What does "atheist fundamentalism" mean?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Is there any reason to keep it? Seems zealot or anti-theist would work better than fundamentalist atheist.

Anti-theist is just a statement of fact. I agree that 'zealous' is far better than 'fundamentalist.'

 

[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.

Just so we're clear: when you read statements like this, you interpret it as arguing that religion should be "eradicated wherever it is found"?

It would be intolerant if I advocated the banning of religion, but of course I never have. I merely give robust expression to views about the cosmos and morality with which you happen to disagree.

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/330958-it-would-be-intolerant-if-i-advocated-the-banning-of

Or were you thinking more of statements like this?

My own opinion is a very simple one. The right of others to free expression is part of my own. If someone’s voice is silenced, then I am deprived of the right to hear. Moreover, I have never met nor heard of anybody I would trust with the job of deciding in advance what it might be permissible for me or anyone else to say or read. That freedom of expression consists of being able to tell people what they may not wish to hear, and that it must extend, above all, to those who think differently is, to me, self-evident.

Christopher Hitchens on Freedom of Speech | Reader's Digest

Frankly, your comment makes me wonder if you've ever actually read or heard anything by the people you condemn.

 

[Levite]

Just so we're clear: when you read statements like this, you interpret it as arguing that religion should be "eradicated wherever it is found"?


https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/330958-it-would-be-intolerant-if-i-advocated-the-banning-of

Or were you thinking more of statements like this?


Christopher Hitchens on Freedom of Speech | Reader's Digest

Frankly, your comment makes me wonder if you've ever actually read or heard anything by the people you condemn.

"For a 100,000 years, humans are born as a primate species. Expectation of life: what, 25 years? For the first few ten's of thousands years? Infant mortality: rife. Micro-organism disease: terrifying. Earthquakes, volcanoes: extraordinary. And fights over land, over territory, over food, over women, over tribalism: frightening too. For 95, 96 thousand years Heaven watches this... Will full denounce. With indifference. With coldness. And then around three to four thousand years ago, but only in really barbaric, illiterate parts of the Middle East...--not in China! Not in China or where people can read, or think, or do science. No no no!-- ...in barbaric illiterate backward parts of the Middle East is decided: "We can't let this go on, we better intervene. And what better way than by human sacrifices and plagues, and mass murder? And if THAT doesn't make them behave morally? ...we just don't know what does."

-Christopher Hitchens ("Hitchens vs. God" lecture)

“Religious belief is without reason and without dignity, and its record is near-universally dreadful.”
― Martin Amis, The Second Plane: 14 Responses to September 11

I am not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief is positively harmful. Reviewing the false claims of religion, I do not wish, as some sentimental materialists affect to wish, that they were true. I do not envy believers their faith. I am relieved to think that the whole story is a sinister fairy tale; life would be miserable if what the faithful affirmed was actually the case.​

- Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian

“Theology is ignorance with wings.”
― Sam Harris


"My concern is that our religions, the diversity of our religious doctrines, is going to get us killed. I'm worried that our religious discourse- our religious beliefs are ultimately incompatible with civilization.”
― Sam Harris


“We know enough at this moment to say that the God of Abraham is not only unworthy of the immensity of creation; he is unworthy even of man.”
― Sam Harris


“Of course, the liar often imagines that he does no harm as long as his lies go undetected.”
― Sam Harris, Lying

“Atheism is just a way of clearing the space for better conversations.”
― Sam Harris


“Thus, though I dislike to differ with such a great man, Voltaire was simply ludicrous when he said that if god did not exist it would be necessary to invent him. The human invention of god is the problem to begin with.”
― Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything

“Violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children: organized religion ought to have a great deal on its conscience.”
― Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything


​

“The man who prays is the one who thinks that god has arranged matters all wrong, but who also thinks that he can instruct god how to put them right.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Mortality

“I am not even an atheist so much as an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful. Reviewing the false claims of religion I do not wish, as some sentimental materialists affect to wish, that they were true. I do not envy believers their faith. I am relieved to think that the whole story is a sinister fairy tale; life would be miserable if what the faithful affirmed was actually true.... There may be people who wish to live their lives under cradle-to-grave divine supervision, a permanent surveillance and monitoring. But I cannot imagine anything more horrible or grotesque.”
― Christopher Hitchens

“Philosophy begins where religion ends, just as by analogy chemistry begins where alchemy runs out, and astronomy takes the place of astrology.”
― Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything

These were just a few of the first ready quotes that came up in a quick search. Rife with contempt for religion, and enthusiastically conflating "religion" with "fundamentalist religion" altogether.

How is this any different from smug evangelicals derisively mocking atheists? How is this kind of smarmy condescension and closed-mindedness promoting of tolerance and respect for others?

It embodies the same faults as fundamentalism in religion, just with the clothing of science and reason instead of absolutist scripturalism.

I really fail to see how this is either a novel idea or a problematic one.

These are people who are touted as clear thinkers and open-minded investigators, and they apparently know nothing of non-fundamentalist religion-- which, statistically, is the majority of religious practice-- nor do they care to do so. They have their own little absolutist definition of Truth, and they cling to it just as strongly as scriptural literalists and creationists cling to theirs.

 

[nazz]

These are people who are touted as clear thinkers and open-minded investigators, and they apparently know nothing of non-fundamentalist religion-- which, statistically, is the majority of religious practice-- nor do they care to do so. They have their own little absolutist definition of Truth, and they cling to it just as strongly as scriptural literalists and creationists cling to theirs.

Actually they are aware liberal religiosity and they condemn that too as "enabling" and legitimizing religious belief. Some consider it worse than the fundie variety.

 

[Levite]

Actually they are aware liberal religiosity and they condemn that too as "enabling" and legitimizing religious belief. Some consider it worse than the fundie variety.

That simply makes them more horrifyingly contemptuous and intolerant.

 

[Looncall]

That simply makes them more horrifyingly contemptuous and intolerant.

Why should one be tolerant and respectful of harmful, ancient errors of thinking?

Why should religion get a free pass?

 

[Reverend Rick]

It seems to be.

And even then it is both unfair and illogical.

Perhaps it comes from some sort of reflex reaction to a bred attitude that religion must not be criticized.

I think you may be on to something here Luis. The best way to test your theory is to do the exact same thing to a different group and see how it comes across.

Do you believe there is not a more recent bred attitude of not critisizing homosexuality?

How about the bred attitude of being PC?

For me, it is when two or three RF members are having a polite conversation about a certain religious topic and an Atheist does a drive by saying something to the effect of "God does not exist" which is totally unwanted critisism and off topic.

At best it is rude and at worst it is P-tizing. Think about my example, if several people were having a pleasant conversation about gay issues and a fundie came into the conversation saying they will burn in hell.........

Would objection to this unwanted comment be a "bred attitude"?

Why can't we respect difference of opinion and be a litle more civil?

Telling folks they are stupid or illogical is not participating in fellowship.

What is the difference between an anti-theist and someone being anti-gay?

I can tell you that I for one do not want to hear either viewpoint no more than an Atheist wants to hear the "good news".

 

[LuisDantas]

(...)

These were just a few of the first ready quotes that came up in a quick search. Rife with contempt for religion, and enthusiastically conflating "religion" with "fundamentalist religion" altogether.

I beg to differ. The quotes show strong feelings, but nothing beyond that.

How is this any different from smug evangelicals derisively mocking atheists?

One decisive difference is that an atheist is explicitly and undeniably expressing his opinion as a person; he has no external or "higher" authority to claim to be the voice of. He can be argued with and even simply disregarded with no social or political consequences.

How is this kind of smarmy condescension and closed-mindedness promoting of tolerance and respect for others?

Because it reminds one of how artificial the idea that religion must be right despite consistently being at odds with the religion of other communities is, and how careful we must be at taking its claims at face value.

It embodies the same faults as fundamentalism in religion, just with the clothing of science and reason instead of absolutist scripturalism.

And as it turns out, that is quite a difference.

So big a difference that it makes the accusation of "fundamentalism" a meaningless one.

I really fail to see how this is either a novel idea or a problematic one.

Then I must advise you to reflect on the matter a bit more. I do not know how novel the idea that the Four Hoursemen or Madalyn are "fundamentalists" is, but it sure is problematic to the point of breaking down immediately.

There is no comparison between the often passionate yet often well-argued rejection of religious claims by atheists - "fundamentalist" or otherwise - and the use of dogma and social and political pressure to create obedient, submissive communities.

These are people who are touted as clear thinkers and open-minded investigators,

I do not remember any of them claiming to be open-minded or even being referred to as such, although I would not particularly object.

In any case, that is hardly relevant.

They do not need to be open-minded or close-minded. It should make no difference, since they are simply arguing a case and hold no authority over anyone.

and they apparently know nothing of non-fundamentalist religion-- which, statistically, is the majority of religious practice-- nor do they care to do so.

I fear you are missing an important, crucial point here, my dear Levite.

The one reason why criticism of non-fundamentalist religion gets significant traction in the first place is because it has often failed to deal significantly with the excesses of fundamentalist religion. For whatever reasons, its adherents usually hesitate to establish clear parameters of acceptable belief and behavior, and prefer to simply keep a distance from the fundamentalists.

That may be understandable, but it is not a solution. And if those of a religion will not keep their abusive members in line, then they can hardly fault others from point out the abuse and attempting to keep it in check.

People have a right to defend themselves.

That some of the Horsemen and other critics of religious groups do indeed seem to have a hard time understanding or caring about the distinction between fundamentalists and reasonable practicioners shows far more of a deficiency of the adherents as a whole than of the critics.

Unless, I suppose, a reason can be offered why the image and reputation of religion should be valued over the well-being and rights of its own adherents and people in general. Which seems to be the belief of considerable number of fundamentalists.

They have their own little absolutist definition of Truth, and they cling to it just as strongly as scriptural literalists and creationists cling to theirs.

Maybe they do, although I personally think that to be a very biased and ill-informed statement.

All the same, it is interesting to notice that it should not matter whether such a statement is correct in any case.

Because after all, as you state yourself, you are criticizing a kind of stubborness that is very easy to find in certain religious groups. Groups that in many cases seek and often have already a lot of power and influence, to the point of explicitly commanding whole countries and threatening to kill or otherwise strongly inconveniencing those who disagree with their tenets.

I am sure that I do not need to remind you that many, far too many reasonable religious people are troubled by the existence of those groups yet have a very hard time attempting to deal with them. An additional complication is that despite all their passion, those groups are hardly even compatible with each other. If left alone without any internal or external efforts at easing their passion and unease, they will simply keep clashing and nurturing mistrust until they destroy themselves in some way.

It is a very real problem. Everyone's problem. There is no good reason to demand "outsiders" (to the extent that such a concept even makes sense) not to voice their concerns about it.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Actually they are aware liberal religiosity and they condemn that too as "enabling" and legitimizing religious belief. Some consider it worse than the fundie variety.

In a free country we should rejoice in our differences and beliefs not throw rocks at each other.

 

[Windwalker]

The question is asked why is atheism so easy to tag the term fundamentalism to. Why do people tag the term fundamentalism onto Muslim, to use a familiar example? Is this referring to Muslims as a whole as being fundamentalists? Or are people being specific when they say "Fundamentalist Muslims", or "Muslim Extremists"? I don't think its easy or appropriate to tag fundamentalism onto atheist anymore than I do tagging it onto Muslim, Christian, or theist. But it does apply when appropriate to any or all.

Fundamentalism in these contexts have nothing to do with theistic or atheistic beliefs, but how they take their views to the extreme, whose ideas are radical and irrational and potentially dangerous in certain contexts, though not necessarily. So why are those who self-identify as atheists immune from this sort of mindset?

Though fundamentalism as a term has its roots in America to a specific type of Christian belief, the term applies clearly beyond Christianity, or theism in general. Again, why should an atheist be immune from this sort of fundamentalist mentality? If someone was a fundamentalist believer in God, and becomes a non-believer, how does simply switching the object of belief change who they are, fundamentally?

Fundamentalism is deeper than simply what one believes in, but attitudes, and an entire mental framework through which one filters their realities. It does not allow for any truth other than their own. Such as calling all people who believe in God as delusional, or all who don't believe in God as lost or unsaved. Same difference.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think you may be on to something here Luis. The best way to test your theory is to do the exact same thing to a different group and see how it comes across.

Hi, Rev!

Let's.

Do you believe there is not a more recent bred attitude of not critisizing homosexuality?

To a degree. It is still a bit immature, but shows promise.

How about the bred attitude of being PC?

This I am not so certain about. The last ten years or so destroyed a lot of the PC tendency. People are quite more cynical these days, far more unstrusting and frustrated than they used to be.

To a significant extent, what remains of the PC movement is a desperate effort at keeping at least the appearances after giving up the substance.

For me, it is when two or three RF members are having a polite conversation about a certain religious topic and an Atheist does a drive by saying something to the effect of "God does not exist" which is totally unwanted critisism and off topic.

In all honesty, I don't remember that happening out of the top of my head.

Far as I can tell it is simply not typical for that to happen on these forums.

At best it is rude and at worst it is P-tizing. Think about my example, if several people were having a pleasant conversation about gay issues and a fundie came into the conversation saying they will burn in hell.........

In a way that is a good thing. One can hardly address mistakes until and unless they present themselves to be criticized.

Mute, covert hatred and despite are often the worst varieties.

Which is why this matter is so important to me. It is grossly unfair to think of anti-theism as somehow equivalent to the politically influential religious fundamentalism that exists.

That seems to have escaped many, and so it is our duty to remind people.

Would objection to this unwanted comment be a "bred attitude"?

It depends on the person. Many people currently have such a bred attitude of respect for homosexuals. Many others (myself included) have simply learned better since childhood.

Why can't we respect difference of opinion and be a litle more civil?

That is indeed the question that we are asking. Part of that effort is questioning the fairness of calling strong criticism of religion "fundamentalism".

Telling folks they are stupid or illogical is not participating in fellowship.

Indeed.

What is the difference between an anti-theist and someone being anti-gay?

An anti-theist questions the safety, health and convenience of beliefs involving god. An anti-gay fails to accept people for what they are.

But I believe that is not the answer you were expecting.

Attempting to put myself in your shoes, I assume that you expect me to find worrisome similarity between criticism of homosexuality and criticism of religion.

However, there is a (pun unintended) fundamental difference between homosexuality and religious convictions.

Homosexuality is pretty much inborn and unchangeable, and very much a personal matter that does not need to concern anyone else who does not want to be a part of it. Admission and acceptance of it is a social matter, but homosexuality itself is not.

Religious convictions, however, are nearly always taught and learned in some way. More significantly, the parts of it that are even really subject to criticism are so because they demand to transition from the private to the public sphere.

No anti-theist group can ever demand theists to stop believing in God. And while many people seem to notice it, hardly anyone even attempts to. The closest I have seen are tired statements of how inconvenient that belief can be under certain circunstances.

Oh, sure, some communist governments (and according to many, Nazi Germany as well) have had policies of suppression of expression of belief. In that sense, and apparently in that sense alone, atheistic fundamentalism is a real occurrence: it does exist as part of the political doctrine of certain authoritarian regimes.

And even then, it always fails. Because it is so darned weird and unsustainable. Not even all-out political repression and terror can long sustain it. Ultimately, people are free to believe even if some of us anti-theists may hope beyond hope that they decide not to. Even a very repressive regime may do no more than force people into hiding their beliefs.

And that is what we are fighting against, Rev. Not the belief in God itself, but the authoritarian demand that we must refuse to hold different ideas and speak our minds.

I can tell you that I for one do not want to hear either viewpoint no more than an Atheist wants to hear the "good news".

Sometimes I wonder how much aversion do you think we have for theism and/or specifically Christianism.

People will believe the most varied beliefs. It is unavoidable and we know that. We would just keep troubling ourselves for no good reason if we attempted to deny that.

We are not alergic to belief in God or anything. We just find it demeaning to have our very existence found inherently wrong or shameful.

 

[LuisDantas]

The question is asked why is atheism so easy to tag the term fundamentalism to. Why do people tag the term fundamentalism onto Muslim, to use a familiar example? Is this referring to Muslims as a whole as being fundamentalists? Or are people being specific when they say "Fundamentalist Muslims", or "Muslim Extremists"? I don't think its easy or appropriate to tag fundamentalism onto atheist as it is on to Muslim, Christian, or theist. But it does apply when appropriate to any or all.

One relevant factor is that Muslim doctrine is very much about obedience to a higher authority. It is at least arguably its main directive, to the point of the religion's name itself meaning "submission".

On a more practical level, the plain fact is that while generally speaking Muslims are very reasonable, well-meaning and peaceful, they also find themselves far too often unable to offer proper containment to the more extreme and destructive views. It is deeply embarrassing to them, far as I can tell. I sympathise, but that is no reason to refrain from point out that those views are wrong and must be challenged.

Pretty much the same applies to any other group, of course. Except that the degrees of urgency and effectiveness in keeping destructive views in check will and do vary.

It turns out that people who believe that they are doing God's work can be very difficult to reason with. I suppose the same can hypothetically be said of people who believe there is no God and that it is a mistake to believe in him. But so far I have learned of no atheists or anti-theists who use their disbelief as justification for violence.

There is certainly no defense in atheism or even anti-theism for violence or disrespect against others. Except perhaps for communism, I have learned of no atheism-related doctrine that has such a defense, either. And I have no problem with criticism of violence or disrespect fueled by such doctrines, in any case. I will simply point out that a broken doctrine that happens to be atheistic is not representative of anti-theism, nor of atheism.

Fundamentalism in these contexts have nothing to do with theistic or atheistic beliefs, but how they take their views to the extreme, whose ideas are radical and irrational and potentially dangerous in certain contexts, though not necessarily. So why are those who self-identify as atheists immune from this sort of mindset?

We are not really. But in practice we might as well be, mainly because we have neither the empowering dogma nor the social and political influence that would make us vulnerable to that danger.

Though fundamentalism as a term has its roots in America to a specific type of Christian belief, the term applies clearly beyond Christianity, or theism in general. Again, why should an atheist be immune from this sort of fundamentalist mentality? If someone was a fundamentalist believer in God, and becomes a non-believer, how does simply switching the object of belief change who they are, fundamentally?

How can one justify disrepecting other people's rights on the idea that there is no god that wants it so?

 

[Windwalker]

One relevant factor is that Muslim doctrine is very much about obedience to a higher authority. It is at least arguably its main directive, to the point of the religion's name itself meaning "submission".

Submission to higher authority does not a fundamentalist make. Christians see God as higher authority too. And to many atheists, Science is that new authority for them as well, whose sword of truth cuts myth from facts and shines a light of Truth to the world. The final authority for them is Rationality, with a capital R. The role played by God is replace by Science for them. (Taking the boy out of the country does not take the country out of the boy).

On a more practical level, the plain fact is that while generally speaking Muslims are very reasonable, well-meaning and peaceful, they also find themselves far too often unable to offer proper containment to the more extreme and destructive views. It is deeply embarrassing to them, far as I can tell. I sympathise, but that is no reason to refrain from point out that those views are wrong and must be challenged.

This of course does not mean fundamentalism is defined by violent behaviors, and in fact violence is extremely rare. You need to look at it this way, those who are violent people will seek out and join radical groups in order to justify their violent tendencies, just the same way a pedophile seeks out the priesthood, or any sort of leadership position that gives them access to children. It's not like the priesthood, or being a boy scouts leader, makes them pedophiles. In the same way, fundamentalism does not make violent people. And therefore fundamentalism is not defined by the violence, any more than the priesthood is defined by pedophilia.

Pretty much the same applies to any other group, of course. Except that the degrees of urgency and effectiveness in keeping destructive views in check will and do vary.

You're trying to define fundamentalism into a tight corner where you can let atheism escape.

It turns out that people who believe that they are doing God's work can be very difficult to reason with. I suppose the same can hypothetically be said of people who believe there is no God and that it is a mistake to believe in him. But so far I have learned of no atheists or anti-theists who use their disbelief as justification for violence.

I guarantee you atheism can and in fact will at some point, if it hasn't already, attract violent people who will see it as "God's mission" for them to destroy the evils of religion using violence. There are plenty who already see it as their "mission" to destroy religion. Just hop onto any atheist forum on the Internet to hear that rhetoric being espoused. How long do think it will take for a sociopath to join up and try to justify their violence through the "need" and "urgency" to save the world from the evils of religion? I lay money they're already there.

We are not really. But in practice we might as well be, mainly because we have neither the empowering dogma nor the social and political influence that would make us vulnerable to that danger.

So you're trying to define fundamentalism as an organizational body with political power? Trust me, psychotics seize upon any radical mentality groups to embedded themselves within, whether they are atheist, ecologists, animal rights groups, etc. Radical, fundamentalist groups attract psychotics.

Again, it's not violence that defines fundamentalism.

How can one justify disrepecting other people's rights on the idea that there is no god that wants it so?

You assume all atheists are reasonable. I can tell you, many are equally as irrational as fundamentalist Christians, or Muslims, or who have you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

These were just a few of the first ready quotes that came up in a quick search. Rife with contempt for religion, and enthusiastically conflating "religion" with "fundamentalist religion" altogether.

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?

How is this any different from smug evangelicals derisively mocking atheists? How is this kind of smarmy condescension and closed-mindedness promoting of tolerance and respect for others?

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?

It embodies the same faults as fundamentalism in religion, just with the clothing of science and reason instead of absolutist scripturalism.

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?

I really fail to see how this is either a novel idea or a problematic one.

These are people who are touted as clear thinkers and open-minded investigators, and they apparently know nothing of non-fundamentalist religion-- which, statistically, is the majority of religious practice-- nor do they care to do so. They have their own little absolutist definition of Truth, and they cling to it just as strongly as scriptural literalists and creationists cling to theirs.

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?

 

[Reverend Rick]

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

Jeff, I believe the Rabbi is very well read and has an extremely open mind. Why is it you debate from a personal level implying anyone who has a different opinion than yourself must be misinformed and in need of being educated? This is condescending and dishonest debate tactics.

 

[LuisDantas]

Submission to higher authority does not a fundamentalist make.

It does, when that submission is careless and inconsequential. Which, as I stated and you reinforced, is not at all usual within Islam.

But it is certainly troublesome when it happens, and it does happen far too often for confort.

Christians see God as higher authority too. And to many atheists, Science is that new authority for them as well, whose sword of truth cuts myth from facts and shines a light of Truth to the world.

Precisely. We all should consider the consequences of those facts carefully.

The final authority for them is Rationality, with a capital R. The role played by God is replace by Science for them. (Taking the boy out of the country does not take the country out of the boy).

And as it turns out, rationality is not suitable for the same kinds of abuse that belief in God all too often justifies.

Or maybe you are warning that someone who was raised as a fundamentalist may end up failing to let go when he learns better?

I am honestly not too sure of what you mean here.

This of course does not mean fundamentalism is defined by violent behaviors, and in fact violence is extremely rare. You need to look at it this way, those who are violent people will seek out and join radical groups in order to justify their violent tendencies, just the same way a pedophile seeks out the priesthood, or any sort of leadership position that gives them access to children. It's not like the priesthood, or being a boy scouts leader, makes them pedophiles. In the same way, fundamentalism does not make violent people. And therefore fundamentalism is not defined by the violence, any more than the priesthood is defined by pedophilia.

This is not a particularly relevant distinction IMO.

Fundamentalism, in the sense that I use the word, is not defined so much by violence proper as by a lack of capability or at least of willingness to accept that there are real needs in life that may not always be properly addressed by one's religious faith. It is all but certain to breed intolerance, disrespect, hostility and eventually violence.

That is may take a long while for it to develop into violence does not make it any more healthy or any less real. Or any more viable in anti-theists.

You're trying to define fundamentalism into a tight corner where you can let atheism escape.

I'm not trying anything, Windwalker. I am stating that atheism is not compatible with fundamentalism. Far as I know, that is the truth, simple as that.

If you have evidence to the contrary, then present it and I will be happy to learn from it.

I guarantee you atheism can and in fact will at some point, if it hasn't already, attract violent people who will see it as "God's mission" for them to destroy the evils of religion using violence.

You realize that there is a direct - in fact, a fundamental - contradiction in that scenario you present, of course.

I challenge this statement. Can you present some evidence or example of it?

There are plenty who already see it as their "mission" to destroy religion. Just hop onto any atheist forum on the Internet to hear that rhetoric being espoused. How long do think it will take for a sociopath to join up and try to justify their violence through the "need" and "urgency" to save the world from the evils of religion? I lay money they're already there.

Statistically, they must exist. Atheists are simply not so few that we may hope to be free of sociopaths.

All the same, the plain fact is that no example of "atheism-enabled" destructive fanaticism has been found yet. And that should come as no surprise when one considers what theism, atheism and anti-theism are.

So you're trying to define fundamentalism as an organizational body with political power?

No, I am saying that the idea of an (by definition insane) atheist seizing the power to do something against belief in God "in the name of the god that does not exist" is simply too risible to be a true worry.

It doubtless will happen at some point out of statistical chance alone. It probably happened several times already. And it was harmless because it just won't fly.

Trust me, psychotics seize upon any radical mentality groups to embedded themselves within, whether they are atheist, ecologists, animal rights groups, etc. Radical, fundamentalist groups attract psychotics.

Bingo

Again, it's not violence that defines fundamentalism.


You assume all atheists are reasonable. I can tell you, many are equally as irrational as fundamentalist Christians, or Muslims, or who have you.

True. The difference is that atheism can not empower their anti-social tendencies to any significant extent.

I suppose some of our psychos will seek something else instead - racism, perhaps.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Jeff, I believe the Rabbi is very well read and has an extremely open mind. Why is it you debate from a personal level implying anyone who has a different opinion than yourself must be misinformed and in need of being educated? This is condescending and dishonest debate tactics.

I'm only asking because his descriptions of these people don't reflect what they've read and said, but do reflect how they're described in some sources.

It's neither condescending nor dishonest to ask questions to figure out what's going on here. It's also a damn sight better than the alternative: to assume that he's knowingly misrepresenting them.

I'm not accusing him of being uneducated on this topic simply because he disagrees with me; I'm asking him questions because his description of these people's views doesn't match what they've written and said.

For instance, anyone who thinks that Sam Harris thinks that all religious people are fundamentalists never bothered to read The End of Faith past page 14 (in my copy, anyhow) where he starts talking about the relationship between moderate religion and fundamentalist religion, which ends up being one of the major themes of the book.

I'm not asking Levite to agree with any of these people, but when he makes claims about them that are completely at odds with what they've written, I think it's appropriate to ask "did you even read them?"

I've met plenty of religious people who have said that they disagree with what Harris, Hitchens, or Dawkins say about moderate religion. I've never met anyone who claims that they never said anything about it. Edit: not until now, anyhow.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I challenge this statement. Can you present some evidence or example of it?

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.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

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.

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?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Jeff, I believe the Rabbi is very well read and has an extremely open mind. Why is it you debate from a personal level implying anyone who has a different opinion than yourself must be misinformed and in need of being educated? This is condescending and dishonest debate tactics.

:clap