Fundamentalist Atheists equivalent to Fundamentalist Theists

[PBear42]

@tomndebb

The problem with this approach is that we are still left with the issue of “fundamentalism.”

Fundamentalism was originally a self-applied term to a specific group of (American) Christians who were adherents of textual literalism and a range of other topics in regards to Christian belief and took their name from The Fundamentals, a series of about twelve separate tracts on the issues about which they felt strongly.

As the word “fundamentalist” came to be regarded more broadly as a religious believer who held closely to the doctrines set forth in a specific religious scripture, it was extended to include the Salafist/Wahhabist “reformers” of Islam. No such set of “scriptures” is employed by any group of atheists, (not even the collected writings of Huxley, Russell, Dawkins, and Hitchens). Beyond that there is not really even a “movement” among atheists and the few atheists who have chosen to gather to exchange ideas qua atheism are massively outnumbered by the atheists who really don’t care to even bother discussing what they fail to believe.

So, while there are a few zealous atheists, the notion of using the word “fundamentalist” fails on so many levels as to render its use silly.

On the other hand, I suppose one might regard the more obstreperous atheists as “fundy” atheists, based on the slang term for the more obstreperous Christians whose tactics in personal and public discourse are so similar. The use of “fundy,” while hearkening back to the “fundamentalist” origins, is sufficiently removed from that origin as to not make a direct association while conveying the basically rude and unthinking characteristics common to all such intolerant individuals.
“Fundamentalist Atheist,” however, is a non-starter.

This. Having waded through the whole thread, which ISTM went off the rails late on page two, Tom takes us back to the OP and makes some good points. Stated a little differently, there are no doubt zealous atheists. Or, if you will, dogmatic, obnoxious or intolerant ones. It is these qualities to which the OP reasonably objects. And we have a few of these on the SDMB. Just as there are many of the same among theists at large, though interestingly not so much here. Probably selection bias. But what matters isn’t whether A or B are fundamentalists. What matters is whether they’re zealous, dogmatic, obnoxious and intolerant. BTW, I’m an atheist (in the sense of don’t believe), where Tom is a good Catholic.

[JoeMonocle]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

I am using the definition of atheism used acedemically. This is a pointless argument. Do you think you’re going to convince slf-identified atheists that they have a positive belief in non-exisytence based on your preferred definition? maybe you think that (incorrect) definition is easier for you to attack, but since that isn’t a belief held by anyone you’re arguing with, you’re kind of wasting your time.

I’m not interested in changing anyone’s religious beliefs. I’m also not interested in attacking either of the versions of atheism mentioned. I don’t want to persuade you, or anyone here, to believe or to disbelieve in g*d. I have very little interest in “arguments” in the colloquial sense of bruising, somewhat personal encounters. I am very much interested in civil discourse leavened by wit and insight. I wouldn’t be replying to any of the replies I’ve received if I didn’t see something worthwhile in them. When I see clear dreck I just ignore it.

[The_Hamster_King]

@JoeMonocle

For agnostics maintain that the question of whether or not gd exists cannot be rationally determined, whereas your kind of atheist would maintain only that no compelling case has yet been presented for the existence of gd.

This would make agnosticism a stronger version of skepticism than atheism, which would be different from my prior understanding.

Agnosticism IS a more extreme position than atheism.

Atheists don’t believe in God. However most atheists hold this view simply because they see no evidence for God. If strong enough evidence were forthcoming, they’d be willing to reconsider.

Agnostics believe that deciding the question of God’s existence is IMPOSSIBLE. Pronouncing that something is impossible is a stronger claim than refusing to believe in something for lack of evidence.

The problem I have with most agnostics is that they fail to carry their reasoning to its logical conclusion. They apply their epistemology only to God. But why? Why single out that one hypothetical entity for special treatment? If the total lack of evidence for God isn’t sufficient for us to reject the idea, then it must also not be sufficient for us to reject ANY unsupported idea. So, to be logically consistent, agnostics should also be agnostic about the existence of leprechauns, the Easter Bunny, SuperGod (you know, the GOD that created God), the burglar who may be hiding in the garage, and any other random hypothetical that someone generates.

In fact the claim that “lack is evidence is insufficient for assuming non-existence” is SO radical that I’m frankly amazed that anyone holds it.

[j666]

But I am not talking about obstreperous zealots. I am talking about people with very narrow belief systems. People who believe in certain fundamental truths which they will not allow to be questioned.

Your definition of a ‘fundamentalist’ appears to be confined to textual literalist of a monotheistic religion, and insist that the term be confined to that definition. However, you acknowledge that your definition is progression of the original definition, person who followed those twelve tracts.

You seems to be arguing that the meaning of words cannot shift over time, or that, if they do, they must stop shifting at your command.

@tomndebb

The problem with this approach is that we are still left with the issue of “fundamentalism.”

Fundamentalism was originally a self-applied term to a specific group of (American) Christians who were adherents of textual literalism and a range of other topics in regards to Christian belief and took their name from The Fundamentals, a series of about twelve separate tracts on the issues about which they felt strongly.

As the word “fundamentalist” came to be regarded more broadly as a religious believer who held closely to the doctrines set forth in a specific religious scripture, it was extended to include the Salafist/Wahhabist “reformers” of Islam. No such set of “scriptures” is employed by any group of atheists, (not even the collected writings of Huxley, Russell, Dawkins, and Hitchens). Beyond that there is not really even a “movement” among atheists and the few atheists who have chosen to gather to exchange ideas qua atheism are massively outnumbered by the atheists who really don’t care to even bother discussing what they fail to believe.

So, while there are a few zealous atheists, the notion of using the word “fundamentalist” fails on so many levels as to render its use silly.

On the other hand, I suppose one might regard the more obstreperous atheists as “fundy” atheists, based on the slang term for the more obstreperous Christians whose tactics in personal and public discourse are so similar. The use of “fundy,” while hearkening back to the “fundamentalist” origins, is sufficiently removed from that origin as to not make a direct association while conveying the basically rude and unthinking characteristics common to all such intolerant individuals.
“Fundamentalist Atheist,” however, is a non-starter.

[SSgtBaloo]

@j66

But I am not talking about obstreperous zealots. I am talking about people with very narrow belief systems. People who believe in certain fundamental truths which they will not allow to be questioned.

Can they not be one and the same? I had imagined that the term “narrow-minded” might be applied to anyone whose argument for their position rests solely in an interpretation of evidence that supports their claim, and that no other interpretation is possible, else you are “hell-bent”* (if the accuser is a theist, YMMV) or “delusional” (if your accuser is an atheist).

Of course, not all obstreporous zealots are of necessity narrow-minded, but I’m sure I can’t think of any off the top of my head, can you?

• Or whatever punishment their belief system requires, if any.

[j666]

@SSgtBaloo

Can they not be one and the same? I had imagined that the term “narrow-minded” might be applied to anyone whose argument for their position rests solely in an interpretation of evidence that supports their claim, and that no other interpretation is possible, else you are “hell-bent”* (if the accuser is a theist, YMMV) or “delusional” (if your accuser is an atheist).

Of course, not all obstreporous zealots are of necessity narrow-minded, but I’m sure I can’t think of any off the top of my head, can you?

Oh, god, yes, and I’m related by blood to most of them. I come from a family that can switch positions in the middle of an heated argument. Narrow-minded, no; obstreperous, oh, yes.

Zealots? Well, it depends on your definition of ‘zealot’. If you insist the term can be used only in reference to first century Jews, I know none.

[wevets]

@j66

Your definition of a ‘fundamentalist’ appears to be confined to textual literalist of a monotheistic religion, and insist that the term be confined to that definition.

Why would it have to be monotheistic? Seems like any religion with sacred texts could have fundamentalists who adhere to a strict literal interpretation of those texts.

[j666]

@wevets

Why would it have to be monotheistic? Seems like any religion with sacred texts could have fundamentalists who adhere to a strict literal interpretation of those texts.

I only noted monotheistic religions mentioned in the post to which I was replying - did I miss something?

[Farmer_Jane]

I have a fundamental belief system. It’s called the natural rights of man.

[tomndebb]

@j66

But I am not talking about obstreperous zealots. I am talking about people with very narrow belief systems. People who believe in certain fundamental truths which they will not allow to be questioned.

Your definition of a ‘fundamentalist’ appears to be confined to textual literalist of a monotheistic religion, and insist that the term be confined to that definition. However, you acknowledge that your definition is progression of the original definition, person who followed those twelve tracts.

You seems to be arguing that the meaning of words cannot shift over time, or that, if they do, they must stop shifting at your command.

Not at all.

I just note that the word has a specific history that is recent and that I do not believe that it has yet moved beyond its second meaning. (In fact, shortly after teh WTC/Pentagon attacks, a number of U.S. Fundamentalist Christians asserted their discomfort with referring to al Qaida and Wahhabists as “fundamentalists” on the grounds that it was an insult against the Christians, so even the first meaning is still in circulation.)
This is particularly true in regard to atheism because there is simply no “fundamental belief” to which the vast majority of atheists adhere. Even based on your decision to make the word indicate a “very narrow belief system,” it fails in regards to the overwhelming majority of atheists. You might get to apply it to the late Madalyn O’Hare, Michael Newdow, and a dozen more people, but you are then stuck with forcing your audience to examine every atheist to see whether that individual happens to hold actual beliefs regarding a deity.

It is the temptation among a number of theists to erroneously define atheism as a belief that gets us bogged down in this sort of controversy, and permitting the application of the word “fundamentalist” to atheists perpetuates that error. Therefore I decline to accept that definition.
(This is not to say that no atheist has a belief in “no god,” only that that is not the perspective from which the overwhelming majority of atheists view the issue.)