Debate: Are there really ‘fundamentalist atheists’?

[rug]

Chris Stedman | Dec 17, 2014

Earlier this year, a British politician called upon “militant atheists” to stop imposing “politically correct intolerance” on Christians.

He is certainly not the first to use such language. Take, for example, this Huffington Post piece asking if atheism is “the new fundamentalism.” Or Pat Robertson’s warning that “militant atheists” (alongside “militant Islamists,” naturally) “want to destroy all of the fabric of faith in our society.”

These aren’t isolated incidents. I regularly hear talk of “atheist fundamentalists” or “militant atheists”—including from some people I respect and admire. But I often wonder about the accuracy of such language.

On the one hand, I’m sympathetic to those who use it. I’ve seen atheists mirror the “us versus them” tribalistic tendencies they decry among the religious—whether it is atheists who claim all religious believers are stupid or categorize religious belief as a form mental illness, atheists who narrowly argue that religion is the only or primary source of the world’s problems, or atheists who condemn sexism and homophobia in religious communities while turning a blind eye to expressions of sexism and homophobia among atheists.

http://chrisstedman.religionnews.com/2014/12/17/debate-really-fundamentalist-atheists/

[shenmue]

1. Yes

[Hari Seldon]

2. NOOO!

[cbayer]

3. Yes.

There are some that are more dogmatic and rigid than many religious people.

The worst part is that they make it harder for the majority of atheists who simply want to live without prejudice and be accepted for who they are.

This happens in every civil rights movement and those that are loud and proud and militant play a very important role.

But at some point, they hurt more than they help.

I think we are at that point.

Of course, Chris Stedman is a Faithiest and will be vilified as the wrong kind of atheist, possibly not even an atheist at all.

Time to stand up to the religiously intolerant, whether they be believers or not.

The juvenile bullying needs to stop.

Thanks, Chris, for standing up. This debate should be interesting and I look forward to discussing it here.

[ArsSkeptica]

4. This is why I prefer my agnosticism

No religion has yet made a sufficiently strong case to persuade me in matters of faith. Neither have the strident/militant atheists. The shared sin between both extremes is arrogance. I've yet to see the militant atheist that fairly addresses the epistemological problem posed by their certainty, much less the problem posed by their failure to define that which it is they claim to disbelieve.

Personally, I'd just as soon see America's propensity for religious pluralism and schism become a global phenomenon and continue breaking down until we're all just "schisms of one" such that we can all finally stop being ginormous asshats for/against "deity."

[AlbertCat]

65. There are some that are more dogmatic and rigid than many religious people.

Baloney.

Name a dozen. Name 6.

Trusting something, like science and reason, because it appears (look around) to work very well (and changes and revises itself as new info comes in all the time) is not "dogmatic". Especially when religion has yet to deliver the majority of its "promises".

[cbayer]

68. No, trusting science and reason is not at all dogmatic.

Abandoning it in favor of irrational and unreasonable things can lead to dogma. Saying religion is a disease, the world should be rid of religion, religious believers are mentally ill, those who believe are gullible fools, I know the right way - that's dogma.

Read this article:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218171045
It cites a study that showed that anti-theists score highest of dogmatism.


I don't have any idea what religion promises so I don't know if it delivers or not. What do you think it promises that it has not delivered?

[AlbertCat]

66. The juvenile bullying needs to stop.

Oh.... the irony

[cbayer]

69. You repeating it is even more ironic.

[Jim__]

5. I look forward to the forthcoming debate articles.

My guess is that it all boils down to how you define fundamentalist atheist. But whether or not you define away fundamentalist atheist, there is no denying that there are atheists who are as certain that they are right as almost any religious fundamentalist.

[kwassa]

6. Is the Pope Catholic?

Have there been larger numbers of threads on this topic in the past five years or so?

True believers are true believers, even those that claim no belief yet act like true believers in unbelief.

[pissedoffhippie]

29. atheists do not "believe"

If you are an atheist then it should be about logic and science and it shouldn't be about "belief". That would be a contradiction. The word "fundamentalist" refers to someone who sticks to the fundamentals, and therefore if one is an atheist, the fundamentals would be the scientific method. A non-fundamentalist atheist would take some liberties with that and maybe believe in astrology or tree worshiping....

[cbayer]

30. There are as many kinds of atheism as there are atheists.

They have one single and simple thing in common. They do not have a belief in god.

It might be about logic and science or it might be about experience and emotion. This one piece of who they are might be highly rational, while other parts are not at all rational.

Atheism has absolutely nothing to do with the scientific method. There are great many scientists who are theists and artists who are atheists.

And studies show that being an atheist is not strictly correlated with disbelief in other supernatural things.

Welcome to DU and to the religion group. Your opinion is interesting, but I think it is ill formed.

[okasha]

43. You do know that there are atheists who are not scientists, don't you?

There are even some who don't give a flip about the scientific method.

[okasha]

7. It's certainly more respectful

than "atheist with a huge stick up his ass."

Still, I assume there would be no objection to the latter, since we can thank one of the A/A hosts for popularizing the phrase with regard to Christians and other believers in this group.

[Goblinmonger]

10. Not even cool enough to allude to Breaking Bad

and use "giant stick up his ass"?

[cbayer]

11. Her point is valid.

[Goblinmonger]

12. Her point is a strawman

I didn't use that phrase in relation to Christians in this group. It was about one specific Christian who, I was told, nobody in this group likes (which I agree is the case).

[cbayer]

13. And her point is that if someone put up a story about a prominent

atheist and changed the headline to omit the name and insert your lovely phrase, all hell would break lose. Even if that particular atheist was one that most here would not identify with or said something that most would object it, it would be unnecessarily provocative.

It was blatant flame bait meant to poke christians in the eye. You know that.

Mission accomplished. Beware of moles, by the way. They are said to be blind.

[Goblinmonger]

14. Let's see who the comparable atheist would be....

Penn Jillette? S. E. Cupp?

I'll say both of them have a giant libertarian/Randian stick up their ass right now. I think most would agree.

[cbayer]

16. Jillette and Cupp will do

So If I post a story about either of them and change the headline to read "Atheist with a giant stick up their ass", that would be ok with you?

Saying it's ok to say "a libertarian/Randian with a stick up their ass" really just makes my point for me. That would not offend anyone who is supposed to be here.

But if I change it to atheist, well, that's a whole different issue, isn't it?

[Goblinmonger]

18. No I wouldn't have a problem at all.

Penn Jillette and S.E. Cupp are giant atheist turds. They are horrible fucking people with not sense of understanding what it means to connect to humanity. And they are also atheists. Yup. Don't know why you cannot fathom that I and other atheists would understand that.

And I have a hard time believing that one can follow Ayn Rand (who was also a fucking clueless atheist with a gigantic stick up her ass) and be religious. Well, without having superhuman powers of suppressing cognitive dissonance anyway.

[cbayer]

20. Bullshit. You and your cronies would get completely apopletic.

Be serious. There is no way a headline change to call either of them an "atheist with a giant stick up their ass" would be ok.

And frankly, no one here would do that. That is the real point.

[Goblinmonger]

22. Me and "my cronies" would have no problem with it.

I don't know why you can't understand that. You seem to read A/A all the time, tell me you haven't seen discussions of Jillette being a moron. There's no love for Cupp either. We don't have to rally around all atheists to feel good about ourselves. We are OK saying there are atheists with giant sticks up their ass.

[cbayer]

23. You are completely missing the point.

I think you know it was wrong but you can't back down.

Your assumptions are so wrong. It isn't about rallying around all christians or muslims or atheists or anything remotely like that. It's about changing a title to poke a stick in the eye of a certain group just because you can.

Your little jab here implying that believers can't feel good about themselves like atheists do without rallying around all believers is noted. I have only one word for you - Delukins.

There are common enemies. Some of them are believers, some of them are non-believers. Let's attack them instead of defining them as representative of a group that has good people also in membership.

Tell you what, I'll never bring it up again unless you do it again.

[Dorian Gray]

8. That pin

at the top is going to really irk some posters.

[cbayer]

9. What do you think will irk them about it?

[Dorian Gray]

38. The obvious

[cbayer]

39. Er, if it were obvious, I wouldn't have asked.

But if that's the best answer you can give me, I will just have to take it I guess.

[Dorian Gray]

48. You think our atheist

posters will appreciate "born again" as a descriptor? That isn't obvious to you?

Cbayer, I know that there are YEARS of antagonism here. I think some posters are beyond wanting to repair the rift. But it's pretty obvious that most atheists would bristle at being called a born again atheist.

I'm sure rug knows that. He owns his posts.

[cbayer]

50. The ones that will bristle are the ones that it will hit too close to home.

When I think about born agains, I think of one wayers.

They think they have the answer and everyone else is stupid, insane or just not as evolved as they are.

They evangelize and want to save people.

While the button is meant to be something of an attempt at humor, there are indeed atheists just like that.

[rug]

17. It's the position not the person.

It goes something like that.

[truebrit71]

15. No. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of what fundamental means in this context...

Atheism isn't a belief, it is LACK of belief, it's like a light switch, it is either on or off...there are no varying degrees of whether the switch is on or off...

There are atheists that are more forceful about their position than others for sure, but that doesn't make them 'fundamentalist atheists'...

[rug]

19. If someone stakes their opinion on an immovable standard, that's fundamentalism.

Be it scripture or the scientific method (pioneered by that adherent to Islam, Ibn al-Haytham).

[truebrit71]

21. Nope.

And especially not in this context.

[rug]

33. I guess I'll have to take your word for it.

Or not.

[cbayer]

24. What is your definition of fundamentalist?

I think it would be important to agree on that before taking a position that it can't be so.

[WovenGems]

25. Question

Is a fundamentalist atheist a non Christian that opposes the use of religious doctrine being used in public policy?

[cbayer]

27. No, that would be a secularist. A secularist could also be a christian or

other beleiver.

What do you see as a fundamentalist christian? I am having trouble finding an example that would be consistent with what you proposed.

[edhopper]

26. Depends on how you want to use labels

I believe Fundamentalists Christians come from the formation of the Fundamentalist Church of America. There fore it is a name they chose for themselves.

Now if their are atheists who call themselves Fundamentalists, then we would say yes.

At least that is one way to look at it.

[cbayer]

28. When you think of fundamentalist christians, what do you think of other than

their being members of the Fundamentalist Church? Is there some behavior, belief or doctrine (dogma) that distinguishes them from other christians?

[edhopper]

31. Good question

best I can do is say I know them when I see them. There are things like Bible literalism and a push to have christian doctrine put into law.

I think we have seen a general agreement on this board when we use terms like Fundamentalist or Fundies.

[cbayer]

32. I think literalism is a big part.

Theocracy is a relatively new thing for fundamentalists, imo.

When I think of them, I think of those who have some very specific dogma that is rigid and guides much of what they do.

I also think of those that are sure they have the answer and that there is only one way.

While that can easily be seen in certain religious contexts, the question here is whether it can be applied to other groups, and, in particular, to some atheists.

One thing I see that can be applied is the intense tribalism that one sees with fundamentalism. You are either in or out. If you question the dogma or present an idea that is different, you will be ousted from the group and likely told that you are not a true (fill in the blank). There is a rejection of differences and diversity that is quite striking.

They also tend to be aggressive towards those who would challenge them and are pretty insular and defensive.

This image popped up when I was doing some research. I think it could be applied to other groups as well, just substitute the book.

[edhopper]

34. sounds apt.

I do think it is used as a barb where it may not apply.

Simply because an atheists says they see no reason to believe in God and would rather others didn't as well does not make them a Fundamentalist.

Justin has stated many times that there is almost nothing that would change his mind about his beliefs, yet i would not call him a fundamentalist.

[cbayer]

36. I agree absolutely that an atheist that says they see no reason to believe

and would rather that others didn't as well is not a fundamentalist. They may be a crusader if they proselytize, but that is a different matter.

OTOH, what about the atheist who states definitively that there is no god and that anyone that believes that is crazy or stupid or weak or otherwise faulty. What about the atheist who demands that believers must read the bible literally, or they are hypocrites? What about the atheist who sees religious belief as a disease for which "we" must find a cure? What of the atheists who demand ideological purity within their ranks and can not tolerate diversity? What of those that want to "save" believers?

It is those who are so very sure that they are right and everyone else is wrong that i think could be considered fundamentalists.

Honestly, like religious fundamentalists, I think there is a case that can be made that those people are the most weak when it comes to their beliefs/lack of beliefs, but that's a different topic.

[rogerashton]

35. Rationalism

Most atheists, maybe all, are rationalists. That is, they feel obliged to base their ideas on reason. And having done that, naturally, they are confident that they are right. Unfortunately, what seems reasonable to one person often doesn't seem reasonable to another. (That's actually rather strange, when you think about it.) But all the same, it is not a matter of faith. Atheists have reasons for what they believe or don't believe. Faith, by contrast, is belief regardless of reason. And that's irrational from any point of view -- isn't it?

Not all Christians are fundamentalists. Fundamentalism is a response to differences among professing Christians, some of whom base their belief partly on scripture and partly on reason. The fundamentalists react against this, rejecting any concession to reason and instead affirming doctrines that they imagine were present at the founding of the faith. I say "they imagine" because the fundamentalist doctrines are actually quite new -- "the rapture," for example. Nothing is more destructive of Christian faith than biblical scholarship.

Anyway -- fundamentalist atheist = anti rationalist rationalist = the null set.

[cbayer]

37. Atheism is very simple - it is the lack of belief in a god.

Sometimes it is rational and sometimes it is wholly irrational, based on experiences and emotions.

There is no attendant obligation to base ones ideas on reason just because one is an atheist. Quite the contrary, some of the ideas thrown around here are highly irrational.

But this is the argument that is used to make the case for atheists being right and everyone else being wrong. It's not a rational or reasonable argument, but it is a convenient one.

Both atheists and theists have reasons for what they believe or don't believe. Both atheists and theists have areas in which they rely on faith, which is a trust that you are correct despite the lack of concrete evidence. That is distinctly different than "regardless of reason".

Some people believe. Some people don't believe. Some people aren't sure. Some people don't care.

No one has the upper hand in this game. No one is smarter or more correct or more rational based solely on their position on the existence of god.

[rogerashton]

40. This is a good example of belief based on faith.

Whatever you believe, many atheists are offended when they are told that their opinions are based on faith. And I agree with them, though I don't consider myself an atheist. (My late father did profess himself an atheist, and it is from him that I take what I said about the moral obligation to base belief on reason.)

There is a difference between reasons, as I was using the term, and experience or emotion. To say, for example, "my reason for believing X is that it comforts me" is contrary to my understanding of "reasons" in the context of rationalism. (In his older years, about the age I am now, my dad expressed some envy of people who were capable of the irrational belief, as he saw it, of a life after death.)

You seem to think that I evaluate "rational" as good and "nonrational" as bad. Quite the contrary. Some forms of rationalism conflict so strongly with experience that they seem to me to be confused. (Materialism, to which my father subscribed, would be a case in point. I never really tried to get that point across to him.) My point was that people who believe that their opinions are based on reason quite naturally have no doubt that their opinions are correct. If they had any doubt, they would be obliged to abandon those opinions. And if they did not feel insulted when told that they too have faith, they would be acting inconsistently, something that a rationalist would feel obliged to avoid. It's a moral obligation to feel insulted at assertions such as yours. And to that extent, as I say, I do agree with my father.

[cbayer]

41. I understand that some atheists are offended when someone says

their opinions are based on faith. I can understand the reluctance to have one's non-beliefs compared to beliefs when it comes to religion.

But everyone uses faith to some extent. We have faith in our doctors, our airline pilots, our children.

One of the reasons I object to this equating atheism with reason is that it is often used to make the counter argument that theists are without reason. You use the for "nonrational", but what if we use the word irrational? That most definitely implies something "bad".

Using reason is fine for many things, but not so good in other circumstances. It is not superior to be a person of "reason" when it comes to religion. As there is no proof of either the existence or lack of existence of a god, there is no "reason" to take a hard stand either way.

Interesting point about your father expressing envy of believers (while at the same time putting them down, I note). I think that belief or lack of belief may not be a choice for many, if not all, people. Your father sounds like a most interesting man who had many ideas. I think the whole concept of an imperative to avoid inconsistency may be exactly the point at which an atheist can become a fundamentalist.

Do you think your father was a fundamentalist?

[rogerashton]

42. Certainly not

Look back a post: I did say that I regard "fundamentalist atheist" as a contradiction in terms. So no, I do not think dad was a fundamentalist. To say I thought that would be meaningless nonsense (as I understand sense!).

And he didn't "put them down" as you "note." Well, I have to qualify that in one way. He didn't think that most people were as strong-willed as he was. He had a case. In 1960 he gave up smoking, after a 2-pack-a-day habit, and for a year he carried an unopened pack of cigarettes in his shirt pocket every day. He explained: "I wanted to know I was not a slave to it." His feeling was that religion could be a good thing for many people, in that it would help them to live as a person should live, but that was not something that could work for him, nor something he needed.

The obligation not to be inconsistent may not be a good thing. (I can't say, since I have felt such an obligation as long as I can remember and so have no comparative experience to draw on.) But good or bad it is the opposite of fundamentalism.

Yes, I am also a rationalist, but my rationalism has more in common with those of Plato and Whitehead than with those of Huxley, Dawkins, and my dad. And there is that about rationalism that is frustrating. Rationalists disagree on many things, but we all (I think) feel that we should be able to resolve our differences through (of course) reason. And we have been working on that for about 2500 years without much progress. But we will keep trying.

And that, in the last analysis, is why I remain a rationalist. You tell me: can it ever be possible for those who believe on faith to resolve their differences? Could Islam and Roman Catholicism, who after all both worship Elohim, ever be one faith even in principle? Hinduism and Methodism, same question? At least we rationalists can continue to discuss our differences within a common framework of reason.

Edit: corrected typo

[cbayer]

44. Good for him for quitting smoking.

I quit 6 months ago after 45 years of heavy smoking. I think I am a hero and I doubt your father is much more strong willed than I. All of us that have quit smoking are success stories.

Unless I am reading you incorrectly, he also thought he was more rational than most people. His seeing that religion was a good thing for some, just not for him sounds nice, but other things you have said sound like a fairly superior POV.

Being inconsistent is better than being rigid, imo. What may look like inconsistency or even hypocrisy may be a change in opinion based on new evidence or experience. I do not think that being rigidly consistent is the opposite of fundamentalism. In fact, I would suggest that it is the basis of fundamentalism.

I can't answer the questions you raise in the final paragraph, but I would like to think that much could be accomplished. When believers of all stripes and non-believers agree that as long as beliefs do no harm they should be tolerated, I think the world will be a better place.

[rogerashton]

45. Well, congratulations on quitting.

Last edited Thu Dec 18, 2014, 09:12 PM - Edit history (1)

Since I was never able to start, I can't judge from my own experience how hard it is to quit, but I know plenty of people who have tried and failed.

You seem to be working pretty hard at missing my point. Of course, any rationalist feels his opinions are justified by reason, and it follows from that, by reason, that those who disagree are mistaken.

While I agree that hypocrisy gets a bit of a bad press, I don't agree that logical consistency is the same as inflexibility. Most rationalists would say that we learn from experience, and that we may learn new reasoning that changes our "reflective equilibrium." (I certainly have done so more than once.) There are some exceptions. One of my students last term was committed to Austrian Economics, a doctrine that limits the role of experience in rational inference quite narrowly. He was an excellent student, though.

Edit: corrected misspelling

[cbayer]

46. Perhaps I don't fully understand this label you use to describe yourself.

If it makes sense for you and doesn't harm anyone else, then I can't really see any objection.

You are an academician, then, and live in the world of philosophical inquiry I take it.

What I keep reading, and where I may be missing your point, is that by needing to believe that you are right because you are rational, you can take the position that others are wrong. This appears to the be case whether you have evidence or not.

So, if you say, I don't believe in a god because I see no evidence for a god, that is one thing. But if you say, I don't believe in a god and those that do are sorely mistaken because god does not exist, that is quite another.

[rogerashton]

47. sorely mistaken?

I would have said, routinely mistaken.

By the way, I didn't say that "I don't believe in God." It isn't a matter of belief and it isn't that simple. What is God? What is a god? There are rationalist theists, but there are also different (inconsistent?) concepts attached to the word "god."

If I am not mistaken, it is orthodox Christian doctrine that human beings are too weak to live good lives by their own will. This becomes possible only by the Grace of God, which flows from Jesus. My dad thought there are some exceptions, and that he was one; evidently you are too.

Islam has an interestingly different take on that, as I understand it. It is that Allah, being all-knowing, does not ask of a person what that person is incapable of doing. Could it then be said that a Christian, facing unbearable temptation, prays for grace, while the Muslim gives in? Perhaps the Muslim will be confident that, since Allah is all-knowing, he would not face this temptation if he could not resist it.

Forgive me if I am prolix; as you say, I am an academic and it spills over after the day is done. A rationalist determines by reason how to interpret evidence and learn from it. If we are lucky, that's a matter of mathematics. We are not often lucky. And there are differences among rationalists on just how evidence should be interpreted and when it may justify a change of opinion. (It is here my student and I had a respectful difference of opinion.) So a particular opinion may be based or evidence or on some other sort of reason. Certainly some rationalist atheists would agree that evidence does not bear on the existence or nonexistence of God, but would say, "I do not believe in a god because the concept of god is logically inconsistent and thus impossible." But there are, as I said, more than one concept of god ....

Salmon for supper. It was good, too. And the little drink to follow -- as my dad said, "One little old toddy never hurt nobody."

Edit: changed a sentence completely as it seemed badly thought out. So there.

[cbayer]

49. You perspective is interesting, that is for sure.

And I can't find much I object to, though I do find it fairly constricting.

Glad you enjoyed your dinner and your drink. We watched the rest of the movie Noah. Very interesting from a religious perspective.

[eridani]

54. "If atheism is a religion, then baldness is a hairstyle"

Don't know who said it.

[cbayer]

55. Baldness is a hairstyle.

[rug]

56. There are even some who cultivate that look.

They think it makes them look cool.

[cbayer]

57. There are entire groups and clubs and everything.

It does make a man look pretty tough, imo. Not so good on women, though.

Except for that one actress in the original star trek movie. She looked great!

[rug]

58. Persis Khambatta. I had to look her up.

She died of a heart attack at 49.

She was Parsee and died with a full head of hair.

[cbayer]

59. I did not know that she had died.

I wonder what happened. That's way too young.

I knew her, but she did not know me. It's a complicated story, but when bald, she was exceedingly intimidating.

[eridani]

71. If you don't have hair, how do you style it? n/t

[cbayer]

72. For something to be a style, it doesn't have to be styled.

But, some people do put some shiny creamy stuff on their bald head, so I guess they are styling.

[cleanhippie]

61. If atheism is a religion, then barefoot is a shoe.

I like that one better.

[AlbertCat]

67. If atheism is a religion, then off is a TV channel.

Is "theism" a religion?


No.


Why would atheism get littered with a bunch of religious jargon anyway. It doesn't apply. Just because whose who delude themselves into believing in supernatural guesses from the distant past can't wrap their brains around what atheism even means to those who are atheists is why these stupid "debates" even happen.

(And, no I'm not going to stop using a perfectly normal non-pejorative word that means what I want to say.)

[rogerashton]

62. And there are a lot of folks out there who conceal it with a wig. eom

[cbayer]

63. And yet others who chose it as a look, even though they aren't truly bald.

Stranger and stranger.

It's definitely a hairstyle.

[rogerashton]

74. I'm thinking, in the words of the country song,

"There's a whole lot of Sunday Christians." And some of them are atheists who choose not to risk the repression that atheists often face.

Let's see -- does that make religion a hairstyle?

[cbayer]

75. Never heard of the song, but I think that the sentiment is true to some extent.

As to whether that makes religion a hairstyle, I don't know.

I do know that the diversity within believers/non-believers and hairstyles is pretty vast.

Sometimes its outrageous and meant to capture attention, but most of the time it's pretty ordinary and unremarkable.

[PassingFair]

73. Should be revised to: Bald is a

..hair color.

[on point]

51. No. Atheism is about evidence based thinking. Fundies are delusion

Fundies insist on belief in the absence of evidence, so atheism and fundamentalism are mutually exclusive. To deride beliefs based on fantasy is not really the problem. It is the religious delusion and insistence on putting forth nonsense, and then insisting that others live according to their delusions is really the problem

[cbayer]

52. Strictly speaking, atheism is about one thing only - the lack of belief in god(s)

It may be about evidence based thinking for some, but not for all.

Beliefs are by their very nature without evidence. Some atheists have specific beliefs. That is what she is addressing.

It's not about deriding religious beliefs, it's about the belief that religion should be eliminated and the belief that religious people are mentally ill.

I do agree that insisting that others live according to one's personal beliefs that is really the problem, and there are those without religious beliefs that do just that.

There is absolutely nothing that would make atheism and fundamentalism mutually exclusive.

[Prophet 451]

53. Depends what you mean by "fundie"

Certainly, atheists can be just as aggressive with their proselytizing, just as intolerant of different beliefs and just as insulting at theists.

[LeftishBrit]

60. 'Fundamentalist', 'militant' and 'intolerant/bigoted' are being treated wrongly as synonyms

'Fundamentalist' = 'seeking to return to, or remain with, first principles of an ideology; not accepting revision or change. In religious groups, this usually goes with social/political conservativism and, at best, withdrawal from mainstream society, and at worst, a desire to impose conservative rules on everyone else. However, it is quite possible to be a religious fundamentalist and apolitical (indeed some fundamentalist groups don't vote on principle); and not impossible, though rare, to be a religious fundamentalist and left-wing. I am not sure how this would apply to atheism; though no doubt there are some atheist philosophers who would like to go back to the principles of David Hume and the Enlightenment, or even to the small group of atheist philosophers of classical Greece.

'Militant' means ready to fight - this could mean fighting to impose atheism; fighting for atheist rights; or fighting for social justice. Some atheists have aggressively sought to impose atheism, but this is unusual outside of political systems and countries that are already totalitarian for other reasons. Quite often, fighting for the rights of atheists, or even for the rights of gays and other social minorities, is unjustly equated with fighting to impose atheism.

Intolerance and bigotry? Well, certainly this can happen among atheists as among any other group of people. I've found it most common among sports fans!

[AlbertCat]

64. Of course not.

Next ridiculous question....

[cbayer]

70. He has spoken the word and the word is truth.

Next pontification?

[DonCoquixote]

76. yes, and no

is atheism, by itself a religion. Not really.
are there those who use atheism to try and achieve the same unformonty opf thought and agression against all others as theism does, yes.

Perfect example: Madalyn Murray O hair condemned agnostics, to the point where SHe defined the term.

http://www.atheisms.info/atheisms/ohairag.html

"Let me tell you in one word the difference between an atheist and an agnostic. The difference is guts. I lose more agnostic friends by saying that. But let's go into detail again."

Now, in this manner, by defining those that do not care to carry her banner, she behaves very much like the same people she condemns. Atheists might rightly cirticize the Christian who says "Jews are just Chrtisans who have yet to accpet Jesus" or Muslims who say "Chrtisians are just Muslim who do nto realize the Quran." In both times they would be right to criticize, so why did O hair choose to define what an Agnopstic was, and even claim to define what Huxley thought?

Athism by itself, is not a religion, but , like anythign else, people can mix in their own agenda.

[goldent]

77. I think for sure there are atheists who behave in a certain way,

that some people call 'fundamentalist.' I don't think it is a matter of whether they exist or not, it is just what to call them.

[cbayer]

78. I agree about the terminology.

Using a term that has been primarily been used in a religious sense is problematic.

So what word to use?

The debater who makes the case that there are atheists fundamentalists makes a distinction between atheists and atheists with specific beliefs. I like that distinction, but not sure how to capture it in a word or short phrase.