or religion, represents the sole and absolute truth, which must be imposed on everyone, and in the face of which all other beliefs and views must be erased.

Rabid anti-theists of the Madalyn Murry O'Hair, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins variety are every bit as un-nuanced, as rigid, as intolerant as the televangelists, the ultra-Orthodox Israeli politicians, the Muslim theocrats in various places, or whatever other religious extremists there are. They all wish to shape a world exactly like themselves, with no room in it for what they disagree with or do not understand.

This of course is very close to stepping in a pile of BS of the false equivalence variety. Or can we name which of those anti-theists has thrown actual stones, like some Ultra-Orhodox protestors do now and then when dealing with a religious dispute. Or which anti-theist has killed anyone like some Muslim protestors do now and then when dealing with a religious dispute. And so forth.

 

[Uberpod]

It's just a "I'm rubber and your glue strategy" usually just like calling atheism a religion. I know you are, what am I?

 

[Quagmire]

I used to think "fundamentalist atheist" was a useful or descriptive phrase, but after reading large parts of this thread, I'm now thinking it's rather more misleading than anything else. Is there any reason to keep it? Seems zealot or anti-theist would work better than fundamentalist atheist.

"Religiophobe" is catchier.

 

[Sunstone]

There appears to be a need to label the people that challenge faith based beliefs, followed by a need to demonize them.

It's just a "I'm rubber and your glue strategy" usually just like calling atheism a religion. I know you are, what am I?

I suspect atheism has been the traditional bogey-man since the days before there were atheists. Even today, the criticism of atheists seems all out of proportion to their actual numbers or influence. Some polls place the number of genuine atheists at two people in a hundred. But if you listen to some of the more hysterical preachers, they're hiding under your bed right now even as we speak and they want desperately to short sheet you!

 

[Sunstone]

"Religiophobe" is catchier.

You could find a lot of religiophobes among the commentators on PZ Meyer's blog.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Perhaps the better term might be "fundamentalist anti-theism." The issue is not those atheists who merely do not believe in God, or do not believe religion should be imposed or mandated-- or even those who think belief in God is ridiculous. The issue is those atheists who have decided that since they personally find no justification for belief in God or value in religion, there is none to be found, and therefore the former should be ridiculed and treated with contempt, and the latter eradicated wherever it is to be found.

They are every bit as counterproductive and intolerant as religious fanatics who have decided their particular theology, their specific sect or religion, represents the sole and absolute truth, which must be imposed on everyone, and in the face of which all other beliefs and views must be erased.

Rabid anti-theists of the Madalyn Murry O'Hair, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins variety are every bit as un-nuanced, as rigid, as intolerant as the televangelists, the ultra-Orthodox Israeli politicians, the Muslim theocrats in various places, or whatever other religious extremists there are. They all wish to shape a world exactly like themselves, with no room in it for what they disagree with or do not understand.

I asked you for some specific examples earlier. Have you found any?

Also, a question for you or anyone else with strong religious beliefs who consider atheists like Dawkins to be "fundamentalists": do you consider yourself to be a religious fundamentalist or extremist?

 

[Sunstone]

...Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins variety...

I've never once seen anyone refute a single argument of Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, or Dennett -- the "Four Horsemen" of atheism. All I've seen is folks saying, "x doesn't understand religion", "x isn't a theologian", "x is abrasive", "x is a jerk". But I've never seen anyone take even one argument from any of those guys and show how it was factually wrong. I wonder why that is?

 

[LuisDantas]

Perhaps the better term might be "fundamentalist anti-theism." The issue is not those atheists who merely do not believe in God, or do not believe religion should be imposed or mandated-- or even those who think belief in God is ridiculous. The issue is those atheists who have decided that since they personally find no justification for belief in God or value in religion, there is none to be found, and therefore the former should be ridiculed and treated with contempt, and the latter eradicated wherever it is to be found.

That seems to be too high a bar for Madalyn or for any of the Four Horsemen.

In fact, for anyone I have ever heard of. You do not seem to be describing actual atheist or anti-theist activists. More like a ghost, a haunting or a role playing game "elemental", perhaps; a fantasy personification of some detestable attitude, far removed from an actual human being.

I'm not implying that atheists or anti-theists are inherently less abusive than theists, mind you. It just turns out that theism is more suitable for emotional and political abuse than its absence or even its open rejection. "Do as I say or no damnation will fall upon you" does not carry a lot of punch as a bullying tool.

 

[nazz]

I suspect atheism has been the traditional bogey-man since the days before there were atheists. Even today, the criticism of atheists seems all out of proportion to their actual numbers or influence. Some polls place the number of genuine atheists at two people in a hundred. But if you listen to some of the more hysterical preachers, they're hiding under your bed right now even as we speak and they want desperately to short sheet you!

So right. I caught two last night tickling my toes.

 

[Willamena]

I suspect atheism has been the traditional bogey-man since the days before there were atheists. Even today, the criticism of atheists seems all out of proportion to their actual numbers or influence. Some polls place the number of genuine atheists at two people in a hundred. But if you listen to some of the more hysterical preachers, they're hiding under your bed right now even as we speak and they want desperately to short sheet you!

I suspect that if you keep promoting myths like that, they will inevitably come true.