You referred to my “continued insistence that nothing outside of religion can be fundamental.” For that to be the case I would have had to overtly stated that on more than one occasion. You cannot produce even one, and even admit it with your own words. I did not say so directly or indirectly.
Are you serious in your assertion that asking how a Cubs fan can be a fundamentalist is tantamount to implying that nothing outside of religion could be fundamentalist. I’ll need a few of the intermediate steps before I can make any sense of that at all.
Re-read the OP. Nowhere in my definition of fundamentalism is the word religion.
I said I detected a smug tone. Your remarks about seeing the future and me crying out for a definition seemed smug to me, and still do.
Nope, again. None of those things is included in the definition of “atheist.”
Most atheists understand others’ beliefs quite well. They just think that those beliefs are unfounded. Or did you mean that it’s a failing not to accept the validity of others’ beliefs? If an atheist accepts the validity of your [Christian/Muslim/Jewish/Buddhist, etc.] beliefs, then he’s not an atheist.
As well as apologize to me for calling my use of it “absurdly stupid”? Am I justified in calling your post ignorant because you attacked a term without knowing what it meant?
Well, you need to have some set of fundamental principles, whether they’re collected in a bible or somewhere else. Otherwise “fundamentalist” is an inaccurate term. So, I ask again, what makes the belief that theists are mentally ill, or need to be preached to, a fundamental principle of atheism?
I see now where you apologized and I thank you for that. By “rat in your pocket” I was referencing your comment where you said something like “we can open your mind.” Who are “we”?
I think it would probably help if the OP were to give an example of a religion or movement which he does believe to be inherently fundamentalist. As several have pointed out, fundamentalism is far more a matter of degree than it is an intrinsic property. To try and describe a religion as “fundamentalist” seems like a fairly meaningless statement to me; in the context we have here, the word is almost exclusively used to describe adherents, not the religion itself. All religions have tenets, certainly, some more fundamental than others. Thus someone who (for example) steadfastly refuses to eat the meat of the rockbadger and all other proscriptions in Leviticus would be more fundamentalist than a happy shellfish eater who merely believed that Jesus is the son of God. This doesn’t tell us much about Christianity, however, which consists of a set of writings; not fundamentalist, in and of themselves.
I don’t really agree with the assertion that atheism’s core tenet is so completely different to those of religion that it can’t be considered the same at all; that’s rather a cop-out. Atheism is simply taking the opposite answer as the truth; that God does not exist. Religions have many more tenets, of course, but that’s because God’s non-existence doesn’t really entail anything else. By contrast, the existence of a personal God implies all sorts of consequences which presumably a good believer will want to know about. Perhaps this is the key; because there is so much more to religion than there is to atheism, the very possibility of degree is only relevant to the former. There’s a zillion different flavours of Christianity, but you’re either atheist or you’re not. From this perspective, atheists could be considered entirely fundamentalist; indeed, they’ve got no choice. Otherwise they’d be agnostic.
Now, what baggage you attach to the word “fundamentalist” is up to you, but that’s not the debate. I’d just like to note that “evangelist” is not the same as “fundamentalist”, and neither is “git”.
I think you hit it right on the mark. An organazation such as American Athesists could be fundamentalist if there was a schism in the organization and a sub-group decided to return to the organizations original premises. That could be about something like collecting dues, or wisdom of fighting the pledge of allegiance in the SCOTUS, etc. Small “a” atheism can’t be fundamentalist as it is not a group of people.
I personally don’t like having to have a term like atheist, since there is no equivalent term for someone who does not think the earth is flat or that leprechauns exist.
Well, only one of those is analogous, since the flat-earth theory is handily falsifiable. Incidentally, if I were drawing up a list of characteristics I associate with “fundamentalist atheists” (assuming they exist), belittling comparisons to fairytale monsters would feature strongly. Like it or not, the question of a creator’s existence is traditionally considered more important than the question of leprechauns’, and as such the sides of the debate are likely to get labelled. Does it really matter, as long as you’re happy with your position, and feel intellectually justified? It’s not like “atheist” is a pejorative term…
Language is all about communication. It’s better to have the word than to have to say “the artist formerly known as Prince” evertime you want to talk about him.
The man currently referring to himself as the pleasantly intelligent, largely disliked mammal
(P.S. Not that it is generally wise to argue with someone on your own side)
Well put. It leads to an interesting result: atheism is, by its very nature, fundamentalist. Therefore, the phrase “fundamentalist atheist” is redundant.
Of course, we’ve all avoided dealing with the other premise of the OP, i.e., that atheism is not a religion. Perhaps we can agree that “fundamentalist” can apply to something other than a religious belief (though that’s not the customary usage). Perhaps we can agree that atheism is inherently fundamentalist, simply because there can be no degrees of atheism (ignoring, again, the “weak” and “strong” versions).
I agree with the OP when he postulates that atheism is not a religion. To me, the very word “religion” implies a belief in the supernatural, a belief in the existence of some higher power. Anything less is a philosophy, a Weltanschauung, whatever, but it ain’t a religion. We do sometimes use the term in other ways (“Baseball is my religion!”), but that’s not what we’re talking about here.
Ah, I finally figured it out only to see a bunch of you did too. There are no degrees to atheism, therefore the term fundamentalist doesn’t apply. In my personal opinion it’s not so much redundant as it is misleading. You either believe in god, or you don’t, or you’re not sure. There is no atheist doctrine to interpret in a conservative or unconservative way. You can be a Cubs fan in degrees- you can be a fanatic with season tickets who sleeps in an Ernie Banks jersey, or you can be a casual fan who watches them on TV now and again, or anything in between. You can be a fundamentalist Muslim or Christian. But since there’s no fundamental doctrine to atheism, and no fundamental beliefs (just the lack of one) or structure, I think the term fundamentalist would be misapplied here.
Well, I disagree - you started this thread, and I’m just trying to get an idea of how you’re using the word “fundamentalist”, since, as I pointed out, I don’t really believe it applies very well to religions or philosophies per se. It’s a description of degree of adherence, to me. I was just trying to get an idea of what you think a fundamentalist philosophy actually is. I can see that you gave a vague definition of the word, but again it seems to apply not to philosophies but to their adherents. Would you classify Christianity as a fundamentalist religion, for example? I’m not trying to score cheap points here, I’m genuinely asking.
That’s not what I’m disagreeing with. You said that atheism’s core tenet, “there is no God”, is sufficiently different to religion as to make fundamentalism irrelevant. It’s the irrelevance bit with which I take issue. As several have argued, fundamentalism doesn’t necessarily restrict itself to religion, and while I wholeheartedly agree that atheism is not a religion, it tackles a religious question. It also makes a conclusion which in my opinion is not justified by evidence, as does theism. I therefore think that fundamentalism can be reasonably ascribed to some adherents of each side. I just don’t think it applies to the philosophy as a whole, because I think the word loses meaning when applied in such a way.
That wasn’t aimed at you; there was an earlier post more or less equating evangelism with fundamentalism. This ties in with my point about baggage. “Fundamentalist” is generally used to characterise people who adhere to their beliefs to a fault; to that extent it’s got a lot of negative connotations that need not really apply. Just as there are wildly irritating theists who badger people incessantly that disagree with them, there are similar atheists. I’m trying to point out that just because someone is annoyingly religious or irreligious doesn’t make them a fundamentalist. Vocal types on each side will have an interest in painting the other side as closed-minded, and I’m just trying to divest the term fundamentalism of this traditional cattiness. I would guess that it’s just such an accusation that led you to start this thread, whether directly or indirectly. That’s perfectly understandable, but don’t assume that everyone arguing here about semantics is trying to do down atheists in some way.
Anyway, you seem to have come away with the impression that I’m being hostile towards you, judging by the tone of your reply; please don’t, as I’m certainly not trying to be. I don’t even have a vested interest, agnostic as I am.
I suppose I do seem that way and I apologize. Nothing you have said indicates hostility in any way. Please forgive me and let me thank you for your reasoned response.
