How to spot the fundie atheists

[fromdownunder]

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.

I suppose it really comes down to how one defines a fundie, and may just be little more than an argument over semantics.. As Egg suggested, some people quite possibly do take The God Delusion as their secular version of the Bible. And Dawkins did write an article called Here come the Brights some years ago extolling the virtues of atheism (or perhaps, in some peoples minds Atheism) which have been picked up by some people, and used as a basis for Atheism.

http://www.the-brights.net/vision/essays/let_there_be_brights.html

If you want to call it something other than a fundie atheist, as per your pushy atheist, I do not have a problem. It's just a word game. But in viewing any form of extremism from the outside, personally, I do not see a whole lot of difference.

A fundie is a fundie is a fundie. He/she does not need a book. He/she simply needs an immovable belief, which can be based on a book, but becomes so ingrained that no amount of real evidence will shift the belief.

And I suspect that there are some Atheists (not atheists) out there who can be called fundies (by my criteria) based on this.

Norm

 

[Rasmus]

So not The God Delusion then?

...and I'm only half joking.

Since I am just reading it again:

I disagree with his degrees between Atheism and Theism, especially with Agnosticism placed firmly in the middle of the two.

Regarding the fundamentalist, I do agree with him: Show me the evidence, and if I find that convincing I shall change my mind and support the other sides just as enthusiastically as I do for mine as of now.

 

[JetLeg]

I suppose it really comes down to how one defines a fundie, and may just be little more than an argument over semantics.. As Egg suggested, some people quite possibly do take The God Delusion as their secular version of the Bible. And Dawkins did write an article called Here come the Brights some years ago extolling the virtues of atheism (or perhaps, in some peoples minds Atheism) which have been picked up by some people, and used as a basis for Atheism.

http://www.the-brights.net/vision/essays/let_there_be_brights.html

If you want to call it something other than a fundie atheist, as per your pushy atheist, I do not have a problem. It's just a word game. But in viewing any form of extremism from the outside, personally, I do not see a whole lot of difference.

A fundie is a fundie is a fundie. He/she does not need a book. He/she simply needs an immovable belief.

Norm

My point is that an atheist wouldn't hold a belief that if a book by RD is contradicted by reason and evidence, then it is our reason and evidence that errs. And as far as I understand, this is exactly the view that fundamentalists have of the bible.

An atheist might buy into an argument by RD without checking it thoroughly. An atheist might think that something is true just because RD said (wrote) so. But if an atheist comes to a rational conclusion that RD was wrong, he is not going to declare that his reason was wrong. (Have you heard of something like Apologetics for Richard Dawkins? Protecting the creed? )

This ideology is a part of fundamentalism, but has never been a part of "new atheism".

---------------

Of course, there always exists the logical possibility of it... One can decide that RD is omniscient, and infallible, and every statement by him is true. That would be pretty fun. Then we would have debates "Can Richard Dawkins write a research paper too long for him to readd" ?

 

[JetLeg]

Since I am just reading it again:

I disagree with his degrees between Atheism and Theism, especially with Agnosticism placed firmly in the middle of the two.

Regarding the fundamentalist, I do agree with him: Show me the evidence, and if I find that convincing I shall change my mind and support the other sides just as enthusiastically as I do for mine as of now.

Come on, if you want to challenge the assertion that "Some atheists treat the God Delusion as their bible", giving examples of atheists that don't do it is not disproving the assertion...

 

[cj.23]

What a silly site.

I think it speaks volumes, as FireGarden mentioned, that these are monsters from the imagination of theists, rather than actual quotes that show a pattern of behavior.

The same is true of a great deal of FSTDT? (though not as much in the early years, before the tragic loss of the founder). I'd estimate an awful lot of FSTDT top quotes are poes. Still all good fun! I never believed in Fundamentalist Atheism till quite reasonably when I met a handful on an internet forum, and it really is quite tedious. I'd estimate they must comprise well if there are about 50,000 forum users across the four atheist communities I post on, then 0.0005% of all atheists? ABout the same as Christian fundies I'd guess.
And yes, that 0.0005% would act in the manner described by Jetlag above - they perform incredible manouvers to avoid accepting that RD is wrong on history, and indeed I even met one who argued Sam HArris was saying exactly the opposite to what Sam Harris was saying on one topic, because of coercion from his publisher!

cj x

 

[fromdownunder]

My point is that an atheist wouldn't hold a belief that if a book by RD is contradicted by reason and evidence, then it is our reason and evidence that errs. And as far as I understand, this is exactly the view that fundamentalists have of the bible.

An atheist might buy into an argument by RD without checking it thoroughly. An atheist might think that something is true just because RD said (wrote) so. But if an atheist comes to a rational conclusion that RD was wrong, he is not going to declare that his reason was wrong.

This ideology is a part of fundamentalism, but has never been a part of "new atheism".

Sorry, I did not realise that you would respond so quickly, so there is an edit in my post which hopefully clarifies my position. I agree with what you said above.

What I was trying to (obviously) badly say is that there are probably atheists (Atheists) out there who simply accept that Dawkins is correct and therefore they are right, without thinking further. These might be just p*ssed off theists, or people who think that atheism is the new age thing that they should accept. it does not make them rational or any less fundie.

Any form of extremism is wrong. Stupidity is not reserved for theists alone. and, to me, extremist (fundie) Atheists are no better, or any different than extremist (fundie) Christians.

Or extremist (fundie) anythings for that matter. As I suggested earlier, we might be just coming to this discussion from different semantic points.

Norm

 

[JetLeg]

Sorry, I did not realise that you would respond so quickly, so there is an edit in my post which hopefully clarifies my position. I agree with what you said above.

What I was trying to (obviously) badly say is that there are probably atheists (Atheists) out there who simply accept that Dawkins is correct and therefore they are right, without thinking further. These might be just p*ssed off theists, or people who think that atheism is the new age thing that they should accept. it does not make them rational or any less fundie.

Any form of extremism is wrong. Stupidity is not reserved for theists alone. and, to me, extremist (fundie) Atheists are no better, or any different than extremist (fundie) Christians.

Or extremist (fundie) anythings for that matter. As I suggested earlier, we might be just coming to this discussion from different semantic points.

Norm

Well, atheists can be stupid, no doubt about that. __________ is a good example.

But again, an atheist wouldn't have the ideology of not using his brain.

 

[SezMe]

I'd estimate an awful lot of FSTDT top quotes are poes.

What's a "poe"?

 

[cj.23]

What's a "poe"?

Someone satirizing a position, but doing so so well it is indistinguishable from the real thing. Poe's Law reads " "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing." FSTDT falls for this obviously on occasion.

It is true that the modern usage of Fundamentalism is so debased as to be almost meaningless. I tend to refer back to The Fundamentals, but that means fundies are pro-evolution and allow for allegory playing an extensive role in Scripture, etc, etc. Nowadays I'd probably use the Chichago Fundamentalism Projects definition - i'll dig it out later...

cj x

 

[Ryokan]

Not to mention that they're using a nonsensical term, "fundamentalist atheist."

276. You find the term 'fundy atheist' meaningless, baffling, illogical and just plain oxymoronic/self-contradictory even though the two terms are not exclusive of each other (except in the minds of fundy atheists, of course).

I guess you are a fundamentalist atheist

 

[Ladewig]

I never believed in Fundamentalist Atheism till quite reasonably when I met a handful on an internet forum, and it really is quite tedious. I'd estimate they must comprise well if there are about 50,000 forum users across the four atheist communities I post on, then 0.0005% of all atheists? ABout the same as Christian fundies I'd guess.

I fear I may be interpreting your post incorrectly. Are you claiming that only .0005% of Christians are fundamentalists?

 

[linusrichard]

Good discussion about what is and is not a "fundamentalist," guys, but you're giving it way more thought than the authors of that website ever did. I'm pretty sure their use of "fundamentalist" is - "Atheists call us fundies and it hurts our feelings so we'll call them fundies right back! Nyah!"

Some atheists are obnoxious, yes. I would even be charitable enough to suggest that most of the items on this list were inspired by actual atheist idiocy.

 

[cj.23]

I fear I may be interpreting your post incorrectly. Are you claiming that only .0005% of Christians are fundamentalists?

Yes, in the commonly used meaning of the term, exactly that. For example, let us take one very simple test - a Christian Fundamentalist in the modern sense believes in a literal interpretation of Genesis as necessary to Salvation, or at least is unlikely to accept Evolution right?

OK, so to start with, that according to the International Bulletin of Missionary Research, January 2003. David B. Barrett & Todd M. Johnson that I find cited on About.Atheism (a generally reliable site) here that the World Christian population comprises Christians (total): 2,076,629,000. Of those --


Anglicans: 82,895,000
Orthodox: 218,501,000
Protestants: 356,138,000
Roman Catholics: 1,097,144,000

of these those who describe themselves as Evangelicals: 221,637,000 (as subset of Protestants & Anglicans mainly) and Pentecostal/Charismatics: 553,763,000 (all denominations but mainly in Protestant/Anglican/Roman Catholic Churches.)

However the important figure is Evangelicals - as they are most likely to be Creationists. About 10% of Christians describe themselves as Evangelicals, but by no menas all Evangelicals are Creationists - it is a tiny minority position.. What percentage are Creationists? Hard figures are elusive. Many Evangelicals are in Scandinavia, and Northern Europe generally, but Creationism ius really a North American phenomenon. At most we can estimate 10% of Christians might be Creationist, but I think from what I have read the figure is actually 3-5% worldwide. I'll find hard figures tonight...

So what can we say about Creationists? Well in the UK at least surveys show one thing - people who reject Evolution - which is not to say they are Creationists of course - do not attend Church. This may seem counterintuitive - but actually it's not really, Formal adherence and self identification are not the same thing. Very few self identified "wiccans" would be aware of the Gardnerian or Alexandrian or Dianic theologies or have been initaited in to the coven system. So in any survey of British Wiccans, their beliefs are seen as normative, not the "hard core" or formal initiates?

So what about in the USA? We see endless polls decrying the Rise of the Stoopid, and we have all met a few moronic Creationists, and some clever charming ones as well. These surveys acrtually serve a useful social purpose, in spurring Research Funding, Public Education and Science campaigns. Oh I'm a cynic aren't I? But seriously, they do serve that function.

What is less trumpeted is research on the Crreationists actual beliefs and attitudes. I can't tell you about formal adherence (church attendance) because i can;t find any data, but I can tell you what seems to shock many people -in a survey in the USA of attitudes to Creationism being taufght in schools, 83% approve of the teaching of alternatives to Evolution in the classroom,but 79% believe that you can be a Christian and believe in Evolution. So that means about 5% of Creationists doubt that Christians can believe in Evolution? That does not sound much like fundamentalism to me? So we take 5% of 10%, and that gives us 0.5% Look at the New York Times, 11th March 2000, for the article on the research. It is widely ignored. I'll try to find proper citations on my return, and expand a little more on why fundamentalism is a tiny and vocal minority masquerading as normative, even in the USA.


I have to go do a tutorial now, but when I get back I'll explore a little more the steretype of the Creationist, and its mythic qualities.
cj x

 

[Safe-Keeper]

[OP]

An utter and complete failure. "You may be a fundamenalist Christian if..." had some merit - this is just strawmen, generalizations and misconceptions, not to mention that they're not signs of any kind of fundamentalism.

Example:

Although you've memorized a half a dozen proofs that He doesn't exist, you still think you're God's gift to the ignorant masses.

So firstly I need to memorize proofs He doesn't exist, turning burden of proof on its head until its face turns purple, and secondly I believe I'm "God's gift to mankind" even though I'm a nonbeliever? Is this the old "atheists secretly believe in Yahweh" BS again?

ETA: Are we certain this site isn't a Poe? This is just too stupid, even for this kind of people:

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!"

In red, even.

 

[Bob Klase]

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

Much like Fox's 'The 1/2 Hour News Hour'.

 

[Bob Klase]

In red, even.

They do explain the red (and blue) fonts:

To keep the list better organized and help readers spot new material, we will highlight new additions over the current two years in color. Recent add-ons are coded as follows: 2008 in blue. 2007 in red.

 

[Ladewig]

but I can tell you what seems to shock many people -in a survey in the USA of attitudes to Creationism being taufght in schools, 83% approve of the teaching of alternatives to Evolution in the classroom,but 79% believe that you can be a Christian and believe in Evolution. So that means about 5% of Creationists doubt that Christians can believe in Evolution? That does not sound much like fundamentalism to me? So we take 5% of 10%, and that gives us 0.5% Look at the New York Times, 11th March 2000, for the article on the research. It is widely ignored. I'll try to find proper citations on my return, and expand a little more on why fundamentalism is a tiny and vocal minority masquerading as normative, even in the USA.

I am not sure how to interpret your statistics when other polls present a very different picture.

Gallup Poll 2007

GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

PRINCETON, NJ -- About one-third of the American adult population believes the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally word for word. This percentage is slightly lower than several decades ago. The majority of those Americans who don't believe that the Bible is literally true believe that it is the inspired word of God but that not everything it in should be taken literally. About one in five Americans believe the Bible is an ancient book of "fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by man."

Belief in a literal Bible is strongly correlated with indicators of religion, including church attendance and identification with a Protestant or other non-Catholic Christian faith. There is also a strong relationship between education and belief in a literal Bible, with such belief becoming much less prevalent among those who have college educations.
-more-

Gallup Poll 2009

PRINCETON, NJ -- On the eve of the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, a new Gallup Poll shows that only 39% of Americans say they "believe in the theory of evolution," while a quarter say they do not believe in the theory, and another 36% don't have an opinion either way. These attitudes are strongly related to education and, to an even greater degree, religiosity.
-snip-
Those who attend church most often are the least likely to say they believe in evolution.

Other Gallup polls over the past 15 years show that the percentage of Americans who believe that God created humans in their present form sometime in the past 10,000 years hovers between 40% and 45%.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Someone satirizing a position, but doing so so well it is indistinguishable from the real thing. Poe's Law reads " "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing." FSTDT falls for this obviously on occasion.

I don't think it's that obvious.

I would very much like to think that the most blatantly idiotic displays of bigotry and broken logic around are just parodies gone wrong. No, seriously, I really do. It would restore some of my faith in the species' intelligence.

But the fact is, whenever I say about something, "surely, nobody would be foolish or deluded enough to say this in all earnesty", someone out there promptly proves me wrong by insisting that some more ludicrious notion or more blatantly broken logic is the truth.

Or to put it otherwise, there's a reason for Poe's Law.

 

[cj.23]

Other Gallup polls over the past 15 years show that the percentage of Americans who believe that God created humans in their present form sometime in the past 10,000 years hovers between 40% and 45%.

Yeah that fits quite well with Gland - 79% think might be something in ID or Creationism, 30-40% are Creationist or iD advocates, but only a tiny fraction think that a literal reading of Genesis is necessary to be a Christian? I'll dig out some stuff - I'm quite interested in this - from the US sociologists of religion later. My historical thread on Evolution and the Evangelicals also ponts out that Creatiosm includes Age/Day, Framework and Gap Theories as well as the post-1959 YEC tendency, and most evangelicals do NOT regard this as important with regards to ones salvation - the emphasis their is on the Cross and a "personal relationship with Jesus", not with your beliefs on Biblical Literalism. Mind you, I have never met a pure Literalist, and am not sure they exist.

cj x

 

[Ladewig]

Yeah that fits quite well with Gland - 79% think might be something in ID or Creationism, 30-40% are Creationist or iD advocates, but only a tiny fraction think that a literal reading of Genesis is necessary to be a Christian?
cj x

I see how one can interpret the 40-45% statistic as being misleading. There are more than a few Christian who take umbrage at the wording in that particular poll. Still, one is left with the statistic that 31%¹ believe that "the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally word for word." There is no way one can pare that percentage down to a fraction of one percent.

(1) that is 31% of Americans, not 31% of Christians.