Care to give an example of this petty zealotry? As I touched on in the OP, I find it rather frustrating that people will throw around insults like these without backing up what they say.
Why not?
-
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
Has Richard Dawkins been found to raise people in loud protest against positions he disagrees with or something?
dyanaprajna2011
Dharmapala
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 would agree with this assessment. :yes:
And that is Penguin's question, which I find perfectly fair and necessary: why do we call atheists in such a position "fundamentalists" when it is perfectly accepted from most anyone else?
We do not talk of Patriotism as being a fundamentalism. We do not generally accept simple banner-carrying of a religion or other cause as being enough justification to call one a fundamentalist. We do not even talk of capitalists as fundamentalists (and maybe we should).
Why should atheists be so much easier to call fundamentalists than anyone else?
Maybe you can offer your answers to the questions that Penguin and I proposed to him regarding that post, then?
Closed-minded emotional vehemence and irrational resistance to claims of the paranormal while posturing as rationalists.
I posted a story regarding this in another thread here.
I talked to my ex to make sure that I was relating the story accurately and without distortions. On that trip, he did remember seeing a nativity scene that had not been vandalized, but it was at a private residence, not a church.
I have a friend who went with a group from his church to rural Guatemala to build a school. I'm fairly sure he considers his church to be better than others, and I think he's trying to promote his religion in a "St. Francis of Assisi" way.* Is he a fundamentalist? I don't consider him a fundamentalist.
*"Preach the Gospel; when necessary, use words."
A story that does not even have a clear indication of the motivation or identity of the people who it talks about is not really helpful, Crossfire.
Neither do I. But apparently he would be, if he dared to say openly that he finds living without God better than living with Him.
It does not really make sense.
Do you have clear examples that such a thing happens in practice?
Yes, the James Randi website.
What makes you think that they were vandalized by atheists? There are plenty of other non-Christian groups.
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?
Quote, please. Just one example (or more if you want).
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
When I use it, I mean a non-theist who is rigid in his thought. Unbudging. The term 'fundamentalism' (I think) came from a bunch of Christians swearing to believe and defend a few statements of doctrine. The Bible is the infallible word of God. The earth and all its creatures were created in a literal six days. Etc.
So when I meet a non-theist who is as rigid in his beliefs as is any conservative religionist, I think of that non-theist as a fundamentalist.
Without linking you to any specific examples, Jeff, if you want petty zealotry in spades, then just go read the comments on PZ Meyer's Freethought blog. In my experience, he has a few commentators who fit the category of petty zealots or fundamentalist atheists, or whatever you want to call them.
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.
Is "anti-theism" any more fundamentalist than "pro-theism" (i.e. most theism)?