Fundamentalist Atheists
Posted on: April 9, 2007 - 2:33pm
Offline
Fundamentalist Atheists
http://www.secularstudents.org/node/627
To argue that us "militant" atheists are being to straightforward with people about the lack of validity in religion, is the same as saying that scientists opposed to Intelligent Design, are being too militant. This is ridiculous, and if they want to label us as "militant" or "fundamentalist" (whatever these terms mean) then you can start callin me Larry Bin Godless.
Amazing.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.
- Login to post comments
Larry Bin Godless.
HHmm. That has a ring to it, don't you think?
Christians who call us fundamentalists are merely projecting and just use the word in hopes to bring us down to their level. Humanists, like the one mentioned in the article, are upset that people like us (and other noted troublemakers like Ingersoll) are taking a stand and want us to shut up.
The appeasers are the ones who bother me the most, I expect this sort of reaction from the religious community. But there are too many Atheists out there who think if we shut up and play nice all of our problems will go away.
By being silent we got national slogans like "In god we trust" and millions of school children now include a prayer to god in the Pledge of Allegiance. 10 Commandments got plastered up everywhere, reproductive freedom was taken away, the Christian Reich surged in political power, all because people thought if we just remain silent nothing bad will befall us.
So maybe it's guilt which causes them to lash out and call us fundamentalists or militant. Perhaps we bring about a sense of shame because they wish they had spoken up but didn't have the courage to do so.
Harris, Dawkins, Ingersoll, Zappa and others aren't militant, they are using words. Militant is starting a paramilitary organization like Blackhawk that is run by a Christian fundamentalist whose family bankrolled groups like the Family Research Council. If we start going around with uniforms and brandishing our own flags and speak in military terms like the fundamentalists do then we can be called militant. So far the Freethought movement has yet to shed blood, the same can't be said for the religious community.
Fuck that. Major strawman. I'm sick of people who polarize this into an "us versus them" issue. Just because someone stands up for a religious person's dignity makes them an "appeaser." There is a difference in being an appeaser and being compassionate. Humanists are atheists. That is that. Honestly, I think there is a balance needed among all this hatred spewn towards people. We should not compromise on our principles, but we damn well should be respecting christians, muslims, scientologists and whoever else as human beings. I don't believe in god, I don't respect the idea of god, but I damn well respect god-believers as people. I suggest you all should too.
The Enlightenment wounded the beast, but the killing blow has yet to land...
It's been said many a time by many people. To be a fundamentalist theist, or a theist extremist you have to fly planes in to buildings and kill massive amounts of people. To be a fundamentalist atheist or an atheist extremist, you simply have to open your mouth.
Right now the difference between a moderate theist and an extremist theist is about ten to a hundred times larger than the difference between a moderate atheist and an extremist atheist.
That's all it comes down to. It's why we need to keep working away at society the way we currently are. The sooner society starts accepting atheism is a normal part of life and that the only differences between us and them are the same differences between them and alternate theists (ie, those of different religions), the sooner we will be on level playing fields before getting "fundamentalist" and "extremist" tags.
Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/
So if it's a strawman then what do you think the motive was for disparaging Dawkins, Ingersoll, Harris, the RRS and others as 'militant' or 'fundamentalist' was?
I don't think it's very constructive criticizing something to a public that doesn't understand the basic principle, letalone the nuance. These distinctions aren't necessary for the level at which the public can be realistically engaged in a discussion of atheism.
Well I think respect for people vs. respect for people's ideologies are two completely different things. With the exception of a few people, I get along with everyone. I even get along with an extremist right winger at my job, we go fishing together, we just leave politics and religion discussions out. However, I do not respect his beliefs and when he does bring up god belief or politics I rip him a new asshole, no problem. I have jewish friends, christian friends, muslim friends, atheist friends, atheist friends who think my activism is as extreme as some of the christian's right, etc... respect is something to be earned. I don't necessarily agree that you have to respect everyone just because.... after all it is one's ideology that defines that person. I mean you wouldn't respect Charle's Manson only because he was human right?
And when another person criticizes my activism as being "extreme" it does irk me, only because I dont' see my ideologies as being extreme. But it's the conotation of the word extremist that bothers me. It's like saying, yeah those crazy atheists who want to kill theists..... those "extremists" out there. No... holding religion up to the same standards of scrutiny that we hold everything else up to, is not extreme. It has been propagandized as such. As a scientist, I have to scrutinize every little bit of evidence I get because if I don't I will most certainly get false results. I think what bothers me the most here is that for whatever reason, some people think we (and I mean activists here) need to change our tactics in order to not offend anyone. I think that if you haven't offended anyone, you haven't done a good job being an activist.
My new secular group at VCU that I helped start is already sending envoys of people to christian group meetings (these are actually open to the public so we're not invading anyone) and challenging beliefs.... it's a great way to make friends
But it's part of being active in discussion and engaging those who hold the strongest beliefs. Out of this will come forum types of debates where the student body will be witness and judge of the debates. All we have to do is coy them into debating us publicly, which most religious groups are itching to do anyway because they are tired of preaching to the choir....so to speak. We may respect these people as far as people, but when they have their little "guest speakers" such as "Confessions of an Atheist" where they had a born again christian describe his former life as an atheist and completely demonized atheism as being the front door to drug running, prostitution etc... it pissed me off.... because it was dishonest and dishonesty does not warrant respect. So here comes the United Atheist Alliance at VCU to inject some rationality into the discussion, and if we offend anyone, then hey, I guess we're doing something right here.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.
Fundamentalist atheist?
You're right. I fundamentally do not believe in any deity.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
The term ‘fundamentalist atheist’ is a misnomer.
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismmyths/p/Fundamentalist.htm
I agree that the term was coined (and is used) to offend atheists in the same way that claiming that atheism is a belief system comparable to theistic religion.
There is no point rising to this bait. Allowing anger to get the better of you will serve their purpose perfectly. The term can either be embraced and rendered meaningless (in the same way ‘freak’ was as applied to hippies), or it can remain unrecognised. I favour the later, and my reason is simple.
By refusing to recognise the term it remains an issue. By remaining an issue it has to be addressed (by the fearful that insist on using use it). By addressing the issue, the fearful cannot maintain their position, which is an untenable one. We needn’t venture into issues of belief to refute this term. It can remain merely a misuse of empirical grammar, which is what it is. Admittedly the fearful are unlikely to want to play fair, but they cannot win.I sometimes think, therefore I am intermittent
Sorry about near duplicate post, an error was generated on posting.
What do you do for a living? How does your friend (co-worker) treat you at work knowing your beliefs?
I ask this because I consider myself a moderate atheist and work in a Human Resources capacity. I am by nature tolerant and my role depends on that. How atheists are currently viewed, if I were to be vocal/disclosing of my beliefs I would be afraid of how I am perceived and the effect on the influence I have among of my peers. Do you have any suggestions (other then quiting my job) on how I can be more vocal more active?
Slowly building a blog at ~
http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/
I am a biosafety professional at my institution as a job and I am also currently working on a Masters of Biology researching molecular invasion mechanisms of Plasmodium falciparum the parasite responsible for Malaria.
At work, my direct boss is very friendly to my views (even though he's one of those who is afraid to offend people) my co-worker however, is an extreme right wing neocon. He has homeschooled his children until 2 years ago, at which point he sent them to a fundamentalist baptist private school. He claims that public schools are too liberal. He listens to Rush Limbaugh religiously and lets him (rush) think for him so that he doesn't have to. Which seems to be a symptom of society these days. Everyone is lazy, no one wants to actually THINK for themselves, the pundits and the preachers do that now it seems like.
Anyway, him and I get along insofar as other interests are concerned, he is very well aware of my beliefs and in the past we have gotten into it, although cordially. We try to only discuss those issues that we both seem to agree on. But I have torn him a new one on occasion (he still doesn't get it). Anyway, seeing that I work at a public institution (state university) there is a policy that politics (and I guess by default religion these days) cannot be discussed (legally) during the work day. So we try to avoid all subjects that can lead us to strangling each other.
My suggestion to you is to perhaps leave your beliefs at the door when you go to work, unless your peers start to proselytize at work, in which case I'd let them have it. I really don't think personaly views should enter a professional environment. But if you want to engage in discussion with your peers, who cares what they think? If there is a chance you may get fired or discriminated against because it comes out you are an atheist, then you may want to pursue legal action. Other than that, activism, should be kept out of the work place, I think.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.
Sorry, can't let this just stand. You do not have to kill anyone to be a fundamentalist theist. Fundamentalist Christians in the US have not flown any planes into buildings. Fundamentalist Christians (I am only talking about Christians now) are fundamental because they believe in a strict literal interpretation of the Bible.
Atheism obviously doesn't have a bible but fundamentalist atheism could be considered a strict, literal (how else?) interpretation of the tenet of Atheism, they have no belief in god. Is this necessarily a bad thing? NO. I think that when people say that they mean atheists who are intolerant of religion.
Of course atheist who are intolerant of religion act in very different ways from theist who intolerant of most everything. This is why we react so negatively to the name. We may think religion is bad but we aren't passing laws against it but when religious fundamentalists think something is bad they frequently work to get laws against it or in other ways persecute and occasionally kill.
I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.
Robert A. Heinlein
That one must have slipped through. I typed that post up in notepad and changed it many times before pasting.
You are right, bad wording there on my behalf. It wasn't intended to get final display like that. I will leave it though just so replies make sense.
Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/