Atheist Fundamentalist?

[variant]

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

That is simply wrong, not everyone’s understandings are based on the strict adherence to principles. Some people are rather contradictory in their understandings and not strict about relying on principles at all.


You simply are misunderstanding the definition. You do not have to be a fundamentalist to have a particular viewpoint, and you may have fundimentalist viewpoints on some things and not on others.

For instance, I am a Libertarian, but I am not a fundamentalist Libertarian. I see the values of Libertarianism as a useful guide in my political leanings, but do not strictly follow them when I see that they lead to ends I do not like.

My viewpoint is a compromise between the ideal of my political philosophy and the reality of their consequences, and thus I am not a fundamentalist Libertarian.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

That is simply wrong, not everyone’s understandings are based on the strict adherence to principles. Some people are rather contradictory in their understandings and not strict about relying on principles at all.

In this, you are restricting their behavior in adherence to only what they consciously understand. People do far more than what they consciously understand. Many people have little or no conscious understanding of hardly anything, yet they adhere to consistent principles. They just don't understand or have knowledge of what they are. But some deeper part of their mind is keeping them consistent to the degree of ITS understanding.

 

[variant]

In this, you are restricting their behavior in adherence to only what they consciously understand. People do far more than what they consciously understand. Many people have little or no conscious understanding of hardly anything, yet they adhere to consistent principles. They just don't understand or have knowledge of what they are. But some deeper part of their mind is keeping them consistent to the degree of ITS understanding.

I am confident in saying that consciousness is implied in the Webster’s definition, so I am excluding strict unconscious adherence to principles to be correctly termed "fundamentalism".

I also have no basis to believe that people are unconsciously consistent.

You can redefine the word however you wish though, it will just add to the rampent nominalism.

 

[Tynan]

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.

LOL ! I thought not !

 

[ReluctantProphet]

LOL ! I thought not !

One would think that even a child might have enough sense to look the word "god" up in a dictionary. I recommend Webster's. The online wiki tends to get very biased as a political tool.

 

[Atheon]

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.

An atheist is simply one who lacks a belief in god in the religious context. As soon as you replace the characteristics of the commonly accepted definition of 'god' it's a whole new ball game.

Atheists don't believe in god because they usually find the definition or concept of god to be illogical or incompatible with reality, as well as being unsupported. Remember anyone can make god whatever they want it to be, it is all relative upon the definition of god. When an atheist states that they lack belief in any god/s, that doesn't necessarily entail every god that has existed, or is still yet to exist. It generally refers to the accepted gods of all of the mainstream religions in the world, and I think most reasonable people would accept this position.

However atheism is also the default position. One could say "How can you not believe in god (my god)" when this 'god' could literally be anything. The burden of proof lies on the one making the claim, and it is up to the theist (or more importantly the god itself) to present their case for the existence of god/their god to the atheist in order for the atheist to accept the claim as true. If they fail then they will still remain an atheist in respect to all gods. It is a more rational position to take as opposed to believing and accepting everything, then trying to eliminate what is false. Nothing is known until we experience it in some fashion, and the same can be said for ‘god’. We gain knowledge from acquisition, not from deduction.

 

[Tynan]

One would think that even a child might have enough sense to look the word "god" up in a dictionary. I recommend Webster's. The online wiki tends to get very biased as a political tool.

Dearest 'ReluctantProphet' (!)

I had presumed from your protestations over an atheists understanding of 'god' that simply looking up the word in a dictionary would not suffice as an indepth understanding ?

You appear to be talking about atheists not having a clear undestanding of the subject at hand - and when asked for your own understanding reply that you can simply look the word "god" up in a dictionary ?

OK - done, I have looked up the word using the recommended tool (Webster's) - I understood the definition - am I now a 'non-fundamentalist atheist' ?

Unlike yourself I am no prophet (reluctant or otherwise) so perhaps I do not share your special insight and wisdom of the subject - perhaps regardless of what I say or do I will never have your special knowledge ?