Fundamentalism, in case you don't have a dictionary

Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Fundamentalism, in case you don't have a dictionary

Wikipedia wrote:
 Fundamentalism refers to a belief in, and strict adherence to a set of basic principles (often religious in nature), sometimes as a reaction to perceived doctrinal compromises with modern social and political life.[1][2][3][4]

Merriam Webster wrote:
1 often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b: the beliefs of this movement c: adherence to such beliefs

2: a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles

Let's do some basic logic, kids.  Fundamentalism requires principles.  Atheism is not a set of principles.  It is the lack of belief in a deity.  That is all.  Nothing at all follows from atheism.  How many times do we have to do this lesson?

1. There is probably no god.

2. ???

Therefore, ???

Nothing.  Absolutely nothing.  There is no principle that can be derived from atheism.  Any set of principles that includes atheism cannot under any circumstances be derived solely from atheism, and must be founded on a second premise.  Therefore, any fundamentalist who also happens to be an atheist must be a fundamentalist with regard to something besides atheism.

That is all.

 


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay

OrdinaryClay wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:

On the other hand, we're still left with a big blank when we look at blanket atheism:

1) There probably is no god (God = ???)

2) ???

All your misdirection aside, having realized that your original proclamation that nothing follows from atheism was bogus you have now tried to shift over to God is not defined. This is more mis-direction because even a specific case of God allows us to show conclusions follow from atheism.
 

This is probably the only post I can recall that you wrote in which I agree with you.

Agreed, The def. of god is entirely irrelevant. It could be the god of toilet paper. It doesn't matter with regard to Atheism.


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:...Ethics

BobSpence1 wrote:
...Ethics based on consensual agreement ...

The tangent is way off-topic, but...

No.

Ethics based NOT on a consensual agreement regarding etc., etc., EXCEPT for those persons that subscribe to dogma, e.g Theists, Facists, etc.

Ethics with regard to an Individualist is based on a PERSONAL "philosophy" regarding etc., etc.

No conensus is required to have a personal ethical "code" / understanding of what is and isn't ethical.


manofmanynames (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:You should

BobSpence1 wrote:

You should qualify the underlined text to make it clear that we atheists are only rejecting a particular path to finding "meaning and purpose", which I believe are inherently subjective. While it is true that some people come to the conclusion that there life is devoid of "meaning and purpose", that is a matter of their particular reaction to their experiences and thoughts on the topic. I think the main disagreement I have here centers on the word 'inherent", which, while it does come along with the God belief, is not the only way for a person to find a perspective on life which fills the same void you are referring to as a desire/need for "meaning and purpose".

Well, I use "inherent meaning and purpose" as a means of saying a belief that human existence is as a narrative, that humanity has a purpose to be fulfilled, such as a belief that man is called to love, and tend to the least fortunate, that there is a purpose to ones suffering, and turmoils, even if he himself does not understand what that is. This is what I mean by an inherent sense of meaning and purpose. This is a "God" belief. 

Quote:
"As for reassurance in the face of dire situations, you have consistently refused to acknowledge that it is even possible that there may be other ways to find solace under such conditions. It may well be harder in a strictly rational worldview to find a coping mechanism, but I think that it is possible, but is does vary with individual pre-dispositions."

Well, what I should have clarified as i have done so in the past, is that when I say hope in dire conditions, I mean it along the lines of hope in hopelessness. I am also speaking of hope, in the christian sense of the term, where hope implies an expectation, and it's fulfillment, such as the hope of slaves in the negro spiritual  "we shall overcome". When people posses such as hope, as the slaves did, when nothing in reality, gave them any reason to hope at all, no reason to believe they would eventually overcome, it is a religious belief, a conviction of things unseen, as the assurance of things hoped for. 

Such a belief and a belief in God don't equal two separate beliefs, because God here is name given for that which makes the fulfillment of such hope possible, as rev. king would put it, the maker of "a way out of no way".

And if you want to give me a sort of example of what you think would possibly be a source of hope for people who live in the midst of hopelessness, in conditions far from promising, in a godless worldview, you let me know.

I understand our not so learned atheist, influenced by a dimwitted peddling of what it means to believe in God, can barely grasp this: All characteristics of God are derived from what he does, or is capable of doing, unlike let's say a leprechaun who characteristics of being green, midget size, and from Ireland, have nothing do with a pot of gold left under the rainbow. Or to put it another way: for possibly even most atheist, if they could say prayers at night and have their prayers answered in the morning, this alone would lead them to believe in God. The only characteristic of God here, is as the force or the power that's capable of answering prayers. 

Hope in hopeless, a belief in a life of inherent meaning and purpose, are all God beliefs, no different that what was just described above. 

A disbelief in God, implies a disbelief in all the qualities of God, and all that these qualities make possible, it holds a perspective on the world, atheism is in fact a lens of a worldview. Some atheist find their godless perspective, a peering out into the world void of gods and their spiritual dimension, to be ultimately liberating, as the breaker of chains, as freedom from bondage, and believe that disbelief should be evangelized and spread to all four corners of the world, and if it ultimately did we could finally find ourselves in a sort of utopia, a time of peace like no other, that man would finally be able to live out his true capacity to love, once he's rid of god. 

These sort of beliefs among atheists are quite common, especially among the popular variety of them, the RRS seems to founded on such beliefs about the power of atheism. An atheistic sort of fundamentalism arises among certain holders of these belief, who in fact do become dogmatic, and tend to mimic the foaming patterns of religious fundies, based on a belief in the power of disbelief. 

 


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
manofmanynames wrote:Well, I

manofmanynames wrote:

Well, I use "inherent meaning and purpose" as a means of saying a belief that human existence is as a narrative, that humanity has a purpose to be fulfilled, such as a belief that man is called to love, and tend to the least fortunate, that there is a purpose to ones suffering, and turmoils, even if he himself does not understand what that is. This is what I mean by an inherent sense of meaning and purpose. This is a "God" belief.

All those things you mentioned are actually dependant on humanity existing in the first place, I thought there was supposed to be some "higher purpose" in christianity? The thought that we are the big grand purpose of the whole universe seems incredibly narcissistic to me, is that really what you're saying? God gave us this existence so those that are more fortunate get to show off to god how good they are by taking care of the ones in more miserable conditions? And the purpose of those miserable people's lives is to die miserably when no one actually helps them? Remind me again why god can't just snap his fingers and beam us up to heaven without going through the suffering down here.

Quote:
Well, what I should have clarified as i have done so in the past, is that when I say hope in dire conditions, I mean it along the lines of hope in hopelessness. I am also speaking of hope, in the christian sense of the term, where hope implies an expectation, and it's fulfillment, such as the hope of slaves in the negro spiritual  "we shall overcome". When people posses such as hope, as the slaves did, when nothing in reality, gave them any reason to hope at all, no reason to believe they would eventually overcome, it is a religious belief, a conviction of things unseen, as the assurance of things hoped for.

Such a belief and a belief in God don't equal two separate beliefs, because God here is name given for that which makes the fulfillment of such hope possible, as rev. king would put it, the maker of "a way out of no way".

Oh, I thought it was the people that fought for those slaves' rights that made it possible. This is one of my pet peeves, I find it infuriating when god is given the credit for actual people's hard work. Like when people thank god after doctors save their life in surgery, excuse me wtf happened to thanking those people?

Quote:
And if you want to give me a sort of example of what you think would possibly be a source of hope for people who live in the midst of hopelessness, in conditions far from promising, in a godless worldview, you let me know.

The fact your maniac of a god won't be judging me with his arbitrary set of rules for how to kiss his ass properly after I die, and can't sentence me to eternal torture for doing it wrong, is one of the most if not the single most comforting thing I can think of. Instead I can revel in the fact there's no reason to believe any part of me will continue on after I die, and at least I can be totally free then, no matter how much life might suck now. How about that?


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:So... I

Hambydammit wrote:

So... I should examine the claim, and, finding it virtually meaningless (since you just admitted it's your own perception with no objective basis), I should go on with my day and not worry about your personal problems, right?

You could, but there are good reasons not to, and you could address it effectively if you chose.

To understand why, think of the analogous term "Bible-thumper." If you were to accuse me of being a "Bible-thumper", there is not really an objective meaning behind the accusation, but it still is not a pleasant sort of thing to be called. It has negative connotations, like: a blindered acceptance of dogma, a refusal to consider arguments against my position, a loud and inarticulate advocacy of a poorly thought out position, and other things that I do not want associated with me. 

So I would want to respond to avoid being thought of in any of those ways. And in response, I would bring up considerations like my reading secular philosophic works, my careful development of arguments for God from theism-neutral premises, my generally civil tone in debate, and perhaps my very presence on this forum. So you see that although there is not a single objective meaning behind the term Bible-thumper, I would want to (and more importantly, I would be able to) address parts of the network of connotations behind it, if the accusation were brought against me.

Likewise, you might address certain probable connotations of "fundamentalist atheist." The specific facts that you brought up when you addressed it would depend on the context. Often, an explanation of how you used reason to arrive at the position that strikes the other person as "fundamentalist" would work.

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
manofmanynames wrote:A

manofmanynames wrote:
A disbelief in God, implies a disbelief in all the qualities of God, and all that these qualities make possible, it holds a perspective on the world, atheism is in fact a lens of a worldview.

Oh man. That's so incredibly linguistically manipulative. No, atheism is a disbelief in the claims of theists. Maybe this is a new definition; I've been hammering it out on this site, but it's far more accurate than the others. It's you we don't believe, not gods. We never hear from gods, only theists, so it's theists we don't believe.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist(in reply

Presuppositionalist(in reply to Hamby) wrote:

Likewise, you might address certain probable connotations of "fundamentalist atheist."

 

Pardon the intrusion, Presuppositionalist, but there is a basic flaw to your reasoning here which is one shared by many theists who fail to truly understand the meaning of "atheist".

 

You draw an analogy between the terms "bible-thumper" and "fundamentalist atheist". You (correctly) identify the three more striking character traits typically exhibited by a "bible-thumper". But in effect it is the first of these which is the only crucial one - a blinkered adherence to dogma. Without that the other two are simply negative personality traits unrelated to the issue of religion at all.

 

Now, no matter how much you might wish to apply the term "fundamentalist" to atheism you cannot in any sense call it analogous to what you have just described. The atheist has no dogma by definition to which he adheres. He may be unwilling to see another's point of view, he may be loud and inarticulate, and he may in general be a thoroughly rude and stroppy simpleton. But that does not make him a fundamentalist since he has no dogma to which he fundamentally adheres and no philosophy which can be reduced to fundamentals. He has only an absence of belief in deity, something which is neither expandable or reducible. Outside of that there is nothing - absolutely nothing - which "atheists" have in common by definition.

 

Your error is to ascribe the characteristic of a faith to atheism, and then assume because there is more than one atheist in the world that these people share that faith. It is such a common error on theist's part that it exposes, in my view, an even more serious flaw in perception which leads theists to other even more inaccurate conclusions about much else. But whatever its implications, it is incorrect.

 

You could try to find a better analogy. But it would probably be better that you first correct your misapprehensions.

 

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


cervello_marcio
Superfan
cervello_marcio's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2009-05-19
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Let's do

Hambydammit wrote:

Let's do some basic logic, kids.  Fundamentalism requires principles.  Atheism is not a set of principles.  It is the lack of belief in a deity.  That is all.  Nothing at all follows from atheism.  How many times do we have to do this lesson?

1. There is probably no god.

2. ???

Therefore, ???

Nothing.  Absolutely nothing.  There is no principle that can be derived from atheism.  Any set of principles that includes atheism cannot under any circumstances be derived solely from atheism, and must be founded on a second premise.  Therefore, any fundamentalist who also happens to be an atheist must be a fundamentalist with regard to something besides atheism.

That is all.

 

 

Hate to play devil's advocate, but...

"Doing good in the name of atheism?"

If nothing follows, then how is it possible to act in its name? I agree that nothing follows from atheism, which is why I have a problem with this heading.

"Do not, as some ungracious pastors do, show me the steep and thorny way to heaven. Whiles, like a puff'd and reckless libertine, himself the primrose path of dalliance treads. And recks not his own rede."