Discussion History Main / UnwittingInstigatorOfDoom

Edited to add: I\\\'d also like to point out that acts of so-called Atheist fundamentalism are calls for secularism to take hold in a situation, which the American Heritage definition clearly states is the opposite of Fundamentalism. \\\"Atheist Fundamentalists\\\" becomes an oxymoron with this definition.

Merriam-Webster, a far better researched and more solid resource, gives us this set of definitions:

* 1. a 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

Obviously, this one we can\\\'t really use.

* 2: a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles <Islamic fundamentalism> <political fundamentalism> .

Which is where my Objection 1 comes in.

\\\'\\\'Any argument over this? How about Fundamentalism is also something other than a religious phenomenon?\\\'\\\'

If you looked over my response to Fast Eddie, you see that Objection 1 covers that well, in that it does not object to Fundamentalism being applied to nonreligious phenomenon, but that the term Atheism is to broad to fit the Merriam-Webster definition of Fundamentalism I\\\'ve been working with.

\\\'\\\'I\\\'ll address the fictional example of this below.\\\'\\\'

* \\\'\\\'The novel Towing Jehovah revolves around the discovery of god\\\'s body, and a group of atheist fundamentalist extremists attempting to destroy the body to get rid of any evidence of his existence.\\\'\\\'

\\\'\\\'A fictional example of atheist fundamentalism. By their definition they don\\\'t believe in god, here\\\'s evidence that proves they are wrong, and they are so fanatical of their belief there is no god they seek to destroy such evidence.\\\'\\\'

That example honestly sounds like it comes from a ChickTract in terms of how badly is handles the subject matter. It claims them to be something they are clearly not and goes right to FlatEarthAtheist as far as tropes go and we\\\'re back at problem 2.

This is largely because most people don\\\'t realize that Atheists are skeptics to a ridiculous amount. Skeptics don\\\'t generally hold an idea to be true to ridiculous lengths in spite of evidence presented to them, which is the definition of both a fanatic and a FlatEarthAtheist.

As to the quotes, I have no problem with the first, but quoting Steven Dutch, who holds that religion and science should be held on equal grounds, is rather silly since one is evidential and the other is assumptive. He\\\'s an intelligent person, but I see that as a fundamental flaw in his argument. Because Science and Religion are based on different operating standards, they can\\\'t really be held on equal terms.

tsstevens, I already argued the Fanatic part in the Archives, and basically said that if that is true, this page would have to be lumped into the Strawman sub-header/grouping. That idea was shot down and with eddie locking this, little can be done to assert the connection if we want to make one.

Edited to add: I\\\'d also like to point out that acts of so-called Atheist fundamentalism are calls for secularism to take hold in a situation, which the American Heritage definition clearly states is the opposite of Fundamentalism. Atheist \\\"Fundamentalists\\\" becomes an oxymoron with this statement.

I\\\'m sorry, but Urban Dictionary and Freedictionary.com (though it is referencing the American Heritage Dictionary from 2009) are not the best resources for such an establishment of a definition. So yeah, I dispute your definitions. I know, that\\\'s something of an Ad Homeim fallacy, but really, urban dictionary? That\\\'s like citing Wikipedia on a school assignment!