What part of the above mentioned “defnition for fundamentalism” does not apply?
A usually religious movement or point of view.
Note that there is said a usually religious movement.
I would say atheism has every possibility to be a non-deist movement and even to become classified under a non-deist form of religion. Atheism certainly classyfies as “a point of view” namely the point of view that there is no God.
by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles
The belief system of atheists declares that there is no God, which is the fundamental principle of atheism.
Fundamental atheism is characterized by rigid adherence to this fundamental principle.
and often by intolerance of other points of view and opposition to secularism
Atheists often enough are intolerant towards other points of view, which often results in opposition to deism.
All of this makes this definition of fundamentalism valid enough to be used for describing fundamental atheists.
Salaam. A
Ah. Well, I think the salient point is that religion isn’t the only belief system that can inspire such deadly zealotry. Although there are arguably no fundamentalist atheists, there are inarguably atheist fundamentalists, and those are the greater danger, anyway.
Lenin, not so much since he died so early. Stalin and Mao were venerated as certainly larger-than-life figures whose leadership attained near-divine status. During the Cultural Revolution, for example, state propaganda quoted smiling workers that their faith in Mao’s wisdom helped them attain record-breaking harvests, and Red Guards would bow before portraits of Mao and swear their eternal loyalty to him. Stalin benefited from similar propoaganda buoying up his god-king status.
And check out the divine status of the Kims, pere et fils, of North Korea. Kim Jong-Il’s birth for example, is supposed to have taken place on Mt. Paektu, a sacred site in Korean folk belief, and heralded by a double rainbow and a flying white horse, which signifies divinity in Korean tradition.
No, Atheism is not a return to fundamental principles. Some atheists may be militant, some may be complete fucking assholes, but they are not returning to “how atheism was practiced by our forefathers.” The thing with Fundamentalism is that it is supposed to be a return to the good old days, but really it is a new form of practicing the religion.
How do you equate “opposition to secularism” and “opposition to deism”? They are on relatively opposite ends of the spectrum.
The defintion itself says principles. Plural. Athiesm has no principles. The principle you mention is its defintion. A lack of belief. That isn’t a principle, it is its defintion.
Calling intolerant athiests anything other than intolerant assholes is acceptable, I agree, however, calling them fundementalists is a bit much IMO.
Your first defintion is meaningless. Anything can be called fundementalists by that one. You do bricklaying? Hey, you are a fundementalist brick layer, you follow the principles of brick laying. You go swimming? You follow the basic principle of swimming- don’t drown, get somewhere, etc. You are a fundie swimmer!
Pretty meaningless when you stretch it that thin. Same with your last defintion. Most people are intolerant of things they do not participate in. People that ride bikes tend to be intolerant of those that ride rollerblades and vice versa. Americans are pretty intolerant of outsourcing, etc, etc. The list goes on, having people in a group that are intolerant doesn’t mean they are fundies.
The belief of atheism is that there is no God.
They believe there is no God.
Like I believe there is a God.
It is not merely an idea or an impression. It is a firm belief that is defended against other beliefs.
Hence the first principle of atheism is that there is no God. Without this there would be no atheism. They have cultivated a lot of other principles in support of that first principle, such as the principle that everything can be explained by reason, science or even merely by using your brain.
You also failed to noticy that the definition does not say that fundamentalism needs to be religiously orientated*. (And in my opinion atheism can very easily be considered a religion, just like patriotism is a form of religion.)
You also fail to notice that this definition of “usually religious” provides for the possibility to change the last clause into “opposition to deism” because both interpretations in fact mean the same = opposition to those who do not share your belief system.
Do you claim that there are no atheists who return to the fundamental principles of their belief system after having experienced/explored other belief systems?
Do you claim that atheism in general never represents a return to the state of mind that does not want to hear about a deity (and to every form of defence of their belief system against the idea itself). A state of mind deists encountered since religion and religious people appeared on this globe.
When you say “non-deist movement” do you mean a movement that does not include deism, or a movement that specifially excludes it? If the former, that seems to be an insufficient definition of atheism. if the latter, it makes no sense to refer to it as a “religious movement.”
There is one tenet of atheism–There is no God. You either believe it or you do not. I suppose you could label it “fundamental” if you want, but not in the sense of the above definition of fundamentalism, which refers to some prior, more basic beliefs. There is no “return” to anything in atheism.
Of course some atheists are intolerant. There are intolerant people everywhere. If an engineer is intolerant does that make intolerance a principle of engineering? Fundamentalist Christians believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, and therefore someone who does not share that belief is wrong, and needs to be converted. They are intolerant by definition. Atheism makes no mention of intolerance, or tolerance for that matter. As an atheist, I might beleive that you are wrong to believe in God, but there is nothing in atheism that preaches against your right to hold that belief, or that it is my duty to disabuse you of it.
I suppose if pressed I would I would assert the non existence of God but the only belief I would defend is that there is is no evidence of such a being, and I prefer not to believe in imaginary things. Nothing about atheism compells me to defend it. if I choose to do so it is up to me.
I do not understand equating atheism with “the principle that everything can be explained by reason.” I simply do not see the connection.
Fundamentalist Christians are returning to more basic principles. If a liberal Christian were to explore “other belief systems” and then return to Christianity, that would not make him a fundamentalist. He would simply be a returned liberal Christian. It is not so much “returning” as it is “turning again” that makes one fundamentalist, and the turning again has to be to a simpler, more basic form of the belief system. The most simple principle of atheism is “there is no God.” The most complex principle of atheism is “There is no God.”
Where do I say atheism includes a deity in the common understanding of that word? I said: the belief that there is no God is the fundamental principle of the atheist.
Yet religion is not bound to “deity” in the common understanding of the term. For example: Satanism is also a religion.
You can easily take atheism for an alternative form religion just like you can say that patriotism is an alternative form of religion. You only need to replace “deity” with something else that is the focus of the belief system and surrounded with attitudes and rituals that make the followers feel united in their worhsip and belief.
Of course there for an atheist the return to and the cultivation of their fundamental principles, namely that there was never a God and that everything came and comes into existence without any interference of what usually is understood under the word “deity” or “God” . Often atheists also show the wish to spread this belief and/or to see it validated and proved universally.
There is nothing in my religion that calls for intolerance either. That does not mean that Muslims are never intolerant. Just like atheists can be intolerant.
(If I follow your interpretation here, then I have no religion either.)
If I seemed to accuse you of saying that atheism includes a deity in the common understanding of the word I aplogize. It was not my intent. I was simply confused by the phrase “non-deist movement.” Any movement that is not deist could be called “non-deist.” A movement to pick up litter on the highway is non-deist in that it has nothing to do with deism. Atheism is non-deist in the sense that it asserts the non-existence of any deity, be they gods or wood sprites or Satan or anything else. To classify that as a religion, or patriotism as a religion, is to dilute the definition of religion beyond meaninful use.
Respectfully, I challenge you to provide any principle of atheism other than “There is no God.” If a person believes there is no God, certain things may flow necessarily from that, but that does not mean those things are principles of atheism.
Some atheists do wish to convince others of their beliefs. I repeat, this has nothing to do with atheism. The one principle of atheism says nothing about proselytizing.
I truly do not see how anything I said leads to the propostion that you have no religion. I would never be so presumptious as to make such a calim, implicitly or explicitly. Only you know what is on your heart.
Atheists believe that there is no God. Hence everything else is looked at in connection with that point of view and thus follows from that point of view.
They argue about everything from that point of view = everything follows that principle making their arguments purely atheist arguments and principles. No deist shall follow the same principles while approaching issues as atheists do.
The same counts for people who believe there is a God.
In my view the main difference is that atheists do not look at anything while making a disconnection with their belief that there is no God. For the simple reason that they do not find a reason to do so.
On the other hand someone who believes there is a God clearly is able to look at things while not letting himself be influenced by his belief and religion.
For example: I have done research on the history of Al Qur’an as text in complete disconnection with my religious background and religous education. The same for all the rest of my studyfield considering Islam and its history.
I don’t see any atheist doing the reverse… The atheists I know - and some of the atheists I read on these forums - hold much more onto their principles then I ever do.
And no, I do not dilute the definition of religion beyond meaningful use. I only approached it here from a sociological point of view.
I think you misunderstood my remark about “having no religion”. It was in connection with your point 3 in that post where you said that intolerance and the urge to convince others was part of religion.
It is not part of mine, so if you state this is part of religion then it was as if you said that I have none :).
I know my posts can be rather unclear now and then (oh well, OK: Many say they are riddles every time again).
I think I’ll try to solve one problem here at a time.
I can find no definition of religion to support your contention that politics is a religion. Every definition I have found has some reference to the supernatural, or a Supreme Being, or the question of existence. Religious, when used as an adjective, can modify all sorts of things; sports, politics, celebrity watching, an exercise schedule, a diet, etc. But it simply means that a particular person’s approach to that subject resembles that of a religious person’s approach to religion. If I religiously follow the rules of the road that does not mean that I have made a religion of traffic laws. To claim that politics can be a religion in the same way that Christianity is a religion is equivocation at best, and perhaps even deceitful. And even if it were not, it is clear that the OP is referring to people who practice religion in the spiritual sense. He was not talking about politics. If you can provide me an example of politics or atheism having anything but a passing resemblance to religion, excluding anecdotes from your own life, I would be obliged.