This is probably the only post I can recall that you wrote in which I agree with you.

Agreed, The def. of god is entirely irrelevant. It could be the god of toilet paper. It doesn't matter with regard to Atheism.

Well, I use "inherent meaning and purpose" as a means of saying a belief that human existence is as a narrative, that humanity has a purpose to be fulfilled, such as a belief that man is called to love, and tend to the least fortunate, that there is a purpose to ones suffering, and turmoils, even if he himself does not understand what that is. This is what I mean by an inherent sense of meaning and purpose. This is a "God" belief. 

Well, what I should have clarified as i have done so in the past, is that when I say hope in dire conditions, I mean it along the lines of hope in hopelessness. I am also speaking of hope, in the christian sense of the term, where hope implies an expectation, and it's fulfillment, such as the hope of slaves in the negro spiritual  "we shall overcome". When people posses such as hope, as the slaves did, when nothing in reality, gave them any reason to hope at all, no reason to believe they would eventually overcome, it is a religious belief, a conviction of things unseen, as the assurance of things hoped for. 

Such a belief and a belief in God don't equal two separate beliefs, because God here is name given for that which makes the fulfillment of such hope possible, as rev. king would put it, the maker of "a way out of no way".

And if you want to give me a sort of example of what you think would possibly be a source of hope for people who live in the midst of hopelessness, in conditions far from promising, in a godless worldview, you let me know.

I understand our not so learned atheist, influenced by a dimwitted peddling of what it means to believe in God, can barely grasp this: All characteristics of God are derived from what he does, or is capable of doing, unlike let's say a leprechaun who characteristics of being green, midget size, and from Ireland, have nothing do with a pot of gold left under the rainbow. Or to put it another way: for possibly even most atheist, if they could say prayers at night and have their prayers answered in the morning, this alone would lead them to believe in God. The only characteristic of God here, is as the force or the power that's capable of answering prayers. 

Hope in hopeless, a belief in a life of inherent meaning and purpose, are all God beliefs, no different that what was just described above. 

A disbelief in God, implies a disbelief in all the qualities of God, and all that these qualities make possible, it holds a perspective on the world, atheism is in fact a lens of a worldview. Some atheist find their godless perspective, a peering out into the world void of gods and their spiritual dimension, to be ultimately liberating, as the breaker of chains, as freedom from bondage, and believe that disbelief should be evangelized and spread to all four corners of the world, and if it ultimately did we could finally find ourselves in a sort of utopia, a time of peace like no other, that man would finally be able to live out his true capacity to love, once he's rid of god. 

These sort of beliefs among atheists are quite common, especially among the popular variety of them, the RRS seems to founded on such beliefs about the power of atheism. An atheistic sort of fundamentalism arises among certain holders of these belief, who in fact do become dogmatic, and tend to mimic the foaming patterns of religious fundies, based on a belief in the power of disbelief. 

You could, but there are good reasons not to, and you could address it effectively if you chose.

To understand why, think of the analogous term "Bible-thumper." If you were to accuse me of being a "Bible-thumper", there is not really an objective meaning behind the accusation, but it still is not a pleasant sort of thing to be called. It has negative connotations, like: a blindered acceptance of dogma, a refusal to consider arguments against my position, a loud and inarticulate advocacy of a poorly thought out position, and other things that I do not want associated with me. 

So I would want to respond to avoid being thought of in any of those ways. And in response, I would bring up considerations like my reading secular philosophic works, my careful development of arguments for God from theism-neutral premises, my generally civil tone in debate, and perhaps my very presence on this forum. So you see that although there is not a single objective meaning behind the term Bible-thumper, I would want to (and more importantly, I would be able to) address parts of the network of connotations behind it, if the accusation were brought against me.

Likewise, you might address certain probable connotations of "fundamentalist atheist." The specific facts that you brought up when you addressed it would depend on the context. Often, an explanation of how you used reason to arrive at the position that strikes the other person as "fundamentalist" would work.

Pardon the intrusion, Presuppositionalist, but there is a basic flaw to your reasoning here which is one shared by many theists who fail to truly understand the meaning of "atheist".

You draw an analogy between the terms "bible-thumper" and "fundamentalist atheist". You (correctly) identify the three more striking character traits typically exhibited by a "bible-thumper". But in effect it is the first of these which is the only crucial one - a blinkered adherence to dogma. Without that the other two are simply negative personality traits unrelated to the issue of religion at all.

Now, no matter how much you might wish to apply the term "fundamentalist" to atheism you cannot in any sense call it analogous to what you have just described. The atheist has no dogma by definition to which he adheres. He may be unwilling to see another's point of view, he may be loud and inarticulate, and he may in general be a thoroughly rude and stroppy simpleton. But that does not make him a fundamentalist since he has no dogma to which he fundamentally adheres and no philosophy which can be reduced to fundamentals. He has only an absence of belief in deity, something which is neither expandable or reducible. Outside of that there is nothing - absolutely nothing - which "atheists" have in common by definition.

Your error is to ascribe the characteristic of a faith to atheism, and then assume because there is more than one atheist in the world that these people share that faith. It is such a common error on theist's part that it exposes, in my view, an even more serious flaw in perception which leads theists to other even more inaccurate conclusions about much else. But whatever its implications, it is incorrect.

You could try to find a better analogy. But it would probably be better that you first correct your misapprehensions.