Talk:Atheist fundamentalism/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 9 December 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Nice

Nice work, Weasel. Really nice. TheoryOfPractice 18:49, 16 February 2009 (EST)

Cheers. :-) Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:56, 16 February 2009 (EST)

Don't we have better things then to worry about semantics? It seems like we are dismissing a valid argument on the grounds that the wording is off, which is a Conservapedia thing to do. I suggest that the article be modified to reflect that the argument can be valid even if the wording is awful. --"CUR^talk 21:01, 16 February 2009 (EST)

I second TOP. really nice Weaseloid... CUR, the reason it's so important is that it isn't just a matter of semantics, but of "argumentation", or rather, false argumentation. Instead of arguing with a person on their level, and to their merrits, people who must use WeaselWords (no offense meant, WO) to denigrate their opponent and say "see, see, he is just like what you are claiming we are", do not really grasp the issue, but are in effect just tap dancing. Are there atheist extremists? sure. Do atheists become obsessed with attacking religious folk? Sure. But they are not Fundimentalists, nor are they "anti-religionists" or other such terms which exist in the mind of the right to say "I am rubber you are glue, bounces off me and sticks to you", and of course the ever important "I know you are but what am I?"--EnAttendantGodot 21:06, 16 February 2009 (EST)

I realize that. But we should comment on those behaviors, as they do not reflect well on atheists in general, and should be refuted so that those arguments cannot be used. --"CUR^talk 21:08, 16 February 2009 (EST)

(bloody EC) Though it's very nicely written, I kinda agree with CUR. They usually mean militant atheists, and use the fundamentalism term because it describes very similar behavior. Perhaps some arguments can be added against militant atheists to make the article a bit less about semantics and also represent both sides? Actually, I'm an atheist, but I fucking loathe some of those retarded 14yo atheist kids whose idea of an argument is an insulting motivational poster (no offense CUR). --GTac

Ah, me to. I hate people who try to tell other people what to believe- in fact, I created a userbox saying it. Exceptions apply of course (people trying to spread their belief, or a belief that could be harmful to others), but we generally have no right to tell people what religion to follow. One reason why I am not Dawkin's biggest fan. --"CUR^talk 21:14, 16 February 2009 (EST)

CUR, I think why I like the article is that it says 1) there is no such thing as an atheist fundi, 2) here's why people use it. Isn't that a good thing to have as a resource for people combating the RightWingConservativeFundiMonobeing? --EnAttendantGodot 21:16, 16 February 2009 (EST)

Perhaps. But I think that some atheists can be exceedingly obnoxious. I think we need an article on that sort of thing. --"CUR^talk 21:17, 16 February 2009 (EST)

We already have antitheism & atheist thumper covering "that sort of thing", both linked from here. My point with this one was not to duplicate them too much, but to discuss the use of a fairly misleading term. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:20, 16 February 2009 (EST)

We also have Achristian. ħuman 21:32, 16 February 2009 (EST)

(ANOTHER EC GRR) Well, I don't have a huge problem with this article, I just wanted to say that it seems kind of petty to me, because I think the term isn't that strange. Yeh, technically it's wrong, but practically it makes sense, since some militant atheists act just like they are fundamentalists of their religion (yehyeh, atheism isn't a religion, but some people, including atheists, act like it is). Sooo in short, this seems to me like pointing out that someone made a common typo: true but unnecessary. PS, I just noticed that EnAttendantGodot made the same joke as me when I had the previous EC. How peculiar. --GTac 21:25, 16 February 2009 (EST)

I concur with GTac. I think. --"CUR^talk 21:26, 16 February 2009 (EST)

Er, shouldn't it be "fundamentalist atheism"? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 04:06, 17 February 2009 (EST)

What's the difference? Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:15, 18 February 2009 (EST)

"Essentially meaningless"?

I suggest that basing arguments on the premise that "atheism is not a religion" is not a good idea, since that premise is disputed, and "atheist fundamentalism" has some meaning to those who believe that atheism is a religion. At least some people at Conservapedia, for starters, regard atheism as a religion. So do the U.S. courts. So do I. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:11, 17 February 2009 (EST)

U.S. courts have practical reasons for sometimes classing atheism as a religion (e.g. protecting First Ammendment rights) but certainly wouldn't ever class somebody as an atheist fundamentalist. Your argument relies on an arcane definition of religion. Even if we accept that definition, atheism still only involves one belief (or disbelief) and no specific practices or moral guidelines - so what would be the difference between an atheist fundamentalist and any other atheist? Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:15, 18 February 2009 (EST)

The atheist fundamentalist would advocate crushing the opposition by force. That is not part of atheism, but then again Christian fundamentalists take on some beliefs that are not part of Christianity, either. ListenerX^TalkerX 11:36, 18 February 2009 (EST)

...

Are you serious? I mean, you're missing the point on so many levels. Okay then, atheism isn't a religion. So? That's not the point of the term. "Atheist fundamentalist" means that you shove your lack of religion down Christians' throats the same way fundies shove their religion down non-Christians' throats. And you do. I mean, holy shit are you really focusing this page on the fact you aren't literal fundies instead of the symbolic use of the term? I mean, you aren't exactly symbolism-free either.Lilfut (talk)

"Atheist fundamentalist" is a derogatory word with no real meaning. We don't really have fundamentals. Maybe you're looking for Militant atheism? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 23:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh ho ho. That slaps me on the knee. My point is, the term is more symbolic than literal. Lilfut (talk)

Most atheists, Dawkins, Hitchens excepted of course, don't shove our lack of any belief in the stupid concept of god down anyone's throat until they shove their contrary belief down ours. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 00:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I have never pushed athiesm on to anyone who wasn't willing to discuss it. Aceⁱ⁹ 00:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

For the creationist, of course atheists are pushing their religious views (i.e., bombarding the creationist's world-view with the cannon of reality). ListenerX^TalkerX 03:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

There is one fundamental of being an atheist, and that can easily be seen by looking at the name. "Atheism" simply means "no gods" or "godless". Taken at the "literalist" and "dogmatic" interpretation, it can be read as "no gods for anyone ever under any condition". Anyone adhering to that kind of philosophy could easily fall into the same behaviors as religious fundamentalists.

1. If there is a fundamental, it can be followed.
2. If a fundamental is strictly adhered to, the follower is a fundamentalist.
3. "No gods" is a fundamental in atheism.
4. Therefore, fundamental atheists are possible.

QED. 76.106.251.87 (talk) 01:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

No, you are thinking of strong atheism, which is the belief that no gods exist. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. --Whyhow (talk) 07:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Bon droppings

Cut from article:

"Whoever wrote this preceeding paragraph needs to change it, because the reason you give for calling atheists fundamentalists cannot in fact be a reason why something is not true. Even if the term were "only" used for that, it does nothing to address whether or not it's true that some atheists are fundamentalists. The fact that "rational wiki" has entries worded so UNRATIONALLY is quite painful to those of us that are capable of actual rational thought. Whoever wrote that paragraph is a complete dunce, who couldnt argue his way out of a wet paper bag."

ħuman 01:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Definitions.

The way it was explained to me is that atheism is belief that gods are not real, and not just a simple lack of belief in them. "I do not believe in X" and "I believe X is not real" have two different meanings, and there are other problems associated with the lack of belief definition, most noteworthy is it includes dogs, and after all, don't all dogs go to heaven? Cheshire (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The two definitions are "weak" and "strong" atheist. The first you're talking about "weak" atheism; a mere lack of belief. The second you're talking about "strong" atheism, where one feels there's suitable evidence to assert that there probably isn't a God or gods, rather than just assert a lack of belief in them. However, you are right that defining it by a "lack" of belief proves problematic, hence the development of other terms like "bright" or "freethinking" all the way to Thunderf00t's favoured "PEARLism". ^pathetic 20:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Most atheists with whom I have had contact use the evidence question. There is no evidence for gods therefore they do not believe in them. That's certainly Dawkins' position. This is sort of like the the so called "weak atheist" position. The thing is that it's not really necessary to provide arguments against the existence of a being if no real arguments have been provided for its existence.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Atheism isn't "belief that gods are not real", it is "a lack of belief in them" (simple or otherwise). The a- prefix is a negation, as in agnosticism, anarchy, any of these examples. The strong/weak atheism dichotomy is really just a philosophical construct, mostly applied in flimsy criticisms of atheism. The God issue is the only one where people are called on to make this distinction. Those who do not believe in the existence of Santa Claus are not expected to define their non-belief as a strong belief in His non-existence or a weak position of assuming He does not exist until any evidence to the contrary should come to life. Not believing in something is enough. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's a philosophical construct. But that's almost the point, the term "atheist" as it stands and as its etymology suggests is practically useless - why do you define something based on what it isn't? Hence you get the strong/weak definitions appearing amongst others. And while it's true that no one is ever called in practice to make the strong/weak definition for the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus or Befriciastein, the god I just made up off the top of my head by jamming on the keyboard, it doesn't mean that, in principle, the distinction does not exist. But, we have to remember the context of atheism is the ubiquity of religion, it's almost normative behavior to be a believer. So any discussion about the definitions and semantics of the terms needs to keep this in mind. If we were in a world where only 1-2% of people believed in higher powers or creator gods, then we'd be having a completely different discussion. ^pathetic 22:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the strong/weak distinction is necessary when talking to theists; but from the point of view of atheists themselves it's pretty irrelevant?

If so, then I'm not sure that I agree. I don't believe in Santa, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, Satan, Vishnu, God, ghosts and fairies for exactly the same reason - there is no evidence they exist. Yet you seem to be suggesting that, when talking about one specific mythological being, I have to define myself as a "strong" or "weak" disbeliever. The result of this is to implicitly accept that one of these non-beings is unique in some way. I'm not buying it.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 06:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure you are understanding, you don't have to define as anything, I'm just saying people have generated these terms and made a bigger deal of it because of the ubiquity of religion. As I said, it's almost the case that atheism is non-normative. It's analoguous to feminism, which only makes sense the context of male-dominated history, otherwise it's pointless. In an historically gender equal society we wouldn't have feminism or any debates about it, similarly in an overall atheistic society we probably wouldn't even have a term for "atheism" because that would be like describing a normative person and "not non-normative" and wouldn't make sense. So you have to keep in mind that everything we do when discussing the subject only makes sense with the background of religious dominance in the world. You can apply the same reasoning to God as to the Tooth Fairy all you like, but you can't deny that religion is big and thus changes the "rules" slightly; we don't have Santa following cults or numerous books espousing reasons why the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist. The belief/non-belief dynamic is a lot more complex than "oh I just don't believe it" (do you imply it by lack of evidence only, do you think there is positive evidence of non-existence etc.), but we only see it in the case of God because that's the big subject and there is passion on both sides. You could, in principle, get strong or weak Tooth Fairy deniers but we generally don't see it because the Tooth Fairy isn't this big overarching belief system that fills 90% of the brains on the planet and not believing in it is just The Way It's Done, rather than a non-normative response to an ubiquitous belief system. Anyway, that's the point expressed about 12 different ways so far. ^pathetic 15:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, but looking at my list above, you do have people who believe in Satan, Vishnu and ghosts. Weaseloid makes a good point below that strong/weak is in reality insufficiently clear. (I may be somewhat more sceptical than him about everything I think, but would obviously be convinced by evidence.) Dawkins, if I remember correctly outlines a seven point scale starting from (1.) utter belief to (7.) utter denial. I think it's more useful than strong/weak.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The belief/non-belief dynamic is indeed a lot more complex than "oh I just don't believe it", which is exactly why the strong/weak dichotomy is a useless straw man distinction. At best there is a continuum of how strong atheists' convictions are. E.g. I would probably be somewhere on the middle of it & don't feel comfortable identifying as either a "strong atheist" or "weak atheist" - I feel relatively certain that there is no god, but if I encountered any compelling evidence, I would of course consider it (on an extraordinary claims/extraordinary proof basis), though I see this situation as very unlikely to occur. My conviction that Santa Claus & the Tooth Fairy do not exist is even stronger - I'm damn sure they don't exist & it would take a hell of a lot to convince me otherwise. My convictions about ghosts, maybe a tiny bit weaker - I don't believe in them, but keep an open mind to some extent (& a good horror movie can have me almost believing in them for an evening). The same continuum goes for non-paranormal things. I don't believe that real-life alien encounters have occurred, but find the concept more plausible than either ghosts or gods. I don't buy into the 9/11 Truther conspiracies, but certainly could be convinced if some real evidence came to light. Etc. etc. etc. Any instance of not believing something cannot be easily classified as either a weak or strong non-belief. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

But two medium sized brushes are better than one huge brush surely? It's just a model or a construct to define two sub groups, you can divide it further than that if you want. ^pathetic 07:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't accept that there are two subgroups. That distinction really isn't there in real life. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

There are very few things that "are there in real life", though. Some people use weak/strong to define different ways of not believing (simply "not believing that it exists" and "believing that it doesn't exist", a subtle difference that some people use), Bob above points out Dawkins Kinsey-esque scale, which I do agree is slightly more "useful", but again, you could argue that a linear scale with just seven points isn't subtle enough, where is the distinction between what would change my belief, a measure of the belief's "elasticity", for instance? Many people view the inflexible and linear left/right political spectrum as too restricting so started to introduce different dimensions. But again, these things don't exist in real life either, as the views of an indiviudal are always going to be more complex, nuanced and varied with related topics (you can be an atheist and believe in psychic powers and ghosts, for example). But these are models and ways of distilling the beliefs of many into simple or more complex models depending on your purposes - I think the weak/strong distinction works like this. But anyway, my entire point is that we only go into this much depth and clarity with the God/atheism question because of the ubiquity of religion, and atheism acting as a response to that (hence why I think you can be an atheist and still believe in ghosts even though fundamentalist atheists say you must reject all supernatural. No, this isn't the case. We have good working definitions of God and gods supplied by the hundreds of religions around the world and this specifically is what atheism rejects, because if these religions didn't exist, neither would the concept of, or the term for, atheism.). ^pathetic 08:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm "Strong"

Reason: If the concept of god did not exist, is there anything that would cause you to invent it? As far as I can see there isn't. 19:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

ignorance (I don't know where we came from) + curiosity (Where did we come from?) + laziness (This is making my head hurt, I just need an answer) = god, or something like that. The concept of god is pervasive throughout independent civilizations across human history. Historically, if the concept of god didn't exist, someone made it, and we've seen this time and again. If there has ever been a civilization which has not considered a higher power, I would like to see it. 207.67.17.45 (talk) 19:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but now we've got as much more of an answer than any religious claptrap ever gave us. Ain't science wonderful? 19:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is. But I still don't believe any society (or individual, for that matter) has left the possibility of god unconsidered. 207.67.17.45 (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Never said they had, but, with the benefit of hindsight, is that any reason to consider it now? 19:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

So, if the concept of god did not yet exist, would there be any reason for you to arrive at considering it? I'd say yes. The concept is a logical consequence of curiosity about origins. 207.67.17.45 (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Not really. It utterly fails Occam's Razor, for instance, without which I would feel safe shaving. ħuman 07:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's worst

This must be the most biassed article anywhere in wikipedia. It has absolutely no purpose except to push a prejudiced viewpoint. Froma a complete agnostic when it comes to gods or anything to with them, including their existence and non-existence. ^{— Unsigned, by: 88.207.238.71 / talk / contribs}

Are you shore you are in the right place, this is not wikipedia? - π 13:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You know, this is why we need to change the default skin, so morons don't confuse RW with WP. You'd think the big brain in the corner was enough, but obviously not. ^pathetic 15:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice. And I say change nothing. Pandering to idiots is a never-ending struggle. Quaru (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

As the Facebook login incident demonstrated, even a different layout and colour scheme won't discourage clueless people from making assumptions.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the worst article I've ever read on Prodigy. Prodigy's admins should remove it immediately! ħuman 18:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This must be the absolute worst internet porn I have ever seen. There is no nudity and no purpose except to push a prejudiced viewpoint. I simply cannot work with this material. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait a sec, are you trying to tell me that wasn't a RationalWiki article? I thought someone had just put that huge red banner there using DISPLAYTITLE. ^pathetic 20:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)