just fyi: there is no such thing as a fundamentalist atheist

[RainDog]

fundamentalism: The term fundamentalism was originally coined to describe a narrowly defined set of beliefs that developed into a movement within the Protestant community of the United States in the early part of the 20th century, and that had its roots in the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy of that time. Until 1950, there was no entry for fundamentalism in the Oxford English Dictionary;<5> the derivative fundamentalist was added only in its second 1989 edition.<6>

Wiki notes that some try to expand that definition to include strong beliefs that are criticized or unpopular, but the cultural context of the term retains its meaning as a religious-doctrinal position.

"Fundamentalism" has its origins in the attempt to deny the truth that Charles Darwin brought into the western world's conversation about reality, in right wingers' attempts to undermine liberal or liberation theology and, VERY IMPORTANTLY, to state the fundamentalists' opposition to scholarly study of the bible as a text that is subject to historical analysis.

NOTHING about fundamentalism has ANYTHING to do with atheism. The enemies of fundamentalism are the friends of atheists, in other words.

Richard Dawkins has used the term to characterize religious advocates as clinging to a stubborn, entrenched position that defies reasoned argument or contradictory evidence.<9>

In other words, Dawkins' use of the term is consistent with its origin and its goals.

On the other hand, Christian theologian Alister McGrath, has used the term fundamentalism to characterize atheism as dogmatic

This is a misappropriation of the term and, in turn, makes the argument look weak and contrived. If someone knows the characteristics that define fundamentalism, it is obvious that atheism can never fit those parameters.

McGrath has a personal beef with Dawkins and has tried to smear him by assigning a term that is reserved for religious beliefs to those who do not accept arguments for the existence of a deity. however, those who think that there is no deity do not share a systemic belief. anyone can claim there is no god, there is no personal god, there is no god that can be known, etc. and pretty much be an atheist.

people can say to themselves - I don't think there is a god and that's it. they don't have to sit around and think about this statement or develop any programmatic response to that thought.

(oh and McGrath also claimed in 2004, that atheism was in decline. wishful thinking or an example of this inability to correctly parse the world outside of his belief system? or maybe some of both? who knows.

However, those who do not accept religious explanations for the world are becoming more vocal and more outright about their views, so the guy seems to have missed something, or else just wanted to score points against Dawkins. who knows. who cares.)

"Fundamentalist atheist" was a term used to try to FORCE those who do not believe in some form of deity into the mental box that religion creates for those who reside there. it does not in any way describe the variety of opinions of those who would say they are atheists.

Atheists make a lot of people mad as they have become more vocal because atheism, by its existence, challenges others' belief systems as a way to apply the same sorts of reasoning that those fundamentalists opposed from the very start.

have a great day!