I give up. I’m outta this thread.
I would love to know why the insistence on repeatedly trying to prove that atheism is somehow a religion – I guess it makes taking shots at it slightly easier. Reminds me a lot of the misguided attempts to cram the scientific method into the term “religion” – any stretch, any fit, eh?
At any rate, as has been stated before, a lack of belief in something need not be a belief, and certainly does not constitute a religion per se. The possible exception to this lack-of-belief rule is strong atheism, because it is a belief after all and not necessarily supported by observation, but also quite often by personal philosophy, outlook, etc.
Weak atheism (AKA implicit atheism or agnostic atheism) is a lack of belief in god/gods, and a lack of theism.
Strong atheism (AKA explicit atheism or gnostic atheism) is the same as above, but also rejects the existence of a god, several gods, or even the possibility of there being gods at all. Strong atheism is often assumed (ignorantly) to be the working definition for atheism.
Strong atheism is sometimes called gnostic atheism because of the knowledge claims involved, whereas there are no such claims in weak atheism. Most pertinently to this discussion, the strong form of atheism carries burden of proof if a claim like “god does not exist” is advanced.
However, in general, the assertion that atheism is some kind of religion is merely an unfortunate myth that seeks to pigeon-hole a lack of theistic beliefs into a convenient parcel (usually, it seems, to somehow discredit the philosophy or its holders). In truth, most atheists can be strong as well as weak on various levels; for example, all strong atheists must be weak atheists to begin with, since strong atheism incorporates all the defining characteristics of weak atheism. And weak atheists may find their atheism gaining “strength” when considering such items as obsolete divinities or long-extinct religions or (even better) crackpot rubbish like Scientology, UFO cults, etc. It is also customary to see atheists oscillate between strong and weak positions for the purpose of discussion.
It’s interesting to note that most misunderstanding of atheist thought, including the flagrant “atheism is a religion” nonsense, tends to come from theists who are already endowed with a religion. I guess it could be a form of non-denominational “universal” witnessing…
How about this: A religion is a system of beliefs some part of which requires faith in the existence of beings, objects, or conditions which cannot be objectively proven to exist. Offhand, I can’t think of any examples of a religion which wouldn’t fit this definition. Atheism, therefore, is not holding beliefs which require faith in the existence of beings, objects, or conditions which cannot be objectively proven to exist.
Spend a little time with Judith Hayes and you will then better understand what is called a Fundamentalis Atheist, because she is one in capital letters.
Your attempt to use reasoning in the OP probably exempts you from being that type of atheist. 
Early Out, if you have done so I must have missed it. I meant you no disrespect and apologize if it seemsd otherwise to you.
And there you go again. You have repeatedly attributed to me assertions that I did not make, and it has become tiresome. You are debating in bad faith. Either provide evidence to support your claims or shut the heck up.
I do understand that some atheists are strident advocates of atheism who push their agenda at every turn and target religious people, and that they can be abusive, arrogant, unyielding, insulting, etc. (I have no idea if this is the case with Judith Hayes or not) I am simply conceding the point that atheists can behave badly, as I did in the OP. To refer to this behavior as fundamentalism, however, is incorrect in my view, again, as noted in the OP. There are in fact certain Christian sects who are described as fundamentalist, both by themselves and outside observers, as per the definition in the OP. It would certainly be possible for a non-religious belief system, lets say a martial arts style, or a particular school of theory in art, to be fundamentalist as per the defintion in the OP. Atheism is less a belief system than it is a definition, as **Abe ** has noted above, and even if it were to be a belief system, there is only one belief which has not changed since day one. No change means no return to fundamental beliefs; ergo, no fundamentalism.
**If ** he returns.
Is there a better term for them than “strong atheist” or “gnostic atheist?” After all, there are people who are strong atheists who aren’t obnoxious about it and calling them “assholes” is overly general, though many qualify.
Fine; I can accept that.
But has the living definition of fundamentalism diverged from the fossilized dictionary definition? Most religions that consider themselves fundamentalist are generations old and there is no actual return to fundamental principles going on. A man who grew up a Baptist, for instance, the son, grandson, and great-grandson of Baptists is not returning to a bygone belief system. His beliefs are much the same as those of an ancestor two hundred years dead, yet he considers himself a fundamentalist.
Languages change all the time and we cannot get lost in pedantic arguing over what a dictionary says. The definition of “fundamentalism” has, for several decades, come to mean a following of one or more original principles, with or without a return to that/those principle(s). (contortions in pluralization provided for pool)
Wonderful. There are no degrees of atheism, as long as we ignore the degrees of atheism. Brilliant.
Abe said it nicely, but here it is simply. Atheism is the lack of belief in any god.
Period. Some atheists actively believe there is no god, but they are a minority.
The reason that atheism is not fundamentalist by nature is that we can conceive of situations where we could change our views - like if the old guy with the beard would deign to show up. Contrast this to fundamentalist Creationist Christian who believes in the inerrancy of the Bible against all evidence, or the fundamentalist Cubs fan who believes that the Cubs are the best team in baseball despite the curse.
There are lots of non-fundamentalist religions. Alexander the Great, though a fervent believer in the Greek gods, had no trouble worshipping Persian gods and even marrying in that religion. I know devout Hindus who believe that all the other religions are correct also. Reform Jews, given evidence that the Davidic kingdom did not exist, say okay, the Bible is wrong. I’d have a hard time believing that is fundamentalism in any way.
I think that was covered a couple of posts into this thread. “Jerk” cuts across all categories.
But jerk is too general and negative, unless you find all atheists to be jerks. But not all strong atheists behave like jerks and there should be some generally understood term that describes the strength of their convictions without lumping them in with the jerks.
I just want to add a few comments to this train-wreck of a thread:
(1) Zagadka: Yes, some atheists (and agnostics) are jerks. Plenty of people are jerks. No reasonable atheist (or agnostic) would deny that some others of similar lack of beliefs are jerks. You got us. We admit it. Guilty as charged. Some of us are jerks. What’s your point?
(2) There’s a huge and basic difference between “believing that there is no God” and “a lack of belief in God”. If we encountered aliens who, for whatever reason, had gone through 100,000 years of alien evolution and never even come up with the concept of God, and we finally learned their language, and explained the idea to them, they would presumably not believe in God. They would have been atheists (or maybe agnostics, although I’m going to stop inserting that disclaimer now) all along, without actively believing there was no God, or even actively and consciously not-believing-in-God.
(3) The most important distinction between atheism and a religion is not, imho, the supernatural aspect. It’s the fact that a religion is something. What do Methodists have in common? Well, they believe in God and Jesus, sure. But they also go to church together, have a code of behavior, have social structures, have morals and taboos and rituals and so on and so on. You could certainly imagine an offshoot of Methodism which denied the belief in God and Jesus, but which still had Sunday meeting at which moral issues were discussed, various ritualized ceremonies, The Golden Rule, etc. This would definitely qualify as a religion. All the people in GodlessMethodism would be atheists who subscribed to a particular religion. Similarly, you could imagine a group of atheists getting together and establishing moral rules and rituals and so forth and building up a new religion from the ground up, without ever being theistic.
Some people are Cubs fans. Some are Yankees fans. Anyone who is either is a baseball fan. Someone who is not a fan of baseball at all is not, therefore, a fan of some other sport. They’re just not a fan. Similarly, someone who does not believe in God is not automatically part of some other, nebulous, religion.
(4) As for the claim that people who think theists are insane (and loudly proclaim it) are “fundamentalist” atheists, that’s just nonsense. That implies that the core, basic, FUNDAMENTAL definition of atheism includes “insulting and mean to theists”, but most atheists, while aware of this definition, choose not to adhere to it. Come ON.
That’s the point. You can be a theist and a jerk, you can be an atheist (strong or weak) and a jerk. It’s an independent characteristic. [And I’m an atheist myself.]
I think “strong atheist” works for the non-jerks. From what I’ve read here, nothing about strong atheism requires one to be insensitive or pushy or otherwise mean. ‘Jerk’ is much more accurate than fundamentalist for all the reasons explained previously.
I’m an atheist, and have been for most of my 43 years. I still don’t see the big difference, when I apply these to myself. Do I lack a belief in god? Yes. Do I believe there is no god? Well, yes, didn’t you just ask that?
The alien example doesn’t help, because everyone on this planet is at least familiar with the concept of a belief in gods. Look, I don’t believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn. I would also say that I believe there is no Invisible Pink Unicorn. What’s the difference?
There are two ways in which this distinction can be drawn.
One is basically the difference that is commonly referred to as atheist vs. agnostic. An agnostic who said “I don’t know if there is a God” would not “believe in God”, but would also not “believe that there is no God”.
However, I’m getting at a different distinction, which I think more addresses the issue of whether atheism is a religion. Do you believe that the 10,000,000,000,000th digit of pi is even? I doubt you do. But I also doubt you think it’s odd. I doubt you have an opinion about it. I doubt it would occur to you to have an opinion about it. Someone who felt the same way about the existence of God (granted, unlikely in a present-day human) would be an atheist, but would in no way have any of the beliefs typically ascribed to Atheists by those who claim that atheism is a religion.
(Obviously the Pi analogy is not a perfect one.)
Who says the dictionary definition is fossilized? Who says I am using a dictionary definition? The one in the OP is one I have constructed from previous threads on this message board, but I suspect it would be fairly close to one in a modern dictionary. The term itself as it applies to religion is from the early 20th Century, so I rather doubt it has had time to fossilize.
Are you implying that all Baptists are fundamentalist? It certainly seems that you are. You are wrong about this. Baptists believe in the autonomy of the individual church. They form cooperative associations (the Southern Baptist Convention, for example) but matters of doctrine are not imposed from a church hierarchy. Several churches now are threatening to leave the SBC precisely because it is deemed too “modern.” They are self styled fundamentalists. There are many Baptist churches that do not identify themselves as fundamentalist; who will condone practices (homosexuality, for example) that are strictly forbidden in fundamentalist congregations.
But even accepting for the moment that fundamentalism does not entail a return to basic principles, it still does not apply to atheism. Fundamentalist Baptists are **compelled by their beliefs ** to behave in a certain way; home schooling, in some cases, or public witnessing. There is nothing about the **one principle ** of atheism that compells anyone to behave anyway at all
I am suprised to see that nobody has posted from Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist
Personally I find it hilarious that certain fellows from a religion considered a minority comes in and talks bad about how athiests talk so much about a dominate religion. Heres a clue:
It is a safe bet that a majority of the posters on this board are from North America or say the UK. Both of these geographical areas are dominated by the Christian/Judism/muslim religion set. (I lump them all together because they are very similar and share in the fact that they all are recognized as having fundementalist movements- not to mention, arguably worship the same god).
It is also a safe bet that said Atheists reject ANY god, but refer to the Judeo-christian god as a default due to the MAJORITY of people being familiar or attached to said religious dogmas. It gets a bit redundant to list every single being/diety/supernatural entity in all of history and the world when rejecting them, so most just say they reject all gods.
I know this leads to certain fellows in the minority coming in and talking about how atheists are so stupid and narrow minded, and this particular fellow has some secret knowledge that puts him in the “know” and makes him somehow special because us ignorant atheists don’t know anybody of his religion, have never read books, or bothered to learn of such an esoteric and enlightened religion.
[QUOTE=CurtC]
I’m an atheist, and have been for most of my 43 years. I still don’t see the big difference, when I apply these to myself. Do I lack a belief in god? Yes. Do I believe there is no god? Well, yes, didn’t you just ask that?
[QUOTE]
Well, you deny the existence of God (big G) commonly though of as the Judeo-Christian variety. But do you believe the god of the Farsnoppians of Blooha 4 does not exist? Or do you have no belief in that god at all?
Not believing in a single god is not enough to make you an atheist, strong or otherwise. Christians don’t believe in Zeus, in fact strong belief Zeus does not exist. An atheist believes in no gods at all, a strong atheist goes beyond this and believes that no gods at all exist. An agnostic believes that the question is unknowable - but an agnostic can believe in a god, while admitting that it is impossible to know that a god does or does not exist.
These are all useful distinctions, and I don’t really understand why this is so tough - except maybe people are allergic to some of these words.