Evangelical / Fundamentalist Atheism as an ad hominem

I've written about this sort of thing previously, but some of the things that I've read recently made me think that it might be useful to open another discussion on this sort of topic.

I've been coming to R/T for a while, and I don't post unless I think I have something worthwhile to say, which translates to me spending most of my time lurking around here. There is, however, one thing that I'd like to address, and that is the use of the terms fundamentalist or evangelical atheism.

To begin, here are a couple of observations:

The terms are almost exclusively used by theists.
The terms are almost exclusively used in a context of expressing distaste.

Now, being that this is a liberal message board, it's perhaps not a shocker that most of us have a dislike of fundamentalists and evangelicals, as (among other things) they tend to be extremely conservative in their politics.

I'm sure that most of that seems readily apparent to you, but I wanted to flesh it all out in order to make the case that using those terms is more of an ad hominem attack or inflammatory bomb-throwing than anything else.

Perhaps some people who use these terms don't mean them as an attack, but rather mean to engage in honest communication. However, when you use those terms you're pretty much screwing the pooch in terms of dialoge with someone else as you're essentially calling them names at the outset. Sometimes, people use these terms even over the objection of atheists, as for one there is the implication that atheism is a religion - which it is not.

It seems to me that there are better ways to describe certain behaviors instead of using the monikers of evangelical or fundamentalist. Strident, assertive, stubborn, or even assholery are just a few terms that come to mind that don't carry near the same amount of baggage that the aforementioned terms do.

Some of you might be tempted to think "But atheism really is a religion!" Of course, calling atheism a religion is really just a dressed-down version of the evangelical / fundamentalist attack. That, however, is another post entirely.

I understand that there is a lot of emotional baggage attached to this debate, and that for many people their religion is a part of their identity. That being said, I can see why when people attack their religion, some will feel that they personally are being attacked. In my view, it is quite legitimate to assert flaws with a system of thought without projecting those same flaws onto people who think differently.

At least, that's my .02.

This is a very illuminative post. I always find the fundamentalist/evangelical label ironic because it demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of atheists. The assertion that atheism is itself a religion is a result of the very same inability to understand another's beliefs that I often see atheists accused of, especially here in R/T.

That is not to say that no atheists are close-minded or dogmatic in their opposition to the religious. But being an asshole is not enough to equate an atheist to a religious fundamentalist. There are many dimensions to fundamentalism, and aggression in debates is not an overriding characteristic.

it's mostly about pre-emptively smecking the other person in the schnozz, before any glimmer of an idea about schnozz-smecking has crossed the other person's tiny mind :woohoo:

Smecking schnozzes is actually hard and thankless work. I have discovered that people, whose schnozzes I have smecked, sometimes become rude and hostile, even after I politely explain that their carelessness has scuffed my knuckles

But of course we patriots have a sacred duty to tell the truth. You are trying to tell me that I must keep silent, even when I honestly believe my opponent is the illegitimate and syphilitic offspring of a whorish baboon? Fie, shame, and a bit more fie on you! Those of us who have insight, also have a moral obligation to go mug our enemies in the marketplace of ideas. As I already pointed out, real Americans intuitively understand this

along these lines is that they equate atheism (a lack of belief in gods) with anti-religionism (a conviction that organized religion, or at least certain flavors of it, is and has been detrimental and destructive to society). While the two are often expressed by the same people, they need not be, and they are most certainly not the same. It's entirely possible to believe in a personal god and still think that organized religion is corrupt, foolish and harmful, and it is also possible to be an atheist and still harbor no hostile or critical feelings towards religion.

It is strident and vocal anti-religionism that people are really reacting to when they fling the "fundamentalist atheist" label, though they rarely realize it, even when they are challenged to show how a lack of belief can be "fundamentalist".

That's a really good point.

They're entirely wrong. In order to be "fundamentalist," you have to have a fundamental text you believe in that cannot be altered or changed in any way and must be stuck to with great fervor. That doesn't apply to atheists at all. Not at all. Non-believers do not have a text, and even if you try to say they stick to their non-belief with great fervor, I've never seen anyone do it all the same, which is often true of fundamentalists.

In order to be "evangelical," you have to believe in a central dogma that everyone has to believe in, and it has to be your mission to tell everyone about that dogma and try to get them to believe in it. While I've run into some atheists here who have sounded a bit more persuasive of their position, it's not dogma, and they don't have any consequences for those who don't follow them.

The reality is, most of the time, atheists and agnostics here have good points about how nasty and horrible some Christians have been, especially over our 2,000 year history. Turn about is fair play, too--if they're the minority in society, they're not here, and they can have their say, which is what they get from us Christians in everyday real life.

I infrequently lurk and rarely post.
Encounters with “fundamentalist or evangelical atheism” put me off

In a nut shell- On this board I once dared suggest that the Islamic civilization bore fruit of which we are all recipients. This immediately provoked the expectation (from an atheist) that I should defend the Korans description of “Solomon talking to an ant” and that this verse be taken literally.
When I declined to interpret the verse literally I was deemed (by another atheist) to be just like all the other fundamentalists resorting to hiding behind metaphor and symbolism when it suits me.
And so it went…I was deemed a fundamentalist theist for >not< accepting the literal interpretation of verse from a (said) ‘Holy Book’ and this pov was being presented by devout atheists……go figure.
Any and all attempts to reiterate the original pov (fruits of Islam) evoked naught but reference to terrorism, female genital mutilation or dripping sarcasm emoticons.

Sure….” conservative politics” is a frequent indicator of fundamentalism…so too is insular closed minded arrogance, steadfast literalism, the refusal to hear the others pov and the refusal to answer polite pertinent questions regarding ones own.
Despite the claim to a ‘liberal’ political perspective all of these hallmarks of ‘fundamentalist or evangelical atheism’ are frequently displayed on this board.

I have indeed previously used the term ‘fundamentalist atheist’ on this board…I did so not to engage in “ad hominem attack or inflammatory bomb-throwing” at any individual but in response to clear and consistent >behaviour<…
ie The preparedness to so go locked and loaded for evangelical Christians that any sign of appreciation of a religions contribution is signal to open fire with straw man misrepresentation.

As an outsider I try to factor in that the US has a huge problem with evangelicals and the conservative Christian right and I keep in mind that many are still touchy about Islam since 9/11.

But I’m telling you frankly, as a non American agnostic, this board is (moreoften) a shitfest of “fundamentalist or evangelical atheism” that cannot tolerate even the suggestion that a religion made historical contribution to humanity without responding with hostility and bizarre attack.

“I can see why when people attack their religion, some will feel that they personally are being attacked. In my view, it is quite legitimate to assert flaws with a system of thought without projecting those same flaws onto people who think differently”. Varkum

Can you likewise see that when people speak positively of a religion that “some will feel that they personally are being attacked”?...that their atheism is thereby threatened or challenged?...and that whoever speaks of religion in positive terms must be a believer and (no doubt) a fundamentalist to boot and thereby becomes an immediate target…?

"you're pretty much screwing the pooch in terms of dialog"

If that is not your intent, perhaps you should reconsider your language.

I accept a lot of what the OP claims; but, the OP fails to acknowledge that the ad hominems come from both sides in this forum. It's clear that name-calling is a fairly typical form of "argument" on message boards. Participants in message board discussions have to decide whether they want to argue reasonably, or through name-calling.

I have seen him being critical of ad hominems from all sides. He is addressing the "fundamentalist atheist" issue because there are recent examples of this problem here in R/T.

Varkam is always reasonable and respectful!

“, the OP fails to acknowledge that the ad hominems come from both sides in this forum.”

I didn’t have a “side”, I didn’t come here with a “side”, I didn’t post anything affirming, denying, attacking or supporting one “side” or the other.

I’m an agnostic and I committed the sin of suggesting the Islamic civilization bore fruit (social, artistic, scientific) of which we are all recipients.
For doing so I was immediately expected to interpret a verse from the Koran literally...declining to do so >I WAS APPOINTED A SIDE< = “No different than bible-bangers”

Simple as that…I either accept that ‘Solomon speaking to an ant’ is to be read literally
or I’m guilty of trying to determine it for myself and on the bible-bangers/side”.

I half expected some bigoted flak from the extreme Christian right for recognizing Islams contribution but it >all< came from the atheist camp and it didn’t stop.

“Participants in message board discussions have to decide whether they want to argue reasonably, or through name-calling.”

Your right…and if they persist in unreasonable arguments demanding literal interpretation of scripture and engage in “bible-banger” name calling I will take that on the chin, fire a couple of warning shots…and…after a couple of weeks… when it is made perfectly clear that your “side” is irrevocably determined … I will call this behaviour what it is ‘Fundamentalist/Evangelical Atheism’.
Hard line biggoted and agressive anti religious atheism.
The atheism that not only does not believe in God but is virulently opposesed to anyone who does and/or anyone who recognises/advocates any good ever stemming from religion. The atheism that cannot conceptualise that there is a >middle< to “both sides in this forum.”

But no matter how you try to justify your own behavior you engaged in ad hominem attack or inflammatory bomb-throwing when you use these offensive labels.

If you are so worried about a specific behavior you should focus on that behavior with the person you are having problems with rather than throwing offensive labels trying to group others. Otherwise you are just another contributor to the flame posts you claim to be speaking out against here in R/T.

You claim that you infrequently lurk and rarely post here in R/T but don't you think it would be more effective and more worthwhile to use these rare occasions to post something positive trying to set a tone?

Foremost, I never said that attacks only come from one side. There are, however, some pretty good recent examples of the type of thing which I posted on that got in the way of any sort of meaningful dialogue.

Also, when you use the fundamentalist moniker, you are engaging in an ad hominem - which is the point that I tried to address in the OP. As I wrote, there are better ways to describe behavior without resorting to such tactics that are not likely to improve the situation any.

But I’m telling you frankly, as a non American agnostic, this board is (moreoften) a shitfest of “fundamentalist or evangelical atheism” that cannot tolerate even the suggestion that a religion made historical contribution to humanity without responding with hostility and bizarre attack.

It is a discussion board, and there are going to be people with a ride range of opinions, and some will be strident in their expression of said opinions - nevertheless, it still doesn't justify using the terms fundamentalist or evangelical (which, again, was the point of the OP).

Can you likewise see that when people speak positively of a religion that “some will feel that they personally are being attacked”?...that their atheism is thereby threatened or challenged?...and that whoever speaks of religion in positive terms must be a believer and (no doubt) a fundamentalist to boot and thereby becomes an immediate target…?

I believe that I have spoken of religion in positive terms at times, and I have not been called a fundamentalist and become an immediate target. Most of the posts that I read on DU (and I read a lot of them) that speak positively of religion are not pulled through the muck. There are some asshole atheists, to be sure, as there are with any group of people.

Even still, it doesn't justify evangelism or fundamentalism (which is the point of the...yeah).

For my money, I only think I have personally been called that once or twice, and it doesn't bug me too much personally. My investment in this topic stems from my belief that we should use language as accurately as possible, and that we should try to be respectful of one another (even when people are not respectful to us).

“ we should try to be respectful of one another (even when people are not respectful to us)”……….?

I tried to have a respectful discussion with you months ago regarding why terms such as ‘fundamentalist atheist’ might arise or be deployed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=153375&mesg_id=153546

I described the (DU atheist) demand/expectation that scripture be read literally
You responded-
“I think that is a straw man. I don't think that there are any atheists that "demand that all Scripture be read and interpreted literally"
I disposed of your ‘straw man’ assertion by providing five examples of just such literalist expectation from DU atheists and you cut/ignored all of them only to lay down a blatant straw man of your own-
“I think the problem is simply that you know no better than anyone else what is supposed to be taken metaphorically or literally.”

I had never said/suggested/claimed >any< kind of “better” knowledge than “anyone else” as to “what is supposed to be taken metaphorically or literally”
…I had simply refused the incessant atheist demand/expectation that ‘Solomon talking to an ant’ was a literal event and refused to accept that my inclination towards metaphor in this instance made me a “Bible Banger”.

My “respectful” objections were initially shat on with the devastating deployment of dripping sarcasm emoticons and the advise that “ Participants who want to play in R/T on DU have to grow a set of steel balls” then followed by your riding shotgun/blow me off straw man bullshit about thinking I “know no better than anyone else what is supposed to be taken metaphorically or literally”.

Asserting ‘straw man’ havening it disproved, cutting/ignoring the evidence provided and then dispensing your own blatant straw man is not trying “to be respectful of one another” Varkam…it’s just riding shotgun and providing cover for the fundamentalist atheists who (clearly and unquestionably) picked a fight with a suspected ‘Bible Banger’ and made dam sure he knew whos “side” he was going to be on.

Frankly I hold the current concerns about the ‘accuracy’ of describing atheists as ‘fundamentalists’ and the calls for ‘respectful’ discussion to be hypocritical bullshit. No one, repeat, no one gave a rats arse about the incessant misrepresentation of my pov or the name calling that followed over several weeks.

Having proposed-

“When the immediate response to the mention of the fruits of Islamic civilization is the expectation that their “good book” be taken exclusively literally then I worry.
But then again I live right next door to 196,281,020 Muslims….and I don’t think they “Hate our freedoms” ”

The Varkam straw man speculation about what I >might think< invites me to “snuggle up” with the whole of the muslim world (read innuendo - including terrorists)-

“..the worst thing that a Muslim fundamnetalist will do is fly planes into buildings. If you think the whole of the muslim world wants to be our friend, then you are welcome to go snuggle up with them”.

It's bullshit Varkam...you ignore the point made and reach for straw man speculation leading to innuendo.


Before or after I drew on the behaviour descriptor ‘fundamentalist atheist’ there was no ‘respectful’ discussion…there was just an incessant compulsion to paint everything religious as evil and to insult, demean and misrepresent anyone who had a good word for it.

If (any) are insulted or offended by the descriptor ‘fundamentalist atheist’ then they had best be prepared to take a good honest look at what preceded and provoked it.

“ we should try to be respectful of one another (even when people are not respectful to us)”……….?

I tried to have a respectful discussion with you months ago regarding why terms such as ‘fundamentalist atheist’ might arise or be deployed

Gasp! You mean to say that I'm human? Perish the thought. Though I will say that in over two years of posting around here, I have not once had a post removed for a violation. The same can certainly not be said for others. The keyword in that sentence is "try". I'm sure that, if you keep digging around, you're bound to find more instances of assholery on my part.

I had typed out a whole post responding to you, point by point, but by the time it was over I realized that reviving a months-old discussion with you isn't going to end well. For the time being, though, I will just say that I don't see how anything of what you wrote from that discussion has anything to do with the OP - other than an attempt to make me out a hypocrite. I do not see, though, how my belief that we should try to be respectful to one another and my occasional assholery at are loggerheads. I'm sorry that I offended you last November, however.

:hi:

Don’t know….from this distance it’s too hard to tell and establishing either proposition was never my interest or intent ;-)

“occasional assholery”?
Yes…I’m familiar with the complaint having suffered same for many years.
Have determined that when my (or any other) arse hollers it is prudent to pay some heed….however scant.

“…I don't see how anything of what you wrote from that discussion has anything to do with the OP”

Ok…I’ll try again and pre-empt with a disclaimer on making any individual out as anything.

“…using those terms is more of an ad hominem attack or inflammatory bomb-throwing than anything else”.

Problem is…it (Fundamentalist Atheism) may also (or more so) be a valid description of a real condition.
I was going to make a thread of the proposition- ‘Hallmarks and Symptoms of Evangelical Fundamentalist Atheism’.
And I’m pretty sure I can set forward (drawing on my own experience alone) a strong case built on numerous concrete examples.(And to hell with definitional quibbles)

Two things dissuade me from the thread option- 1/ There is more than ample humanity and generosity in your prior post to persuade me towards the ‘trying’ to avoid overt provocative assholery. 2/ The provision of supporting evidence and examples drawn from the board will inevitably lead others to conclude they (personally) are being made out as hypocritical…or worse.

None the less, here in this cull de sac, quietly and discreetly and without intent of ad hom animosity….I wish to suggest that there may well be a ‘Fundamentalist Atheism’ the central symptom of which is a virulent contempt for and hostility towards any and all things religious. I believe it manifests on this board with the hair trigger preparedness to assume someone is a believer or pushing a religious barrow with no more provocation than mention of an (even historical) positive aspect of religion. The responses are all to often not to the presented pov but to the assumed, imagined and projected ‘Bible banger’ they think they have their hands on. In fact the number of responding post that contain or are based on straw man- “I suppose you think” and other assumed psychic insights is phenomenal. Most of the discussion necessitates constant- “No… I never thought, said or inferred that…”.

“I'm sorry that I offended you last November, however” Varkam

Appreciated but unnecessary…it wasn’t a personal affront…it was that (once more) the pov/points presented got lost at each turn in a ‘Paint it Black’ ping pong match. And, in the end, I wasn’t prepared to fight my way through what the Catholics did to Galileo, the Dark Ages, The Crusades or “Science did not progress because of religion; it progressed in spite of it”…….just to maybe oneday obtain scant recognition of the historical reality of Avicinna or Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi and his Algebra or any of the other abundant fruits of Islam (or other faiths).

All the best.

Couldn't have said it any better. That's why there is no discussion of "theology" in the "Theology Forum" -- the fundamentalist atheists just use this forum to bash anyone who dares discuss religion in an intelligent way.

The central point is this: The term "fundamentalist atheist" is not an attack, insult, or ad hominem comment. It is an objective description of the way some people behave and what they believe.

Ruling it out of order, as some sort of insult, is basically saying that certain thoughts may not be thought on this board.

shouldn't be on the board, right? That is the subtext of your post. As long as the atheists shut up, all will be fine.

You don't even get the irony, do you?

Unaware of irony. I wish I could build some sort of mirror, where people would see themselves as they really are.

If folk wanna "bash" then let them bash away...but if that's >ALL< they have got, just bash no substance, then it becomes booring, stupid and nasty.

but I don't think that is the reality (that there is just bash and no substance). And I used the word subtext because I do think that is the point of many of HR's posts--that the nasty atheists should just go away.

...but there is a "subtext" that indicates "that the nasty atheists should just go away"?

My reading of HR's text (explicit) was that the bashing (being "nasty") was unnecessary and unproductive.

There was nothing in the post that indicated "shut up" or "go away" rather- the bashing behaviour is not conducive to discussion.... subtext-Let's have a look at the behaviour.


"I don't think that is the reality (that there is just bash and no substance)".

Now…I may have this wrong but…HR’s is an atheist?...and I’m an agnostic…and we’re both raising the issue (along with a host of believers) of a clique/culture of atheists that are so militant/hostile/fundamentally contemptuous/hateful towards all things religious that even non believers get bashed as “Bible bangers”….but you don’t think “that is the reality” ?

How many concrete examples would be required to establish the “reality” of a “just bash and no substance” culture?

the "members of the clique" that are responding in here been "fundmantally contemptuous/hateful towards all things religous." I just don't believe that is an accurate statement of my band of merry atheists.

And just so you do pay attention to things, take a look at whose post has been deleted. I'll give you a hint, it is not a member of the horde but someone you list as being on your side.

>"He's damn fucking right we're dangerous.
There is nothing more dangerious to religious assholes than a free mind. That's why they keep trying to kill us. Fuck Hedges, fuck christianity, and fuck religion.
Religion is the lamest thing on the freakin planet. I've said it once, I'll say it again. I would be embarrased if I believed in a religion".<

I'm guessing the desire expressed is to procreate and produce more religion?
That would be literal, logical and fit within dictionary definitions.

"Religion is the lamest thing on the freakin planet"..."fuck christianity, and fuck religion"

At very least the author comes out and gives voice to the contempt most others display through disingenuous misrepresentation, straw man, assumed psychic abilities and ignoring/evading the pertinent question.
So points for up front honesty at least.

>"...some of us may sound like we have no respect for someone-or-other's religion. This may be because we don't!"<

And why should anyone have any respect for any religion at any level? ""Religion is the lamest thing on the freakin planet"..."fuck christianity, and fuck religion"

All the religious art, architecture, music, schools, hospitals, welfare agencies......"fuck it all"
Completely lame and stupid.

>"It does not take a lot of words to show that religion is "superstition, ignorance, dementia, irrationality, and so on"<

That's all religion is, was or ever will be "ignorance" and "dementia"....unworthy of any respect whatsoever....."fuck christianity, and fuck religion"

>"Not being a part of said religion means just that. Not a part. So Christians (Muslims, Hindus, Whatever) occupy no more psychic space in my brain than Yankees fans or Wedgewood collectors. This can lead to flippancy."<

"Flippancy"?....Nooooooooooooooooooooo.......Never!

Not when there is complete contempt to be displayed.

"fuck christianity, and fuck religion"

>THAT'S< the spirit!

I don't remember saying anything about dementia though.

As to the fuck christianity, fuck religion thing...well......

Fuck christianity and fuck religion. I don't like either of them..have I ever said anything but that? And I especially don't Hedges. He really fucking sucks. And if some of the religious duers weren't so hypocritocal, they wouldn't like him either.

I mean...here is a guy who basically calls Dawkin a "new atheist" and puts him alongside that piece of shit Hitchens and calls them "as dangerous as religious fundies". Oh yeah....riihgggght.

Now if that isn't a fucking moron remark, I don't know what is. Then he titles his shitty ass article "I don't believe in atheists". Pretty fucking inflamatory. Which is not a problem for me, unless others have a problem with me, being on the other side, saying things that are also inflammatory.

But then some guy on the internets will find one fucking quote, in one fucking thread, post it out of context, in order to make his fucking dumb ass point.

Do me a favour, will you. Go to my other thread and please ask me to leave.

You'll be doing me a favour, because then I won't have to have my words taken out of context in some stupid flamewar, so that some asshole will feel justified in calling me names.

of "fundmantally contemptuous/hateful towards all things religous."

I provided a couple of quotes easily at hand (un attributed to avoid personalization).

“I don't remember saying anything about dementia though”.

It wasn’t attributed to you, authorship is irrelevant, the point/issue is impersonal.
I’m not interested in persons/personalities as the object of or originator of flame.
Insults? Who cares?
Most of it is testosterone driven undergraduate piss and wind…occasionally funny but otherwise not worthy of consideration.


“As to the fuck christianity, fuck religion thing...well......
Fuck christianity and fuck religion. I don't like either of them….”

Ahhh >That’s< the R/T spirit! ;-)
Like I said….points for open honesty.

Your fully entitled not to believe and not to like.
And I’m fully entitled to question and challenge the unwavering depth and degree of such dislike and to examine its implications as reflective of a trend, prevailing attitude or board culture.
And I’ll ask again, as I have several times without answer, what do we think/say /do when the proposition is- “fuck America, fuck the American thing”?.
Fuck America because it’s evil? Fuck America because it’s the Great Satan?

See I’m not worried about- Fuck Hedges or fuck Ironbark they are both jerks…that’s fine by me.

But unwavering and deep-seated prevailing cultures of “Fuck Christianity, fuck religion and/or fuck America” that display no insight into the positives and no preparedness to consider them are a real cause for concern to me (even as a non American agnostic).

:hi:

!!!PARADOX ALERT!!!

The term has no explanatory value. It has no descriptive value. It does not elucidate or illuminate. It is factually incorrect. It has only one purpose, to insult.

If it is the intent to insult a woman, calling her a "son of a bitch" is certainly effective. But there is no other value in that statement but to give offense. And it certainly doesn't elevate the esteem of the insulter to be seen mis-using the language so blatantly.

The same is true for the terms "Evangelical/Fundamentalist Atheist".

My mother-in-law often calls says to my husband: "You son of a bitch!"

I always find it absolutely hysterical.

Name-calling in general is of no value.

In a forum where atheists have a greater relative amount of privilege, they will control that much more of the rhetoric. Name-calling on religious people will frequently enjoy justification, and name-calling on atheists will deemed similarly intolerable.

So it's a power issue over a worthless argument tactic. And there are (broadly) two issues -- the issue of the existence of God, and the issue of power, privilege, and their exercise.

And THEN, you have other arguments to disentangle. For example, why is it an offensive act to classify atheism as religion or religious? There are sound and non-inflammatory arguments for each. You may not accept one or another, and you may have a better argument, but blithely dismissing any substantive claim is only effective among opponents who are stupid or acting in bad faith.

And is it really inflammatory to use "religion" as an epithet? Isn't that really analogous to using "atheist" as a slur?

As a non-believer myself, I understand the pleasure in trashing the tabernacle. But once you take notice of religious issues that are not divisive and tyrannical, you have to find new ways of dealing with the whole schmeer, and that's currently a big stumbling block in the faith/doubt conversation.

Of course, I could be wrong.

--p!

It seems you're engaging in exactly the same fallacious and derogatory attack described in the OP.

After all, what is atheist dogma? Where is it written? Where are the priests to enforce its adherence?

Aren't you complaining rather that atheists refuse to be put into a box and to suffer attempts at proselytizing silently and with a smile? Aren't you really annoyed that atheists refuse to give you lip service so you can be more comfortable in your set of beliefs?

There is no such thing as a dogmatic atheist, it's just one more variation on the theme of fundamentalist or evangelical atheists--another ad hominem.

Perhaps referring to the anger of the newly minted atheist might be more in order, anger that comes from feeling one has been misled from childhood by people who were supposed to be trustworthy. Those of us who were raised in religious households all experienced that anger at some point and were probably rather unpleasant at the time. It passed, though.

However, we still had no dogma to cling to, no savior to evangelize, and no holy writ to give us fundamentals.

Please reconsider such incendiary and demeaning language.

which you'd know had you read the whole post.

in the context in which it is used does not describe any sort of flavor of atheism as you assert, but rather atheistic assholery.

"Dogmatic assholery"?

Duke

songs topped the charts in India a few years ago

I originally wrote more, but realized that you didn't even really read what I wrote. You immediately assumed I'm a theist of some sort, which I am not.

Other baseless assumptions and defamatory accusations followed.

If you want to respond, go back and read what I wrote first.

--p!

You might want to consider your use of the term "dogmatic". That also tends to rub people the wrong way in that in implies that there's a sort of dogma or central text in atheism. If there's one thing about atheists, it's that they're a herd of cats. There's not really any sort of dogma that one adheres to.

In a forum where atheists have a greater relative amount of privilege, they will control that much more of the rhetoric. Name-calling on religious people will frequently enjoy justification, and name-calling on atheists will deemed similarly intolerable.

But on a discussion board with a set of rules to abide by, the forum has nothing to do with it. Name-calling from both sides is regularly removed. If you see something that crosses the line, alert on it.

And THEN, you have other arguments to disentangle. For example, why is it an offensive act to classify atheism as religion or religious? There are sound and non-inflammatory arguments for each. You may not accept one or another, and you may have a better argument, but blithely dismissing any substantive claim is only effective among opponents who are stupid or acting in bad faith.

Why is it offensive? Well, I'm not sure that an explanation is required other than to point out many atheists find it so. Is that not enough to agree that it is offensive?

Also, the offensiveness of a term is completely irrespective to whether or not atheism is a religion - so it wasn't really the point of my OP to address that. I am, though, working from the assumption that it is not because I think that we should use language as it is meant to be used.

And is it really inflammatory to use "religion" as an epithet? Isn't that really analogous to using "atheist" as a slur?

When someone says that they are not religious, and then you tell them that they are...well, you do the math. Likewise, if I went up to a Christian and told them that they really didn't believe in God, I'm sure they would be similarly upset with me.

As a non-believer myself, I understand the pleasure in trashing the tabernacle. But once you take notice of religious issues that are not divisive and tyrannical, you have to find new ways of dealing with the whole schmeer, and that's currently a big stumbling block in the faith/doubt conversation.

I understand that, though I'm not entirely sure what that has to do with the OP.

... one person Jesus based on the four NT gospels, then would that be an idea of a definitely uppity person, a definitely non-uppity person, or neither?

The rational on both sides get no responses. Yet, rational think-tanks contrive to divide us in order to keep Dems away from the voter rich religions.

It's a shame.

Like the walking dead, only with keyboards.

They've successfully driven many people away from DU.

Some people use the ignore feature to avoid them.

We are not allowed to name them on DU posts. (If we were allowed, they'd start the naming as well.)

So, I just note the sniping, the assumptions, the usual. Agitation with propaganda: seems like it to me.

Sorry, just taught that poem on Thursday to my Brit Lit class. Found a chance to use it and jumped on it. Carry on.

Portraits hung in empty halls
frameless heads on nameless walls
with eyes that watch the world and can't forget
like the strangers that you met.
The ragged men in ragged clothes.
A silver thorn a bloody rose
lie crushed and broken on the virgin snow.

Or, the poetry of a website whose motto states: For people who really think they're being heard.

Bye.Bye....

I'd call that irrational or at least extremely unwise.

Lacking heart is indeed extremely unwise. Feeling is first, and to be last. And all the rationale, the intelligence, the wisdom in the world, even as attributable to the icon Solomon, is nothing but noise compared to heart.

At least, that's how I see it.

It was pointed out to me that capable educated engineers developed, planned, and built crematoria for Nazis. No! Education, knowledge, honed abilities, etc. are no replacement for heart, and never will be.

...is a source of basic values, even an atheist rationalist such as myself will agree that you've got to have one. Logic and reason are powerful and necessary tools, but they provide no inherent goals or motivations in and of themselves.

If your idea of "having a heart" means explicitly embracing the irrational, however, explicitly ignoring reason and logic, that I don't buy.

Which side should not matter.

Since we don't understand everything -- yet -- there are times we need to embrace the irrational. (e.g., to figuratively embrace a woman's logic as a man, or vice versa.) In a larger sense, that can be seen as a rational act (unless you like sleeping alone).

Embracing the irrational, does not necessitate ignoring reason nor logic, but, nor does such embrace require reason or logic.

Perhaps, someday, math, physics and even sex will all make perfect sense and logic and reason will be all we will need evermore. Don't hold your breath!

That which is non-rational is not supported by logic and reason, but it doesn't go against it either. Liking the color green is neither rational nor irrational, it is non-rational.


Change that to "embracing the non-rational", and I can agree.

Most of religion, and a lot of so-called "spirituality" as well, is downright irrational, however, not merely non-rational.


Whether it "all make(s) perfect sense" or not hasn't a thing to do with with any "need" for irrationality. What you're saying is beginning to sound like an argument I've heard all to many times before, the argument that starts with "we don't know everything", then makes the giant, blazingly irrational leap to "therefore I can fill in the gaps with whatever suits my fancy, and until you can 100% prove me wrong, whatever I say is as good as whatever any stuffy, close-minded, "linear"-thinking scientist says!"

How many worlds are there in a fishbowl of ten fish? Thirteen?

What I would describe as rational, irrational, or non-rational could be completely different from what you would describe with these words. As example, my significant other might see some line of reasoning as completely rational, where I see it as completely irrational.

Oh, your change. I guess I digressed. If you changed irrational to non-rational, I'd agree also. Note that you did not say that you would disagree if it remained with the word irrational that is a stronger superset of non-rational, so of course it would fit.

Still, if I embrace the most outrageous irrationality, I am not required to drop further rationale nor logic. In fact doing so might send me to a night alone.

I'm a little unsure about the rest of your statements. You seem passionate and even a little miffed. Miffed at people who ... consider themselves on parr with scientists? Perhaps? And, perhaps this won't allow you to address assumptions unless you address it now as the discussion might come to someone saying "...you can ..(not).. prove me wrong," while thinking what they want to think and that their thoughts are as good as another person: a scientist no less?

Look. I'm mad at the Bush administration changing scientific results. But, they do that for money, not for heartfelt concerns for US.

As for creationists, it's religion. They have a right to free practice and to choose, even if you hate what they choose. After all, they might also hate what you choose.

Should you be bothered by zealously spiritual people, try kindly excusing yourself. We all need a tough skin here on DU and in life. Unless it's the dinner table, in which case let them know that politics, religion and sex have no place where digestion is important.

ON EDIT: Used square braces. Oops.

...and embracing someone who is irrational are two different things. :)

I can't really guess your specific point here on some things as you aren't being very plain or direct. So the best I can do is respond to your language, and things I've heard before spoken in similar language.

I'm not talking about different people having different opinions about what is or is not rational. What I'm talking about -- which your words bring to mind, even if it's not your intent -- is that there are people who will themselves consider something they themselves accept and believe as irrational, who somehow think irrationality is a good thing, something they need to "be human", to "have a heart", etc. These are generally people for whom "logical" and "rational" means cold-hearted, unfeeling, calculating, etc.

And please, avoid deliberately slippery word-game interpretations of what I'm saying, like, "Well, my girlfriend is irrational, but I accept her" -- that's not what I'm talking about. The "accepting" and "embracing" and "believing" I'm talking about are the way people accept or reject doctrines, dogmas, statements about what causes various phenomena in the world, etc.

Thanks for having a sense of humor.

It seems you are talking about people holding to irrational thinking, irrational as you and I and most of DU would see it.

You don't say why you are talking about it, just imply you might not like it.

Okay.

Maybe the stereotype is true that touchy feely heartful people might also think irrationality is a good thing for their doctrines, dogmas, etc.

Maybe.

I hope they are not being called names.
I hope they are not wasting our time.

Wishing you well.

like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

I find that to be an effective response to those who insist my non-belief in deities is a religion.

there is NO SUCH THING
as a Fundamentalist Atheist or Evangelical Atheist.

It makes as much sense as a Catholic or Protestant Atheist

by this, I mean that certain atheists in R/T are the only people I regularly encounter who insist that if I consider myself a Christian, then I must interpret the Bible with a fundamentalist's literalism

This "fundamentalist atheism" appears to be a standard set-up: who discounts it, is described as not a "real Christian," the common intent being to promote the idea that "real Christians" are schizoid, poorly educated, illogical, superstitious, and anti-scientific

So, thanks, but no thanks

What definition of "fundamentalist" are you using and how did you arrive at that definition.

I'm not going to argue about your definition, I just don't understand what you are talking about.

It almost sounds like he's saying that a fundamentalist atheist is an atheist who insists that anyone who calls himself a Christian should read the Bible literally like Christian fundamentalist!?

with the non-atheists arguing that "fundamentalist" includes all obnoxious behavior, while atheists would prefer a definition that somehow relates to the root word "fundamental".

We have already seen that impasse up-thread, and I suspect that there will be no progress until that hurdle is crossed.

And you rudely declined my request.

That indicates to me that you are not prepared to discuss this issue rationally.

I expressed a well justified suspicion that you would have no reasonable definition, and you proved my suspicion to be correct.

I don't know what you are talking about and I doubt that you do either.

But you have no definition. You are making it up as you go along.

You have confirmed each of my predictions.

Thanks to you, I'm batting a thousand.

Now, I predict, you will pretend that you were right all along.

Prove me wrong.

:rofl:

You're just making it up as you go along.

There is no definition of "fundamentalism" that agrees with your usage of the term.

That's why you went off to the corner to pout.

You got caught making stuff up.

You got caught with an indefensible argument.

So you blame others and stomp off in a huff.

:rofl:

Ok if-
"Atheism, as an explicit position, either affirms the nonexistence of gods<1> or rejects theism.<2> When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities,<3> a type of nontheism."
(Crappy Wikipedia definition, insert your preference)

Then (as a ‘working definition’ ;-) –
‘Fundamentalist or Evangelical Atheism’ denotes a virulent, unequivocal (and often irrational) contempt for or hatred of all things religious or related to religion..
Fundamentalist Atheism does not simply “reject theism” but sees it as an evil from which no good has ever come.

Now……….I’m fully aware that’s a definition of my own making and wont be found in Webster or Wikipedia…..and I’m guessing that no/few local atheists would put their hand up declaring “That’s me”!
But the term (from my perspective) derives from the recognition that there is a fundamental hatred of or contempt for theism/religion that goes well beyond rejection or opposition.
Frankly I’m far less interested in the definition than the symptoms and manifestations.
To me they look very closely related to racism, xenophobia and nationalism.

In the few and infrequent post I have made here I have suggested several times that religions (like nations and civilizations) produce good and ill to varying degrees. I cannot recall a single word of even slight agreement that this might be the case. Rather the response is an automatic and invariable portrayal of religion as completely negative in every respect. No slack is to be cut whatsoever...any positive contribution of religion is to be cut/ignored/rejected and imediatly opposed with some ill.

It strikes me as a denial of history a tunnel vision on the contemporary and a blight on the prospective future.

But it does have it’s funny side-
http://www.tektonics.org/parody/fundyath.html

I was looking for a definition of "fundamentalist" that fit with the usage of the previous poster.

You chose to define atheism. But you did not define "fundamentalists".

Do you have a definition of "fundamentalist" that can be used in all instances and occurrences of the word?

Again, let me stress, I will not dispute your definition of "fundamentalist".

I'm just trying to understand how you can use that word to describe a group of people without addressing the fundamental principles, beliefs, or dogma.

"Do I have a definition of "fundamentalist" that can be used in all instances and occurrences of the word?" ?

No.

Will I be looking for one?

No.



But I do have an 84 Ford with only 30 000K on the clock...if that's any good to you.

You're making it up as you go along too.

If you are just looking for a label to insult people, at least you should find one that is grammatically correct.

I'm sorry if that is too much strain.

Was to put about as much time, effort, consideration and “strain” into my reply as you did into considering and responding to my post 85.

But even though 'So you say' was just a blow off I had 'Second Thoughts' and under the 'Varkam Treaty' came back to "try".

You want an exclusive focus on finding a “grammatically correct definition”…I (and the previous poster) indicated disinterest. I gave it a shot and have given two more.

If your not happy with the definition then perhaps you need to examine the condition and propose your own descriptor?

“If you are just looking for a label to insult people,….”

Disingenuous and baseless straw man speculation.

I have made the basis of my experience and concerns regarding fundamentalist atheism quite clear….you ignore them, assume intent to insult and bog down in
the quest for the “grammatically correct”.

As indicated…am not interested in the specific terms employed, am not interested in insulting anyone……..am interested in the manifest behaviours and symptoms of the condition (whatever it ends up getting called).

But you intend to use it anyway?

Is it any wonder that I say you don't know what you are talking about?

to maintain this conversation your having with yourself.

“I'm just trying to understand how you can use that word to describe a group of people without addressing the fundamental principles, beliefs, or dogma.”

OK
I don’t believe that the ‘fundamentals’ of any ‘fundamentalism’ always or even predominantly reside in their “principles, beliefs, or dogma”.
All too often it just aint that cerebral.
The fundamentals are often ignorance, fear, xenophobia, contempt for or hatred of ‘the other’.

If your looking for a “fundamental principle” then try- All religions and all things religious are evil.

If your looking for a “fundamental belief’ then try- Because all religion is evil it deserves unwavering condemnation and hatred.

Will you find such principles and beliefs in atheist texts? I dunno.

You will certainly find the spirit, attitude and approach made manifest around here.

Is it safe to say, by your criteria, that the poster who said "atheists are assholes" is a fundamentalist?

"Former heavyweight champion" is my term for people who commute more than 40 miles to a job at a Fortune 500 company. I find that makes discussions of such subject matter soooo much more clear. :)

...and a less-than-straight-forward use of the component words. I'd still like to see some examples of this "actual phenomenon" you refer to, or at least an accounting of how frequent you think it is.

the perennially favorite "Baldy & the Bears" theme. The general strategy, as usual, is to grab some piece of text and to express outrage over it, while denying that the text might mean anything other than what the Fundamentalist Atheist claims it means

Here is one of the more recent examples of the genre:

Paint It Black
Tue Mar-25-08 12:14 PM
Original message
A reading from the Book of 2nd Kings (or, WTF?)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=167416#168154

And look! Here you are, contributing exactly in the way I indicated:

...with insisting that anyone who calls himself a Christian MUST or SHOULD use literal interpretation?

These comments of mine were directed at someone who already took such a literal interpretation. I'm not "playing innocent" or otherwise trying to be coy with you. And I never claimed I don't argue against literal interpretations and the ridiculous and stupid implications of such literalism -- I've done so often.

If you've got some weird chip on your shoulder that makes you take this as an insistence that you personally must or should take the Bible literally too... that's your issue, not mine.

Further, even if I were doing this weird I-insist-you-take-it-literally-thing you think I'm doing, "fundamentalist atheist" still wouldn't make sense as a label for describing it.

to show something it does not show?

I'm afraid that approach simply would not conform to the prevailing standards of the R/T forum, as you can see by examining the thread I linked above

...and that you intend to vent your frustrations by being an asshole is ways you perhaps believe others have been assholes to you, and you don't give a damn if it's all based on unclear unfathomable references to grudges born in long-dead threads.

I guess I should have figured out from the beginning you were attempting to set us up to ask you questions wherein you could reply using deliberately out-of-context quotes from replies to people other than yourself to make some obscure point about terrible unfairness done to you.

Or something like that.

Which all boils down to exactly the OP's point anyway: the phrase "atheist fundamentalist" isn't meaningful except as a tool for generating insult and annoyance, just as calling you a "shithead" would not be a literal accusation that your cranium enclosed a mass of genuine fecal material, much as I might be drawn to speculate on that possibility.

a description of an argument style that insists on reading the bible literally as part of a program to label as an irrational idiot anyone who thinks the text deserves careful theological attention), and my associated disagreement that "fundamentalist atheist" is necessarily an unjustified ad hominem attack -- qualifies me as "asshole" with "enormous chip on .. shoulder" :D

...and maybe you'd have a point. In the meantime, you practically admitted to taking me out of context to make a point about something, after first taking me out of context and acting as if it was an "Ah, hah! Caught you red-handed!" moment. So, yes, assholism seems to prevailing over provision of coherency at the moment.

Go ahead and answer my reply #57 if you have any sincere desire to make yourself clear instead of blustering onward in passive-aggressive obliqueness.

Asked to provide an example these people you "regularly encounter", you dither for a while, then eventually produce a quote from me, where indeed I was dealing with Biblical literalism, but where I wasn't addressing you or any other non-Fundamentalist, and where I certainly wasn't insisting that anyone be a literalist.

I was talking about how horrible the version of God someone who claims to be a literalist would be have to be. I find it hard to see where you get from that, "Therefore, this God is such a horrible God, you'd better make sure you're a literalist if you call yourself a Christian so this horrible God of the literalists will be your God too!"

No, you haven't "provide(d) a coherent parsing", or more to the point, provided sufficient example, of this type person you claim to regularly encounter. It's as if you claimed that you keep running into golfers who smoke, yet when asked to produce an example, you point triumphantly at a man playing golf who isn't smoking, isn't carrying cigarettes, and doesn't even smell faintly of tobacco, shouting, "There! See!?"

Answering my post #57 would certainly help make it more clear exactly what you mean this thing is that you're claiming you encounter so regularly, but you seem very resistant to providing any such answer.

And even if you had managed to show evidence that this insistence on literalism occurs regularly, you have yet to "provide a coherent parsing" that explains how A's insistence on B's fundamentalism in philosophy X makes A a fundamentalist of A's opposing not-X philosophy.

The only way that could possibly work is if you go back to the OP's claim: "fundamentalist" is being used as nothing more than an vaguely defined insult, in this case used to accuse someone of generically obnoxious rhetorical behavior.

NT!

Since you're the expert on what I've been up to, much more than myself, do I insist on your literal interpretation of the Bible in that:

1) You MUST do so, in the sense that you already do, and perhaps aren't confessing to your literalism yet.
2) You MUST or SHOULD do so, in the sense that you don't already take the Bible literally, but have an inherent duty or obligation of some sort to literalism.
...2a) This obligation is moral.
...2b) This obligation is a necessary logical consequence of other positions you've stated.
...2c) Other (please describe).
3) Other.

Since I'm apparently in the dark about what I've been insisting on from you, your help in this matter will be greatly appreciated.

you could've said that - that in context the quoted text meant something quite different. Instead, it appeared that you were of the opinion that such things were not even worth discussion.

Oh, and despite any potential problems with my reading comprehension I was not the only one to think that.

misunderstandings

Misunderstanding is always going to be present in any form of communication when either the speaker fails to adequately communicate him or herself, or there is some misunderstanding on the part of the audience. I understand that these things can be frustrating, but that's not a reason to just not talk about things at all (at least I don't think it is) as such discussions are one of the few ways that we are able to arrive at a sense of mutual understanding.

I don't think I've ever seen any atheists here, or in any other forum I've participated in, insisting that anyone who calls himself a Christian "must" or "should be" a Biblical literalist.

I can't say this never happens, but you think it happens often and consider it typical? Any examples?

The closest I've seen to what you claim is someone questioning what the value of the Bible is if it's so much up to the reader to interpret, to pick and choose what to follow. I can sort of see that turning into, via a convoluted and not necessarily very logical path, "Well, if you're not being a literalist, you aren't being consistent with the label 'Christian'" -- but not in my experience.

It's your opinion that this insistence on literalism is not only frequent, but frequent among and characteristic of the so-called "atheist fundamentalists" who have plagued your online existence?

that you must interpret the bible literally? Can you link to a post of anyone saying those words?

I'm sort of curious to see who uses the phrase the most, and who, if anybody, brings up the No True Scotsman fallacy.

and you continue to misstate. Here is one more shot. It usually stems from a discussion that the bible teaches us something or that we should do something because the bible says, or whatever. Here's my point regardless of origin:

Either
A. The Bible is the word of god and needs to be taken literally or
B. The Bible is just the writings of flawed people.

IF A
Then it is ALL the word of god and you can't just pick and choose.

IF B
Then who gives a flying fart what they have to say--we might as well discuss Gatsby which is better written.

You really can't have it both ways. That is my problem. Is there some good stuff in there? Sure (most of it stolen from previous cultures, I would argue). But there is plenty of crap. But once you say that the bible carries some authority, you are arguing for A, because if you are not, then B is a pretty weak argument for authority.

In either case (A or B), the inclusion of crappy stories seems relevant, because:

IF A
Then god is kind of a dick

IF B
You have to filter the good messages through the fact that there is some pretty horrible ones.

to make (of course) if it pleases you

I really see no interesting or useful dichotomy there. Apparently you do not believe that: I must be unable to understand your argument, or somehow in deep denial about it, or perhaps cravenly dishonest in addressing it

And yet I am afraid that I see merely a pair of sad strawmen. Around us, real issues rage in the world, I think -- yet you would advertise an epic battle between Sir Hayseed and the Alfalfa Knight, both of whom are dummies, neither able to retrieve his own hat if it blew off. I am strongly inclined to ignore both

If the figurines obstruct my view too much in the dark, I might hope some light could be obtained by disposing of the pair together into some philosophical bonfire -- of course, if I do so, I must be prepared for the possibility some wit will rescue the figures from the flames and as a prank shove them blazing into my face

for talking about something while "real issues" rage and yet you can wax unpoetically with a crappy extended scarecrow metaphor? At least I'm always wrong with you. Kinda like we are married without the perks.

There's the problem. It suits your argument, but it doesn't fit the way a large majority of Christians see the bible. The bible is more multi-purpose, if you like: it's entirely possible to read it as containing important truth, while not reading it as a textbook. It is a book of literature, and the use of parable, fable, metaphor and allegory is rife. Why would someone choose to understand such a book on only one level?

Your argument has the benefit of being neat and short. It misses the mark, however, if what you're after is a more correct understanding of how people who hold the book to be scripture understand it.

I've found that this particular tactic is usually the mark of a person with little to no knowledge of religion, and in particular of Christianity (which is usually, not always, the target). It's far easier to make their argument against belief when belief is narrowly defined in such a way. Most of us here at Du who consider ourselves believers don't subscribe to Christianity on those terms, so we end up talking past each other to no avail.

Those here among the non-believers who are quite educated about religion, otoh, rarely resort to that arguement, or to lumping all members of a given faith together in order to fit with their neatly pre-conceived ideas of such. Conversation there is far more interesting, and fruitful if understanding is the goal.

Similar when someone wants to push some unproven pseudoscience and I ask for "evidence" I am derided as an fundamaentalist scientist.
Its intellectually lazy to accuse someone of being a fundamentalist and therefore many people want to do that instead of actually *thinking* or broadbrushing

your perspective on things, Varkam.

And I think you are right about this. :)

from the extremely intolerant atheists who seem to constitute the majority of atheists who post here.

There are a few mental attributes of fundamentalism -- narrow-mindedness, intolerance, certainty, a willingness to believe counter-factuals that uphold their own world view (for example, the counter-factual statement constantly repeated by fundamentalist atheists, that no one has ever been killed by intolerant atheists unlike intolerant religions, despite the obvious history of the Soviet Union, Cambodia, China in Tibet and other countries).

I find that many atheists have these attributes.

I don't, however, use "fundamentalist atheist" as an attack or insult. I use it as what I believe is accurate, objective terminology.

"narrow-mindedness, intolerance, certainty, a willingness to believe counter-factuals that uphold their own world view"

:rofl:

as attacks or insults. I don't think they should be applied to "the majority of atheists who post here". And you can't call applying them to people 'objective' either.

This is my subjective experience of course, and anecdotal. But it seems to me that people that make claims of objectivity are often the most biased of all.

It takes a very self-aware mind to notice biases and subjectivity in it's opinions.

You know that when they start that way, they really do hate them, right?

Apply to yourself.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...that no one has ever been killed by intolerant atheists unlike intolerant religions, despite the obvious history of the Soviet Union, Cambodia, China in Tibet and other countries...

To my knowledge, the point of contention is not whether or not people have been slaughtered by atheistic regimes (they have), but whether atheism was an accidental attribute of such regimes and not a driving force behind such slaughter.

They have no problems with the descriptor because *gasp* IT FUCKING DESCRIBES THEM. As much as we on the left dislike it, fundie isn't a bad word if it's properly used. It is sort of the "liberal" of the left wing. If a right winger called you a liberal, you wouldn't blink an eye because that is what you are. It describes you. Among themselves though, it is a prejorative.

In essence, people who use the term fundamentalists to describe someone who is not religious and has no fundamentals in the first place is using the prejorative version of the word.

It's not hard to see and I really wish that people who use the term would have the self awareness to look at themeselves honestly and see how they are using the word. When are you using it? Are you using it in anger? Are you using it in frustration?

Moreover, look at how we argue among ourselves. We all strongly express opinions, be it in political discussions or religious discussions. And I strongly believe that not a single person on this site ever goes door to door and evangelizes or, outside of discussion, approaches people and attack their beliefs. Actually, there are a couple of people who do, but I know that those people accept the term fundamentalist anyways.

The rest of us don't. Whether you say something negative about atheism or atheists (and if your honest with yourself, you know it happens) or you say something negative about christians or christianity (and again, it happens), IT DOESN'T MAKE YOU A FUNDIE CHRISTIAN OR A FUNDIE ATHEIST. To be honest, I seldom see anybody on here calling liberal christians fundies for expressing their opinions, but the opposite happens regularly.

Now I'm going to be even more honest with you. When I hear the term Fundie Atheist, I really don't get as angry as some of the other atheists around here do. Heh...I just see it as a fight or flight response from someone who can't argue about their opinions. If they want to call me a name because I post my opinions on some unimportant site in the corners of the internets, then let them. Outside of DU, most of the time, I could give a shit about religion and barely think about it.

If it makes you feel better, call me a fundie atheist.....it's not gonna stop me from spankin' your ass.

"not a single person on this site ever goes door to door and evangelizes..."

You're confusing evangelical with fundamentalist. You can be fundamentalist without being evangelical.

Hamdenrice, you have no idea how much I'm laughing inside.

Just answer one question for me, dude.

What should we call a certain, narrow-minded Christian who does NOT does not take a literal interpratation of the bible?

A fundamentalist non-fundamentalist liberal Christian?

:rofl:

Sadly, you are now spiralling down into the drain of incoherence.

Are you basically saying that christians who don't take a literal (or fundamental) interpretation of the bible can't be narrow-minded or certain? What about a christians who, for example, takes a very liberal, non-literal interpretation of the bible, but at the same time insists strongly that his version is the only correct version, refuses to listen to or accept other people interpretations, and is narrow-minded?

So what do you call a narrow-minded, certain, liberal christian who disagrees vehemently with a literal interpretation of the bible?

Maybe you should take another look at what the word fundamentalism means.

Do you mean FUNDIE as in FUN LOVING Atheists? If they insist on deliberate misuse of words and deliberately refuse to own up to what is behind this misuse of words, such as, insulting privileges, Then we have every right to further truncate the word even more, to our liking.

Another good one. :thumbsup:

Maybe next time you will think before you try to foster rational discussion and understanding. Now your nonsense infests not only R/T but A/A, on top of that.

I hope you're proud of your ill-advised attempt to impose reason on a place like this.

Let's see if we can find some common thread (or A common thread) every time the forum erupts into this sort of antagonistic insult-fest.

One or more DUers have dared to stand up to the fundamentalist atheist self-appointed "forum masters."

Varkam asked a question, and loads of DUers came out to explain why they indeed felt that DU's fundie atheist brigade was rude and intolerant.

Predictably that brigage went ballistic. Hence flame war.

There's your explanation.

"RALLY MEN! They may be the forum masters, but WE HAVE POLITENESS ON OUR SIDE! Freedom from our cruel, atheist overlords is just around the corner. To arms, comrades, to arms! Now, we fight. Now, we win!"

*approaches an atheist overlord and yells reallllly loudly* "YOU'RE A FUNDAMENTALIST! HAHA..take THAT!"

:rofl:


Edited to spell You're right, because I'm a fucking *cough cough* moron.

Oh, that's right, we are both atheists. Thank Darwin for people like you that get to fight the evil mongrel horde.

lest the religious take it back. The one hero known as Hamdenrice must be stopped or our evil plans will be for naught!

I'm sure the rest of the religious people on this forum would be amused to find they are nothing but peasants under our Iron-handed rule!

:rofl:

are we more like Sauron or Dr. Evil?

So, pray tell, what is the question that I asked?

This presumption is surely not correct?

It seems to me that if you look at this thread and the many others that have covered this topic, many of the participants who accept the idea that there is such a thing as a fundamentalist atheist are themselves atheists, who simply don't accept the rigid way of thinking and intolerant way of interacting with religious people of certain other atheists.

I think the term is used more along the lines of the way Greg Epstein used it:

http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/04/02/atheists-argue-about-ap-article/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/25/AR2007052501953.html

is an atheist that "accepts the idea that there is such a thing"? I thought this thread was littered with my "little clique"? Do I have some non-clique ass kicking to do?

My liege, I would be proud to hold your scepter of Anti-Religion +5, in exchange for command of the Progressive People of Faith group once you have vanquished the non-clique enemy.

Though I alternate through visualizations that come from a kick ass Arthurian legend and from Spamalot.

Hamden needs to get a job writing fear propaganda for a politician.

you would find many, many, many more theists who have no objection to the term versus atheists who do have an objection to the term. I did not say that there are no atheists who do not object to it (as you are, presumably, an atheist and do not object to it), though your usage of the term merely betrays your motivations, but I believe I wrote "almost exclusively" thereby leaving room for the odd atheist that has no problem with it.

I will note that in discussions here, you are something of an anomaly.

Really? well, if that is the tag I am to receive for expressing my doubts about religious claims, so be it.

So, in this sense of the term "Evangelical / Fundamentalist", people who speak up about Equal Rights must also be "Evangelical / Fundamentalist" too.

"But atheism really is a religion!" Incorrect:

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites.
8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.

and primarily: a belief in, or the worship of, a god or gods.

Atheism:

a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

—Synonyms Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.

Most of us on this board are fundies. Our objection to being defined as such is just more proof that we are fundamentalists.

There are even three different definitions of fundamentalist atheism right here in this thread:

1). Fundamentalist atheism holds that no good can come from religion, and therefore religion should be eradicated.
2). Atheist fundamentalists insist that religious believers must themselves be fundamentalists, reading their religious texts literally.
3). Fundie atheists are close-minded and refuse to acknowledge any evidence contrary to their beliefs, especially the belief that Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao did not commit atrocities.

Obviously, since the definition of fundamentalist atheism is so broad, it must apply to all the non-believers on this board, with a few notable exceptions. Let's all thank our fellow DUers for clearing up the confusion about what an atheist fundamentalist actually is.

where did you come up with those?

1). Fundamentalist atheism holds that no good can come from religion, and therefore religion should be eradicated.

- There is no good coming from religion, as for its eradication, that will be a long endeavor but like all the 'past' religions, it will fade out of existence.

2). Atheist fundamentalists insist that religious believers must themselves be fundamentalists, reading their religious texts literally.

- Yeah, religious followers do in fact take their religion seriously and a large percent take literally.


3). Fundie atheists are close-minded and refuse to acknowledge any evidence contrary to their beliefs, especially the belief that Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao did not commit atrocities.

- I am closed minded to the notion of a Divine being in sky that listens to prayers and grants wishes. Why? because there is NO evidence to support such a notion. I do not have to carry the 'belief' that there is not such thing a gawd, because there is NO evidence for it; therefore it does not exist.

- "the belief that Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao did not commit atrocities." That is just bullshit, who would say that or think that? Not I, nor anyone that I know or anything I have read.

I do not think of myself as in any way a fundamentalist Atheist, this is just more tripe from the mouths of folks with invisible friends trying to pawn their dirt off on us.

The first appears here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=171766&mesg_id=171796
This definition was based on the poster's experience with an atheist who refused to admit that some good came from Islamic civilization during the Medieval period- at least, that is his account of how the exchange occurred. I can't verify that that is an accurate characterization.

The second appears here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=171766&mesg_id=171879
This again relies on past experiences with atheists on this board, this time with people who insist that any believer must him/herself be a fundamentalist. Again, I suspect that this is a mischaracterization of the exchanges in question, but I cannot be sure.

The third is here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=171766&mesg_id=172434
This definition centers on intolerance and a stubborn opposition to evidence, appealing to a supposed refusal to admit that atheists ever do evil things. As you say, I strongly suspect that this is a mischaracterization of the dialogue here. I have never said as much myself and have never read any other poster suggest the same. This may be an honest mistake, but it is not inconceivable that it is an intentionally constructed straw man.

My aim in pointing out the three definitions of fundamentalist atheism at work here is to show that the content of this supposed philosophy is subjectively defined by those who apply the term as a pejorative. If fundamentalist atheism was really a self-existent system of thought rather than an ad hominem applied by those who intend to disparage other posters, its content would be consistent and clearly definable.

I suggest that the term is merely a tool used by some posters to inveigh against other posters with whom they disagree.

I'm sorry if the sarcasm in my first post did not come through properly.

but it was pretty subtle, I am a genius, and as leader of the atheist horde, I do have to approve all posts before they go out so that probably helped me get it (that and being a literature teacher).

So far I am only a member of a clique, but I have a desire for personal fulfillment that can only come from joining a horde. And I am a little insecure about my status in the clique because I haven't been singled out by name as a member. I mean, I get the same criticisms like being called stupid, but I've never been called a stupid member of the atheist fundamentalist clique.

I would be so grateful if you would allow me into your horde, and I promise to misbehave up to the highest standards you may set.

You can be the crazy bastard that shits on the porch and keeps out theists before the meeting starts.

had something to do with it.

+5 is for pussies. And theists.

“…the content of this supposed philosophy is subjectively defined by those who apply the term as a pejorative. If fundamentalist atheism was really a self-existent system of thought…. ”

I haven’t proposed that fundamentalist atheism is a “philosophy” or a “system of thought” nor have I seen anyone else do so. As far as I can see it is little more than an ‘attitude’ or ‘a bigoted’ attitude.
This will constitute the 4th-5th time that I have put the proposition and thus far there been >zero< rebuttal/response/argument to-

“There is no good coming from America” is a statement of shallow bias and bigotry that is demolished by even the most cursory examination of the facts.

Do I have to fill in the rest of the argument?

“There is no good coming from religion”
“ There is no good coming from non whites”
“ There is no good coming from men”
“There is no good coming from atheists”

I don’t give a dam who takes it personally and is offended by it-
>ALL OF THE ABOVE ARE NARROW SHALLOW BLANKET STATEMENTS OF FUNDAMENTALY IGNORANT BIGOTRY<

Am I calling the author of any of the above statements a ‘narrow shallow ignorant bigot’? No I’m not….I’m referring to the pov and not the person.

I’m willing to discuss the potential good/evil content and outcomes from any group, cosmology, nation, belief, organization….but I’m not prepared to waste my time with (or remain silent in the face of) blanket bigotry that denies >any< good arising from these groups/systems.


“If fundamentalist atheism was really a self-existent system of thought rather than an ad hominem applied by those who intend to disparage other posters, its content would be “consistent and clearly definable”.

In the posts you linked to each author was not attempting to provide a “consistent and clearly definable” definition of a “system of thought” or “philosophy” but rather to identify (in HR’s post)- “ attributes of fundamentalism”. The link to my post reveals much the same- an account of encounter with and attributes of an attitude and set of behaviours that strike one as Fundamentalist-
“narrow-mindedness, intolerance, certainty, a willingness to believe counter-factuals that uphold their own world view” HR

Thus far, almost invariably, the atheist responses have been cantered on ‘defining
the alleged philosophy’ or speculating about ‘ad hom intent’ or complaining about (unspecified) ‘censorship, control of board or getting rid of’.

Can anyone explain to me why >no one< wants to talk about the specific examples of Fundamentalist atheist statements? >Even when< such statements are requested and provided they are subsequently ignored.


"the belief that Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao did not commit atrocities." That is just bullshit, who would say that or think that?” and-justice-for-all

NOBODY! That’s the problem. “That is just bullshit” and SPIN.

The proposition was that avowed atheists like “Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao” >HAVE<
committed atrocities and have done so in the context of seeking to eliminate religious groups as part of their formal pogroms.

One is obliged to wonder why what is clearly stated repeatedly turns up reversed and misrepresented.

The fact is that the word "fundamentalist" as used is meaningless. It has absolutely no relation to the definition of the term. It is just used as an attack word. I am amazed that people could thing that the term "fundamentalist" as it is used in religion (the discipline from whence it came) applies to ANY of the three instances discussed in this thread and that you correctly delineate. In reality, it is just used as a synonym for "asshole." And usually, in my experience, "asshole atheist" means one that actually talks about their disbelief and dares to question theists.

Just so someone says it again for the more dense in the thread
1) very little good comes from organized religion that couldn't come from somewhere else absent religion.
2) Straw Man--read my post above for a simplistic version of my argument on this idea.
3) Straw Man--the point is that those people did commit atrocities but not in the NAME of atheism but there have been many that HAVE committed atrocities in the NAME of their religion.

Of course, I'm sure that somehow I am being an asshole and just furthering proof of fundamentalism.

I am not offended by so called "fundamental" atheists nor by fundamental Christians , nor by any other lable of belief - but i am offended by bigotry - period. Anytime an attempt is made to contribute to the marginalization of a specific group, simply based on their negative attributes it can only have negative outcomes which harm us all. There is absolutely no excuse for bigotry.

I think that one of the problems with your OP, is that it doesn't recognize that people who use "fundamentalist atheist" are not just describing behavior but an ontological position (as well as the behavior that flows from it).

If the term "fundamentalist atheist" were not used, how would you describe the difference between these two positions:

1. I came to the personal decision that I don't believe there is a God, but I have nothing against religion or religious ideas and don't actively believe that religious people are "wrong."

2. I know there is no god, and therefore religious people are delusional, probably should be confined to mental institutions because of their delusions, and organized religion should be actively opposed as an evil, and religious ideas confronted as wrong, at all times.

None of the words you cite captures the ideological position of (2) -- but only the behavior that might flow from it.

1) Atheist

2) Asshole

Simple, isn't it? Asshole doesn't describe an ontological position, but neither does your second example. In fact, the term fundamentalist atheist is completely useless in terms of describing an ontological position as is apparent from the fashion in which such a term is used.

Let me repeat my dichotomy:

1. I came to the personal decision that I don't believe there is a God, but I have nothing against religion or religious ideas and don't actively believe that religious people are "wrong."

2. I know there is no god, and therefore religious people are delusional, probably should be confined to mental institutions because of their delusions, and organized religion should be actively opposed as an evil, and religious ideas confronted as wrong, at all times.

Ironically, I don't think (2) is assholery. If you really and truly believe that there is no god, cannot be a god and that religion has been an evil force for making people believe fairy tales, that's as valid an ontological position, as say, a liberal Quaker. While the behavior that one adopts, say, on an internet message board could be assholic, the philosophical position itself is not necessarily assholic. I would say it's certainty is not demonstrated and is based on certain factualy innacurate claims, but simply coming to that conclusion is not the same as being an asshole.

I find it ironic that I'm the one arguing that fundamentalist atheists are not assholes because of their beliefs and you are -- but I'm saying their ideas don't make them assholes; their behavioral choices, which does not necessarily have to flow from their ideas, can.

You replaced believe with "know", thereby making a more significant difference between the two. Even still, you're confusing an ontological position with a sociological one as "knowing" that there is not a god does not necessitate the belief that religious people should be locked up, et cetera. Anti-theism (the position that religion is a positively harmful force) has nothing to do with ontology, as I have known believes that have thought the same thing concerning organized religion.

I find it ironic that I'm the one arguing that fundamentalist atheists are not assholes because of their beliefs and you are -- but I'm saying their ideas don't make them assholes; their behavioral choices, which does not necessarily have to flow from their ideas, can.

Sorry, I'm just a bit confused. Elsewhere you have said that the moniker fundamentalist atheist is a way of describing behavior or character traits (eg intolerant, narrow-minded) and now you are saying that it is based on the philosophical position that one adopts. So...which is it? I mean, you yourself have used the term against other posters here even while not knowing what they believe.

And, for the record, I'm not arguing that fundamentalist atheists are asshole because of their beliefs - my position is that the term fundamentalist atheist is essentially meaningless and that it is purely an ad hominem argument. You can re-read the OP if you need a quick refresher on my position.

ETA

1. I came to the personal decision that I don't believe there is a God, but I have nothing against religion or religious ideas and don't actively believe that religious people are "wrong."

It seems to me that if you do not believe in God, then by definition you think people who do believe in a God are mistaken. :shrug:

I have two questions arising from this Varkam-

1/ Is “Asshole” your preferred non ad hom behaviour descriptor to replace
‘Fundamentalist atheist’ ?

(And if so would you care to demonstrate its proposed future application? ;-)


2/ Giving a ballpark figure- stab in the dark- guesstemate….What percentage of the local professed atheist population would fit the criteria of 1/…ie “have nothing against religion or religious ideas” ?

but at least it makes sense.

And for 2: I have no idea. Why don't you create a poll?

"2/ Giving a ballpark figure- stab in the dark- guesstemate….What percentage of the local professed atheist population would fit the criteria of 1/…ie “have nothing against religion or religious ideas” ?"
There is less hate IMO among Atheists then there is among Christians. Starting out with marriage Atheists must hate there wives less, because they stay married longer. We don't believe in Witches so we don't burn them. We were less inclined to vote for Bush then Christians were. We are more anti-war (check out the exit polls after the 2000 & 2004 election). Christians want to re wright the Constitution so they can plaster their beliefs everywhere for more power. on and on

There are many Christians involved in Americans United for Separation of Church and State, for instance. Just as not all atheists want to round up the religious and put them in concentration camps (see how ugly the "fundie atheist" meme is?), not all Christians are trying to establish a theocracy in the United States.

Your statements have two parts which must be separated.

First off, terms already exist for the basic positions:

1. I do not believe there is a god = "weak" atheism, ie atheism expressed as a personal belief.

2. I affirm that there is no god = "strong" atheism, ie atheism expressed as a doctrinal position.

Second, you have the statements:

A. I have nothing against religion or religious ideas and don't actively believe that religious people are "wrong."

B. Religious people are delusional, probably should be confined to mental institutions because of their delusions, and organized religion should be actively opposed as an evil, and religious ideas confronted as wrong, at all times.

These two groups are not mutually exclusive; there is nothing that makes the position 1A ("I do not believe there is a god, and I have nothing against religion or religious ideas and don't actively believe that religious people are 'wrong.'") any more or less likely that position 1B ("I do not believe there is a god; and religious people are delusional, probably should be confined to mental institutions because of their delusions, and organized religion should be actively opposed as an evil, and religious ideas confronted as wrong, at all times.") Likewise, both 2A and 2B are equally likely. Among my non-believing friends, there are people who take all four positions.

I also know people with the positions

3. I don't know if there is a god or not.

4. I don't care about whether or not god exists; it just is not relevant to me.

C. I have nothing against religion or religious ideas, provided that the religions do not attempt to interfere with my rights as a human being and a citizen. Some fanatics, however, are bent on creating a theocracy and such people are delusional; such people should probably be confined to mental institutions and their ideas should actively be opposed as evil and wrong.

This gives rise to a much more complex image than the black and white picture you are trying to present.

It means something, insofar as it clearly identifies a legitimate sect of Christianity. People often use that term in a derogatory way, but that doesn't negate the fact that there are millions of Christians who use this precise phrase to locate *themselves* on the theological plane.

So far as I know, there aren't any Atheists who seriously identify themselves as Fundamentalist Atheists. It it a completely false term concocted by those who feel contempt for "uppity", mouthy Atheists, and used solely to defame and insult by comparing Atheists to the type of religious people that offend Atheists the most.

Since the term has absolutely no legitimacy, and exists only to insult and deride, it is nothing more than an ad hominem attack against a "group"--hate speech at the root--and as such has no place at DU.

And I certainly don't think atheism is a religion. What would be the tenets of such a religion? Good luck agreeing on them, lol.

But I have encountered some whose zeal for proving their case resembles that of a particularly persistent evangelist - or door to door salesman, for that matter. And when you add to that line a fair amount of name-calling (delusional, etc.), I guess I'm not entirely surprised when people begin to respond with their own name-calling.

As I've said elsewhere, what's lacking in the sort of interactions I've described (and I think on both sides, they involve a very few of our posters here) is a basic respect for the other poster, and the other poster's view being legitimate *for that person*.

It's possible to question someone without insulting them, and it's possible to explain your point of view without needing to win people to your way of seeing things.

IOW, I don't think we're disagreeing here.

And I certainly don't think atheism is a religion. What would be the tenets of such a religion? Good luck agreeing on them, lol.

No doubt. It would be like herding cats.

But I have encountered some whose zeal for proving their case resembles that of a particularly persistent evangelist - or door to door salesman, for that matter. And when you add to that line a fair amount of name-calling (delusional, etc.), I guess I'm not entirely surprised when people begin to respond with their own name-calling.

Again, no doubt. I'm not saying that atheists are well-behaved little angels. I think we all have dirt on our hands, myself included. However, as the old adage goes, two wrongs do not make a right. I think it is wrong to compare religion to a mental illness or to call believers delusional, as do several other of my brethren here - but the fact that such behavior exists does not then give theists (or anyone else for that matter) the right to dump on us.

As I've said elsewhere, what's lacking in the sort of interactions I've described (and I think on both sides, they involve a very few of our posters here) is a basic respect for the other poster, and the other poster's view being legitimate *for that person*.

I agree with you, though I think that is incredibly hard to do - especially in the realm of a pseudonymous message board. I think the main point though is that there is so much at stake for people in this discussion. Religion and religious beliefs are so closely tied with personal identity that many people seem to take it that attacking ideas is the same as attacking people. I think it is entirely possible to think that certain ideas are without merit, but not think that the people who hold those ideas are without merit.

It's possible to question someone without insulting them, and it's possible to explain your point of view without needing to win people to your way of seeing things.

Exactly.

IOW, I don't think we're disagreeing here.

I don't think we are, either.

Epic battles of ignored vs.ignored.

Who's winning?

I would say that the OP's 'side' won, but then I agreed with the OP, so I am biased.

I actually wanted the other mods to lock it, but alas.