I think your answer makes my point.

@bleurowz Yes! But i am not goading you to be more militant than you are.

And, those of us who believe strongly that there is nothing to believe are merely attempting to rally the troops.

THE WAR is getting ever hotter. Religious ":rights" are being granted to "the religion of pieces."

I am an agnostic, atheist, anti-theist. I think i got it covered. You?

@Jacar I'm not militant. I'll speak out against anyone who is outwardly belligerent or feels they are justified in controlling or forcing others to think or be like them. But other than that, I believe in live and let live. Being righteous to me is futile. I'm an agnostic and a humanist: I don't believe in a higher power because I haven't seen proof one way or the other, but I allow others to believe as they please as long as they are not hurting anyone or imposing their beliefs on anyone else. I don't consider if someone is good or bad by their faith or non-faith, but if they are decent human beings.

We need the militants. We are in danger. We need fighters.

You asked a question about the difference between believers and non-believers behaving the same.

They are attacking us. Us responding in kind does NOT make us the same as them, no matter the apparent similarity.

They started this. Our responses should not be compared to their stupidity. To do so provides them quarter for response.

So, please, understand, your question compares stuff that is not comparable. There is not a comparison with stupid and enlightenment.

Yeah, we went through all this. [rationalwiki.org]

That's sorta like saying only white people can be racist.

@Jacar Not really, its a problem with lables, what one means by atheist and another means by atheist
AND what one means by fundamentalist as well.

AS I use those terms, it is an oxymoron, a square circle in language, makes no damn sense at all.

A fundamentalist is a person who follows a set of religious proscriptions they see as fundamental to their belief set.

What belief set could an atheist be fundamentaly following? Atheism has no tenets, it is not a thing. So it is not possible to follow a non thing.

From the link you gave
"Therefore fundamentalist atheism is, at best, a distortion of the accepted definition of fundamentalism."

Someone calling someone like Hitch an Atheist Fundamentalist" is missing the point that Atheism is not a counter thing to theism, it is its lack. Hitch would be much better described as an Anti-Theistic Atheist, a non believer standing firn against religion on political and social grounds.

IMHO

Thank you. Yeah, I'm very mindful of that. It's easy to go from one absolutist way of thinking to another. To deal with uncertainty and differences is way more scary. That's been my own journey.

Then if there is no dogma, there should be no reason for another atheist to be harshly critical of you if you don't think like them. No dogma, no reason to tell another atheist or agnostic that they're wrong.

@bleurowz You'll get no argument from me.

Between an atheist and a theist, yes, not close. But please see my clarification. There are atheists who are harshly critical to other atheists or agnostics who think differently, and sometimes they sound like fundamentalists.

@bleurowz usually trolls or people damaged by thesist

To clarify, it's more about atheists who harshly criticize other atheists who don't think like them and don't accept that there are differences among non-believers. Sometimes they sound like fundamentalists.

@bleurowz One one side you have - no god / what you see is what you get vs I don't know there may be more things in heaven and earth etc.. It is not fundamentalist for the former to ask the latter for sources and proofs. If none are forthcoming and the latter condemned, that is not doctrinaire. It is reasonable.

@273kelvin But here you're arguing for absolute proof. My feeling is there are too many things that are beyond our comprehension or knowledge right now to give us absolute proof of everything. But should that make me wrong? That doesn't mean I believe in a higher power.

@bleurowz There once was thought to be a substance known as the ether. It was considered as the only way that the light spectrum could travel through the vacuum of space. Then we discovered that light had a very tiny amount of mass and the ether was discarded as a theory because it was not detectable in any way and no longer served any purpose. No one is now wasting any good drinking time arguing for the possibility of it still being there. That is not to say that there is no discussion of other possible substances that may or may not exist, like dark matter or energy. But they may or may not help explain certain phenomena.
An atheist looks at the subject the same way as the ether. It cannot be detected and serves no purpose - why are we talking about its possibility of existence? If agnostics could produce some reasoning that would shorten the odds of any kind of supernatural being or (for want of a better word) spookiness, then we would listen. In the meantime, then sure there may well be a planet out there that has seas of perfect martinis but let's just concentrate on making a good one here and talk about something else.

@273kelvin If there's more to our existence here, we'll find out sooner or later. Or not. I just keep it in the back of my mind that there are things we still don't know and we're still discovering all the time.

@bleurowz For sure there is a vast amount that we do not know. However, can we not close the book on the whole god thing and oil some hinges that are actually squeaking? Quantum physics throws out far more interesting and weird ideas that deserve to be discussed rather than possible deities.

@273kelvin I don't believe in a deity. But my feeling is there's stuff that exists beyond anything we can fathom.

@bleurowz Exactly! The operative word there is "feeling". noun; 1.an emotional state or reaction. 2.an idea or belief, especially a vague or irrational one. "he had the feeling that he was being watched" A word so close to "faith" that it is no wonder that rationalists like myself dismiss it.
I may "feel" lucky but unless I can back it up with hard cash won on games of chance or bedroom conquests. There is little point in talking about it.

@273kelvin I also think that way. Because I see evidence as new things we could never have previously imagined have been discovered all the time. At some point we my reach our limit. But that doesn't mean we will reach the limit. The reality is we will never know beyond our comprehension.

@bleurowz, Of course, we live in an exciting age of new discoveries and ideas. But these came about from cold hard reasoning, scientific research, and hard work. Yes, for every answer we get, we find an exponential amount of new questions. The chances of mankind ever getting to the end of these is very slim indeed.
However, this does not bode well for metaphysical spiritual. The wonders that you speak of were discovered by reason, for the most part in laboratories and universities, not on a ouija board. Why abandon reason when it has brought us thus far, for the superstition that put us in the dark ages?

@273kelvin I'm not abandoning reason. I'm just saying there's way more we don't know.

@bleurowz I agree but we are not going to find any answers in tarot cards

@273kelvin Oh, agreed.

Thank you.

No... no it's not. Fundamentalism is not the right word.

I'm not a fundamentalist non believer in Adam and Eve. I'm not a fundamentalist non believer that there are fairies who circle your head while sleeping.. this can go on.

These are the rejections of non evidentiary claims.

@Athena
In the sense that I’m talking about (and I’m not claiming it’s the only viable sense) it’s a rejection of non-evidentiary claims until you start calling yourself an afairieist. Then you’re a fundamentalist.

You sound like a fundamentalist, as you are so emphatic about this position.

@Athena @skado Even Richard Dawkins allowed for differences in non-belief: [en.wikipedia.org]

@Athena
What makes it seem emphatic to you? More emphatic than say, “No... no it’s not.”?

@skado

I'm not being less emphatic. This is my point. We are all fundamentalists according to your position then.
You are fundamentalist about your emphatic position, as am I. Is that fundamentalism, really?

This is getting silly.

Neither of you have answered my question.

Are you a fundamentalist in your non belief that the earth is flat?

@skado

Here. VictoriaNotes just posted this.

[rationalwiki.org]

@skado

This is a simple comparison. And emphatic belief or emphatic disbelief is fundamentalism with your argument.
If I argue ardently that 2+2 does not equal 5, that makes me a fundamentalist?
What does it make you, assuming you hold the same belief that these numbers don't add up?

@Athena
Fundamentalism isn't just a belief firmly held or emphatically stated. We are in agreement about that. I'm totally convinced the Earth is spherical. That doesn't make me or you a fundamentalist.

Fundamentalism is religious literalism plus ideological entrenchment.

My original comment starts off... "There's a sense in which...". Later, I try to clarify: "(and I’m not claiming it’s the only viable sense)". I'm not saying your use of the word is wrong; I'm just saying it isn't the only right way to use it.

The word can describe a belief held, or it can refer to a category. If a person is asked to fill out a form, for example, that has a blank for religion, and multiple choices include atheism... that doesn't mean atheism qualifies as a religion. It just means that atheism is what goes in that space religion would otherwise occupy, categorically.

So I'm not saying that an absence of belief, in itself, is descriptively fundamentalist. I'm saying that the thing, in this case a literal god, whether believed in or not, is categorically fundamentalist.

Religious literalism is the assumption that scripture is referring to a literal god. Theists believe that god exists. Atheists do not believe it exists. But they both carry the assumption that the scripture is referring to a literal god, so they are both literalists. And to the extent either of them are firmly entrenched in their assumptions, they are fundamentalists as well.

Religious non-literalists have existed for thousands of years, and though a minority, are well documented. But I have yet to encounter an atheist who didn't take God to be a literal being, even if one not believed in. Without a literal god to disbelieve in, atheism has no reason to exist.

I'm not talking about theism vs. atheism, but about anyone who thinks that their way is the only way -- including some atheists towards other atheists. Maybe I worded it the wrong way, @OldMetalHead in a response below clarified it for me: "Are you talking about gnostic atheists vs agnostic atheists? Who gets to decide what proper atheisting is?" Because I've been harshly criticized by other atheists and agnostics if I don't think like them, that they act like fundamentalists in their thinking - so who gets to decide what's the "right" way to be a non-believer?

@bleurowz

You were clear. This still doesn't make sense. Someone who is adamant about their position of non belief and that they're right, might make them belligerent or confrontational, but it's not a position of fundamentalist anything.

There is no dogma or "belief system" to non belief. Where there is no evidence, logic leads to the rejection of such claims.

@Athena I added a clarification above.

If there is no dogma or belief system, then there should be no reason to be harshly critical of someone who doesn't think like you do. You can only be critical if there's something there to be critical of, right?

@bleurowz

I fiercely disagree with flat earthers.

That makes me a fundamentalist?

This is a nonsensical argument.

@bleurowz
This means we are all fundamentalists regarding a myriad of topics.

Wrong word to use and faulty argument.

@Athena Your take. I accept that. I don't think it's wrong or faulty. I already clarified. I feel the only atheists who sound like fundamentalists are the ones who think that they are absolutely right and that other atheists who don't agree are wrong.

@Athena If you had actually read what I clarified, I was talking about atheists who act like fundamentalists towards each other. I don't know where you got that I was implying that disagreeing with flat earthers makes you a fundamentalist.

@bleurowz

Atheists who argue with other atheists may just be jerks. Fundamentalism is an entirely different t thing.

All an atheist is, is a person who rejects the claim that a god exists. Someone who is asserting that they know a god doesn't exist is not just an atheist, he or she is also wrong, as they now hold the burden of proof.
If they continue to make this claim, or argue, they have moved beyond a position of belief. They're, as I said, just being belligerent.

This is not fundamentalism, but speaks to other aspects of one's character. Or, they are just incorrect.

Do you see the irony here as you argue your position so emphatically. As do I.. so are we both fundamentalists?

Your argument does apply to the flat earther comparison. Let me say it this way.. if a flat earther disagrees with another flat earther about what is true regarding flat earth, is one of them a fundamentalist?

If so, which one?

@Athena You posted this link. [rationalwiki.org] Did you read this part? "While the term fundamentalism is generally used when referring to a religious position, the etymology of the word in standard English defines it as 'necessary base or core; of central importance'. Richard Dawkins clarified his use of the word as 'atheists who cannot accept the religious position of others'"

As I mentioned to Kelvin above, "But here you're arguing for absolute proof. My feeling is there are too many things that are beyond our comprehension or knowledge right now to give us absolute proof of everything. But should that make me wrong? That doesn't mean I believe in a higher power."

There are some atheists who would claim otherwise, and are way more than belligerent about it. I've encountered a few. They are scary people.

Even Richard Dawkins asserts that there are differences in non-believers.

You want to argue this into the ground, be my guest. I'm done.

@bleurowz

Yes, I read it. It goes on to dismiss the term.

@bleurowz

Your fundamentalism is clear on this point. See how this works?

@Athena You assume that because I'm walking away? No, I just don't want to argue anymore. But if that's your opinion, guess what, I accept it! So I guess that doesn't make me a fundamentalist. That's how it works.

@bleurowz

Your argument is flawed.

Any emphatic position related to atheism is fundamentalism, is your claim. If an atheist doesn't agree with other atheists and are pushing their stand on it, you call that fundamentalism.

That can apply to any position where there is "sticking to a belief" where there's disagreement.

I'm not "arguing" any more than you are!

Haha.. that's funny. I see how this goes.

@Athena [rolls eyes] Think what you want.

@bleurowz

Oh, I will... promise.

But thanks for your permission to think what I want.

@Athena Oh, you're welcome. Because no one can ever think what they want without it!!

@bleurowz

Yes, we all got that about you.

@Athena I'm glad you speak for everyone.

@bleurowz

Hahaha! You fundamentalists really are crazy.

@Athena Takes one to know one.

I agree completely. I don't believe in a higher power, but I also don't believe all our questions about our existence have been answered and I don't know if they ever will be.

I know that. I'm more focusing on those who feel their way is the only way. I've been harshly criticized by atheists if I don't think exactly like them.

@bleurowz Yeah, I'd be telling those particular people that they can fuck right off.
When people don't get called on stuff like that, they think it's okay.

But I like your arguments even if you come on strong!

@bleurowz Thanks. I believe that life is short, get to the point.

@KKGator You have strong opinions, but you have a sense of respect. I like that.

That is of course "Pascals Wager". And there are a lot more logical angles than that one: [rationalwiki.org]

Of course there's a difference between atheists and theists, thank goodness! I'm focusing more on anyone who feels their way is the only way. I've been criticized by some atheists if I don't think exactly like them.

@bleurowz Obviously, and unfortunately, a mindset based in one rational idea, does not propagate to a reasonable set of civilized behaviors.

And yet, we need the militant atheists. The war against the religionists, especially the islamers, requires strong opposition to their tyranny.

Just wish they would not attempt to each their own.

@Jacar Yes, violent extremists need to be immobilized, and extremists of any kind held accountable. Just wish some of the non-believers would stop bashing their own.

their mothers are obviously fecundamentalists lol

g

Fundamentalists are made, not born. Anyone can become one if they feel their way is the only way.

Except that they’re not.

[amazon.com]

@bleurowz Fundamentalist and 'of strong opinion' are not the same thing. Both are needed.

Yeah. Thanks. I think you see what I'm getting at.

I appreciate that even Dawkins questions and recognizes that their are differences even among non-believers.

I don't know, I've experienced otherwise. There are definitely not nearly the same number of people, but with nearly as much wrath and intensity.

@bleurowz so how small or large is your sample? mine is pretty darned large but i have not done a national survey lol.

g

@genessa Does it matter how large? I've experienced harsh criticism from some aetheists who think that their way is the only way. Fundamentalist thinking doesn't just apply to religion.

@OldMetalHead Fundamentalist thinking doesn't just apply to religion. It's been attributed to religion because that's where it's most prominent. But it applies when someone thinks their way is the only way and everyone else is wrong.

@bleurowz yes the size of the sample does matter, because if you generalize you need a large sample. that is basic. meanwhile, it's a silly concept anyway, as i said, because you are using the concept of my way or the highway as the definition of fundamentalism, and that isn't the definition at all. true fundies can be very stubborn but the two words are not synonyms. fundamentalism has, as has been noted, to do with the literal interpretation of one's religious texts and stories. fundies believe the snake spoke, for example. they may or may not be stubborn in their belief, they may or may not be stubborn regarding YOUR nonbelief in their belief, but their stubbornness isn't what makes them fundies. their literality is. atheists don't HAVE holy texts. being adamant that there are no gods doesn't make an atheist a fundamentalist. you are incorrect that fundamentalism is not only applicable to religion. it actually is.

g

@genessa Ah, I see. You're right, I'm wrong. I rest my case. If there are no rules and no texts, then why are we having this argument?

@bleurowz so anyone who disagrees with you is a fundie? That's almost as funny as the perennial "you missed my point." sometimes the other person IS right. I didn't make up the definition of fundamentalist. So it's not me being right. It's me knowing when a word is being misused. You may rest your case if you like. It's sure better than pressing it, as you have no case.

g

@genessa I absolutely do: "While the term fundamentalism is generally used when referring to a religious position, the etymology of the word in standard English defines it as 'necessary base or core; of central importance'. Richard Dawkins clarified his use of the word as 'atheists who cannot accept the religious position of others'."

[rationalwiki.org]

@bleurowz So even Dawkins uses it in a religious context. Ha.

g

@genessa Yes. And it also has a non-religious definition as well.

@bleurowz Whatever. You will insist that no matter what anyone says, and yet accuse everyone ELSE of thhink9ng they are always right. What a bore.

g

@genessa Oh, you're too funny.

@genessa You may be right, you may not be. I'm just going to wish you a Happy Thanksgiving and leave it at that.