Atheism: the New Fundamentalism?

I know it's often counter-productive (and likely to spark conflict) but I can't help but feel that it's about time people started being a bit more zealous in their atheism. I want to tell people who believe in a particular religion that their massively wrong and its patently obvious. Spiritualism is fine but come on, how can anyone justify a specific faith? How can anyone pick one over any other? Religions are just traditions. Like manners. Passed down through and particular to one culture. I would be up for shouting at religious people if I didn't think that religion can often be a force for good and that - miraculously - many religious people are not stupid.

No. No they aren't. It's a well established rhetorical trick to accuse atheists of answering religious faith with a replacement faith of 'not having a faith'. It certainly isn't a fundamentalism, because to be fundamentalist you need to believe in the complete truth of a (not)bible as the direct word of a (not)god. There's a difference between pointing out there's no scientifically provable evidence for a God or Gods and berating people for not seeing it that way. And anyone occupying any position in this debate should now whether they mean religious belief, religious teachings or doctrine, religious political power and spiritual sensation, transcendent experience and existential security or lack of that security. Plus, it depends what their flat denial is of, doesn't it? If they're denying the idea of a god, that's different from denying proof of a god, isn't it? Science is a way of finding out what makes stuff happen, by measuring things, predicting what might happen next, then seeing if the prediction was right. Religion is a very different beast. It only plays into the hands of people who enjoy hugely tedious arguments to fudge the two together. Cheers, Mark

I want to tell people who believe in a particular religion that their massively wrong and its patently obvious. Should that not be 'they're massively wrong' and are you slipping in these little errors to negate the title of T.N.B.T.I.B.F that TCs bestowed on you? he he he jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

I've got to try and control the hype somehow.

I like religion. You get nice songs and incense and stuff. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

"I find the 'dogma' of atheism a little hard to swallow, just as I do the unquestioning beliefs of other fundamentalists. What think you, good people? Are atheists pushing their agenda in the same manner as those of a zealously religious bent?" There isn't a dogma of atheism. Atheism just means not believing in God, it isn't a set of principles and traditions. An atheist might be dogmatic about what they think and why but it doesn't really affect whether or not they're an atheist. Personally, I kept more than 75% of my religious dogma when I became an atheist.

Science is all about proof. As far as I understand, Science looks for proofs, not absences of proof. It's looking for a relationship like 'condition A could only be reached by a the application of A'. To prove something as 'true' scientifically, you need to narrow down to the narrowest possible margin what causes something. Therefore, to say that 'A was caused by God' doesn't really work, as there are other things that may have caused A. You aren't a fence sitter, archergirl. You are someone who is suspicious of organised religions, but have an innate sense of the spiritual, an orientation toward believing something beyond normal experience. this puts you in the same category as most people in the UK. In this you tend toward the physical, psychical end of religious experience, which you interpret as something outside of normal life. To be a fence sitter would be to remain in a state of readiness to experience evidence either way. Science and the subjective are at odds. Cheers, Mark

I'm not an atheist particularly, though I also find it incredulous that intelligent people can be deeply christian. Three of the doctors at the practice I work at (one a consultant surgeon) are all deeply religious, and it really does amaze me. I am more ready to accept a generally spiritual stance, as I am also open to the belief that 'this' is not all there is. Generally, I tend towards the fact that it is though. I'd LOVE to feel otherwise... I can only imagine the freedom and comfort it gives.

"Science and the subjective are at odds". This, of course, goes back to the Greeks. But here's the reason why I'm not more anti-theistic in my atheism: I don't like the idea that a rejection of god automatically makes me pro-science, as if the whole of thought on individual, societal and global 'purpose' can be split on some kind of 2 dimensional scale - or even worse, a dichotomy of science and god...it's simply not the case. Not suggesting that's what's being said here, but it is said all too often for my liking. I share wholeheartedly Liana's sense of incredulity. And I admit, when people throw their god in my face, I can be inclined to express that incredulity unsympathetically. For the most part though, I couldn't care less if you worship Christ, Allah or the Tooth Fairy. I just believe that for the most part they're all interchangeable. Enzo.. Buy my book! http://www.amazon.co.uk/o/ASIN/1846855187/

I actually agree with most of you but sshh ... I'm not supposed to. I am not even a Theist. I would call myself a Deist. According to a source 'Deism is a category of belief in god (Spirit, Deity, ground of being, etc...) based on reason, experience, and the observation of nature. Deism differs from Theism in that Theism is a traditional and scriptural based category of belief in God, where Deism is a rational based category of belief in god.' But my main reason for calling myself a deist is that I cannot label my 'Higher Power' with the attributes of the God of theism ('omnipotent', 'omniscient' and especially 'morally perfect') I call myself a 'Christian' because I believe that I follow his message. Everything this man was about can be found in 'The Lord's Prayer' and his two commandments (Love God and your neighbour). People complicated it because that's what people do. Most Christians see Trinitarian doctrine as a test of Christian Orthodoxy but I am a deist, a universalist and still consider myself Christian. This whole trinity business and Christ's divinity came in at the council of Chalcedon.

I thought you meant the crack down on women in Iran.Girls arrested for not covering their heads enough. Thank whatever one likes to thank for the freedom to think and differ.

There is a school of thought that suggests spirituality or feeling about same is a gene.Another idea is that we start to dissolve at a quantum level as we age becoming aware of "other things.But quite apart from all that isn't writng often a reaching towards something beyond ourselves,meaning,collective unconscious,an attempt to articulste something .When one reads or very occasionally writes something that works there is a brrrr about it,

True. What fascinates me is why people are so bothered by what other people believe. In this country where we have the freedom to practice whatever religion, spirituality or none why can't we all just get on with whatever we choose. Why do people have this desperate need to go around trying to convert? jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

Yeah, quite often people like to make their point forcefully and repeatedly until other people either agree, die or go away. I don't know why either. I think we all do it to some extent though - it's in the nature of even the most 'civilised' of debates. Enzo.. Buy my book! http://www.amazon.co.uk/o/ASIN/1846855187/

I think sometimes (not always) it has something to do with insecurity. Are they really trying to convert another? Or actually trying to reassure themselves? jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

Yes. For good 'reason' :)) 'The God Delusion' is excellent, btw. Recommended it!!! ;) When the power of love overcomes the love of power, we'll find peace. - Jimi Hendrix

I think David's point is most pertinent - atheism can't be much of a fundamentalist perspective when it's only tenet is that God doesn't exist. It's not as if the only thing that religious extremists have ever wanted to force the rest of us into doing is *believing* in their particular God. They want us to worship him as well, and obey an entire system of rules whose only foundation is often that they're purportedly the 'word' of that God. Ask again when atheists are going round promising that anyone who believes in God is going to be severely punished for all eternity following their death.

Yes, trying to convince people that it's a woman's right to choose to have a baby or not, and that God should keep out of her womb is *so* about me. Cheers, Mark

Mark's made the point more succinctly than I could. People write books to state the case for God's lack of existence for the same reason people write books stating any case, or arguing for any cause, or putting about any kind of truth or information - because ignorance can be dangerous. In the case of religion, ignorance can be genocidal. Truth sets us free. That's the idea that's at play here. You say it is 'subtle arrogance' to try to convince anyone of the irrationality of their point of view. I think you've got it entirely the wrong way round. I can't think of anything more smug than not seeing any need to convince anyone else of the 'correctness' of your perspective. If you think you're right, and they're wrong, and you do nothing about it, that suggests you don't believe they're capable of being as rational and clever as you.

Ultimately the only thing that matters is tolerance. People will always have a vast array of differing beliefs, regarding morality, religion or whatever. We will (probably) never have a Universal World-Wide Religion, which everyone believes in or is supposed to pretend they believe in. But that said, I suppose it might make sense, at some point in the future history of mankind, to distil it down to the fundamental moral precepts of most of the popular religions, and say, "these are the things you should believe in." And these fundamental precepts would probably come down to precisely the things Jude mentions as encapsulating Christianity - "Love God and your neighbour" - where "God" is an all-encompasing notion of Goodness, Tolerance, Forgiveness, etc; and "your neighbour" is not only all of your fellow human beings but indeed all of your fellow living creatures and even ALL THINGS. Religions fundamentally tend to come down to these things. The notion of "loving God and your neighbour" (as defined above) is really (is it not?) the only thing truly worth convincing anyone else of (the value in believing). Regarding the specifics of Atheism, I am generally in agreeance with AG. We don't know anything. Yes, Science is about proof - but we don't have enough proof to ultimately proove anything, without the merest shadow of a doubt. Some things seem more likely than others, but there are always factors which get in the way of seeing things as clearly as we might like - cultural factors, our ability as individuals to communicate our "scientific (etc) findings," constantly evolving scientific methods, and the fact that ultimately we are only human beings who only have a limited perceptual potential. It could be said that the most sensible belief system to fall into is Agnosticism - in the sense of never really truly believing anything, being open to any ideas that may be thrown at us, but perhaps having swayings/leanings in particular directions. On-the-Fence-ism rules! pe ps oid ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)

I don't think atheists are fundamentalists but sometimes, they can be evangelical. That I think is the point you're trying to make, AG. I don't want anyone on my doorstep bleating about Dawkins' book and trying to win me over to atheism any more that I want a JW with a copy of the watchtower. As it goes, I have read the book (The God Delusion, not The Watchtower) and I thought it was ok. Not as good as the blind watchmaker though. The Blind watchmaker was so good as a beautifully constructed, philosophically sound demolition of the 'argument to design' from Paley to modern day proponents of the fine-tuning theory. In GD, his counter arguments for the three main proofs of God's existence were, in the field of philosophy, nothing new. It was a disappointing 'same-old' IMO. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

"Peps, I agree with you, 100%. :-)" ... :-))) pe ps oid ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)

Archergirl, I'm not twisting what you say. Read my posts further up the thread. It's you that's caricaturing my position. The point I was making, is that people generally only have strong opinions, or get enmeshed in brisk arguments, when what they feel to be correct is encroached upon by other people's idea of what is correct. It's always great form in debating to invoke Nazi Germany to refute someone's argument. It has the effect of strengthening your own point immensely, especially if the comparison is fairly spacious. Atheism generally runs along as a quiet parallel to world events until a particular front is opened up by the encroachment of religious ideas, in a damaging or disruptive manner. Evangelical religion, that believes in a battle between good and bad in real time, is always looking to expand it's sphere of influence. This can involve considered, premeditated assaults on particular received or established ideas. Witness the planning of the promotion of 'Intelligent Design', intended to create a bridgehead into science in schools and universities. I'm sorry Archergirl, it's you that's blurring the boundaries between religion as system and personal religious experience. I always studiously point out the difference between the two, and the points at which the two meet. Religion is politics in that it has real world effects and sets forward certain actions and modes of being as desirable. It's a bit simplistic to state that people who want to bring about change in the world are all about themselves. People follow particular ideas, propound them and defend them for a variety of reasons. This applies to people who are religious and people who aren't. I don't give a toss what people believe and how they experience and understand spirituality. What I do give a toss about is the notion that religious beliefs, when they are enacted in the real world, should be considered by a different set of principles than non-religious actions. Cheers, Mark

Your argument was particularly roomy though, wasn't it? I don't think that most atheists would question that spiritual experiences, experiences that are extraordinary and that seem to transcend normal experience, occur for most most people, they'd just hold back from using them as evidence for a higher power. It seems to be a common misconception to believe that looking to explain something is the same as 'explaining it away'. It perfectly possible to keep a world full of wonder and the experience of transcending the ordinary while understanding the chemical and/or physical process that make it happen. I think you're attacking a position that isn't really there, though. In the main, atheists are in a minority and therefore have to shout louder to get themselves heard. If this is trying to get other people to question their ideas, so be it. Religious ideas have been in the position of dominance for a fair while now, and they did get there somehow. I think I'm snapping at your heals so much because the conflating of individual spiritual experience and organised religion makes for a very frustrating argument. I'd argue that even an atheist isn't suggesting that you should not have individual feelings, either physical, mental or somewhere inbetween, of spirituality and make sense of them in your own way. People choose the form of religion, or no religion, that suits them best and makes sense of their experience most. An atheist would say that there's no need to invoke a higher power to explain our experience, as everything is explicable. An atheist would also say that we need to work on our ability to accept that we don't know 'why' something happens, knowing as we do that we're a 'why' based intelligence. I'm happy to explore my 'why' without needing an immediate or comforting answer. Cheers, Mark

At least militant atheists don't tell us to turn away from religion using megaphones at Oxford Circus. I think the mad christian who used to preach here was given an asbo banning him from carrying a megaphone in public... but another one has taken his place. I think there are acceptable ways of trying to put a point across like writing a book or posting on a forum like this. And then there are unacceptable ways. If I had a 'friend' like yours AG, who vehemently tried to attack my choice of spiritual and religious practices and/or belief, I would find that unacceptable (especially if it is implied that I am somehow more 'stupid' , gullible or insecure than them) and would probably not choose to spend much time with them . If anyone would like a good read btw, I recommend the 'History of God' by Karen Armstrong. http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/05/30/armstrong/ I love her description of herself as a 'freelance monotheist'! One of the reasons I struggle today with organised religion is the point Spack brought up...how do you choose just one? If God reveals himself, how does one account for the plurality of religion? It's a cop-out to say that all religions are a facet of one truth (Ramakrishna was probably the greatest advocate of this theory). It is a nice idea but a logical impossibility. I am digressing now so apologise! jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

Here it is for me. People who believe in God are stupid in that there so is no reason to believe in God for any other reason than a) tradition and b) not wanting to believe that when you're dead, you're dead. If you like attending church, and church is a lovely place to meet unassuming people who are good at making cookies that melt in your mouth, fine. But don't please spout a belief in an afterlife just because life isn't everything you thought it would be, and death is a depressing thought. The bible, and other religious texts, taught us all fck all about life and the unanswered questions of the universe. Jesus taught us to be nice to each other, but apart from that, religious thought is rancid spunk. Above all, stop feeling guilty about enjoying yourselves - providing enjoying yourselves doesn't mean others suffering. If there is a god, and he didn't want us to live life to the full, he would be a bitter, twisted vagina. http://naptime500.blogspot.com

Perhaps understanding atheism isn't the same as understanding christianity, or Buddhism, or Islam, or whatever. Religions work as a collective. Atheism doesn't. It's probably one of the most straightforward, individual beliefs. It's fascinating how non-atheists/religious/spiritual folk seek to create a group out of atheists, to develop the cult of atheism. In so doing, it creates a delightful paradox; let us create a collective entity of atheists so that we may challenge it, not them. For if individual responsibility is so easy to come by as simply to state a non-belief, then the hold of any one doctrine is proved tenuous.

Without wishing to be pedantic, the title of this thread automatically "lumps" all atheists together, under the banner of atheism. It suggests something cohesive, something practised, when the opposite is the case. The belief in something more than "just" the proven biological doesn't need to encompass religion. Indeed, the religious would have us believe that there is nothing but the two polar opposites; to believe in a higher deity, or at least to not deny its existence, and to firmly not believe. I would refute the notion that any human state that cannot be (as yet) scientifically explained is automatically divine.

Kind of. It makes sense within the context of your argument, assuming the 3 simplistic types you propose. Where it falls down for me is in accepting the existence of the three types, albeit that I know you're calling them simplistic. Whilst I accept that some people are more emotionally-drivem, for example, than others, people cannot be put, even simplistically into these definitive boxes. They ignore social factors, upbringing, experiences, genetics too much to assume that decisions are borne throuh being one of the three types. Plus operating chiefly from intellect would allow the person to acknowledge that they may be wrong, intellectually. They might not BELIEVE it (emotionally!), but their intellect would enable them to acknowledge it. Thus, intellect could also be a driver to believing in spiriuality.

Andrew, maybe Atheists can be lumped together regarding their non-belief in a God, same as red haired people can be lumped together as having red hair despite the diversity amongst red haired people. If I implied all red-heads are plundering vikings - that's when it gets a bit iffy. AG, I read with interest why you have a belief in something else. As a scientist, I can qualify all my creative, emotional and spiritual experiences as having a purely biological basis. Othertimes I had a distinct sense of it coming from outside myself but have no proof it is biological and physical in origin or not. I guess I used to be an ag-deist (I know but I couldn't think of the right expression). Then something happened to me that science couldn't really explain and it is so all-embracing, it made sense that I should pursue this god-consciousness. Maybe science one day will have an explanation for my experiences and I'll go back to being an agnostic deist. Of my 30 years on earth I was an agnostic between the ages of 4-8 an atheist 8-12 an agnostic-deist 13-29 and recently a deist. During most of those years I was also a 'practicing' Catholic, and have dipped my toes in Islam and Vaisnavite Hinduism (as practices rather than belief) so I've been round the block a few times and suspect I'll go around the block a few more times in the future. I'm always open to spiritual growth in myself! jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

I think Andrew James is onto something. I would describe myself as an atheist because I don't believe in a God. However, when AG and Pepsoid talk about atheists above, they seem to be talking about people who believe there is no God. There is a crucial difference between not believing in a God, and believing there is no God. The first is simply the absence of a belief for which there is no reasonable foundation. There is no way to legitimately attack this. Until you show me proof that God exists, it is entirely rational for me not to believe in him, just as there is no reason for me to believe in any number of things for which there is no proof. 'Believing that there is no God' is different in that you have 'faith' in an idea that can never be entirely proven - the very nature of God means that he can always be held ultimately responsible for existence, no matter how far we trace it back to its origins. So believing that there is no God is, obviously, much more open to attack. Pepsoid can say, "How can you ever actually know? And without knowing, surely your faith is of an equal philosophical value to a theist?" So the person who believes there is no God is easily reduced to being just another believer, whereas the person who does not believe in God is on entirely rational ground. Atheists are not just people who believe there is no God. They are also people who do not believe in God. And I imagine the second group are more numerous. But by conflating the two ideas together and treating all atheists as if they fit into the second group, theists are able to treat atheism as if it is on the same philosophical level as theism. Which is simply not the case. Before anyone mentions it, I'm not going to accept that the first group can be classed as agnostics. Agnosticis, as I see it, act on the premise that God may or may not exist. An atheist acts on the basis that God does not exist - because this is what we would normally do with things that are not yet proven to exist. I'm going to try to pre-empty confusion again by clarifying that position. Suppose the issue was not God, but whether your food had been poisoned. Suppose also that there is no evidence to suggest your food has been poisoned. There is the *possibility*, of course, because there's always the possibility. An agnostic would say that he did not know whether or not the food had been poisoned, and would clearly not want to eat it - why take the risk? An atheist would say that there is no reason to believe the food has been poisoned - the thought would probably not even enter his head - and thus have no reservations about eating it. Hope that makes the distinction, as I see it, reasonably clear.

There is a crucial difference between not believing in a God, and believing there is no God. Yes, there is a distinction between what are known as the weak atheistic position and the strong atheistic position. It is erronous to label all atheists as being 'strong atheists' . Many people use agnosticism to mean what is really "weak atheism," and use the word "atheism" only when referring to "strong atheism." The difference between agnosticism and weak atheism is quite blurry and I tend to view those who do not have a belief in God (but do not believe in NO God) as agnostics. But I am technically wrong since it is recommended that usage based on a belief that we cannot know whether God exists be qualified as "strict agnosticism" and usage based on the belief that we merely do not know yet be qualified as "empirical agnosticism." jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

"But I am technically wrong since it is recommended that usage based on a belief that we cannot know whether God exists be qualified as "strict agnosticism" and usage based on the belief that we merely do not know yet be qualified as "empirical agnosticism."" Neither seems very satisfactory to describe my position, and 'weak atheism' sounds like some sort of faffy position too. Maybe I'm most accurate describing myself as having no religion, and letting atheism in its entirety go to those who believe there is no possibility whatsoever of a God existing.

I know weak atheism sounds faffy but there you go! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism Just invent a term you prefer! Jude (Universalist Christian Deist) jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

I'll go with Dawkins' 'de facto atheist'.

Modern Scientific method is not a process to 'find proofs' of anything. Its a process to add contestable results to an ever expanding 'Model' of ideas,hypothesis and concepts. Nothing more than that. Sadly, it is often misunderstood or miss used.

Indeed, jrc! :-) ... How can one truly call oneself a "scientist" if one believes that anything is "provable"? As for AG's... "...sometimes there is an elegance to simplicity that is lost when we try to make things complex, yes?" ... Agree absolutely! Occam's Razor strikes again! :-))) pe ps oid ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)