Just because you don’t like my “nitpick” does not make it untrue :rolleyes:
I’m sorry, I missed that post. I’m discussing with 4 people at once, and some things slip by.
Very well, I’ll back down from that position and accept that definition.
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.
Plurals?
Come on.
What about other claims of the supernatural, or “religious” experiences that do not involve the existence of God, such as miracles?
I have seen you nitpick on less so suck it up and reply to post #43
They return to the belief that there is no god?
As Early Out correctly pointed out, “fundamentalism, then, is a matter of degree… the term ‘fundamentalist’ doesn’t really mean much of anything. It’s in the eye of the beholder, and is slippery as can be.”
There are degrees of belief and disbelief. A fundamentalist atheist takes such vehement disbelief in god that they attack theists as being “mentally ill” and such, as we have seen on this board.
To call someone a “fundamentalist X” necessarily implies that there is such thing as a “non-fundamentalist X” - otherwise the very word is redundant. So what is a non-fundamentalist atheist?
I am not familiar with that term. Would you care to define?
You are right, I apologize.
When you asked how it could be applied to the Cubs.
Soemone who disbelieves in god, but does not preach their belief (or rather, disbelief), and does not consider theists “mentally ill” and such.
There are degrees, and there are degrees.
Well, yeah. The difficulty arises in trying to divide the world into atheists and theists (alas, the very nature of the words drive us into this folly). The black and white division is between atheists and non-atheists (there’s a tortured construction for you!), the latter group comprising a whole host of beliefs, unresolved doubts, and so on.
No, sorry. Only the very naive atheist believes that religious people all think of their god(s) as Santa Claus without the red suit. The thinking atheist simply doesn’t believe that there’s any evidence for the existence of any “higher power,” in whatever form (or lack of form) you choose. Like I said, being an atheist, by definition, requires a certain binary approach. Either there is some higher power (choose your version), or there isn’t. I don’t understand how this can be viewed as a “failing.”
I think that probably the best practical definition of a religion is “something you would be willing to die for–and where such desperation cannot be absolutely stated necessary to spare your life.” I.e. you may be willing to die for money–but money is not a religion because in the modern day economy, you will die without it. You may also be willing to die for God, music, or country–but it cannot definitively be declared that you would die if you were deprived of any of these things. (Of course, this depends on ones personal situation.)
Of course, this brings down the number of religious people–at least of mainstream religions. Personally I would say that the number one religion in the world is Me, followed by My Family. And if you would be willing to change your religion because one of these was threatened–were you really all that great a believer?
(Note that I rank the individual higher than the family not just for cynical reasons, but for the same reason that there are more 2nd streets than 1st streets in the US. 2nd wil always be 2nd, but 1st may also be “main” or whatever. Similarly, not everyone has a family nor necessarily cares about them, but everyone has himself)
By which, I would again state that it would be hard to define atheism as a religion any more than monotheism. Christianity is a religion less because it has a god–but more because it has a set of teachings that many find important. Without those, you don’t have a religion, you just have a god.
Or you belief theists are mentally ill, or you don’t. Or you try to convince people to be atheists, or you don’t. Or…
It can be a failing to understand other people and their beliefs.
But how is the belief that theists are mentally ill, or need to be preached to, a fundamental tenet of atheism? Is there some sort of atheist equivalent of the Bible that these fundamentalist atheists are following?
Who (besides trandallt) thinks you need a bible to be a fundamentalist?
Sort of a “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach to religious belief? If it applies to everyone, I’ll vote for it! 
there is only one fundamental belief that atheists hold to be considered an atheist, there is no return to fundamental principles because they have always had one singular belief that does not change
I, unfortunately, must be leaving for my uncle’s birthday party rather soon. I’m afraid I should not have entered into a debate of this depth knowing I had somewhere to be, but do continue on. I’ll try to reply when I return.
Sounds good to me.
I believe Christians are supposed to witness so it would seem fundamentalism is a tenet of Christianity.