OK, I’m an Atheist Fundamentalist. Now What?

[rug]

December 23, 2014
by Kaveh Mousavi

So at Chris Stedman’s blog, two atheists are talking about whether atheist fundamentalism can exist or not. The one we’re concerned about here is Sarah Jones’s article. She argues that there are atheist fundamentalists. And I seem to be among those atheists she talks about. So I say, OK. If you wish to call us atheist fundamentalists, we accept the pejorative, just like Stedman himself who accepted the label “faitheist”. But even if we accept the existence of fundamentalist atheism, we see how meaningless and empty that insult is, and how it proves the arguments of firebrand atheists, and vindicates their attitude.

Let me make it clear: we’re going by fundamentalist atheism as defined by Jones. It’s her concept and we accept as the ultimate authority for the purpose of this article. OK? OK.

So let us take a look at those scary atheists:

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.

I do think society would benefit from the erasure of religion. I’d go beyond that and become more fundie: not only religion, the whole cultures (western and eastern) that gave birth to these religions should be erased and a new culture based on human rights should arise before we can begin to talk about a truly secular and free society

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/marginoferr/2014/12/23/ok-im-an-atheist-fundamentalist-now-what/

[cbayer]

1. OMG, he wants to eliminate entire cultures, specifically those that gave rise to religions….

which would be pretty much all of them.

He prefers the term "firebrand atheist". While I do think his goal is to anger people, I don't think that term is nearly extreme enough. I can think of a whole slew of things to call him if he would prefer I not use the term fundamentalist.

He was born in 1989 and has that refreshing but naive and wholly self-centered view of the world one often sees in a 25 year old. He could also use a proofreader.

[TM99]

2. I have begun to understand that the New Atheism

simply can not exist without fundamentalism. It seems to have developed in parallel with the rise of the Christian right in the US and the UK since the 1980's. A whole generation grew up as children with that and this opposing viewpoint makes perfect psychological sense because of it.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I don't approve. It is frightfully one-sided, throw the baby out with the bathwater, raging, and really quite un-intellectual. But I do get it.

It saddens me greatly that both camps really do want to control, dictate, and do away with so much that is rich, vibrant, meaningful, and important about culture, religion, philosophy, etc. and really seem so ignorant of those topics at the same time.

[cbayer]

3. I don't like the term. It doesn't really describe anything.

The author that he is responding to makes an interesting distinction between atheists and atheists with specific beliefs. This makes sense to me, but the terminology remains clumsy.

Every movement has it's "firebrands" and they can play an important role, but they can also become liabilities at some point. The raging does garner attention, which can be good, but once it begins repelling allies, there is a problem.

I agree that the fundamentalists on both sides of this spectrum are trying to create a sad, dogmatic, and rigid system, and they often seem to want to do it just so they can be "right".

[AtheistCrusader]

7. Oh yes indeed, it's "un-intellectual" to tell people to stop relying on their imaginary friends.

Your post is dripping with false equivalency.

[Jim__]

4. It sounds like he wants to implement a radicalized version of the Pol Pot plan.

Well, maybe it will work out better this time.

[cbayer]

5. Well, better people have tried and failed.

Honestly, I hope he never gets the chance.

[AtheistCrusader]

6. Ageist.