# Are Fundamentalists the Atheist's best friend? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 27, 2010, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678 "2010-01-27T19:57:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/81 "2010-01-29T00:42:06Z")
> [@whole\_bean](#): > > Why is it bizarre? A fundmanetalist is a strict adherent. No room for doubt. How is it bizarre to describe someone’s atheism as fundamentalist? Largely because the word “fundamentalist” _actually_ refers to one that adheres rigidly to the fundamentals of whatever-it-is (like, say, the text of the Bible). The meaning of the word has wandered and broadened some, admittedly, but to apply it to atheism which has _no_ fundamentals\* is bizarre. - Actually the only fundamental of atheism is “I don’t believe in a god.” All atheists are fundamentalists, I guess… > [@whole\_bean](#): > > Assuming you mean the general “you” and not specifcially me (since you have no idea what I belive), okay, that seems to mean you’re not a Christian. You do realize you can be “not Christian” and still not be atheist, right? I mean the general you - theists. Most non-theists are atheists. > [@whole\_bean](#): > > Again? Is “God” supposed to be the Christian god? Because right now, you’ve convninced me you’re not Christian and you’re sure the Christian god doesn’t exist. I don’t know how that makes you an atheist, especially when you admit that you “can’t tell me that there are no gods,” which I interpet to mean you can’t be certain that there is no such thing as a god. Might I introduce you to [agnosticism](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnosticism) Most atheists are agnostics - the categories aren’t mutually exclusive. Speaking of categories, I’m what is generally known as a “soft atheist” towards many kinds of theoretical gods. Disbelief, not knowledge to the contrary, is all that is required. But against the Christian God? I’m hard about that. And not the way a theist is. ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/82 "2010-01-29T00:42:06Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > Might I introduce you to a bit more in-depth discussion of [atheism and agnosticism](http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html)? I am aware, my man. Were it not for the fact that **begbert2** seemed to take issue only with the Christian deity “God,” I would not have mentioned it. And I have no problem with thsoe who say they don’t belive. As even your cite points out, that’s not the same as saying "there is no . . . " ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/83 "2010-01-29T00:43:28Z")
> [@whole\_bean](#): > > I am aware, my man. Were it not for the fact that **begbert2** seemed to take issue only with the Christian deity “God,” I would not have mentioned it. That particular god is logically impossible, as has often been pointed out. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/84 "2010-01-29T00:43:48Z")
> [@whole\_bean](#): > > I am aware, my man. Were it not for the fact that **begbert2** seemed to take issue only with the Christian deity “God,” I would not have mentioned it. And I have no problem with thsoe who say they don’t belive. As even your cite points out, that’s not the same as saying "there is no . . . " I’m just curious though, do you think there is _anything_ about which one can rightfully say “there is no…”? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/85 "2010-01-29T00:45:58Z")
> [@whole\_bean](#): > > They’re not. One is subjective. One is objective. Then nobody “knows” anything, and nobody ever uses the word “know”. Hmm, guess you’re wrong. When somebody says they know something, that’s a subjective statement too. > [@whole\_bean](#): > > Seriously? You’re upset that he compared atheists to theists? Insulting? Rude? Somebody’s athinskinned. The only reason to call atheism a religion, or to call an atheist a theist, is to state that their beliefs are based on the same unsubstantiated faithy bullshit that a theist’s are. It’s an attempt to establish an equivalence to remove the theist’s comparative disadvantage - the same thing is done by calling science a religion. It’s annoying when people try to drag me down to their level, and it’s even more annoying when the reason they’re doing it is almost certainly to try and rob me of credibility. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/86 "2010-01-29T00:47:55Z")
> [@tdn](#): > > I see religion as more of a list of ideas than a set of rules. Go through the Bible and you’ll see some pretty good ideas as well as some really bad ones. Don’t kill? I can live with that. Honor my parents? Absolutely. They’re really good people. Don’t eat shellfish? Screw that. Sell my daughters into slavery? Doesn’t apply to me. > > You probably have a similar, if not identical, moral code concerning the above items. So does the Catholic Church. This doesn’t mean that cherry picking is either a good or a bad thing, it means that you, me, and the Catholic Church have cherry picked wisely. The three of us may not see eye to eye on every matter, but I think we can all agree that selling our daughters into slavery is one hugely dumb rule and it has to go. I disagree; cherry picking is obviously the only moral choice, at least when considering the bible. There’s stuff in there that you just cannot adhere and be moral in any current sense. The slavery thing you mentioned is a good example. On the other hand… > [@begbert2](#): > > Here are what I see as the alternate approaches: merely screening out the _obviously_ bad ideas and keeping the rest due to faith in the bible and God, which is cherrypicking/dishonest/immoral/etc.; and just doing whatever you want and using a brutally-cherrypicked bible as a deliberate _justification_ for your repugnant attitudes and action, which is obviously even worse. So you have to watch out for these - and as I said, I think if you’re a self-proclaimed Christian you almost _have_ to be doing at least the former, at least to _some_ degree. I don’t think option a (throw out the obviously bad stuff) is dishonest or immoral (though ofcourse it is cherry picking) but do I think it makes it way too easy to get stuck with a lot of stuff (the bible is a fairly big book) that may not look too bad at first but is actually counterproductive and bad for you or your fellow people. If I had to qualify option a I would call it lazy, and potentially damaging. ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/87 "2010-01-29T00:47:55Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Oh, garbage. Saying “I know there is no God” is no more arrogant that saying there is no Santa Claus or Easter Bunny. > > The argument you are making is just yet another attempt to insist that religion get special treatment. If it was some other claim that had no evidence, was wildly inconsistent and contradicted physical law, saying that “I don’t believe in X” would be unexceptionable. But because it is religion, we are all supposed to pretend that some of the silliest, most self indulgent fantasies ever created are actually worth taking seriously. We are supposed to pretend that there is a real chance that the believers are right. Oh garbage. I’ve never said Christianity is right. Why must you create such a strawman? I’ve said you cannot know that a god (of some sort) does not exist. You simply can’t. That you feel you must attack a single brand of deism in order to attack the concept of a deity suggest you have no strong argument against the latter. ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/88 "2010-01-29T00:48:59Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > I’m just curious though, do you think there is _anything_ about which one can rightfully say “there is no…”? There is no beer in my hand. There is no woman in this room. There is no chocolate in my desk drawer. ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/89 "2010-01-29T00:50:24Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > That particular god is logically impossible, as has often been pointed out. So? Seriously, so what? How does that mean that you can _know_ there is no God? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/90 "2010-01-29T00:50:55Z")
> [@whole\_bean](#): > > Oh garbage. I’ve never said Christianity is right. Why must you create such a strawman? I’ve said you cannot know that a god (of some sort) does not exist. You simply can’t. That you feel you must attack a single brand of deism in order to attack the concept of a deity suggest you have no strong argument against the latter. Do you actually think that our _primary_ goal is to prove the nonextence or otherwise attack gods that nobody believes in and which therefore don’t effect our lives? 'Cause that’s silly. We don’t believe in any of that stuff. But we argue against the stuff that people believe in because that’s the _specific_ stuff that’s the problem. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/91 "2010-01-29T00:52:24Z")
> [@whole\_bean](#): > > Oh garbage. I’ve never said Christianity is right. Why must you create such a strawman? I’ve said you cannot know that a god (of some sort) does not exist. You simply can’t. That you feel you must attack a single brand of deism in order to attack the concept of a deity suggest you have no strong argument against the latter. Well, we can certainly _define_ some sort of god of which it is impossible to know wheter it exists. The christian god is not one of those. A god that performs miracles and answers prayer is testable. As for the “fundamental atheist” crap: I suspect that given enough **positive** tests of that kind, most atheists, even Der Tris, would accept that there is at least something there (which may or may not be the christian god, but nevertheless they won’t deny the existence of whatever it is). ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/92 "2010-01-29T00:52:31Z")
> [@whole\_bean](#): > > So? Seriously, so what? How does that mean that you can _know_ there is no God? Actually, things that are logically impossible are the _only_ things that we can truly “know” aren’t real. Unicorns? I suppose one _might_ exist. I don’t believe it, but it’s _possible_. Omnimax benevolent gods in an evil-ridden universe? Nope. No chance, no chance at all. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/93 "2010-01-29T00:52:57Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Sensitivity is relative, my friend - all _any_ insult is is the assignment of a person to an undesireable category (like, for example, moron or shithead). Some people might like a given category that others might find undesirable (like “girl”). But to _deliberately_ apply a category that you know is undesired is, well, not allowed in this forum when applied to a person specifically. They way you’re doing it is merely insulting and deliberately rude. Actually it’s quite on topic. Fundies are all the same. Irrational hatred of the outgroup supported by a pseudo-rational aesthetic motif centered around some kind of faux-authenticity, usually founded upon claims to a proprietary relationship to some fundamental human characteristic. And of course the opposing fanatics require one another to exist, because their fanaticism is an anti-narrative. Hell, atheism is probably the most honestly named anti-narrative ever coined, it’s in the name. They are not defined by a positive belief, but by a negative belief. ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/94 "2010-01-29T00:53:48Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Then nobody “knows” anything, and nobody ever uses the word “know”. > > Hmm, guess you’re wrong. When somebody says they know something, that’s a subjective statement too.. Again wrong. I know plenty of stuff. I know where my keys are. I know what I ate for lunch. > [@begbert2](#): > > The only reason to call atheism a religion, or to call an atheist a theist, is to state that their beliefs are based on the same unsubstantiated faithy bullshit that a theist’s are. It’s an attempt to establish an equivalence to remove the theist’s comparative disadvantage - the same thing is done by calling science a religion. I never said it was a religion. I said it was something about which one might be a fundamentalist. Like conservatism, or free market economics. > [@begbert2](#): > > It’s annoying when people try to drag me down to their level, and it’s even more annoying when the reason they’re doing it is almost certainly to try and rob me of credibility.. Damn them. ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/95 "2010-01-29T00:55:20Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Actually, things that are logically impossible are the _only_ things that we can truly “know” aren’t real. > > Unicorns? I suppose one _might_ exist. I don’t believe it, but it’s _possible_. > > Omnimax benevolent gods in an evil-ridden universe? Nope. No chance, no chance at all. You’ve added two qualifiers - omnimax and benevolent. Neither is necessary for the existence of a god. ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/96 "2010-01-29T00:56:29Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Do you actually think that **our** _primary_ goal is to prove the nonextence or otherwise attack gods that nobody believes in and which therefore don’t effect our lives? > > 'Cause that’s silly. > > \*\*We \*\*don’t believe in any of that stuff. But **we** argue against the stuff that people believe in because that’s the _specific_ stuff that’s the problem. You got a mouse in your pocket, or is this you and your buddies at atheist church? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/97 "2010-01-29T00:57:28Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Actually it’s quite on topic. Fundies are all the same. Irrational hatred of the outgroup supported by a pseudo-rational aesthetic motif centered around some kind of faux-authenticity, usually founded upon claims to a proprietary relationship to some fundamental human characteristic. And of course the opposing fanatics require one another to exist, because their fanaticism is an anti-narrative. Hell, atheism is probably the most honestly named anti-narrative ever coined, it’s in the name. They are not defined by a positive belief, but by a negative belief. I have no idea what you just said. > [@whole\_bean](#): > > Again wrong. I know plenty of stuff. I know where my keys are. I know what I ate for lunch. Never read Descartes, have you? Or even a summary. Ever heard of the FSM? > [@whole\_bean](#): > > I never said it was a religion. I said it was something about which one might be a fundamentalist. Like conservatism, or free market economics. For _some_ bizarre definition of “fundamentalist”, I suppose… > [@whole\_bean](#): > > Damn them. Not really feasable without a hell to damn them too. Personally I’d be satisfied (on that front, anyway) if they just cut it out. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/98 "2010-01-29T00:57:35Z")
> [@whole\_bean](#): > > You’ve added two qualifiers - omnimax and benevolent. Neither is necessary for the existence of a god. Sure, but name me one popular religion that doesn’t beleive in an omnimax and benevolent god. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/99 "2010-01-29T00:58:44Z")
> [@whole\_bean](#): > > You’ve added two qualifiers - omnimax and benevolent. Neither is necessary for the existence of a god. Just a second ago, we were talking about the _Christian_ God. Sorry I can’t keep up. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Bith\_Shuffle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ce73a5/32.png) [@The\_Bith\_Shuffle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Bith_Shuffle)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/100 "2010-01-29T00:58:47Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Actually, things that are logically impossible are the _only_ things that we can truly “know” aren’t real. > > Unicorns? I suppose one _might_ exist. I don’t believe it, but it’s _possible_. > > Omnimax benevolent gods in an evil-ridden universe? Nope. No chance, no chance at all. True, but of course this doesn’t allow you to claim that benevolent gods don’t exist, since you can’t actually claim with perfect certainty that an evil-ridden universe exists. Maybe you’re the only person that exists other than God. Of course, if you yourself are evil, then I suppose you could be certain that there’s no God… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678.md?page=6)