I would agree with that.

 If you'll define fundamentalist, I'll answer the question.  As it is, I really have no idea what you want to know.

Yeah. The tricky part (sorry if I'm sandbagging you, Hamby), I *think*, is that it's pretty much impossible to talk about 'atheist fundamentalism' because there's no creed, book, or divines in 'the atheist' movement. So we can talk about, say, Hindu fundamentalists, or Christian fundamentalists, because they've got these things. So... I suppose once atheism becomes a unifying force, with a creed or basic doctrines, then we can discuss fundamentalism. Or orthodoxy or heterodoxy or heresy.... etc.

English Fail

Dude, people form collective "hives" over sports teams/video games/movies.

People are so much the same, yet so different.

Thus, this old generation lost it's contact with reality of common people and will probably need to die out. A rigid institutions only renews themselves with a new generation. For example, they're unable to examine the alternative medicine seriously, while common people gladly makes a great use of it, for years and decades. During the communistic era, the local president and politicians renounced a doctor and had their private healer. The people's choice shows what really works for them. At least here, in this country.

Research what exactly ?

Sports teams, video games, political ideologies, favorite movies, books, etc... all have fandoms that morph into collectives that likely tap into innate cognitive mechanisms (I'd refer you to Dr. Andy Thomson for more on this matter; see www.richarddawkins.net) . Religion hijacks the mind in a similar way. Atheism does not morph individuals into collectives. Why? Because unlike the other cultural phenomena you mentioned, atheism is not a system of ideas. As I mentioned, there are folks with diametric opposite views of the world (eg. Germaine Greer and Larry Flynt) who are atheists. Yet atheism, does not somehow unite them. Atheism is not akin to devotion to the Pittsburgh Steelers. You are right that people do form "hives" for many reasons but atheism is not one of them.

I searched "Andy Thomson" on richarddawkins.net, but coluldn't find the article, direct link?

And yes, atheism can unite people as this site and Richard Dawkins demostrate.

Atheism can yeild anti-theism and anti-theism groups could easily become fundamental.  Groups can become fundamental, but atheism alone can not directly yeild a dogmatic institution for which to be fundamental towards.

Yes it is, but it does not logically follow from atheism. There are plenty of atheists who do not actually care what religious people believe (and then mistakenly think that their apathy is a virtue).

It's not irrelevant at all. In order to establish an us/them adversarial relationship, you have to actually have a idea to rally people behind. Not believing in a deity is not an idea; it's a lack of belief. Now, the idea that believing in God is irrational and harmful is, of course, an idea that can create adversarial positions (and I hope it does), but again, that idea is not somehow automatically tied to atheism.

However, it is not someone who disbelieves in God who develops a fundamentalist disbelief in God. This simply does not happen and does not make sense. A person is not a fundamentalist for holding a view that there is no evidence to prove the existence of God, celestial teapots, the flying spaghetti monster, Thor, Zeus or Odin. The same cannot be said for those who are theists or even those who follow secular ideologies (eg. Marxism) who can become fundamentalist.

I'll wager that you, Pineapple, do not believe in the celestial talking Great Pumpkin given that there is no evidence. And if you express this view among fervent talking Pumpkin believers, does that make you a fundamentalist anti-Pumpkin disbeliever?

Oh and BTW, it is not an article by Andy Thomsen but his video on Dawkins site that I was referring you to.

Well, your answer is not semantically sensible, then, thus my objection/confusion. 'Some atheists will develop adversarial us/them attitudes' is different than suggesting, 'Atheists (period) will develop adversarial us/them attitudes'.

I think the reason you are confusing people is because you are saying that "athiests can be fundamentalists" and are implying that they can be a fundamentalist regarding atheism, which is impossible and I think you know this and aren't meaning to say this. I think what you are trying to say is that they can be fundamentalists in regards to other facets of their worldviews. Unfortunately, that is not what the topic is about at all.

That Dr. Koch is a devout Catholic atests to the fact that Dr. Koch maintains illogical and unscientific, views with respect to any number of things.

It IS correct to say that even though Atheism could strictly be defined as not believing in gods, that there is a scientific and a rational basis for Atheism. As to whether a particular Atheist is aware of any of these rational views, it cannot be said.
However, a specific individual's point of view does NOT NULLIFY a scientific and rational school of thought upon which Atheism arose and is based.

No one can claim that all
scientists views and beliefs are scientific and rational in there views. You PROVED that IS true, and we know it to be. However, THAT does NOT nullify that the roots of Atheism ARE based upon logic, rational thought and a steadfast belief in s ience IN ALL MATTERS.

That is obviously not true for Dr. Koch, as you as said.

He is a scientists, but maintains irrational, illogical and unscientific views. He's NOT an Atheist, as you sais, BUT HE'S ALSO
NOT SCIENTIFIC with respect to any number of views. THAT
does not nullify the roots of Atheism, nor the roots of science as both based on logic and rational thought.

You are quite correct that atheism is indeed bolstered by evidence from modern science. Yet there were scores of atheists who existed even before the development of the scientific method (eg. the greek philosopher Democritus). And paradoxically, the Islamic philosopher Alhazen was a key figure in developing the scientific method. Indeed, the foundation of atheism is rational thought and rejection of superstition and the supernatural. And this also led to the scientific world view.

We have esotericists who study fundamental issues surrounding biology and medicine. Most notably is a basic scientist studying the molecular biology of muscle fiber cytoskeleton which by a logical stretch has applications to cardiovascular disease and hereditary disorders such as the muscular dystrophies. Yet if you imply individuals who study supernatural phenomena such as telepathy or telekinesis, then no. Reading between the lines, I suspect you are referring to these latter "esotericists". In fact, theists who work at scientific institutions would laugh at any research devoted to investigating how Santa created flying raindeer. Rejection of these ideas is in no way fundamentalism.   

I have heard this post-modernist, social constructivist viewpoint ad nauseum since the "science wars" of the 80s and early 90s. And there are a variety of different ideological camps (eg. feminists, marxists, socialists, social activitists, etc...) who have a disdain for the reductionist scientific method. They have ideological qualms over what they describe as a white androcentric bourgeous hegemony of scientific thought which historically served the interests of capitalist power structures. They favor a more "democratic" and inclusive science which may provide unbiased alternatives to the scientific method and resonate among historically disenfranchised groups (ie. minorities, women, homosexuals, etc...). And by applying this muddled thinking, you can even justify the teaching of Intelligent Design in schools. Indeed, the idiotic views of the Christian Right could be justified by post-modernist BS. The post-modernists IMO share the same irrational thinking as their religious fundamentalist counterparts, except that they couch their arguments in secular ideology. History has shown that post-modernist approaches to science rigidly dictated by a "liberal" ideology have failed. For example, the Soviet Union had rejected genetics and the theory of relativity because of alleged "bourgeous" underpinnings and violation of dialectial materialism. Their rejection of "western" science was analogous to the Ottomans rejection of the printing press. If your "broadened" approach to science works then show us the evidence.

There is no dispute that drugs have side effects, some of which are lethal. There is no dispute that the flagrant use of antibiotics cause bacterial resistance. Yet it is through scientific research that we came to know these things. Do you see how you have just contradicted yourself. You embrace science when it satisfies you and simultaneously you laud "alternative" treatments which have not been tested via rigourous standards (ie. bench research, clinical trials).

Let's take an "alternative" treatment such as meditation for migraines. Meditation never killed anyone and we can all agree it is a safe treatment. If meditation were studied scientifically (eg. via functional neuroimaging) then we could elucidate the neurobiology of this phenomena in understanding how it works. It would no longer be "alternative" medicine. Your argument that existing power structures at scientific institutions would not permit such research is flatly untrue. If you have a valid hypothesis that certain mental states involving focused attention that blunts nociceptive effects that arise from brainstem pain structures (ie. the possible mechanism by which meditation and placebo works) and have devised an experiment that meets scientific standards, then of course that would be worth funding. But at this time, we do not yet understand the neurobiology of consciousness. Only after we have tackled this hurdle can we proceed to understand the neural basis of altered states (eg. meditation, hypnosis, dreaming, etc..) or the neural basis of pain and suffering (which also implies an understanding of how the brain generates emotion). This is the task that "alternative" healers need to engage themselves in. And if they do, they are no longer "alterntative".

What you are referring to is human cruelty which does not discriminate. Theists and atheists alike can be cruel. But this has nothing to do with "atheists can be fundamentalist." It is not cruel to tell the Great Pumpkin believers that they are irrational. It is not cruel to tell advocates of Intelligent Design that they are wrong. And no one is talking about shoving them in lockers.

Think of an existing organizaton analogous to the Great Pumpkin believers, the Flat Earth Society. If you are implying that all rational folks are the jocks and the flat earth believers are dorks with glasses, your analogy fails miserably. Flat earthers are wrong and and need to be publicly told so. There is nothing wrong with that in a free society.

In fact, on this site I have yet to see any thread by an atheist who would meet the standard of cruelty you described. And if so, they are usually removed from this site.

The atheist's attitude depends how the atheist views the Theist. If the atheist, for example, views the Theist as mis-informed, then it is unlikely that they will show funadmentalist behaviour, it is likely that they will then address the beliefs rather than the person. They will point out the flaws in logic for example, and you are correct, this is not fundamentalism. Even if the Theist is offended, that is not fundamentalism.

If, however an atheist views the Theist as a low-life deluded moronic soup scum, the the likely hood is high that they will attack the person rather than the belief even if they have not met before.

Hamby, I will elaborate and say that no AGGRESSIVE ACTION can be logically derived from wearing or not wearing glasses, yet people still do actions based on whether they or the target is wearing glasses. Shoving a kid in a locker cannot be justified by the first premise of wearing or not wearing glass.

The point of the example was schemas.

Captain, why have you completely ignored my point?  Why don't you try this on... just once.  I've done it for you several times when you've been right about something.  Anyway... try it...

"Hamby, you're right.  Atheism in and of itself can't be fundamentalist.  To be a fundamentalist, an atheist would have to have other beliefs as well, and we can't guess what they would be without more information."

Hamby I've said that several times.

And note that was before you posted your "rebuttal"

I was using the concept of schemas, Hamby.

Every atheist has a schema of Theists.

Even if every atheist in the world were suddenly waterboarded, that is irrelevant to my point as to whether atheists view Theists as an outgroup.

Pssst, it was the atheists that bullied me for my belief.

I never mentioned any of them whether or not they participate in the behaviour is irrelevant.

Um, guys, I think Pineapple agrees...

It would be hard to describe this community as fundamentalist, except in the sense that there is a strong culture towards favouring a scientific or empirical basis for what someone claims to know. I'm a "fundamentalist" with regards to many of the rules of logic, basic ideas of meaning, and the strength of the empirical method. But that's based on testing, so perhaps I'm a fundamentalist where it comes to a reasonable degree of skepticism.

There you have the difficulty: I think that a fundamentalist must have beliefs that could survive any criticism or counter-evidence.

If you think you're going to get "THERE IS NO GOD! STOP BEING AN IDIOT!" here, that hasn't been my experience. There's a lot of good material on the site (and I'm not talking about what I've written).

I don't understand how atheism is related to science nor do I understand how having a deep belief in science could relate to atheist fundamentalism. But the way the question is worded makes it seem like all fundamentalism is a bad thing which it is not.

For example, taking a book of stories such as those found in a collection of Mother Goose fables and taking them fundamentally is not the same thing as taking a history book and taking it fundamentally.

Of course I'm defining fundamental as literal, since that seems to be the proper slang for its use in this context.

So, to answer your question about suicide bombers, no. That's absurd. I especially don't see how one can draw the line between fundamentalism and suicide bombings because there isn't one. That isn't to say that an atheist may, or might have, been a suicide bomber but to relate atheism to such a thing is absurd but to say the same thing about a religion is not. This isn't a double standard though as atheism is not a religion.