24 of 26
24
What is an atheist fundamentalist?
Posted: 04 January 2009 06:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 346 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1031
Joined  2007-12-04

Good point

 Signature 

http://www.thehereticandthepreacher.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 January 2009 06:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 347 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2492
Joined  2008-04-05

‘I’m in a middle category - I don’t want people to believe hateful things about their gods, such as AIDS being a divine punishment or Jews being doomed to Hell from birth. Although I’m neither HIV-positive nor Jewish, I take such beliefs personally and I don’t want such beliefs directed at anyone.’


Exactly the point here Carsto

What you say here would indeed be the sentiments of the gentle cynic or common atheist.

Thus there is no such thing as a fundamentalist atheist. It is a moot point a non sequiter or an incoherent title. It just makes no sense. To have a fundamentalist atheist there must be a liberal atheist. Every heard of one even described? Indeed a liberal atheist is an agnostic.

 Signature 

‘Every reflecting mind must acknowledge that there is no proof of the existence of a Deity’

‘If ignorance of nature gave birth to gods, knowledge of nature destroys them’

Percy Bysshe Shelley

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 January 2009 08:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 348 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1891
Joined  2007-12-19
Jefe - 04 January 2009 01:40 PM
McCreason - 04 January 2009 11:58 AM

Thus there is no such thing as a fundamentalist atheist. It is a moot point a non sequiter or an incoherent title. It just makes no sense..

Granted.  And unsurprising considering the originator or the thread.

Ah yes. “The Immediate Deistic-Fundamentalist-Anti-Atheist, Didn’t Say I Was Any of Those, Used to Be Pro-Abortion But After a Couple of Posts Now I’m a Pro-Lifer/Pro-Choicer, Unearther of Ist-Isms, Project-Starter/Poll-Watcher, and Caller-Outer of Offensive Language-User Suppressor.”

[ Edited: 04 January 2009 08:58 PM by goodgraydrab]
 Signature 

“This is it. You are it.”


- Jos. Campbell

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 January 2009 09:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 349 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  224
Joined  2008-10-19

I haven’t responded to any of the posts in the last 15 or so pages because the thread wandered off topic.  It is obvious that atheists and others in this forum are uncomfortable with the idea of atheist fundamentalism, but have a difficult time producing any tangible criticism of it, in the accurate way I have presented it.  More energy has been put into attacking Bruce on this thread than has been put into actually being intellectually critical of the idea of atheist fundamentalism.

I have changed my original post on this thread, the idea of deistic atheism has been removed it because it doesn’t have anything to do with atheist fundamentalism, though it is still a valid label that describes a significant portion of atheists.

Here is my updated description of atheist fundamentalism:

Immediate Suppression - 26 November 2008 04:40 AM

An atheist fundamentalist is someone who is absolutely convinced this all is simply a result of a natural process with no outside interference(which is a possibility), who is 100% certain that everything about themselves will cease to exist when they die(also a possibility).  Another atheist fundamentalist position is an absolute confidence that consciousness is simply a byproduct of human life, despite the lack of scientific evidence to confirm this.  The term atheist fundamentalist is useful in differentiating between atheists who are open to some of these ideas, such as Sam Harris expresses in his book The End of Faith, and those who are close-minded on these areas where scientific certainty has yet to emerge.

And as with religious fundamentalism, another trend of atheist fundamentalism is an intolerance for differing views.  I am not referring to conversational intolerance, where personal convictions are weighed against evidence, and where intellectual honesty is demanded of all.  That is healthy.  What is unhealthy, and is also bad for the image of atheism is when it becomes belligerently offensive to the point where personal insults are directed towards those with differing opinions.

Examples of fundamentalist statements made by atheist fundamentalists and others can be seen on this thread.  You are welcome to participate in the Treason Project if you also think that atheist fundamentalism is a unhealthy trend, and want to aid in confronting it. 

I use the word atheist fundamentalist to differentiate them from the significant portion of atheists, probably the majority actually, who realize and admit that we still have a lot to learn about consciousness, who realize we don’t know exactly what happens after we die.  It is also effective in differentiating between between atheists who practice conversational intolerance in a civil manner, and those who consistently do not. 

Some atheist’s only hold fundamentalist views on one issue, just as some Christian fundamentalists only hold fundamentalist views on one or two issues. 

Is atheist fundamentalism a bad thing?  Probably not in comparison to religious fundamentalism. But atheist fundamentalists do have the potential to inhibit scientific progress because of their absolute certainty on some issues where science is clearly not certain, which is essentially scientific close-mindedness.  Absolute certainty in areas where science is not absolutely certain inhibits scientific progress rather than encouraging it.  And the atheist fundamentalists who engage in belligerently offensive rhetoric certainly give atheism a bad image, one that other atheists would like to improve.

I am not the first person to attach fundamentalism to atheism, though up until now it seems to only have been applied erroneously by opponents of religious critics, for the most part.  Atheists fundamentalism isn’t defined as strictly following a doctrine, since atheism has no set doctrine.  However, having absolute certainty in something is dogmatic in nature, so atheist fundamentalist are dogmatic in nature.  Its definition is applied to atheists who express absolutely certainty about something without the support of scientific evidence, which is also a trait of fundamentalism, and to those who engage in conversational intolerance in a belligerent, uncivil manner.

 Signature 

Please call me Immediate

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 January 2009 07:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 350 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1891
Joined  2007-12-19
Immediate Suppression - 05 January 2009 02:51 AM

It is obvious that atheists and others in this forum are uncomfortable with the idea of atheist fundamentalism, but have a difficult time producing any tangible criticism of it, in the accurate way I have presented it.

That’s because you don’t pay attention…

Here is my updated description of atheist fundamentalism:

and you can’t make up your mind.

 Signature 

“This is it. You are it.”


- Jos. Campbell

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 January 2009 08:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 351 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1044
Joined  2008-02-15
Immediate Suppression - 05 January 2009 02:51 AM

It is obvious that atheists and others in this forum are uncomfortable with the idea of atheist fundamentalism, but have a difficult time producing any tangible criticism of it, in the accurate way I have presented it.

LOL! Your definition of fundamentalist is any one who doesn’t believe what you believe or criticizes what you believe. E.G. I don’t believe in souls or afterlives, because there is no evidence to support such ideas, but plenty against. You say that makes me a fundamentalist, why, because there is no proof that there are no souls or afterlives. That’s a bullshit argument, and now I’m a fundamentalist again because I told you that your bullshit argument was bullshit. It’s all circular. Couple that with your lying, dishonest and manipulative practices and you get bullshit squared.

 Signature 

Why is there Something instead of Nothing: No reason or ever knowable reason.

Kissing Hank’s Ass
Pope Song (rated NC17).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 January 2009 08:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 352 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1221
Joined  2008-07-20

I’ve been trying to get the good news about IS’s “something may be intervening” heebie-jeebies; the brain scan is back, and nothing is intervening.  I think I posted it on a different thread, but in case he missed it, here it is again:

 Signature 

“I am one of the few people I know who has argued in print that torture may be an ethical necessity in our war on terror.”  Sam Harris October 17, 2005

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 January 2009 09:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 353 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1044
Joined  2008-02-15
teuchter - 05 January 2009 01:54 PM

I’ve been trying to get the good news about IS’s “something may be intervening” heebie-jeebies; the brain scan is back, and nothing is intervening.  I think I posted it on a different thread, but in case he missed it, here it is again:

I saw that, it’s great!

 Signature 

Why is there Something instead of Nothing: No reason or ever knowable reason.

Kissing Hank’s Ass
Pope Song (rated NC17).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 January 2009 01:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 354 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  224
Joined  2008-10-19
goodgraydrab - 05 January 2009 12:58 PM
Immediate Suppression - 05 January 2009 02:51 AM

It is obvious that atheists and others in this forum are uncomfortable with the idea of atheist fundamentalism, but have a difficult time producing any tangible criticism of it, in the accurate way I have presented it.

That’s because you don’t pay attention…

Here is my updated description of atheist fundamentalism:

and you can’t make up your mind.

I’ve simply refined the definition, no wholesale changes.  It seems to be immune from any serious intellectual criticism, from what I’ve seen so far.

 Signature 

Please call me Immediate

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 January 2009 01:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 355 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  224
Joined  2008-10-19
GAD - 05 January 2009 01:44 PM

LOL! Your definition of fundamentalist is any one who doesn’t believe what you believe or criticizes what you believe.

You apparently haven’t read the definition of an atheist fundamentalist I provided.  It has nothing to do with my beliefs, it has to do with people who are certain of things when science does not support their certainty, or who are belligerently intolerant of others views.

 Signature 

Please call me Immediate

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 January 2009 01:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 356 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  224
Joined  2008-10-19
GAD - 05 January 2009 02:19 PM
teuchter - 05 January 2009 01:54 PM

I’ve been trying to get the good news about IS’s “something may be intervening” heebie-jeebies; the brain scan is back, and nothing is intervening.  I think I posted it on a different thread, but in case he missed it, here it is again:

I saw that, it’s great!

teutchter seems to be completely and utterly incapable of actually saying anything intellectually critical of my idea of atheist fundamentalists, and has once again resorted to his predictable, desperate, meaningless posts.

 Signature 

Please call me Immediate

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 March 2009 03:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 357 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  224
Joined  2008-10-19
eucaryote - 18 December 2008 01:51 AM

One can’t be fundamentalist without a doctrine to be fundamental about. Sam Harris is right, atheism is the ism that isn’t.

Ok, I guess if there is no doctrine, it cannot be fundamentalist.  There are counterproductive atheists, but there are not atheist fundamentalists.

 Signature 

Please call me Immediate

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 March 2009 07:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 358 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2492
Joined  2008-04-05

‘One can’t be fundamentalist without a doctrine to be fundamental about’

And thats THE point. Can’t be a fundamentalist without doctrine and dogma. Atheists are anti doctrine and dogma.

There are activist atheists and passive atheists. Thats about it.

 Signature 

‘Every reflecting mind must acknowledge that there is no proof of the existence of a Deity’

‘If ignorance of nature gave birth to gods, knowledge of nature destroys them’

Percy Bysshe Shelley

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 March 2009 11:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 359 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  224
Joined  2008-10-19
McCreason - 16 March 2009 11:24 AM

Atheists are anti doctrine and dogma.

While I have acknowledged atheists are anti-doctrine, I can’t agree that some of them aren’t dogmatic at times.  Jefe pointed this out earlier, and I agreed with him.

McCreason - 16 March 2009 11:24 AM

There are activist atheists and passive atheists. Thats about it.

There are also counterproductive atheists, just as there are productive ones, in terms of how they represent atheism.  Wouldn’t you agree?

 Signature 

Please call me Immediate

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 March 2009 12:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 360 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2492
Joined  2008-04-05

Atheists are not dogmatic. They are anti dogma. Dogma is a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds.

Atheists have adequate grounds for their view because it is based on scientific methods and reason. Thus their view is not dogmatic.

And sure, if you absolutely must find a way to divide atheists, you can call them productive and counter productive, Asian and Caucasian, educated and noneducated, male and female or whatever….but does any of that really matter? Gets kind of silly doesn’t it?

 Signature 

‘Every reflecting mind must acknowledge that there is no proof of the existence of a Deity’

‘If ignorance of nature gave birth to gods, knowledge of nature destroys them’

Percy Bysshe Shelley

Profile
 
 
   
24 of 26
24
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed