Fundamentalism, in case you don't have a dictionary
Offline Fundamentalism refers to a belief in, and strict adherence to a set of basic principles (often religious in nature), sometimes as a reaction to perceived doctrinal compromises with modern social and political life.[1][2][3][4]
1 often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b: the beliefs of this movement c: adherence to such beliefs2: a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles
Let's do some basic logic, kids. Fundamentalism requires principles. Atheism is not a set of principles. It is the lack of belief in a deity. That is all. Nothing at all follows from atheism. How many times do we have to do this lesson?
1. There is probably no god.
2. ???
Therefore, ???
Nothing. Absolutely nothing. There is no principle that can be derived from atheism. Any set of principles that includes atheism cannot under any circumstances be derived solely from atheism, and must be founded on a second premise. Therefore, any fundamentalist who also happens to be an atheist must be a fundamentalist with regard to something besides atheism.
That is all.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
It seems that members of RRS may have bought into the following concept
excerpted from this site's "Am I agnostic or atheist?" (It doesn't matter whether or not you did read that link, the concept remains the same, regardless of that.)
"But one thing that dictionaries usually do not do is provide a rigorous philosophical justification for every definition listed. And that's just one reason why citing a dictionary in a theological or philosophical conversation is not the proper way to settle an issue: First, you're not providing a source that actually provides a philosophical justification for the definition, they are merely citing common usage."
It is erroneous to state that a "philosophical justification for the definition" of Atheism or ANY WORD
equates to understanding the meaning/definition of ANY word.
I've cited the reasons this site's "philosophy" that a dictionary is inadequate to understand the meaning of the word Atheism very clearly in detail below.
I grant you, there may be VERY slight differences as to the definition of Atheism. Open up any dictionary and you will find VERY SLIGHT differences definig ANY WORD.
It could be rightly said that the differences in the definition of Atheism are not significant for the following reasons:
1. The DEFINITION OF Atheism is not a philosophy in itself.
2. The DEFINITION OF Atheism is not a matter involving deductive reasoning or logic, beyond the (certain) disbelief in deities.
3. The DEFINITION OF Atheism is not a matter involving the whys and wherefors of the disbelief in deities.
4. As per #'s 1, 2, and 3 above, the responses involving that which the DEFINITION of Atheism does NOT involve, are totally irrelevant with regard to the DEFINITION of Atheism.
5. Atheism barely qualifies as a philosophy. The reasons for Atheism are philosophical to varying degrees, however, THAT is NOT the topic of this thread.
I'm in complete agreement with the creator of this thread on the point made in the thead post.
It would seem that ham has a problem with this site's df of atheism and agnosticism, as I do. I can't speak for him, but my disagreement is posted directly above and clearly explained.
You make a lot of assumptions about me, to lecture me when all that I stated was I have yet to hear a convincing argument.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
I don't misunderstand you so much as I entirely disagree with many re
ponders, including thid web site's philosophy that a dictionary can't define a word. (See my st directli above for details and direct quotes.)
This thread has evolved, but the creator's true intent (in my opinion) was to stick to the definition and that is vry difference than reasons for Atheism, or why they do not believe or doubt.
Don't feel singled out. I've been repeating myself to fellow Atheists throughout the entire thread and you'll find more above.
Again, what you responded to are respoders that went off-topic. (In my view.) I mention this only because what you and they want to discuss is another issue.
Yes. I agree. Fundamentalist
AND I WOULD ADD strong and weak Atheists are personal views and only a few people knoiw of it... i.e. it's not in the King James version of Atheism.
So yes... a "fundamentalist"
Atheist is someone's personal "take", it's NOT what the thread creator's post was about. Forget it and move on.
Better yet.. create your own thread to discuss the whys and wherefores.
Being a conclusion is exactly why it is a belief. Even being a conclusion it still can produce follow on beliefs. Ironic, because todangst below argues atheism is an axiom (the infamous "default state of mind" ). http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/17722#comment-247837
Be careful not to mix your characterization of the evidence with your final interpretation. Someone may look at some piece of evidence and make a decision that says there is an (N<<1)% chance of it being true. If they categorically reject the possibility of it being true they then are, based on faith, saying there is 0 chance it is true. This is the atheist position. If they accept that there may be a chance it is true, albeit very low chance, then they are admitting agnosticism because in fact there is a possibility of it being true.
Read #10 and #30.
Please try and organize your collection of sentence fragments into something understandable.
You are born with a mind that has had no evidence presented to it. You inevitably are presented evidence, which an atheist then rejects.
On the contrary, an atheist's fear of faith leads them to use tortuous language that does not hold up to scrutiny so as to avoid admitting that they are either agnostic or base their atheism on faith.
Both agnosticism and atheism are the end result of evaluation of evidence. They both then lead to beliefs that lead to a world view. In the case of atheism a person is presented evidence. They reject this evidence. Even if after they reject it they conclude the evidence is not evidence because of their concluded falsity does not mean it was not evidence.
Read this http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/17722?page=1#comment-247958
I think you should take a second to reconsider your approach to argument.
If the argument centres on another's claim which, in deconstruction, is revealed to be fallacious, especially when you "get" what the claimant "means", then applying layers of definition to delineate that claim's fallaciousness is a perfectly acceptable rhetorical device. Whether one uses numbers or not.
Otherwise what you're saying is that once you have made your fallacious argument coherently enough for the other person to understand its meaning, it is to be deemed out of bounds for further deconstruction, analysis or rebuttal. While this is a standpoint which suits theists to the ground it is not conducive to dialogue at all! As long as the "layers of definition" you object to are perinent to the topic then - however tedious they might be to you - they have been presented as evidences against your standpoint and must be addressed. What you are really advocating is the freedom to unilaterally end the discussion at a point which suits you, not following the argument to any potential conclusion. It is the rhetorical equivalent to sticking fingers in your ears and shouting "na na na".
For what it's worth, the so-called unwarranted "layers of definition" you objected to struck me as necessary rejoinders to someone who was persisting in monologue (ironically much like that which you define) and therefore left their interlocutor with the option, based on evidence that their reasoned points earlier were being ignored, on iterating them in ways which might invoke some comprehension and possible an answer. Calling "foul" when you were the one who forced that rhetorical option is intellectually egregious, self-serving and - when engaged in conversation with intelligent people - normally self-defeating.
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
... "justifiably rejects". You forgot the "justifiably" part. It's an easy mistake.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Anyone feel like sliding on over to the thread where we're discussing this? I'd be willing to tackle "knowledge of God is impossible" over there, too.
As for you, OC, there is no supernatural. How's that for fundamentalist? Oh, also, 3+4=7. Man, I'm on a fundamentalist roll!
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
It's not evidence then. It might have been proposed as evidence, but if it does not serve to logically prove anything then that proposal was in error. The only way in which actual evidence can be repudiated is through a wilful disregard of its evidential quality. Proof is not open to interpretation in which it is not proof. Proof is proof and evidence demontrates that proof.
Your comment only makes any kind of sense if it is interpreted to mean that atheists reject valid and incontrovertible evidence and arbitrarily refuse to recognise the logical proof it demonstrates, which is a remarkably subjective assault on atheism since it presupposes that you as a theist can demonstrate exactly what "evidences" support theistic belief which atheists have simply chosen to ignore.
I will not embarrass you by demanding you give us an example of such an evidence. You are not intellectually equipped to understand the demand, let alone honour it. That much is obvious from your copious contributions here which have yet to make any coherent sense whatsoever.
Your problem is with language itself, OC, as I have told you earlier. You really need to start learning it. Until then you are simply spouting crap.
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
Read #11 and #35.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
1) Exactly what I'm saying.
2) True.
3) True.
4) What's a fundamentalist atheist?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
#10 simply restates your position that "atheism is a world view from which things do follow", so that supports butterbattle's point.
#30 simply mentions another closely associated non-belief (lack of belief in divine miracles), so if that's the best you can do to find an example, you should concede that your argument fails.
Are you seriously as intellectually challenged as you seem? Or are your posts some long drawn out prank to yank our chain?
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Wrong. Just because you want the definition to be something else, it doesn't mean it is. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god(s). Why the fuck are you trying to change this?
This is AGNOSTIC ATHEISM, for fuck's sake.
''Black Holes result from God dividing the universe by zero.''
I find this accusation particularly bothersome, because neither todangst nor I have used nonsensical terms that lack coherent definitions, whereas you, my friend, have nothing but equivocation going for you. "Tortuous language" indeed.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Then, again, by your definition, almost everyone on this forum would be agnostic.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Ha! From his definition, we could all be furniture, for all anyone could figure out.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Instead of actually trying to reconcile our semantics and determine where we disagree, he just keeps saying our worldview is impossible, and we have to have faith over and over. WTF?
That's like 90% of the theists that come here though....
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
The difference is we're lamps and he's a couch.
[/random.... or is it??]
''Black Holes result from God dividing the universe by zero.''
Okay, but I based my assumptions on the usual reason why people are not convinced by the theistic arguments. If it is a symptom of a different disease in your case, I erred.
Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???
A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.
The usages I am aware of basically reduce to these two.
1. A person for whom atheism is fundamental to his belief system. This is the sort of person whose belief system seems to have been intended as a systematic denial of the theistic worldview, broadly contrued. Some general patterns can be discerned within this group. Where the theist advocates a strict, objective, absolute moral code, he asserts that ethics is somehow "gooey" - subjective or socially constructed or one of a family of similar positions. Where theism generally asserts the efficacy of the human mind in dealing with most parts of reality, he will take a radically postmodern or nihilistic stance toward our capacity to achieve knowledge. Where theism asserts that man has a basic dignity, the fundamentalist atheist will employ evolutionary theory in a predictable set of ways that tend to demean man.
2. Broadly, anyone who acts in an extreme way for reasons related to his being an atheist. If a person were to stand in front of a cathedral, wearing a "JESUS IS DEAD" placard and shouting that the Bible is a fairy tale, he is acting as a fundamentalist atheist. If a person were to hurl a grenade into a window of the Discovery Institute, he would probably be acting as a fundamentalist atheist.
Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???
A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.
The reason anyone is an Atheist is irrelevant with respect to the definition of Atheism. Your reasos do not
alter the definition of Atheism in any way. (That's the entire point of this thread.)
This would be a foolish person indeed. Could you please give me the names of a few of these folks so I can avoid them if I ever see them?
Why would someone begin creating a worldview with the systematic denial of theism? Wouldn't he have to have a worldview in place before evaluating theism? If not, by what criteria would he judge theism?
You seem to imply that some people just reject theism, willy nilly, with no particular reason. If these people exist, I've never met one of them.
Again, please tell me who these people are! I have never met any of them.
Huh? On what does this mythical atheist base his gooey ethics?
Ok... maybe I'm with you now. You're talking about nihilists. They're stupid.
How odd. I guess I haven't met anyone who does this, either. Pretty much everything I've learned about evolutionary biology has given me a heightened respect for the human animal. We're pretty intricate and amazing creatures. Why would any evolutionist want to demean humans? That would be pointless, since we're no different from any other animal in our evolutionary origins.
Or... maybe you think it's demeaning to point out that we're no different from any other animals?
That's just silly.
He is? Fundamentalism refers to following a rigid set of ideological principles. I would say people who do this kind of thing are being "activist atheists" since activism refers to... um... actions... and we're talking about how they act.
Anyway, you're apparently talking about a very small subset of atheists. I've never seen anyone do any of the things you're talking about.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
fixed.
''Black Holes result from God dividing the universe by zero.''
Hmm... fundamentalist?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
''Black Holes result from God dividing the universe by zero.''
I agree that a fundamentalist atheist would be foolish. This is why people do not apply the term to themselves. The lack of self-described fundamentalist atheists, combined with the vagueness of the term to begin with, makes it difficult to pin specific people down. I think you have misunderstood my list of a few general patterns with a list of objective criteria for fundamentalist atheism. There can be no such list, because the term only refers to a sort of gestalt impression that one receives upon surveying his worldview. If it helps, think of the analogous term "Bible thumper." We call someone a Bible thumper when we find that his life fits a few patterns that appear within Christianity - he is enthusiastic about apologetics, say, or he always goes to church.
It would make more sense to call them "atheist activists," but unfortunately the masses have termed these people "fundamentalist atheists." And yes, there are very few placard-wearing, grenade-hurling atheists.
Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???
A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.
Could you please give an example of a fundamentalist atheist? I would really like to know.
I'm not aware of any principles required for atheists, other than simply not believing in a god...
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
Sure, why not, the term is foggy enough that I can't really screw up. Dawkins can be called a fundie atheist because he is a major advocate of evolution, throws lots of insults at religion, and advocates (I believe) some sort of fairly subjective ethic.
Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???
A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.
Supporting such a well established theory such as evolution with a mountain of evidence to support it does not require any extreme attitudes, those denying evolution are the fundies.
Ethics based on consensual agreement and consideration for the welfare and suffering of other members of our society or group are the only basis for true ethics - rules defined by authority figures outside the group concerned are legalisms rather than morals. Insistence on rigid adherence to such commandments is what smacks of fundamentalism.
Morality not set in some societal context is meaningless.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
I think you mean "violent offender", regardless of what someone's personal ideology happens to be. That would be probably the only time I would agree with the label "militant atheist", considering actual military action would be taking place.
It would be enormously counter-productive to attempt (or even incite) violence against apologists, because they'd milk it like crazy. They'd get their oppressed martyr fantasies played out in real life.
I don't know if it's possible to apply ideological labels to anyone crazy enough to use grenades.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Hamby, once again you showcase exactly why you're not the wisest man on the block, that title belongs to me
.
Saying you don't believe in God, or lack a belief in God, come with it what "God" means, and not every atheist perceives God in the same vain as other do. There is no agreed upon definition of what's being rejected, of what exactly does "God" mean, to say atheism is "simply" a disbelief in God. There's nothing simple here.
For most thinking atheist, the disbelief in God comes with it the rejection of all else that it bring, such a life of inherent meaning and purpose, the disbelieve in any sort of hope in the presence of dire conditions. It is fact a perspective on the world, a worldview, though it may not be the same for every atheist. For me as a theist, my god belief and my worldview are not two seperate beliefs, but God serves as what that worldview represents. I'm a christian because i accept the Gospel way of looking at the world, if i was to be an atheist, this would mean that I would be accepting a different perspective on it.
Atheism is often accused of a sort of fundamentalism, only in the forms of which it chooses to evangelize the world in disbelief. Not all atheist are like this, but some surely are. It's the belief that atheism frees us of our chains, liberates us into a better form of life, in the riddance of all that a God belief represents, that often leads to a certain form of fundamentalistic sort of fervor in its adherents.
But that's about the fervor, isn't it? What if I just tell you you're full of shit? I mean, that's not nice, but is it the fact that I'm being rude what makes me a fundamentalist?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Well, like i said, just because you're an atheist doesn't mean your a fundamentalist, just like just because you're a christian doesn't mean your a fundamentalist. It's the mimicry of certain patterns of behavior similar to religious fundies in certain varieties of the atheist, that they get coined the term fundie atheist. We use the term for the same reason we some use the term left wing fundamentalist to describe certain groups on the left. If you perceive you atheism as the supreme sort of view on the world, that it serves as cure for human condition, as the ultimate liberator of mankind, with a passion to evangelize and spread it, your endanger of creating factions that take these sort of beliefs and the spreading of them, is relatively indistinguishable from the behavior patterns of the christian fundies we so despise.
1. You agree that fundamentalist atheism would be foolish.
2. Fundamentalist atheism isn't objective.
3. It's just what you think of them.
4. Why do any of us care?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Slow down. Every atheist rejects the Christian God. I just cannot imagine an atheist who also believed in the Christian God. Or Thor, or Zeus, etc. You just aren't going to call yourself an atheist if you believe in those things.
Oh, okay. So if I think you're full of shit and tell you that, but don't actually think that you knowing that you're full of shit will save you from anything, I would not be a fundamentalist atheist?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Right.
For the same reason you would care if you were called dogmatic or close-minded or brainwashed. If you are charged with fundamentalist atheism, your sincerety as an intellectual is under attack. It indicates that your accuser thinks your belief system is more easily explained by your constructing your worldview in order to be provocative, or by your blind obedience to Dawkins and the New Atheists, or by some analogous method, than by your applying reason to the facts. In response, you might clarify your position to the point that it was comprehensible how a person could come to it by reason, or show that your accuser's account of how you arrived at your position is somehow inconsistent.
Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???
A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.
So... I should examine the claim, and, finding it virtually meaningless (since you just admitted it's your own perception with no objective basis), I should go on with my day and not worry about your personal problems, right?
What is there to clarify on my end? You've admitted your accusation is just so much hot air based on nothing objective. Until you come up with a concrete accusation, I'm not going to bother with you.
Have a nice day. I will.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
uhm this would make you no more of a fundie than a theist who thinks all atheist are full of shit, but atheist knowing this, isn't going to save them from anything, makes them a fundie.
I for one, find a whole bus load of atheist to be full of shit, including most of the RRS crew, but I'm far from anybodies definition of a fundie.
You should qualify the underlined text to make it clear that we atheists are only rejecting a particular path to finding "meaning and purpose", which I believe are inherently subjective. Whiie it is true that some people come to the conclusion that there life is devoid of "meaning and purpose", that is a matter of their particular reaction to their experiences and thoughts on the topic. I think the main disagreement I have here centers on the word 'inherent", which, while it does come along with the God belief, is not the only way for a person to find a perspective on life which fills the same void you are referring to as a desire/need for "meaning and purpose".
As for reassurance in the face of dire situations, you have consistently refused to acknowledge that it is even possible that there may be other ways to find solace under such conditions. It may well be harder in a strictly rational worldview to find a coping mechanism, but I think that it is possible, but is does vary with individual pre-dispositions.
For a very strong counter example, it does seem to me that the original teachings of Buddhism, which explicitly reject anything like a Christian God, also very explicitly address this issue, and arguably more successfully. Having travelled through Cambodia and Thailand, I think there is a definitely something to this. I don't agree with all aspects of this world-view, but I think many practitioners have been achieved much better ability to find a calm inner peace than Christianity in general. I would argue that this has worked for them precisely because they have not been constrained to adherence to a detailed prescriptive text as with Christianity. This does not apply to all sects of Buddhism, just as I acknowledge there are probably particular groups in 'the West', for example a sect of at least nominally Christian monks, who have developed similar approaches.
What comes across to me is your assumption that only a God belief can bring these benefits - now that is a form of fundamentalism.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
What a blog of crap!
Any fucking god.
The hindu rat god.
The pantheist nature god.
God of my asshole.
god period.
What a blog about nothing. Christ!
Another classic RRS oxymoron:
"AGNOSTIC ATHEISM"
Explain how it is this?
One is a statement of knowledge, the other is belief or nonbelief in a deity.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
Buy a dictionary.