How to spot the fundie atheists

[Bob Klase]

You say that Hitler was a devout Christian, even though there are many other possibilities. e.g. God and Darwinism weren't separate ideas during the time of Hitler and Woodrow Wilson, but one entity.

This one confused me. No idea what they're trying to say here.

I'm not sure either, but it looks like maybe they're saying that they thought evolution was a pretty good theory until they figured out that it would work without god.

 

[Ryokan]

I'm not sure either, but it looks like maybe they're saying that they thought evolution was a pretty good theory until they figured out that it would work without god.

And the Hitler being Christian and Woodrow Wilson bit?

 

[PixyMisa]

I think they're saying "Hitler was an atheist. Was too. Was too! WAS TOO! And even if he wasn't, he was a Catholic, which is just a bad. Also, Darwin ate babies."

 

[Bob Klase]

You say that Hitler was a devout Christian, even though there are many other possibilities. e.g. God and Darwinism weren't separate ideas during the time of Hitler and Woodrow Wilson, but one entity.

And the Hitler being Christian and Woodrow Wilson bit?

I'll have to guess a little on those two, but I think they're tired of claiming that Hitler was an atheist and want to admit that there are still many possibilities including the possibility that he was christain.

I don't really have a clue about the Wilson bit. Young earth creationists have to reconcile a universe that appears to be 14 billion years old with their 6000 year old universe. Perhaps by claiming that Wilson's time (president from 1912 to 1920) is the same as Hitler's time (Chancellor from 1933 to 1945) they can eliminate the 13 years from 1920 to 1933 and they're 13 years closer to be being right.

Thirteen years down, 13999999987 years left to eliminate.

 

[thesyntaxera]

I thought it was pretty funny actually. Can't anyone here laugh at themselves a little? I could almost swear they took all of these from some of the poorer arguments presented on this very forum.

 

[Dunstan]

I thought it was pretty funny actually. Can't anyone here laugh at themselves a little? I could almost swear they took all of these from some of the poorer arguments presented on this very forum.

I only got as far as the first 25 or so; I scrolled down and saw there were 400-and-something.

I suspect that if they distilled it down to a couple dozen, they'd have some decent jabs. But there's so much silliness and contradiction in there that they just look silly. Not to mention that they're using a nonsensical term, "fundamentalist atheist."

At least when we bother to insult Christians, we usually get our terminology straight.

 

[Ladewig]

The trouble with list like that is not that they are almost entirely wrong, but that there always seems to be a small kernel of truth (e.g., at least one supporting example) behind every bigotted statement.

Can you provide an example from an internet forum to at least... lets say 4 (from 423)?

#67 You cite "Talkorigins.org" as a reliable source.

Ha, just last year I saw someone on JREF cite Talkorigins.org. More than a kernel of truth there. And what a zinger that one was. Ouch!

One down three to go.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I thought it was pretty funny actually. Can't anyone here laugh at themselves a little? I could almost swear they took all of these from some of the poorer arguments presented on this very forum.

Umm, really?

You quite rightly denounce the methods of those who deny the historicity of the Holocaust, then use the same methods(inventing excuses to ignore evidence)to deny the historicity of Jesus.

You start a local Atheists and Agnostics Society, the goal of which is to prove through good deeds that atheists and agnostics can be just as generous and caring as some Christians are. When nobody joins, and the club eventually unfolds, you are flustered. You have no idea why a group of people who by definition do not base their morality on anything greater than their own ideas wouldn't jump at the chance to be self-sacrificing for no logical reason.

Oh yeah, I remember all the silly atheists wandering around doing those things. Ahh the chance to laugh at our silly immoral, holocaust denying selves.

Tee hee.

 

[quixotecoyote]

While most of these are just bizarre reflections of a good/evil worldview, a few stand out.

There's the, "yeah. So?"s

You accuse a Christian of "quote mining."

You say that people simply create their own God (G-d for Jews) and compare it to magical creatures with green hair, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

You seriously believe Jesus could have survived hours of flogging and crucifixion.

You don't like Christians because they are stuffy and judgemental and you don't like judgemental people. You also don't see the irony in this.

You create a web site: http://www.EvilBible.com,and post an Evil Bible Quote of the Day on usenet. The quotes always end with: "What kind of person would get their moral guidance from an ancient book of myths and magic that says it is OK to murder, rape, pillage, and plunder?"

You're saving up to move to some more enlightened place, like Sweden.

You say things like, "I can't tolerate religion because religion is intolerant. And no type of intolerance should be tolerated."

You think that humans are products of chance but when it comes to human reason we can believe in logic! (Think about it !)

And then the "WTF"s

You uphold a woman’s right to choose, unless a woman chooses adoption, chooses to be a stay-at-home mom, chooses to homeschool, or chooses to start a business.

You think the fact that something isn't flying out of your butt means it doesn't exist.

You evidently think that slaughtering 6,000,000 Jews is no different from using sugar in your porridge,since whenever someone points out that Hitler's actions show him to VERY UN-Christian,you exclaim "No true Scotsman uses sugar in his porridge!"

You think that the Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional because it mentions "the creator".

You think Deicide is the best death metal band.

And there's a few that are "Well, given the list you just made...."

You debate (argue, vilify, etc.) as if every theist was a Jack Chick fan...

 

[fromdownunder]

As silly as these quotes are, there are, I believe, some people who want to be fundie atheists. They call themselves Atheists.

Norm

 

[JetLeg]

As silly as these quotes are, there are, I believe, some people who want to be fundie atheists. They call themselves Atheists.

Norm

No. They aren't fundie atheists. They are just pushy atheists.

Fundamentalists are pushy, but being pushy doesn't mean you're a fundamentalist. There is more to fundamentalism than that.

There is no book that any Atheist, or even ATHEIST defines as an inerrant authority.

 

[FireGarden]

I don't think so.

Can you provide an example from an internet forum to at least... lets say 4 (from 423)?

I think the site aimed for the in-joke chuckle factor rather objective examples. But.... Yes some were familiar, and even apply to myself...

Number 9:
You spend hours arguing that a-theism actually means "without a belief in God " and not just "belief that there is no god" as if this is a meaningful distinction in real life.


That happens quite often on this forum. I think it is a meaningful distinction. (I don't spend hours arguing that, however). And other members of this forum define atheism as a lack of belief:

Wolfman's opening post in
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90845

This thread includes a few:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=109042

Thaiboxerken, post 6
Paul C Anagnostopoulos, post 7
The Atheist, post 10
etc



So we have that and quoting talkorigins, which I also admit doing. 2 down, 2 to go.

 

[JetLeg]

I think the site aimed for the in-joke chuckle factor rather objective examples. But.... Yes some were familiar, and even apply to myself...

Number 9:
You spend hours arguing that a-theism actually means "without a belief in God " and not just "belief that there is no god" as if this is a meaningful distinction in real life.


That happens quite often on this forum. I think it is a meaningful distinction. (I don't spend hours arguing that, however). And other members of this forum define atheism as a lack of belief:

Wolfman's opening post in
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90845

This thread includes a few:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=109042

Thaiboxerken, post 6
Paul C Anagnostopoulos, post 7
The Atheist, post 10
etc



So we have that and quoting talkorigins, which I also admit doing. 2 down, 2 to go.

Actually, I agree with that also. I do think that in real life, if someone doesn't have a belief that werewolves exist, it the same as saying werewolves do not exist.

But this has no relationship to a person being "fundamentalist".

 

[cymru1991]

I don't know wether to laugh or cry after reading that list.....

To my mind it looked as if it had been written by a group of 13 year old boys who had thrown their toys out of the pram- yes maybe one or two of those "points" were well made, but it's literally one or two..........

 

[Egg]

No. They aren't fundie atheists. They are just pushy atheists.

Fundamentalists are pushy, but being pushy doesn't mean you're a fundamentalist. There is more to fundamentalism than that.

Depends how you mean the word "fundamentalist". Whilst it may have originally had something to do with "fundamentals" as the word suggests, I don't think that's what most people think of when we talk about fundamentalists. Generally, it tends to get used to describe a stubborn position often at extreme ends of the spectrum who are adamant they're right and refuse to compromise in their ideas - something which could easily describe a certain type of atheist or at least antitheist.

There is no book that any Atheist, or even ATHEIST defines as an inerrant authority.

So not The God Delusion then?

...and I'm only half joking.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Actually, I agree with that also. I do think that in real life, if someone doesn't have a belief that werewolves exist, it the same as saying werewolves do not exist.

Not to derail further, but I don't think it's the same at all. One is a lack of belief, and the other is a lack of existence.

If you were to explain quantum tunneling to someone, they may not believe it exists. Nevertheless, it does exist.

 

[Foolmewunz]

An attempt at humor from the humor-challenged (and directed at the humor-challenged, evidently).

They're just tired of being called Fundies and want to believe that they're the only TRUE Christians, so think this is a clever variant on 'turnabout is fair play' and are trying to turn the label back on atheists. "Oooh! Well, if I'm a Fundie Christian then you're a Fundie Atheist! Nyah! So there!"

If it makes them happy, let 'em have a good time. There are a couple of items on there that are not necessarily derogatory towards atheists (at least I don't see them that way, unless you're concerned with their snotty attitude which leaches (sic? leeches?) through every item). And as QuixoteCoyote mentioned, there are a whole lot of them that merit a, "Yeah, so?". But just by the laws of chance, with four hundred to choose from, they were bound to hit on a couple of things that were correct.

 

[FireGarden]

Actually, I agree with that also. I do think that in real life, if someone doesn't have a belief that werewolves exist, it the same as saying werewolves do not exist.

The statements aren't equal, even if the sets of people agreeing with the statements are equal. In the case of atheism, people do split themselves into different sets according to preferred definitions.

The main example which used to come up is Franko's Coin...
A coin is tossed. Do you believe it will land heads up? No? Does that mean you believe it will NOT land heads up? I wouldn't suppose so. You simply lack a belief that the coin will land heads up.

There was a good thread on this topic, but I can't find it now. So, instead, here's another thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136304&page=2

The topic is taken up from post 71, Herzblut Vs Darat

 

[JetLeg]

Depends how you mean the word "fundamentalist". Whilst it may have originally had something to do with "fundamentals" as the word suggests, I don't think that's what most people think of when we talk about fundamentalists. Generally, it tends to get used to describe a stubborn position often at extreme ends of the spectrum who are adamant they're right and refuse to compromise in their ideas - something which could easily describe a certain type of atheist or at least antitheist.

Even if you don't use the original definition of "fundamentalist", fundamentalist have an ideology of not changing their views. I haven't met an atheist that does.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Even if you don't use the original definition of "fundamentalist", fundamentalist have an ideology of not changing their views. I haven't met an atheist that does.

I don't know if it's correctly an "ideology" of not changing their views, but I believe I know what you mean.

Which makes it all the more surprising that you don't find any deeply entrenched stubborn atheists? I find that numbers of us actually are. Now, if you mean "atheists on a skeptical message board", I'd say I agree somewhat. Most people around here (at least the ones I don't have on ignore) are open to being convinced of things they don't agree with emotionally or lack-of-faithfully.