Atheist Fundamentalist?

[shadowmage36]

It's as simple as the thread title.

Do atheist fundamentalists exist? We all know Christian and Islamic fundamentalists exist, and I would imagine there are fundamentalists of other religons as well (the Amish, for example, I would call Menonite fundamentalists, though they're Christian as well).

So why not atheists?

I can't say I've ever heard of one, and I would imagine, given the nature of atheist beliefs (AFAIK), that it would be highly unlikely.

Nonetheless, I'm curious, and the question stands.

 

[CSmrw]

I think, because atheism refers to a single unambiguous idea, that all atheist's are fundamentalists.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

I think, because atheism refers to a single unambiguous idea, that all atheist's are fundamentalists.

I disagree that ALL atheists agree to an "unambiguous idea".

The atheist doesn't know any more of who or what God is than most religious people.

EVERY large gathering has mostly misinformed people who follow on faith that those above them in their understanding, have it all figured out. Atheists are no exception.

The Western effort of "free thought" is really not one of "think whatever you like", but rather, "believe what you personally have evidence in rather than taking the word of others."

IF the atheist would actually follow real Science (as he falsely claims), then first he wouldn't be declaring the non-existence of God, and secondly, I would most probably be standing right along beside him.

So in reality, the fundamentalist atheist is merely one of the VERY many who make declarations about things that they personally have no understanding of (just as the fundamentalist Christian.) They merely follow what they think others were saying and fight for the wrong cause by mistake.

SOME (very few) atheists actually have an understanding of what they are proclaiming. This is not to say that they are right or wrong, but merely that they actually have a logical foundation for what they claim. These are the few sane atheists even if incorrect in their conclusions.

These few are not the fundamentalists, but actual real thinkers with some real understanding.

 

[shadowmage36]

What do you mean by "real science," ReluctantProphet? I'm curious as to your definition of the idea, and how not denying God falls into it.

Also, that's an interesting point, CSmrw. I hadn't thought about it from that angle...

 

[Tynan]

The question of whether there are fundamentalist atheists is largely meaningless as atheism in its clearest understanding means nothing more than to lack a belief in gods (singular or multiple).

So I suppose the obvious question that would come from this notion is what would be the difference between a fundamentalist atheist and a non-fundamentalist atheist ?

How would we define a fundamentalist atheist ?

I disagree that ALL atheists agree to an "unambiguous idea".

The atheist doesn't know any more of who or what God is than most religious people.

The atheist does not think gods exist.

The idea that there is confusion amongst atheits as to 'who or what god is' rather misses the point of atheism !

Is there confusion amongst Christians as to the nature of 'Zeus'

Does the Christian not know any more of who or what Zeus is than most religious people ?

EVERY large gathering has mostly misinformed people who follow on faith that those above them in their understanding, have it all figured out. Atheists are no exception.

The very point of athesim is that things should not be taken on 'faith' and that an overall lack of evidence for the existence of Zeus or Molloch or Shiva compels one to dismiss them along with fairies and goblins.

The Western effort of "free thought" is really not one of "think whatever you like", but rather, "believe what you personally have evidence in rather than taking the word of others."

I Agree.

IF the atheist would actually follow real Science (as he falsely claims), then first he wouldn't be declaring the non-existence of God, and secondly, I would most probably be standing right along beside him.

Atheism makes no allegiance to science, it is simply a the name we give to those who do not think gods exist.

Why would following 'real science' (whatever that may be, you fail to explain?) lead to a declaration of gods existence ? Could you expand on this ?

So in reality, the fundamentalist atheist is merely one of the VERY many who make declarations about things that they personally have no understanding of

This is quite right, I have no understanding of the Christian god, I hear nothing from it, see nothing from it, It does not contact me or make itself visible, it does not save my friends lives when they die in road accidents, nor does it help my family from poverty or protect me from disease, I do not see it protect the multitudes from Tsunami and famine nor war and accident.

I have no evidence of its existence, I have no knowledge of its existence, I have no understanding of this god.

Much like the goblins and fairies and Zeus and Molloch and Vampires that I cannot see I make the declaration that this god simply does not exist.

Is this unreasonable ?

They merely follow what they think others were saying and fight for the wrong cause by mistake.

I don't recall that famous battle 'The Agnostics V the Atheists' ?

It is comic to suggest the atheist is lead by peer pressure when put in the context of millennia of religious indoctrination

SOME (very few) atheists actually have an understanding of what they are proclaiming. This is not to say that they are right or wrong, but merely that they actually have a logical foundation for what they claim. These are the few sane atheists even if incorrect in their conclusions.

What do you base these 'figures' on ?

Where can I see research to show the vast majority of those who do not invest themselves in the belief that Zeus exists have done so out of peer pressure ?

 

[ReluctantProphet]

The question of whether there are fundamentalist atheists is largely meaningless as atheism in its clearest understanding means nothing more than to lack a belief in gods (singular or multiple).

So I suppose the obvious question that would come from this notion is what would be the difference between a fundamentalist atheist and a non-fundamentalist atheist ?

How would we define a fundamentalist atheist ?



The atheist does not think gods exist.

The idea that there is confusion amongst atheists as to 'who or what god is' rather misses the point of atheism !

No, the point is that the atheist declares that something doesn't exist when he doesn't know what it is that he is declaring non-existent.

The fundamentalist is one who accepts the superficial interpretation of something and follows his thoughts from that "fundamental" perspective.

The "non-fundamentalist atheist" would be one who understands what a god is and then declares that God is something in particular that could not logically exist.

The non-fundamentalist atheist is at least sane even if not correct.

The entire issue of fundamentalism in any group is one of truly understanding or merely taking things on face value.

 

[CSmrw]

I disagree that ALL atheists agree to an "unambiguous idea".

The atheist doesn't know any more of who or what God is than most religious people.

EVERY large gathering has mostly misinformed people who follow on faith that those above them in their understanding, have it all figured out. Atheists are no exception.

The Western effort of "free thought" is really not one of "think whatever you like", but rather, "believe what you personally have evidence in rather than taking the word of others."

IF the atheist would actually follow real Science (as he falsely claims), then first he wouldn't be declaring the non-existence of God, and secondly, I would most probably be standing right along beside him.

So in reality, the fundamentalist atheist is merely one of the VERY many who make declarations about things that they personally have no understanding of (just as the fundamentalist Christian.) They merely follow what they think others were saying and fight for the wrong cause by mistake.

SOME (very few) atheists actually have an understanding of what they are proclaiming. This is not to say that they are right or wrong, but merely that they actually have a logical foundation for what they claim. These are the few sane atheists even if incorrect in their conclusions.

These few are not the fundamentalists, but actual real thinkers with some real understanding.

Atheism is the lack of belief in Gods. Every atheist has this lack of belief. So every atheist is a fundamental atheist. Whatever else you want to add to that single, unanbiguous precept is your own garbage.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Atheism is the lack of belief in Gods. Every atheist has this lack of belief. So every atheist is a fundamental atheist. Whatever else you want to add to that single, unanbiguous precept is your own garbage.

Ask an atheist "What is a god?"

What you get is an expression of his disbelief in them. He doesn't tell you what one is other than being something fictional. Different atheists can define what a god is such as to give credibility to their belief. This separates some from others based on what they believe a god to be.

The fundamentalists are those who declare that the thing doesn't exist even though they haven't looked into exactly what it actually is, fictional or not.

They are contrasted from the non-fundamentalists by whether they gained a clear understanding of what they are talking about BEFORE they made declarations concerning it.

If a fundamentalist is merely one who agrees with a declaration of the entirey group, then ALL Christians would have to be fundamentalists as well. They all declare that God DOES exist. The fundamentalist is different than merely someone who believes or disbelieves something.

The same holds true for EVERY organization, religious or not.

 

[CSmrw]

Atheism is the lack of belief in Gods. Any superfluous modifiers are irrelevant to that simple, unambiguous definition. Ask any atheist if they believe in God and they will say "No". Ask them "why" and I don't care what happens. If you chage their minds, or demonstrate some aspect of God believing they hadn't considered so that they DO believe in Gods and they cease being atheist.

 

[Tynan]

Ask an atheist "What is a god?"

What you get is an expression of his disbelief in them. He doesn't tell you what one is other than being something fictional.

Could you answer your own question ?

What is a god ?

 

[variant]

No, the point is that the atheist declares that something doesn't exist when he doesn't know what it is that he is declaring non-existent.

To be fair it would be impossible to understand all possible Gods, and all presumed Gods, and only then declare all such Gods to be non-existent.

I doubt a Christian such as you, understands all the Gods they claim to be non-existent either, perhaps we should doubt your sanity.

The Atheist generally says "I don't see any evidence for any God, and therefore I don't believe any exist", which pretty much covers every God that is likely to be proposed to them.

The fundamentalist is one who accepts the superficial interpretation of something and follows his thoughts from that "fundamental" perspective.

What "something" are you talking about? This proposition makes little sense to me. What is fundamental to atheism about being superficial?

You are not using any definition of fundamental that I am familiar with.

The "non-fundamentalist atheist" would be one who understands what a god is and then declares that God is something in particular that could not logically exist.

Again it is impossible to understand what God is for even a theist, or to understand all propositions of what God might be to different people.

This is completely unnecessary for the atheist to see no evidence of God, and be unconvinced by the claims of any particular theist that they have come across.

The only fundamental proposition of atheism is that they don't believe in any Gods.

The non-fundamentalist atheist is at least sane even if not correct.

Based on what? Rooting through the ancient texts of all the possible Gods that they don't believe exist for lack of evidence?

Do YOU understand all the possible Gods that you deny exist? Do you even claim to understand your own God?

The entire issue of fundamentalism in any group is one of truly understanding or merely taking things on face value.

It seems to me you just don't have the power to imagine that you are wrong, or that there are other perspectives of "what God is" that you don't understand.

You also don't seem to understand that most atheists don't believe in God because they don't see any evidence for one, which is a perfectly rational conclusion and doesn’t require a lifetime of effort, digging through holy texts to understand fully what they don't believe in.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Could you answer your own question ?

What is a god ?

Yes, I can, else I would make no presumption as to whether one existed or not. But I won't because that is not the topic of this thread and the ensuing discussion would be long and arguous.

 

[variant]

Yes, I can, else I would make no presumption as to whether one existed or not. But I won't because that is not the topic of this thread and the ensuing discussion would be long and arguous.

Ok, so, what is fundamental about an atheist not knowing what the concept of God is?

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Ok, so, what is fundamental about an atheist not knowing what the concept of God is?

The discussion topic concerns whether a fundamentalist atheist could or does exist. A rational person would consider what it means to be a fundamentalist, thus I raised the issue.

I assert that a "fundamentalist" is one who takes the meaning of something on face value void of deeper understanding of what that thing might actually mean, thus "fundamental" and void of thorough understanding.

 

[variant]

The discussion topic concerns whether a fundamentalist atheist could or does exist. A rational person would consider what it means to be a fundamentalist, thus I raised the issue.

I assert that a "fundamentalist" is one who takes the meaning of something on face value void of deeper understanding of what that thing might actually mean, thus "fundamental" and void of thorough understanding.

I really have no idea where your coming up with this definition though.

When not talking about Christian fundamentalism, but rather just "fundamentalism" this is the definition that generally applies:

2 : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles *Islamic fundamentalism* *political fundamentalism*

Being thoughtless about what you believe in is not the essence of fundamentalism. It is the adherence to a basic set of principles that is the key. While hard line belief in a basic set of principles often gives some the appearance of thoughtlessness or superficiality, it is by no means necessary to being a fundamentalist.

Atheism only really has one fundamental principle which can be strictly adhered to, and that is that atheists don't believe in a God.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Atheism only really has one fundamental principle which can be strictly adhered to, and that is that atheists don't believe in a God.

If you want to use that definition of what a fundamentalist is, then ALL groups religous or not, are fundamentalists. Thus the word has lost all meaning other than its connotation of something negative.

Using the word in that way merely places you into the group of people who aspire to destroy ALL organization into chaos with the naive faith that something better will rise from the ashes.

You might want to see the movie "The Fifth Element" and consider what they are actually referring to beyond the surface.

 

[variant]

If you want to use that definition of what a fundamentalist is, then ALL groups religous or not, are fundamentalists. Thus the word has lost all meaning other than its connotation of something negative.

Using the word in that way merely places you into the group of people who aspire to destroy ALL organization into chaos with the naive faith that something better will rise from the ashes.

You might want to see the movie "The Fifth Element" and consider what they are actually referring to beyond the surface.

No, it would make every group that had a strict adherence to a basic set of principles fundamentalists.

I am sure Merriam Webster’s and I, are in the business of the nihilistic destruction of society because we don't agree with your perceptions on what a fundamentalist is.

 

[shadowmage36]

Actually, when you come down to it, a Christian fundamentalist would actually be someone who followed the two great commandments Christ gave: To love your God above all else, and love your neighbor as yourself.

Modern Christian fundamentalism, as we know it, however, is based on a series of lectures written in the early 1900's called "The Fundamentals of Christianity," by Charles Foster Kent.

But that's of no concern here.

It would seem that an atheist fundamentalist is one who merely believes that no gods of any sort exist. They don't need to have any other beliefs than that. In fact, according to current discussion, it would seem that any beliefs beyond that would make them not a true fundamentalist atheist.

Am I correct in this summarization of the thread so far?

 

[ReluctantProphet]

No, it would make every group that had a strict adherence to a basic set of principles fundamentalists.

I am sure Merriam Webster’s and I, are in the business of the nihilistic destruction of society because we don't agree with your perceptions on what a fundamentalist is.

Webster's intent was to distinguish the strict from the unstrict or vague.

Jesus' declaration as one of His principles was "either you are with Me or against Me." Those who are sometimes with, automatically fall into the category of being against. This probabily includes the entirety of Christianity or close to it.

The only thing distinguishing those who are strictly adhering is their understanding of the principles. Thus it is the understanding that divides the fundamentalist from the non-fundamentalist even though that was not Websters thought at the time. It is still the consequence.

The atheist only has the statement, "If you call it "god" (whatever that might mean) then I don't believe in it."

This would be saying that if the word "god" came to mean an automobile, then an atheist is only someone who doesn't believe in automobiles.

The atheist is not trying to say that he doesn't believe in the word, yet as a whole, THEY have expressed no other uniform understanding. This means that some must understand (and thus strictly adhere) what a "god" is so as to not believe in it, where others have a different understanding of what a god is. This divides them.

The result is that some will say, "I don't believe in god", but when you look at what they DO believe in, you will find that thing that was being referred to as "god" is included. This means that there are going to be atheists who do not strictly adhere simply because they had no undersanding of what a god was.

Thus you have fundamentalist, and non-fundamentalist within the same group even though they only make one statement.

The fundamentalist strictly adheres only to what he understands to be the intent. When that intent is not specified as any more than a word void of definition, then how can there be any strictness other than avoiding the word itself?

Is that what you are saying an atheist really is, just someone who doesn't believe in the word "god"?

If not, then you can only distinguish a fundamentalist from a non-fundamentalist by the degree of understanding they carry. The atheist has no unified, defined understanding of what "god" means.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

EVERYONE strictly follows their own understanding, they just don't have the same understanding as the original intent.