What does "atheist fundamentalism" mean?

[Levite]

Every one of those authors has specifically addressed moderate religion in their books. What did you think of their positions and arguments when you read them, as I'm sure you did before you condemned them?

And every one of them, insofar as I have been able to see, either misunderstands moderate religion-- saying it's just watered-down fundamentalism-- or condescendingly indicates that religious moderates clearly understand that religion is problematic, so why can't they just go the rest of the way and become atheists? They then seem to inevitably blame religious moderates for not controlling religious extremists, as though (a) religious moderates had the power to do so, and (b) religious moderates were not already fighting their own battles to curb religious extremism.

Most of their grasp of moderate Christian theology seemed dubious to me, and none of them appear to know anything at all about moderate Jewish theology. None of them actually appear to know much about Judaism at all-- a tad ironic considering that some of them are Jewish by birth or heritage. I can only presume that their knowledge of Islam is equally weak.

But in the end, the point still remains: the fact that they don't appear to currently be seeking to legally enforce anti-theism puts them only a small margin ahead of religious fundamentalists. If they actually had the power, I wouldn't trust them with pluralism and tolerance any further than I trust religious fundamentalists. They still make professional careers out of going out and contemptuously deriding people they disagree with, and the traditions and cultures of those people. The fact that that derision and contempt is cloaked in the language of tolerance doesn't change what it is. It's their own version of Christian fundamentalists who claim to feel sorry for heathen sinners, and just want to help them avoid hellfire.

I am not suggesting they not believe what they believe. I am suggesting that instead of treating with contempt those they disagree with, they keep their most negative opinions to themselves, accept that others have different beliefs and that that's okay, and focus more on living and working productively with all people. The same thing I would suggest about religious fundamentalists.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Let me try. We put Indians on reservations removing their language, religion and anything else we did not approve of indoctrinating their children to change future generations of their heritage.

Removing religion from the school system is similar in nature.

Absence of religion is anti-theism. It attempts to change future generations to think as Atheists do.

What a bizarre analogy. No, losing a position of privilege is not the same as being rounded up and forced to live on reserves.

And a secular school system need not be "religion free". It's just free of religious indoctrination. You're free to pray or worship; you're just not free to force people to pray or worship with you.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Both sides? I'd say there are way more than two sides to theism. And I'm curious if you can describe the curriculum for teaching religion in school. How do you think it should be taught? Would Jainism be taught equally with Catholicism, for example?

Yes, it should. Are you saying children would be adversely affected by an overview of all beliefs and disbeliefs instead of pretending they don't exist? Perhaps we would have less wars if people knew a little more about Muslims for example. Schools teach tolerance for the gay lifestyle for example.

 

[Avi1001]

You have some interesting points here. One thing I have observed, over the years, is that there exists a priestly attitude of entitlement, that is concerning. In a forum structure, like this one, it is easy for posters to challenge that attitude. Any religious leader that comes to a forum, like this one, must be willing to debate the issues. I defend your right to present your viewpoint.

Have you actually read any of these quotes in context? Have you read any of the books or listened to any of the lectures or debates where they came from?


These people voice disagreement with your position while at the same time not only accepting but championing your right to believe, speak and act as you want, with the only limit being where your rights affect the rights of others. Nevertheless, you're not happy with this. What else do you want?

From my perspective, it seems like you're asking for them to be silenced. Is that it?


No, they haven't. They've just put forward views that are incompatible with yours. If you want to claim a place for your views in the marketplace of ideas, then it's hypocritical for you to say that they don't belong.

You call them fundamentalists, extremists, and intolerant, and then do them one better by implying that they don't even have a place in the conversation. If they're intolerant, what does this make you?


Every one of those authors has specifically addressed moderate religion in their books. What did you think of their positions and arguments when you read them, as I'm sure you did before you condemned them?

 

[crossfire]

How does this sound: I'm going to bring some Zen terminology in here: a fundamentalist is one who has built a conceptual nest of their views, thinking that holding such views will protect them from greed, hatred or delusion. However, by building such a nest and resting there, one is in real danger of Makyo--the self-delusion connected to building a such conceptual nest and believing that one is somehow "protected" from delusion by that nest, and one does not progress on to Kensho.

So called "fundamentalist behavior" is the manifestation of the delusion of Makyo.

Makyo does not require deity belief. It only requires the belief that you have "arrived" at Truth and can quit examining.

How does this sound? Instead of using the term "Atheist Fundamentalism," perhaps a better description might be "an atheist in Makyo," or something to that effect?

 

[Debater Slayer]

And every one of them, insofar as I have been able to see, either misunderstands moderate religion-- saying it's just watered-down fundamentalism-- or condescendingly indicates that religious moderates clearly understand that religion is problematic, so why can't they just go the rest of the way and become atheists? They then seem to inevitably blame religious moderates for not controlling religious extremists, as though (a) religious moderates had the power to do so, and (b) religious moderates were not already fighting their own battles to curb religious extremism.

Most of their grasp of moderate Christian theology seemed dubious to me, and none of them appear to know anything at all about moderate Jewish theology. None of them actually appear to know much about Judaism at all-- a tad ironic considering that some of them are Jewish by birth or heritage. I can only presume that their knowledge of Islam is equally weak.

But in the end, the point still remains: the fact that they don't appear to currently be seeking to legally enforce anti-theism puts them only a small margin ahead of religious fundamentalists. If they actually had the power, I wouldn't trust them with pluralism and tolerance any further than I trust religious fundamentalists. They still make professional careers out of going out and contemptuously deriding people they disagree with, and the traditions and cultures of those people. The fact that that derision and contempt is cloaked in the language of tolerance doesn't change what it is. It's their own version of Christian fundamentalists who claim to feel sorry for heathen sinners, and just want to help them avoid hellfire.

I am not suggesting they not believe what they believe. I am suggesting that instead of treating with contempt those they disagree with, they keep their most negative opinions to themselves, accept that others have different beliefs and that that's okay, and focus more on living and working productively with all people. The same thing I would suggest about religious fundamentalists.

Levite, with all due respect, if we say that people should "keep their most negative opinions to themselves," then don't you think we'll be talking about far more people than just New Atheists? I know religious people who believe and express in no uncertain terms that anyone who becomes aware of their beliefs but doesn't embrace them will experience eternal suffering. I couldn't think of many opinions that are as negative even if I tried, but I definitely believe in those people's right to express their views as much and as clearly as they please so long as they don't hinder other people's right to do the same.

We may disagree with things a particular group says as much as we want--and I'm generally not really a fan of deriding people of different opinions either--but I think it's a bit unfair to single out a particular group for criticism in this regard when whole sects of some religions are basically pivoted on the belief that people who don't follow them will burn in hell for eternity.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Levite, with all due respect, if we say that people should "keep their most negative opinions to themselves," then don't you think we'll be talking about far more people than just New Atheists? I know religious people who believe and express in no uncertain terms that anyone who becomes aware of their beliefs but doesn't embrace them will experience eternal suffering. I couldn't think of many opinions that are as negative even if I tried, but I definitely believe in those people's right to express their views as much and as clearly as they please so long as they don't hinder other people's right to do the same.

We may disagree with things a particular group says as much as we want--and I'm generally not really a fan of deriding people of different opinions either--but I think it's a bit unfair to single out a particular group for criticism in this regard when whole sects of some religions are basically pivoted on the belief that people who don't follow them will burn in hell for eternity.

D.S. with all due respect, most of the threads on hell fire are started by people who want us to be shown in a bad light. If you corner me, I will admit to believeing that but I would never start a thread on the subject.

My example would be all the magic underwear threads, who starts them Mormons or Non-Mormons?

Non-believers are just trying to evoke unpopular subjects to flush us out as the nutters we are In Their Opinion.

 

[Levite]

Levite, with all due respect, if we say that people should "keep their most negative opinions to themselves," then don't you think we'll be talking about far more people than just New Atheists?

Yes. I thought I was clear about that when I concluded by saying:

The same thing I would suggest about religious fundamentalists.

Frankly, even as a religious moderate, I have some opinions about other religions and secular philosophies that I keep to myself, simply because I understand that those are my opinions, and it is not my business to inflict them upon others, who have not asked for them, and who have the right to believe as they wish and live as they wish, so long as they are willing to keep society free and respect the rights of others.

Everyone probably has to do some of this, to one degree or another. It's not just anti-theists or religious fundamentalists.

Tolerance isn't tolerance when you're just tolerating the people who agree with you. It's also about tolerating the people you really disagree with. And part of that is being minimally respectful with them when possible, keeping courteously silent when not, and only getting into serious arguments when everyone's rights and freedoms are being put in jeopardy, or when hatred and venom are being spewed-- in other words, when confronting extremists.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Yes, it should. Are you saying children would be adversely affected by an overview of all beliefs and disbeliefs instead of pretending they don't exist?

So far as I know, general reviews of world religions are legitimate courses to teach in schools. Am I mistaken about that?

If not, then I'm confused by your notion that 'religion should be taught in schools.'

I can see how it would be a touchy enterprise, though. A teacher of such a course would be tempted to push his own theology.

 

[Debater Slayer]

D.S. with all due respect, most of the threads on hell fire are started by people who want us to be shown in a bad light. If you corner me, I will admit to believeing that but I would never start a thread on the subject.

My example would be all the magic underwear threads, who starts them Mormons or Non-Mormons?

Non-believers are just trying to evoke unpopular subjects to flush us out as the nutters we are In Their Opinion.

Maybe you wouldn't, but there's no shortage of people who start threads here to criticize atheism and/or atheists, and those are usually started for the same purpose you mentioned above. After all, this is a debate forum; I don't expect myself to agree with many people when I come here, and that's actually one of the main reasons I frequent the forum.

And my post was in reference to religious people I know offline who explicitly believe in and preach such concepts. I didn't even have any forum members in mind when I wrote that, because criticism of other viewpoints and attempting to defend one's position is par for the course on a forum like this, even if some members are less adamant about it than others.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Yes. I thought I was clear about that when I concluded by saying:



Frankly, even as a religious moderate, I have some opinions about other religions and secular philosophies that I keep to myself, simply because I understand that those are my opinions, and it is not my business to inflict them upon others, who have not asked for them, and who have the right to believe as they wish and live as they wish, so long as they are willing to keep society free and respect the rights of others.

Everyone probably has to do some of this, to one degree or another. It's not just anti-theists or religious fundamentalists.

Tolerance isn't tolerance when you're just tolerating the people who agree with you. It's also about tolerating the people you really disagree with. And part of that is being minimally respectful with them when possible, keeping courteously silent when not, and only getting into serious arguments when everyone's rights and freedoms are being put in jeopardy, or when hatred and venom are being spewed-- in other words, when confronting extremists.

That's the thing: Whereas you don't consider people who hold those beliefs I mentioned to be "moderate," they are so numerous in certain places that "moderate" becomes a description for them due to how common it is to encounter them. Someone who didn't believe people of other beliefs went to hell posthumously would be so unusual and alien that they would be classified as a radical in those places, and I've personally seen that happen more than once.

We don't disagree on when to speak out against extremist viewpoints; it's just that sometimes they are actually so commonly held and endorsed that their effects become readily observable without much effort, and trying to change such a status quo through criticism is bound to have the concomitant outcome of offending some people in the process.

 

[Apex]

Maybe you wouldn't, but there's no shortage of people who start threads here to criticize atheism and/or atheists, and those are usually started for the same purpose you mentioned above.

Examples?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Examples?

I purposely avoided linking to any specific threads so as not to single out any particular members.

For general examples of anti-atheist threads and posts, though, I'd suggest browsing some of the threads in the "Evolution Vs. Creationism" forum. It shouldn't take very long to find instances of such there.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... people tend to be much more eager to slap the "fundamentalist" label on statements (and people) against faith than those in favour of it?

I wonder if this would be confirmed by doing a forum search on 'fundamentalist'.

 

[Levite]

That's the thing: Whereas you don't consider people who hold those beliefs I mentioned to be "moderate," they are so numerous in certain places that "moderate" becomes a description for them due to how common it is to encounter them. Someone who didn't believe people of other beliefs went to hell posthumously would be so unusual and alien that they would be classified as a radical in those places, and I've personally seen that happen more than once.

We don't disagree on when to speak out against extremist viewpoints; it's just that sometimes they are actually so commonly held and endorsed that their effects become readily observable without much effort, and trying to change such a status quo through criticism is bound to have the concomitant outcome of offending some people in the process.

I'm not disagreeing that such beliefs are, unfortunately, far too common.

But I am suggesting a different tactic.

Rather than speak out directly against religious fundamentalism, I am suggesting that instead, we simply advocate for better public education, better care of the poor and of women and minorities, improved employment opportunities, and so forth-- when we remove the social forces that stimulate and nurture religious fundamentalism, those views will decrease.

Rather than speak out directly against anti-theist fundamentalism, I am suggesting a discourse of tolerance and pluralism, with a focus on specific practical agenda items to make a better society. When fundamentalist views decrease because we remove the forces that nurture it, fundamentalism will become less intrusive into the lives of atheists and anti-theists, and it will be easier to truly live and let live, while developing (hopefully) some real respect for the place thoughtful and non-absolutist religion holds in the lives of religious moderates.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I wonder if this would be confirmed by doing a forum search on 'fundamentalist'.

Would you say that posts on RF are representative of any trends outside the forum, at least in the U.S.?

Please note that my question isn't rhetorical; I'm genuinely interested in your perspective on this.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And every one of them, insofar as I have been able to see, either misunderstands moderate religion-- saying it's just watered-down fundamentalism-- or condescendingly indicates that religious moderates clearly understand that religion is problematic, so why can't they just go the rest of the way and become atheists? They then seem to inevitably blame religious moderates for not controlling religious extremists, as though (a) religious moderates had the power to do so, and (b) religious moderates were not already fighting their own battles to curb religious extremism.

Often, moderates CAN do much more to curb extremism. I can't count the number of times I've heard a religious "moderate" try to distance themselves from some unsavoury position of their religion or denomination's leadership while ignoring the fact that their tithes help to fund the thing they say they oppose.

Most of their grasp of moderate Christian theology seemed dubious to me, and none of them appear to know anything at all about moderate Jewish theology. None of them actually appear to know much about Judaism at all-- a tad ironic considering that some of them are Jewish by birth or heritage. I can only presume that their knowledge of Islam is equally weak.

Do you know what I find ironic? Someone making presumptions while complaining about how someone else is uninformed.

But in the end, the point still remains: the fact that they don't appear to currently be seeking to legally enforce anti-theism puts them only a small margin ahead of religious fundamentalists. If they actually had the power, I wouldn't trust them with pluralism and tolerance any further than I trust religious fundamentalists. They still make professional careers out of going out and contemptuously deriding people they disagree with, and the traditions and cultures of those people. The fact that that derision and contempt is cloaked in the language of tolerance doesn't change what it is. It's their own version of Christian fundamentalists who claim to feel sorry for heathen sinners, and just want to help them avoid hellfire.

Fascinating. Do your mind-reading powers only work on atheists, or can you see everyone's hidden motives?

I am not suggesting they not believe what they believe. I am suggesting that instead of treating with contempt those they disagree with, they keep their most negative opinions to themselves, accept that others have different beliefs and that that's okay, and focus more on living and working productively with all people. The same thing I would suggest about religious fundamentalists.

You describe these people with terms of contempt and then argue that contempt is cloaked intolerance that will lead to oppression if the contemptuous person gains enough power. It sounds like the person we should be worried about is you.

 

[Levite]

Often, moderates CAN do much more to curb extremism. I can't count the number of times I've heard a religious "moderate" try to distance themselves from some unsavoury position of their religion or denomination's leadership while ignoring the fact that their tithes help to fund the thing they say they oppose.

And what about the many religions and sects that do not have the concept of tithes, or do not tithe to support fundamentalists? Presumably there is some other fault that can be found with them, I suppose?

You describe these people with terms of contempt and then argue that contempt is cloaked intolerance that will lead to oppression if the contemptuous person gains enough power. It sounds like the person we should be worried about is you.

So in other words, because I am imperfectly tolerant of intolerance, then my argument for tolerance is faulty.

I fail to see how your protests and personal attacks make your case any stronger. But I also don't care enough to keep debating this. I'm done. Feel free to claim victory, no doubt accompanied by snide comments about my ignorance.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I have had some good debates and discussions with Atheists. Some have got very real and honest with me before. They are really looking forward to the day when they can futher their agenda without resistance.

Discounting opposing viewpoints or downright demonization of religion or better yet portraying anyone who believes in a sky daddy as ignorant mythologists seems to be the method commonly applied.

How many Atheists want to indoctrinate our children so in another generation they can rule the world after the last Theist dies? You cannot tell me that does not arrouse many Atheists. In the meanwhile they will proseltize in the hope of harvesting converts.

How many people secretly believe the whole planet would be better off without the Muslim religion?

Some have gone as so far to admit this belief. It is religious bigotry plain and simple. Many folks even today in our forum don't believe the Theist should deserve any respect and that viewpoint is "bred" into many folks who just want tollerance for all.

The gloves are off, I believe many Atheists are intollerant and want to expand their bigotry.

 

[Alceste]

Let me try. We put Indians on reservations removing their language, religion and anything else we did not approve of indoctrinating their children to change future generations of their heritage.

Removing religion from the school system is similar in nature.

Absence of religion is anti-theism. It attempts to change future generations to think as Atheists do.

Now before you have a cow, I believe Agnosticism should be taught. The truth of the matter is neither side can prove anything and we should explore both sides of theism.

I have to say, that's a stretch, Rick. Kind of like comparing progressives treatment of the rich to the holocaust.

Here is a fun fact about residential schools.

About half of the children abducted and taken to those schools died there from pervasive malnutrition and poor sanitation.

Also, those schools were operated by religious organizations. Their explicit aim was to "kill the Indian and save the man", IOW religious conversion.

To compare one of the worst crimes against humanity perpetrated by religious zealots in centuries to secularism, which only aims to provide a neutral zone where people of every faith and none can feel equally free to be who they are is beyond offensive.