Why do you do this?

[LuisDantas]

Three words: Madalyn Murray O'Hair.

However, she did help get mandatory bible readings out of public schools, which violates the First Amendment.

What of her?

 

[Jainarayan]

She was as fundamental atheist as you can get, so there are some fundamental atheists.

 

[Caladan]

I guess this is something that I still need to understand: what would atheist fundamentalism be like and how come people swear to have found it in existence.

It would display the same pathological patterns of any other dogmatic fundamentalism. People can argue for world peace, but still in actuality be clinically psychotic. The mere idea that atheism rids people from any form of bias already slides into the downward spiral of dogmatic delusion.

 

[LuisDantas]

She was as fundamental atheist as you can get, so there are some fundamental atheists.

Is that so? I have come to much the opposite conclusion, from much the same data.

 

[Jainarayan]

See? Everything depends on our own p.o.v.

 

[LuisDantas]

But that shouldn't be left hanging there unresolved:

What makes her a fundamentalist?

Is that at all a bad thing?

If so, why?

Edited to add: the way I see it, Madalyn isn't an "atheist fundamentalist", mainly because the concept is self-contradictory. She just has no patience for statements about god and ends up being socially unpleasant for that reason.

If that is the closest one can produce to an true-to-life atheist fundamentalist, then I feel that indeed such a creature does not seem to exist.

Instead, it seems to me that there is a degree of confused perception around. It takes more than just obnoxious stubborness to create a fundamentalist. It takes actual supernatural delusions and the warping of their moral and ethical references created by that delusion.

 

[Bismillah]

In another thread I made the comment that quite often inter-faith dialogue ends up as a platform to chastise and prove people wrong. To me, it should be an opportunity to learn about other religions, teach about your own, and to make a real effort to understand how your neighbor relates to God and to the world.

So, why do you come here and do this?

Do you see it as chance to attack religions you see as being wrong and act as a champion of your faith?
Do you see it as a chance to proselytize?
Do you see it as a chance to learn and to teach?
Or is it something else?

Salaam alaikum,

Tarheeler I think this is a beautiful question, thank you for it.

When I first joined this forum I was very passionate in all my beliefs regarding theology, politics, and every thing else. I think when looking back this passion, for argumentation, is centered around my arrogance and nafs, though I masqueraded it as an attempt at dialogue and inquiry. I also think that this trait is endemic not just in me but in many of the threads here and I also feel that is the natural result of a forum centered around debate: arrogance and the feeling of superiority over others.

I also ran into people who I would rather not run into again, their views sickened me and I suspect many of them were so harshly worded and dismissive in their pursuit of proving others wrong not themselves right. As well as those who preferred nothing more than hearing their own voice ringing in their ears, I didn't have the time or patience to deal with such prolific posters.

I came to the realization that my own heart couldn't abide by this routine and still be at peace within itself. I learned of a quote by Imam Shafi'i that resonated with me and I adopted it

"When the foolish one speaks, do not reply to him, for better than a response (to him) is silence, and if you speak to him you have aided him, and if you left him (with no reply) in extreme sadness he dies."

These days I normally keep myself in the Islam DIR increasing my own knowledge in my religion and answer questions as best as I am able. When I want to learn more of other religions or practices I read through their DIRs. I think I have learned more about others from this brief time than I ever did before. I also came across another piece of wisdom attributed to Imam Shafi'i that I wanted to share because it also shaped my own habits

Yunus as-Sadafi’ said:”I have never seen a man wiser than Imam ash-Shafi’ee,

I was arguing with him one day about an issue and I left him.

One day, Imam ash-Shafi’ee met me, held my hand and said: ‘Can not we be brothers, even if we disagree about something’?”

 

[LuisDantas]

It would display the same pathological patterns of any other dogmatic fundamentalism. People can argue for world peace, but still in actuality be clinically psychotic. The mere idea that atheism rids people from any form of bias already slides into the downward spiral of dogmatic delusion.

All of that is probably true, but does it relate to the idea of this supposedly real "atheist fundamentalism"?

The way I see it, such an idea is inherently contradictory.

Fundamentalism is not just bias. It is a deep delusion based on the denial of established facts. The closest to a delusion that Madalyn seems to have had was an inability to deal with her son's conversion into Christianism - when he was around 33. This is straight strangement between a mother and her very much adult son due to incompatible beliefs. I am not privy to quality info on the details, feelings and motivations, but it would take a lot indeed to make this evidence of "fundamentalism".

You seem to be taking a secondary sign and confusing it with the disease itself. Madalyn may have been unpleasant and insistent, but she was not delusional. She may have sounded somewhat similar to many fundamentalists, but she did not have - and, in fact, was all-out impervious to - fundamentalism, mainly because she was so insistently atheistic.

This thread seems to be teaching me that many people are bothered not by fundamentalism, which is a serious and harmful social disease, but by some superficial and largely harmless semblance of same.

Food for thought.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

She was as fundamental atheist as you can get, so there are some fundamental atheists.

What did she say that you object to so much? From where I sit, this seems to be a good example of the double standard I mentioned before:

In my experience, if you took the most inoffensive liberal pastor's most inoffensive and boring sermon in praise of faith and rewrote it to be just as strongly against faith instead, you'd have something much worse than what people typically label as "atheist fundamentalism".

 

[psychoslice]

Its a debating forum, so i think many who just like to win a debate will argue with just about anything, that's what I have noticed anyway.

 

[Aganjuzu]

I've only been here a few days, and for me it's been therapy. I just wanted to vent some ideas that i normally don't speak to ppl about, to a crowd who can more likely handle it and not visibly, physically run away from me.
I'm sorta tired of straining personal relationships and having co-workers think I'm insane. I think I'm trying reserve that right to the forum and have them scare me off instead (physically and metaphorically).
I can't afford medical insurance and a psychiatrist, so now u all will pay instead!! HAHAHa!! j/k..... sorta

 

[Caladan]

All of that is probably true, but does it relate to the idea of this supposedly real "atheist fundamentalism"?

Fundamentalism is a point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views. It could be religious, it often may be religious, but its certainly not always religious as is clearly seen even on this forum. Personally, I find the terminology appropriate because IMHO everyone understands what is meant.

fundamentalism - definition of fundamentalism by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia. doesn't denote fundamentalism strictly to religion.

The way I see it, such an idea is inherently contradictory.

Seems to me that you want to have your cake and eat it. I mean we could of course if atheistic fundamentalists take offence from the label use other terms which pint point to clinical conditions. But personally I would find it more offensive. I don't want my secular and naturalistic POVs to be labeled as a mental disease by believers, on the other hand I see many 'fellow atheists' who are as dogmatic as evangelists, and I'd like to be differentiated from them.

 

[crossfire]

You seem to be taking a secondary sign and confusing it with the disease itself. Madalyn may have been unpleasant and insistent, but she was not delusional. She may have sounded somewhat similar to many fundamentalists, but she did not have - and, in fact, was all-out impervious to - fundamentalism, mainly because she was so insistently atheistic.

In your opinion, is this comparable to the tenet of infallibility of scripture and the "protection" of "true believers" from delusion?

This thread seems to be teaching me that many people are bothered not by fundamentalism, which is a serious and harmful social disease, but by some superficial and largely harmless semblance of same.

Food for thought.

I like to go back to the Kalama Sutta when considering this:

"What do you think, Kalamas? Does greed {or hate or delusion} appear in a man for his benefit or harm?" — "For his harm, venerable sir." — "Kalamas, being given to greed {or hate, or delusion} and being overwhelmed and vanquished mentally by greed {or hate, or delusion} this man takes life, steals, commits adultery, and tells lies; he prompts another too, to do likewise. Will that be long for his harm and ill?" — "Yes, venerable sir."​

In my opinion, it is the prompting others to do so part that makes it so pernicious. Individuals are entitled to their opinion, as long as they respect the opinion of others. The opinion itself is not what is pernicious--it is how you act upon that opinion, imo. Once it gets to infecting on the collective level, the need for individual respect often gets trampled on by the infected collective.

 

[Caladan]

The opinion itself is not what is pernicious--it is how you act upon that opinion, imo. Once it gets to infecting on the collective level, the need for individual respect often gets trampled on by the infected collective.

Very well put crossfire. This is the point I try to convey as well and which personally I doubt that the opposition is blind to... and if it is, then it moves from fundamentalism to blind fanaticism. Usually ill conceived behavior is derived from ill conceived psychology.
If people can't join a forum, relax after a day of work and have normal conversations once in a while about world religion without trying to convert or deconvert each other or outright bully each other then not only do we fail on this forum's mission statement, but we pretty much fail as human beings, IMO. There's one crusade to many here. Nothing wrong with debate, but the complete lack of ability to relate to other POVs, especially when they are constructive, honest, or even objective (yes religious philosophies can also be objective when we don't read them as children) is bordering on an on line pub brawl.

 

[LuisDantas]

Fundamentalism is a point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views. It could be religious, it often may be religious, but its certainly not always religious as is clearly seen even on this forum. Personally, I find the terminology appropriate because IMHO everyone understands what is meant.

Apparently not. You have just mentioned three defining characteristics of fundamentalism, and the first two are not even possible to reconcile with Atheism.

Intolerance of other views is certainly possible in Atheists. But it makes no sense to confuse it with Fundamentalism.

What would a "fundamental principle of Atheism" even be?

 

[LuisDantas]

In your opinion, is this comparable to the tenet of infallibility of scripture and the "protection" of "true believers" from delusion?

I suppose she could have been imbalanced in some way, so I guess I dunno.

Has she been caught babbling that atheism must be protected, or that it proves something, or that it is "the one true way"?

My point is, it takes so much insanity to arrive at that state that at such a point a person is in full-out schizophreny mode. That is what it takes for an atheist to show fundamentalist behavior, and why it is so clear to me that while religious fundamentalism is a serious disease that must be fought, atheist fundamentalism is all-out impossible to occur.

It takes a double standard and confused conceptions to even propose that there is such a thing as atheistic fundamentalism. Religion enable fundamentalism and even makes it somewhat socially acceptable in some circles. Atheism is simply not suitable for that purpose; it lacks the dogmatic tenets that would sustain the behavior.

I suppose we could find a fundamentalism with dogmas that are compatible with atheism (there are, after all, atheistic religions). It is possible. It is conceivable. It has probably happened, say, in some fringe dharmic cult or alien-based belief.

All the same, fundamentalism is based on dogma, not on stances regarding the existence of god. We should not confuse those dogmas with atheism, nor have I seen any evidence that Madalyn - or really, anyone else - would qualify as an atheism fundamentalist, even hypothetically.

There is a natural asymetry between the psychological dangers that come with atheism and theism. That is just how the dices roll. It serves no good purpose to attempt to "fix" that unconfortable asymetry with an equally asymetrical double standard for perceiving someone as a fundamentalist.

Like it or not, atheism and theism are very much unlike on that regard. The first is naturally insulated from certain psychological dangers while the second suits itself more easily to them and is often socially encouraged to.

I like to go back to the Kalama Sutta when considering this:

"What do you think, Kalamas? Does greed {or hate or delusion} appear in a man for his benefit or harm?" — "For his harm, venerable sir." — "Kalamas, being given to greed {or hate, or delusion} and being overwhelmed and vanquished mentally by greed {or hate, or delusion} this man takes life, steals, commits adultery, and tells lies; he prompts another too, to do likewise. Will that be long for his harm and ill?" — "Yes, venerable sir."​

In my opinion, it is the prompting others to do so part that makes it so pernicious. Individuals are entitled to their opinion, as long as they respect the opinion of others. The opinion itself is not what is pernicious--it is how you act upon that opinion, imo. Once it gets to infecting on the collective level, the need for individual respect often gets trampled on by the infected collective.

I fully agree.

That is my point.

 

[LuisDantas]

Very well put crossfire. This is the point I try to convey as well and which personally I doubt that the opposition is blind to... and if it is, then it moves from fundamentalism to blind fanaticism. Usually ill conceived behavior is derived from ill conceived psychology.
If people can't join a forum, relax after a day of work and have normal conversations once in a while about world religion without trying to convert or deconvert each other or outright bully each other then not only do we fail on this forum's mission statement, but we pretty much fail as human beings, IMO. There's one crusade to many here. Nothing wrong with debate, but the complete lack of ability to relate to other POVs, especially when they are constructive, honest, or even objective (yes religious philosophies can also be objective when we don't read them as children) is bordering on an on line pub brawl.

It seems to me that you are treating what may or may not be actual fundamentalism present in people that may or may not be atheists (I have to use the hypotheticals because no clear actual example has been presented yet) as if it were atheism-motivated fundamentalism.

That, I feel, is a grave mistake, and one that harms attempts at communication and understanding. Albeit probably an appealing one under certain circunstances.

Atheism should no more be casually accused of being capable of sustaining fundamentalism than theism should be denounced as undesirable because it demonstrably is. Both statements would be grossly unfair, albeit for slightly different reasons.

The actual nature and consequences of both atheism and theism must be considered in judging them, despite the natural tendency to treat them as somehow opposite and equivalent that comes from the similar names and from cultural conditioning.

The fact of the matter is that atheism is an absence of claim, while theism is a bold proposition. And many significant consequences come from that core difference and make their dangers and advantages very unsimilar when contrasted.

 

[crossfire]

I suppose she could have been imbalanced in some way, so I guess I dunno.

Has she been caught babbling that atheism must be protected, or that it proves something, or that it is "the one true way"?

My point is, it takes so much insanity to arrive at that state that at such a point a person is in full-out schizophreny mode. That is what it takes for an atheist to show fundamentalist behavior, and why it is so clear to me that while religious fundamentalism is a serious disease that must be fought, atheist fundamentalism is all-out impossible to occur.

Regarding the part highlighted in red: when does a dogmatic conviction of correctness of view become Faith? Clinging to a view makes one susceptible to not examining that view, assuming that it requires no examination--which leads to a closed mind, which leads to fundamentalism.

It takes a double standard and confused conceptions to even propose that there is such a thing as atheistic fundamentalism. Religion enable fundamentalism and even makes it somewhat socially acceptable in some circles. Atheism is simply not suitable for that purpose; it lacks the dogmatic tenets that would sustain the behavior.

Once it makes assumptions about its correctness and having special protection from perniciousness it becomes a Faith, beyond questioning.
From Principles of New Atheism

• All faith is folly, including moderate faiths

• Stop giving religion special treatment

• Bible offers no answers to suffering

• Religion is not the source of morality

• The universe is matter and nothing more

• Atheism is a positive philosophy

• Atheism is growing, coming out of the closet

• Godless societies happier, healthier
​

I suppose we could find a fundamentalism with dogmas that are compatible with atheism (there are, after all, atheistic religions). It is possible. It is conceivable. It has probably happened, say, in some fringe dharmic cult or alien-based belief.

Clinging to views + greed, hate, or delusion is all it might take, imo.

All the same, fundamentalism is based on dogma, not on stances regarding the existence of god.

BINGO! Neither atheists nor theists have any special protection from slipping into fundamental behavior.

We should not confuse those dogmas with atheism, nor have I seen any evidence that Madalyn - or really, anyone else - would qualify as an atheism fundamentalist, even hypothetically.

I've met and seen atheist fundamentalists. I do assure you that they do exist.

There is a natural asymetry between the psychological dangers that come with atheism and theism. That is just how the dices roll. It serves no good purpose to attempt to "fix" that unconfortable asymetry with an equally asymetrical double standard for perceiving someone as a fundamentalist.

Like it or not, atheism and theism are very much unlike on that regard. The first is naturally insulated from certain psychological dangers while the second suits itself more easily to them and is often socially encouraged to.

Again, the part in red highlighted above is where prejudice and hatred can get a foothold if one is not diligent, imo, especially when applied to collective groups.

I fully agree.

That is my point.

Mine too. :yes:

 

[LuisDantas]

Crossfire, one thing that makes this talk difficult is what I believe to be a conflaction between religion and theism.

Fundamentalism happens when religious conviction gets out of control. Not theistic conviction in and of itself, and certainly not atheistic conviction, but religious conviction, involving some degree of disconnect to reality and dogmatism.

Theism encourages fundamentalism, because it proposes the existence of a higher authority that may make otherwise absurd views appear legitimate.

Atheism, quite simply, does not. Religious fanaticism and fundamentalism may still exist on an atheist. But not due to atheism. Atheism, being a lack of belief, is quite unsuitable as a justification for those illnesses. Other causes may exist, and certainly do sometimes.

This is one major, significant difference between theism and atheism. One is suitable to kinds of misuse, the other simply lacks substance for that.

 

[LuisDantas]

Regarding the part highlighted in red: when does a dogmatic conviction of correctness of view become Faith? Clinging to a view makes one susceptible to not examining that view, assuming that it requires no examination--which leads to a closed mind, which leads to fundamentalism.

Why are you telling me what I already know?

Once it makes assumptions about its correctness and having special protection from perniciousness it becomes a Faith, beyond questioning.
From Principles of New Atheism

• All faith is folly, including moderate faiths

• Stop giving religion special treatment

• Bible offers no answers to suffering

• Religion is not the source of morality

• The universe is matter and nothing more

• Atheism is a positive philosophy

• Atheism is growing, coming out of the closet

• Godless societies happier, healthier
​

Some of those I find difficult to understand (what is "faith" in this context), others a bit silly and even ill-informed. Still, there is nothing particularty wrong in there.

The part you marked in red is of course something of a challenge. And it is also, come to think of it, its own cure. Any serious consideration of it shall bring realization that it can't truly be meaningful in and of itself.

Clinging to views + greed, hate, or delusion is all it might take, imo.

All the same, clarity must be pursued, and unfair attacks to atheism should be avoided.

BINGO! Neither atheists nor theists have any special protection from slipping into fundamental behavior.

No, I disagree.

Atheism does bring such protection due to its very nature, at the very least when compared with theism in a statistical sense.

That does not mean that specific individuals should favor atheism over theism; every person has to deal with his or her own needs, challenges and dangers as opposed to those of a hypothetical average individual.

But it is still true that belief in God opens the door to the dangers of using that belief as justification for blindness and clinging, while disbelief is not suitable for blindness and clinging. It does bring different, very unsimilar disadvantages and dangers - social awkwardness in our largely theistic environments for one. That, however, is not at all similar to fundamentalism.

When behavior similar to fundamentalism happens in atheists, it will be sustained by something else as opposed to atheism itself. And it does happen far less often, if it happens at all.

I've met and seen atheist fundamentalists. I do assure you that they do exist.

If you say so. Here is hoping that you have attained a good understanding of their plight and a good capability of describing its nature and origin.

Again, the part in red highlighted above is where prejudice and hatred can get a foothold if one is not diligent, imo, especially when applied to collective groups.

I respectfully reject this judgement as unfair and uninformed.

Mine too. :yes:

Let's all hope and make an effort to the best possible understanding then.