Well, they’re really more like someone reading “The Color Purple” and saying it’s about colors and prisms, and some black people.
They take the book, make their own self serving interpretations, and THEN they ruin everyone’s time by insisting that their interpretation is the only true one.
Strictly speaking, atheism is not a belief, it is the lack of a belief. Strong atheism is a belief that there is no god, but this is a minority view. Beyond this, I have never noticed any fundamental atheists beliefs about anything, some of us are Republicans! :eek:
Including me up until a few months ago.
Yeah, but in the last century, the most fundamentalist Christian society was the United States of America, the most fundamentalist atheist societies were the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the People’s Republic of China.
So there! 
Not so. The so-called atheism of the USSR and the PRC was no more than anti-Christian suppression. One has only to examine the cults of personality surrounding Lenin, Stalin, and Mao to see that the Chinese and Soviet governments were far from atheist.
The thing that sometimes makes fundamentalists tend to be militant assholes is the fact that they unthinkingly believe in a supernatural being whose rules and pronouncements trump those of society and the law, and frequently human decency and common sense as well. Atheism declares there is no such supernatural being, therefore they are not prone to the same kind of behavior. So your analogy does not wash.
You are ignoring part of the definition “return to fundamental principles” which does not exist in the so-called “fundamentalist atheists”. gobear is right.
Are you a secular libbrel or something?
Then why make the distinction between hard and soft atheists?
true. The governments were pro-christian and pro-atheist, but the population may have had differing opinions on that; witness the killing of christians in those countries and marginilization of ahteists in ours.
Let’s draw the line between smart atheists and dumb atheists.
Dumb atheists say things like “We could never be as jerkish and intolerant as Chritians. Our lack of faith automatically gives us a pass.”
Smart atheists know better.
Of course atheist fundamentalism can exist. What about the guy who insists that there is no god without ever truly considering the question, without ever even trying to take a believer seriously, and who goes through life with his fingers in his ears singing “La la la, there’s no god, I can’t hear you!” Or the guy who actively wants to suppress prayer not only in schools but in homes. They’re both out there (though I admit to knowing plenty of the former an almost none of the latter).
The smart atheist realizes these possibilities and tries to avoid the pitfalls. The dumb atheist becomes that hich he despises most.
And the dumbest of atheists submit posts with buttloads of misspellings.
“Soft atheists” are agnostics. Athiesm is binary-either you don’t believe in deity or you admit some possiblity of deity, which isn’t even close to atheism.
As I’ve already said, that intolerance, not fundamentalism. There can’t be any such thing as atheist fundamentalism because it’s not a faith that has any fundamrntal doctrine. It’s an absence of faith.
But yes, your point that atheists must not be as intolerant as theists is well-taken.
Refusing to admit that it’s possible for a deity to exist is equivalent to stating that it’s impossible for a deity to exist. Many people would consider this to be a very different position then simply not believing in deity. Disbelief is different from denial. Contrary to what you’ve asserted, both positions are commonly considered atheist.
Well, tomato, tomahto. I get your point, and agree, but realize that we shouldn’t get all bent and confused over terminology.
I don’t think it’s quite that simple. There’s a difference between “knowing” that there is no diety and thinking (IMO, rightly so) that the existance of a diety is highly unlikely. The later is what one might call a semi-gelatinous atheist.
So, if you worship at the low-carb altar, is Atkins your “diety”? 
Not necessarily. I tried Atkins for four days, and found myself praying to the Porcelain God.
Huh? Are you claiming that these cults literally believed these figures were deities? I find that pretty hard to swallow.
Daniel
I’ll go out on a limb and try to answer for gobear. I’m sure he’ll correct me if I’m wrong.
It’s not that Lenin (for example) was believed to be a deity, but rather that the movement became such a strong system of belief that it engendered the same sort of fanatical fervor that one might see in utter devotion to a religion. It wasn’t atheism per se that drove the comrads, but an ism in and of itself, and one composed of more than a mere lack of faith in gods. The movement, itself, became so god-like that it was hard to distinguish it from religion.
Or something like that.
It’s like a see-saw.
Believers are on one end. Athiests are on the other. Agnostics are balanced in the middle.
Probably not, if you are discussing actual Fundamentalism.
However, the OP included the following points:
I submit that there are several self-identified Atheists who post to the SDMB who clearly think that dialogue is worthless, that everyone who disagrees is evil, and that education and faith are mutually exclusive. Several also appear to believe that error equals failure.
Now, as it happens, the definition that Brandus provided was not an accurate definition of Fundamentalism. However, this is his Pit rant and he can set up whatever definition he chooses in order to express his ire. Within the definition that he provided, I would have to say that there are Fundamentalist Atheists, although I would agree that under the standard definition of Fundamentalism, there are not.