Essay talk:Why Atheist Fundamentalism Exists

I understand you're not finished yet but...
Fundamentalism is defined as "a form of a religion, especially Islam or Protestant Christianity, that upholds belief in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture", not "strict adherence to faith". As atheists have no scripture to follow they can't be fundamentalists (I'd also dispute that atheism by my or your definition is a faith based position). Christopher (talk) 09:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of writing something somewhat similar to this in topic myself at some point. (Though considering the scope and quality of this Essay, I believe I still will.) Like Christopher here, though, I have a bovine to hoist up regarding the essay so far, specifically this line:
 * Atheism would be pretty well falsified if god came down and raptured everyone up. Whats more, god is (to borrow a quote I can't seem to find again from somewhere else on this wiki's discussionplaces) "a flying logical contradiction" in and of himself. Have a look at Atheism, Atheism, or maybe simply the entire page if you can handle it. 10:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * [To the essay creator, not you] Is lack of belief in the Invisible Pink Unicorn (PBUH) a faith based position? What about Zeus? Christopher (talk) 10:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought simply not indenting (or not indenting as much) was how one specifies who they are talking to; you always have one more indentation than whom you are addressing. 11:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought simply not indenting (or not indenting as much) was how one specifies who they are talking to; you always have one more indentation than whom you are addressing. 11:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Even if you use your weird definition of fundamentalism (strict adherence to faith), atheism is not a faith based position. Christopher (talk) 19:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Err, umm... ahem, what I meant was no matter how far down the page you manage to get your comment in, your indentation should be one more than the comment you are responding to. That's basically what I meant; so for example, if you found a really interesting comment as the second comment in a section, and it (as it probably would) has one :indent, you would add your comment with ::two indentations, even if there was a branch of conversation exploding all the way up to a dozen or two indents by the time you add yours to the bottom. It's very intuitive if you keep in mind that this particular etiquette is designed to mimic the "tree structure" comment systems many more rigidly structured websites than wikis have. Unindents (like for instance, but this is not always used) are a special case, and at that point you're probably better off simply quoting (or referencing a portion of) the specific text you want to reply to.  19:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I usually just add one more than the previous comment no matter what, just a habit really. You're right that there are better ways to do it (and that the one you're talking about is one of them). Christopher (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Antitheism
Is merely the position that religion is harmful, which I think isn't that controversial amongst sane people. Christopher (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Redefinition
The section What is fundamentalism? starts with a definition of fundamentalism as a strict adherence to a faith. In the same section, fundamentalism is redefined as taking the piss out of others' beliefs. 2.126.236.234 (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)