It should be noted where I disagree with your “premise” (especially the abusrdly stupid “resolved” you put in front of it) - I agree that atheism is not a religion. By definition, it is the lack of religion. I, therefore, do agree that it is not a fundamentalist religion - it is a fundamentalist belief or point of view.
Your premise is flawed because you refuse to accept the term “fundamentalist” applying to anything outside of religion. I’m sorry that your mindset is so narrow, but perhaps we can open that up today.
This doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means. In any classical debate, this is how the question on the table is presented. The form just isn’t followed very often on these boards. It doesn’t mean that trandallt thinks that the question has been settled, one way or the other.
Both are based on observations. Theists don’t believe in god just to be theists. They believe in god because they observe it, just as atheists disbelieve because they have not yet observed it.
It is also perfectly acceptable for a theist to question the dogma of their religion. We do it all the time. It is called theology.
Or are you defining “religion” as narrowly as “fundamentalism”?
You should get out and meet more Unitarians. Jews are also encouraged to question central tenets of their faith. I once read an ethicist’s response to a Rabbi who had completely lost his faith, and after studying relevant Jewish scripture concluded that, in all good conscience, an atheist Rabbi can still do his job.
And a Cubs fan who doesn’t adhere to that principle isn’t really a Cubs fan at all. That’s my quarrel with this definition of fundamentalism. What would a non-fundamentalist Cubs fan be like? Someone who roots for the Royals?
YOu did not say such directly, though you did ask how being a Cubs fan can be fundamentalist. You thus implied that nothing outside of religion could be fundamentalist.
And you charge me with picking and choosing.
And I resent the fact that someone who started a thread with “resolved:” calls me “smug”
Now we’re getting somewhere! Fundamentalism, then, is a matter of degree. How dedicated does the fan have to be before he crosses from being a fan to being a fundamentalist fan? How convinced of the Cubs’ greatness?
You see where we’re going with this: the term “fundamentalist” doesn’t really mean much of anything. It’s in the eye of the beholder, and is slippery as can be.
I think atheists view the question of religion in a black and white way, simply because atheism has only one tenet, i.e., that there are no gods. That is, truly, a “yes” or “no” proposition. If you think there’s some middle ground, you’re not an atheist. (For the moment, let’s not get into the morass of “strong” atheism and “weak” atheism!) In other, nonreligious matters, atheists see all the shades of the rainbow.
exactly so what fundamental priniciples would said atheists be returning to, the only common beliefs atheists have is that they don’t believe in god, so if they abandoned this belief they wouldn’t be atheists.
Well there you go again. If you and the rat in your pocket want to widen my mindset you would be well served to refrain from calling my terms “absurdly stupid” without some justification. For the record, I was attempting to present my case in the form of a classic debate. I may have been wrong, but I hardly think that your remark was called for.
Show me in the OP or anywhere else that I refuse to accept the term “fundamentalist” as applying to anything outside of religion.
Funny, because when people tout their numbers of atheists outnumbering theists on the planet, there is one group suspiciously missing from the detailed groupings: agnostics.
Where atheism and atheists fail is in that black and white view of “no god” and “supreme overlord with big white fluffy beard sitting on a cloud throwing thunderbolts” - they simply fail to comprehend a world view outside of their black and their white.
