Debate, Part Two: "Yes, atheists can be fundamentalists"

[rug]

Sign from the 2012 Reason Rally. Photo by Brad Pennock via Flickr Commons.

This week, two atheists are debating whether or not “atheist fundamentalists” exist. Today’s contribution is by Sarah Jones, Communications Associate for Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The views expressed in this piece do not necessarily reflect those of her employer. Below, Jones defends the use of “atheist fundamentalists.” Check back tomorrow for James Croft’s perspective, and share yours in the comments.

Chris Stedman | Dec 18, 2014

Fundamentalism as an ideological category has historically been limited to religion. But as atheism grows and begins to double as a political identity for many, I propose expanding that category to include nonbelievers.

First, the necessary caveats. When I argue that atheists can be fundamentalists, I do so with the understanding that there is significant division among atheists on the subject of religion. Often, the atheists most opposed to religion are classified as “New Atheists,” with the Four Horsemen as their appointed representatives.

But New Atheism itself is a nebulous category. Many who identify as New Atheists don’t believe that society would benefit from the erasure of religion, and focus their criticisms instead on specific doctrines.

Many others, who do argue that religious faith is inherently harmful and antithetical to social progress, would not necessarily identify themselves as New Atheists—and even diverge sharply from Dawkins and others on feminism and other issues loosely categorized under the banner of social justice. For these reasons, I refer to atheism and atheists with specific beliefs rather than New Atheism and New Atheists.

http://chrisstedman.religionnews.com/2014/12/18/yes-atheists-can-fundamentalists/#sthash.rNh0ZGPq.dpuf

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

1. Nonsense, if I say I dont believe in 12 legged elephants who can fly and I insist that I dont

am I a fundie?

[cleanhippie]

2. No, because that's not religion. It only applies when you do that to religion.

Strange, isn't it?

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

3. The undeinable truth is that someday in the future, if cons and criminals dont destroy

all life due to climate change, nobody or almost nobody, no humans will believe in a god of any kind.

This is a simple reality of evolution.

Knowing that and then seeing how much harm we have to put up with due to religion, is frustrating.

[rug]

5. See, now that there is a belief, if not a wan hope.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

6. No more so than if I were to say that at some point in the future we will cure cancer.

[rug]

16. We may not.

Belief in inevitable progress is a hope as well.

Expectation of the ruin of civilization (before or after cancer is cured) is also no more than a belief.

[rug]

4. That would seem more a matter of fact than belief or opinion.

[phil89]

7. Interesting you use an intentional

trick to attempt to make your point. Par for the course.

[rug]

17. I am a great admirer of Penn Jillette.

[cbayer]

18. Is he the one that the lions tried to eat or was it his partner?

Kind of ironic with the whole history of feeding christians to the lions.

BTW, have you seen blackfish? It's a profound story about how humans make a terrible mistake by thinking they understand non-domesticated animals.

[rug]

19. No, that's Sigfried and Roy.

Is blackfish a movie? Or is it a documentary about cats?

[cbayer]

21. Oops, now I am really confused.

Blackfish is a documentary about the orcas at Seaworld. It may be responsible for finally putting Seaworld out of business. At least I hope it does.

You might really like the legal aspect of the film. OSHA sued them and it's a very interesting case.

[rug]

22. Ah, it does sound interesting. I'll look for it.

Thanks!

[AtheistCrusader]

13. I see deception is still easier than working toward the truth.

[rug]

20. I doubt that is a recent epiphany.

[edhopper]

29. Four

It's quite appearent when you block the feet.

A rational mind can often see past the illusion.

[rug]

30. If you do that you'll have feetless legs.

Reason without perspective and insight leads to absurd results.

[edhopper]

33. The question was about legs

Not the ambulability of the elephant.

As pictured it is an impossible animal. Similar to the way people describe God.

My perspective is fine, thank you.

[rug]

34. Legs usually come with feet, especially elephant legs.

And they don't like litterbugs.

[Fumesucker]

46. Odd that you would post that image

They used to make wastebaskets out of the feet of elephants back in the Victorian era.

[cbayer]

9. Since that holds no resemblance at all to the point she is making, the answer is no.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

10. Of course it does, how can one be a fundie about not believing in something that isnt real?

[cbayer]

11. Did you read the article? I am thinking you did not.

She doesn't equate not believing in something with fundamentalism.

However, those that take the position that they know that god is not real are expressing a belief, and they might be a fundamentalist.

Are you one of them?

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

12. Oh, so you are trying to distinguish between someone who KNOWS there is no such thing as

god as opposed to someone who doesnt believe it?

Games, nonsense.
Silliness

Really it is.

I dont mind that you need to believe in a god to make your way in life, many who do are really good people.

But if I tell you I know there is no such thing as an elephant with 11 legs who can fly, or that I believe no such thing exists, is the same thing.

Only someone who insists on believing something not in evidence like god would need to make this argument.

If you could admit that, it would be best.

[cbayer]

15. The author makes a distinction between atheist and atheist with specific beliefs.

One simply does not hold a belief in god. The other doesn't hold a belief in god, but holds other beliefs. Those beliefs may be that religion should be eliminated or that they know there is no god. Those are beliefs.

Now you may find that games, nonsense and silliness to you, but your blinders are very large and your rejection of that idea very telling.

I'm not a believer, but because I don't share your "beliefs", you have labeled me as one. That is exactly her point. I might be a nonbeliever, but I'm not the right kind of non-believer.

And your painting me as a theist also adds credence to all her points about fundamentalist atheists.

When you compare peoples beliefs in god to a belief in a 11 legged elephant that can fly, you are the one who is playing games, spouting nonsense and being very silly. This serves no purpose than to make you feel superior. I know that there are those that need to do this to make their way in life, and some of them might even be really good people.

Someone who believes that lack of evidence is a good reason to say something doesn't exist is the one who is dismissing reason and critical thinking. I hope to god you are not a scientist.

I am so glad you chimed in here though, because she couldn't have held up a better example if she had tried.

Now, what is it you want me to admit? I certainly want to do whatever you say is best.

[cbayer]

8. I like the distinction of atheist and atheist with specific beliefs,

and the way she defines fundamentalists as those who actively seek to end religion and want to see their specific ideology dominate.

It's not enough to be an atheist, in the eyes of some, you have to be the right kind of atheist. Diversity of opinion is not permitted. Heretics will be driven from the sanctuary.

How is that different from a religious fundamentalist? It's not.

It will be interesting to read the counterpoint and I am sure he will make a good case, but she really seems to have nailed it.

[AtheistCrusader]

14. Still pining for access to A&A I see.

Must really burn your ass that Prophet 451 hasn't been banned.

[Prophet 451]

43. Not sure why I would be banned

I've had the occasional post pulled but no more so than many and I've been here since 2005.

[AtheistCrusader]

44. It's a compliment.

You have a form of faith, yet you are able to post in A&A without causing a shitstorm/dramafest.

Puts the lie to the claim made by certain parties about how only the right type of atheist is welcome in A&A. The actual banishment issue wasn't about degree of disbelief, it was about being a decent neighbor.

[Prophet 451]

45. Ah, thank you then

TBH, I've only posted in A&A by accident, when I didn't notice the group the thread came form on the Latest/Greatest pages.

[Warren Stupidity]

47. You don't show up to jab rhetorical fingers in eyes.

The people who have been banned know exactly why that was, were given repeated warnings, ignored those warnings, and got banned. Plus we have a soft spot for Satanists because of our shared love of roasted babies.

[shenmue]

23. I knew a lot of those people

[procon]

24. It seems more of the same wistful fantasy.

Why is it that people with a religious bent are so determined to redefine everyone who doesn't cozy up to their altar into some contrived pigeonhole?

We atheists must be a seriously scary bunch. I can't understand is this frenetic, OCD fixation on trying to label all the normal, ordinary people who are quite content not to believe in absolutely any sort supernatural phenomena, as some some sort of closeted religion seeker. This is just astounding to me.

However, no matter how many cookie-cutter opinions are dragged in from the Internet, or the perseverance of some, atheists can't be crammed into ill-fitting religious molds just to sooth the anxieties of those who can't accept that everyone doesn't conform to their faith.

[cbayer]

26. What? The author has no religious "bent" and neither do I.

So you can keep your snide comments about people who don't cozy up to someone's altar.

Did this hit a little too close to home?

Atheists are just about the least scary people I know. But there is a subgroup that I would cross the street to avoid, just like I would cross the street to avoid an evangelizing religious fundamentalist.

So you can keep throwing around psychiatric terms that you clearly don't understand and the false assumptions about what others do or do not believe, but you just appear to be flailing.

Where in the world did you get the idea that this article or I say anything at all about someone being a closeted religion seeker? Were there some words in the first few sentences that made you so blind you couldn't even read the rest of it?

Don't like the description of fundamentalist offered by this author? Counter it with something that shows you took the time to think it through and used some critical thinking skills instead of a knee jerk attack on those that may see things differently than you.

[procon]

27. In resorting to a whole string of ad hominem attacks

I gather you must think that solidifies your argument.

[cbayer]

35. I guess it solidified it about as much as your whole string of ad hominem attacks.

Does that make us equal?

[Warren Stupidity]

48. Of course he has a "religious bent".

He is a self proclaimed "faithiest" who advocates for tolerance of all the depraved bullshit emanating from the religious and against pointing out that the emperor is butt naked, declaring those who do so to be "fundamentalists".

[truebrit71]

25. No. They can't.

There are no degrees as to non-belief. You simply don't believe.

Believers are the ones that have varying degrees of belief.

Simple concept.

[cbayer]

36. But she makes the distinction between atheists and atheists with specific beliefs.

Certainly you don't deny that there are atheists who have rather strong beliefs about their lack of belief.

Why would there be a problem with identifying and defining them?

[Jim__]

28. No matter what term is used, she is absolutely correct about the claims of some atheists.

Specifically:

I limit my argument here to an atheism that actively seeks to end religion. You’ve probably encountered its adherents online arguing that people of faith are mentally ill, intellectually limited, or intrinsically predisposed to bigotry. These arguments, and the people who make them, rely on a reductionist approach to religion.

[edhopper]

31. I do not believe there is no God

I am without belief in a Deity.

I would say I don't accept existence of any God.

Whatever kind of atheist that make me.

[rug]

32. an honest one.

[cbayer]

37. Wait, be careful. Doesn't that double negative cancel itself out?

Just kidding. I know what you are saying, and I don't think you would fit her definition at all.

[edhopper]

38. Do I have a belief that there is no God?

No, belief has nothing to do with it.
I simply don't accept the existence of a God.

Do I believe Astrology doesn't work?

No, I just don't accept the premiss of it and have never seen any evidence to support it.


For me it's not about belief. So I get into the double negative thingy.

As for "know" I would have to think of what I know to be true and see if it fits.

If I were to say we know the Universe is around 14 billion years old, then I would say I have the same degree of knowing about God.

But we know that number is subject to change with new data. So

[cbayer]

39. I was teasing you. I think I understand where you are with this.

You subject line had two negatives. In English, that generally means that you are making a positive statement.

I have beliefs. They are primarily ideological and not at all theistic.

I also have knowledge, but it is minuscule and, like you, subject to change.

[edhopper]

40. I know you were

I just thought I would elaborate more on my thoughts.

I also think belief as in faith is very different than belief in a philosophy.

It is like comparing the love of family with the love of chocolate or skiing.

[hunter]

41. I've met people who've abandoned the god and church of their fundamentalist upbringing...

... who still retain the patterns of fundamentalist thinking.

[Prophet 451]

42. Depends what you mean by "fundie"

If you mean "adhering to the books The Fundamentals of Faith", then obviously they cannot.

However, if we define "fundie" to mean proselytizing, aggressive, intolerant of other beliefs, supercilious and/or obnoxious toward believers, then clearly some atheists are (although, thankfully, most are not). In fairness, many believers are jerks about their beliefs as well.