Myth: Militant Atheists are Atheist Fundamentalists, a New Atheism
Friday May 16, 2008
There seems to be an increasing number of people responding to atheist critiques of religion or theism by labeling the person a "fundamentalist" atheist. The label is problematic because there are no essential or "fundamental" beliefs for an atheist to be "fundamentalist" about. So why do people use the label? Why do so many people feel that the label is appropriate? This seems to be mostly due to misunderstandings about and prejudice against fundamentalism.
Read Article: Myth: Militant Atheists are Atheist Fundamentalists, a New Atheism
Comments
The better term is evangelical atheism.
Conveying your passion for logic and truth is a good thing. Letting someone know how you feel, and why, is what makes the human experience.. well, human.
Fundamentalist has negative connotations, and is likely the reason it is being used in this fashion.
Mr. Kline,
I believe atheists in the West do appear to be lockstep in many of their stated positions regarding various matters. It could be easily argued that they are very essential to Western atheism.
For example:
1. Evolutionary position
2. Position that the universe is millions of years old
3. Disbelief in the miraculous
In addition, since liberals and atheists are prominent in academia it would hardly suprise me if the correlation between atheism and liberalism was never studied by academia. Nonetheless, the fundamentalist atheist Dawkins states with shrillness that the Old Testament God is homophobic which a classic liberal remark. Of course, the very idea that the Almighty God in the Old Testament was afraid of homosexuals is absurd!
Then why don’t you make the argument, instead of making the claim that you could make the argument and then pretending that you did?
1. Please support your contention that Dawkins is a “fundamentalist” and has been “shrill.”
2. I’m guessing that English is not your first language; if it were, you’d be aware of the fact that “phobia” doesn’t just mean “fear.”
Mr. Cline,
I certainly am not the only person who regards Dawkins as shrill. The left leaning publication the Guardian stated regarding the New Atheism (which Dawkins is certain a part) the following:
Anti-faith proselytizing is a growth industry. But its increasingly hysterical flag-bearers are heading for a spectacular failure…
These increasingly hysterical books may boost the pension, they may be morale boosters for a particular kind of American atheism that feels victimized - the latest candidate in a flourishing American tradition - but one suspects that they are going to do very little to challenge the appeal of a phenomenon they loathe too much to understand. (see: conservapedia’s atheism article).
Lastly, Mr. Kline could you explain your comment regarding the “phobia” issue you raised more in depth and show how I did what you claim I did.
Probably not, but the fact that others agree with you isn’t particularly relevant. If you are going to accuse him of being shrill, you should be able to support that accusation by showing how and why he is shrill.
Feel free to point out what is “hysterical” about them and why you think that a “pension” is at all relevant to why they were written.
I’m surprised that my comment requires explanation: if English is your first language, you should know that “phobia” means more than just “fear.” So either English isn’t your first language, or you’re just very ignorant. I chose to try to be charitable and chalk it up to an understandable lack of familiarity with the word rather than inexcusable ignorance (inexcusable, because there is no excuse for basing a criticism on the meaning of word that you don’t know the meaning of). I wasn’t trying to “raise” any “depth,” and I’m not sure what “claim” of mine you’re referring to. Feel free to elaborate.
Oh, and do feel free also to actually address the points I already made. If you just keep tossing out more assertions that you don’t support, you’ll soon create such a long list of unsupported assertions that you’ll never have time to actually go through and support them. Better to keep on top of that right from the beginning — like keeping a room clean from early on rather than letting get into such a state that making it right again becomes an impossible task.
Dear Mr. Cline,
I personally found your last post was as murky as your initial post on the supposed “phobia issue”. Given your comments on my prowess in regards to the English language I find your lack of clarity rather humorous.
I certainly would want to know if I had made a mistake and would quickly admit so as I believe in the principle of lifelong learning. However, your continued lack of clarity tells me that you are not making a serious point here and therefore I have no interest in returning to this particular discussion as I do not believe it would be a wise investment of my time.
How hard is it to figure out that you are ignorant of the full definition of “phobia”? Well, that’s a rhetorical question obviously because it’s not difficult at all. Since it can’t be that you are having trouble with it, the explanation for your failure must lie elsewhere.
I rather doubt that, otherwise you would have corrected yourself. As inexcusable as your original failure would be for a native speaker of English, continued refusal to face reality is much worse.
>1. Evolutionary position
I was told by a caller on Atheist Experience that “I believe in Big Bang, and I’m sure you do to.” I told him I do not believe Big Bang. I accept it as the best model available that is currently supported by all the gathered data that our best astrophysicist minds can comprehend. But that doesn’t make it right. It only makes it our best estimate at this time.
Evolution, however, occurs. Anyone who claims evolution does not occur is either ignorant about what evolution is or is brain dead. You can observe evolution. I can observe evolution. All of our domestic breeding programs (except for the new genetically engineered models) have been utilizing evolutionary process for, literally, thousands of years, very successfully.
Saying atheism is tied to acceptance of evolution is like saying you have to be atheist to see what’s right in front of your face.
As far as the extended theory–that all life originated from a single organism, I am of a similar opinion as Big Bang. It’s the most sensible model based on what is available to examine. That, however, in and of itself doesn’t make it correct. I don’t defend the model, because it’s irrelevant to me whether or not it pans out to be correct. But the idea that things evolve is nonnegotiable because it’s observable–whether you’re an atheist or not.
2. Position that the universe is millions of years old
Astrophysicists put this forward. It’s not an atheist dogma. Again, there are reasons this is put forward. Could astrophysicists be missing relevant data? Could they be misinterpreting something? Sure. Would I, as a layman, have any away to know that? No. Do I, as a layman, have any grounds to dispute them? No. Do I, as an atheist, have to adhere to it as indisputable because people who know more than I do claim it makes sense? No. So, I don’t. I simply say, “It’s the best explanation we have at the present time according to the best minds we have to evaluate such data.”
3. Disbelief in the miraculous
I met an atheist who believes in souls. Buddhists are a huge number of atheists who believe in souls. Some believe in miraculous stories about the Buddha.
Many new age individuals believe in all sorts of froo-froo crap–mystic energies or cosmic connections of one sort or another–but don’t believe in gods.
You’re confusing skeptic with atheist, I think, here.
Tracie,
Actually, the Buddha taught the doctrine of no-soul. (anatta in Pali.) So, Theravada Buddhists (Buddhists in Sri Lanka and many others) do not believe in a soul. Something does transmigrate, but it is not to be considered as a soul. Check a standard textbook on Buddhism.
Are all religious crooks trying to make all atheists the same? It is an old Hitler trick. Accuse so that others must mount a weak defense. What a sack of baloney these people have.
I think, basically, there is confusion
from the Dawkins antagonists. Not surprising, they usually are confused.
I would never consider Dawkins a fundamentalist. Proselytising Evangelical probably. My wife said this of me over forty years ago, so welcome to the club Richard.
tomedgar@halenet.com.au
Intellectual laziness is the greatest western disease.how can this buffoon say Richard Dawkins is being shrill?It makes me feel good sometimes that being African with all the educational limitations i endured,there are many western individuals who have grown to learn and study in just one language,with all the educational facilities , still come out thick and ignorant.if i were told that people in the west were also superstitious i would have argued.but now i can see to what extent superstition can distract the intellectual evolution of the human race regardless of origin.No matter what religion you claim to adhere to,its all superstition .like it or not ,it will never be considered in any acadamic enviroment(maybe in Iran or Saudi Arabia) keep on guys.keep proving to me that it is a Myth that we Africans are less intelligent people.hahahaha.Thank all the gods of the world i am Atheist.hiiiihaaaaa