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…
I mean the general you - theists.
Most non-theists are atheists.
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.
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 . . . "
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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).
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.
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…