What does "atheist fundamentalism" mean?

[Alceste]

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.

What school is this, then?

 

[Reverend Rick]

[/b]

What school is this, then?

You really have no idea what I am talking about?

"Johnny has two daddies" may have been common in Amazon cultures

 

[Debater Slayer]

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.

Some people would regard criticism of ideas through rational discourse as a subset of education, myself included. Focusing on the things you mentioned sounds like a good way to reduce ignorance and the intolerance that results from it, but it seems to me that challenging ideas can be done simultaneously with those things as well.

Also, I really don't think we should discard certain methods of pointing out the flaws in some ideas because people might be offended by criticism of their views. If someone goes through life and is never offended by another person's opinions, then they're not nearly getting enough intellectual stimulus. Vocal disagreement can be a catalyst for education instead of the fruitless endeavor some people paint it as.

 

[Alceste]

You really have no idea what I am talking about?

"Johnny has two daddies" may have been common in Amazon cultures

That's an article about ancient Amazonian marriage and family models, not "schools teaching tolerance of the 'gay lifestyle'", whatever that is.

Or are you referring to the first paragraph?

As a professional blog content writer, I can assure you that the first paragraph of everything you read online is pretty much bollox. It's just the writer trying to come up with a reason you, personally, should care to read what follows. It's not meant to be taken as a statement of fact.

 

[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'.

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

No, I do not believe that at all, but given …

... 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 honestly do not know how you came to this conclusion. Perhaps I'm misreading it. In my experience the term is most frequently applied to streams of Christianity.

In mine too. However, I've seen people refer to "atheist fundamentalism" and "fundamentalist atheists" here on RF many times and I'd like to know what these people mean by the term.

… I get the clear sense that his claim referred to statements in these forums, and the search function might well serve to confirm or dismiss the claim.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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?

I would have thought that by qualifying my statement with the word "often", you would understand that I was only giving one example and not trying to apply a blanket statement to all religious moderates.

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

No, that's not right.

The people you describe aren't preaching intolerance; they're voicing disagreement with you while championing your own freedom of belief and conscience. You're the one who makes unfounded claims about their "true" motives and invents boogeymen to justify your position that they're intolerant.

You've demonized those who disagree with you and made unfounded accusations about how - despite their actual public positions - they're really liars and tyrants-in-waiting. You then claimed that you're a moderate and tolerant. You've shown more intolerance in this thread than anything I've ever seen from the "Four Horsemen".

 

[Debater Slayer]

[...]

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. [...]

How does believing that a particular set of ideas (be it religious or not) has a negative net effect on the world amount to bigotry? I'm pretty sure everyone believes that certain worldviews are pretty unhealthy and that the world would be better off without them, so the above statement would basically mean we either had to regard all ideas as beneficial or be considered bigots.

 

[LuisDantas]

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.

Not at all.

I am not aware of any actual attempts at removing religion from school these days - perhaps in Cuba or China, I wouldn't know. Far as I am aware, what is being proposed and hopefully attained is a separation between the school's activities and those of worship, in order to avoid peer pressure.

A typical example would be refraining from prayer at the classroom, isn't that about right?

I understand that it may be quite bothersome, even revolting, to feel curtailed in what no doubt is or was a very significant part of many people's school day. I truly wish it did not come down to a choice between allowing or keeping it (which in practice means favoring the style of worship allowed in the classroom at the expense of those who may feel ill at ease with it) and forbidding or discoraging it (which I think it is fair to assume will displease many).

Still, ultimately worship rights are still rights. They are supposed to be elective, and to be protected from peer pressure and from school pressure. Therefore at the end of the day it is indeed best if classroom prayer is not allowed - except, of course, in private schools where it is openly admitted that there is a certain worship style being favored.

Public schools are in another situation entirely. And in them, students (and teachers and workers) are certainly still assured their rights of following whatever religion they want, as far as their practice does not violate the law.

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

Of course, everyone hopes to find and perhaps nurture like-mindedness in others, and atheists and anti-theists are hardly an exception.

In that sense, I guess I agree. I sure hope that there are more atheists in the future, and above all that there is better acceptance of atheism, for I know full well that I can't and do not want to help but be an atheist myself.

Still, it is not like anyone is attempting to outlaw religion or anything. The goal is (or at least it should be) to ensure freedom of choice so that theists and religious adherents of all kinds are equally entitled to pursue their worships of choice, if they choose any.

If that is not being allowed, then I will fully agree with you that something is very wrong and must be questioned.

Is that the case?

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.

Sure, I have no trouble with that. I just wonder how much of agnosticism there is to be taught. It is just so personal!

 

[idav]

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.

I dont think fundamentalism is appropriate for atheism. To me fundy means orthodox or even adhering to religious dogma, and lately in christianity it seems to mean mainline christianity. That said I dont think atheism fits unless they are adhereing to dogma. When I hear fundy atheist it sounds like someone who worships darwin and materialism but it doesnt fit because atheism is simply no deity. Atheism doesnt have to do with other philosphical positions like emergence or materialism.

 

[crossfire]

How does believing that a particular set of ideas (be it religious or not) has a negative net effect on the world amount to bigotry? I'm pretty sure everyone believes that certain worldviews are pretty unhealthy and that the world would be better off without them, so the above statement would basically mean we either had to regard all ideas as beneficial or be considered bigots.

The major negative net effects we see stem from clinging to a belief so much that you become entrenched and psychologically attached and invested in it--with any skeptical inquiry being viewed as a personal attack. This can make any person behave like a cornered animal, and this is where most of the negativity comes from, imo. This can happen with any personally held view, from the plausible to the not-so-plausible. The real kicker is this: it's harder to recognize in the more "plausible" personal views, as an "implausible" view is more vulnerable to logical critique, and the underlying psychological attachment is more likely to be identified. With the more "plausible" views, they are more resistant to logical critique, so you may just get caught up in debating/proving the view and never get to identifying the underlying psychological attachment to that view.

 

[Alceste]

I dont think fundamentalism is appropriate for atheism. To me fundy means orthodox or even adhering to religious dogma, and lately in christianity it seems to mean mainline christianity. That said I dont think atheism fits unless they are adhereing to dogma. When I hear fundy atheist it sounds like someone who worships darwin and materialism but it doesnt fit because atheism is simply no deity. Atheism doesnt have to do with other philosphical positions like emergence or materialism.

Exactly. Can an idea with no "fundamentals" foster fundamentalism? Can a group without "dogma" be dogmatic? I think not, but they can still be extremists or zealots, or just generally rude and unpleasant.

OTOH, between being told that I'm wrong and told that I'm so hated by the creator of mankind that I will be forever tortured in the pits of hell unless I convert, l find the former much more polite, regardless of the rhetorical style of delivery.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

I can't help thinking of religious schools: we have taxpayer-funded Catholic schools here, and plenty of "moderate" religious people not only support this but send their kids to them.

We've already had one person in this thread argue that secularizing schools is as bad as the Indian reserve system. Imagine what people would say if atheists went one step further and advocated public schools that were explicitly atheist. Would this be considered a moderate position? Probably not.

 

[Reverend Rick]

No offense but many of you all might as well just go ahead and build a church. For those of you who do not see your religious bigotry, please allow me to enlighten you. If any of your comments are addressed to a whole religion or group of people instead of just the offending parties that you disapprove of, you might be a bigot.

The anti-theist might hide behind the fact that they have no supreme being to hold in high regard, but their dogma is stronger than many other religions and their number of missionaries are great not to mention their fervor and devoutness.

You all quack louder than any other duck in the pond.

 

[Alceste]

No offense but many of you all might as well just go ahead and build a church. For those of you who do not see your religious bigotry, please allow me to enlighten you. If any of your comments are addressed to a whole religion or group of people instead of just the offending parties that you disapprove of, you might be a bigot.

The anti-theist might hide behind the fact that they have no supreme being to hold in high regard, but their dogma is stronger than many other religions and their number of missionaries are great not to mention their fervor and devoutness.

You all quack louder than any other duck in the pond.

Perhaps your ears are just particularly attuned to the quacking of other ducks, and don't register the sound of your own quacking to the same degree.

 

[crossfire]

Any other transtheists in the house? I could sure use some help here! :cover:

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

No offense but many of you all might as well just go ahead and build a church. For those of you who do not see your religious bigotry, please allow me to enlighten you. If any of your comments are addressed to a whole religion or group of people instead of just the offending parties that you disapprove of, you might be a bigot.

I'm bigoted against the Aztec religion -- the one whose priests were always going around cutting out people's hearts and stuff. I'm glad their religion was destroyed.

It's not always a bad thing to be bigoted, I think... even bigoted against certain religions.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Perhaps your ears are just particularly attuned to the quacking of other ducks, and don't register the sound of your own quacking to the same degree.

That's how I see it, too.

For example, I doubt anyone would consider a pastor to be an extremist just because they delivered an invocation before a sporting event. I've yet to see an atheist who has argued for that level of imposition of atheist beliefs on society.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I'm bigoted against the Aztec religion -- the one whose priests were always going around cutting out people's hearts and stuff. I'm glad their religion was destroyed.

It's not always a bad thing to be bigoted, I think... even bigoted against certain religions.

Well admiting to the obvious is a step in the right direction.

 

[LuisDantas]

Any other transtheists in the house? I could sure use some help here! :cover:

I'm an apatheist. Does it help?

 

[crossfire]

I'm bigoted against the Aztec religion -- the one whose priests were always going around cutting out people's hearts and stuff. I'm glad their religion was destroyed.

It's not always a bad thing to be bigoted, I think... even bigoted against certain religions.

Yeah, they took the "open up hearts" metaphor waaaaaaay to literally.