Discussion Main / TheFundamentalist

Given how the inclusion of atheism as fundamentalist was treated as akin to raping one's father you bet it does.

Yes it does fit, but it'd be nice if both pages didn't have the same header.

edit: it works better for this page, as it says single issue wonk is good so long as they stay away from that issue, which suggests they can change the subject.

Feel free to ask here, but make sure that you are explaining why he qualifies.

You might like to take a quick look at the page.

Wow, that was . . . Nifty.

Thank you, mods!

I'd have made the Atheism segement it's own paragraph, but that's just my own personal style. And heck, even if only part of it was approved, it's at least a better clarification (though it does create an minor contradiction within the article, it's minor enough to ignore, but may cause some overlap trope-wise later on).

Cruising the site, I stumbled on our Useful Notes: Atheism page. Good stuff, and rather illustrates my points regarding why just 'Atheism' being listed amongst fundamentalist philosophies is inaccurate, silly and overall wrongheaded.

Replacing it with the phrase "even atheistic philosophies" with possibly listing example philosophies within atheism would quell all complaints I have at least. The only major one I can think off is Communism, as most modern ones are to rooted in Skepticism to work under the core idea of fundamentalism.

From what I understand, a Fundamentalist is someone who holds on to an idea to a rather disquieting point. An idea that says other ideas are wrong is still an idea. Therefore, there can be atheist fundamentalists. Of course, this is not to say that all, or even a majority, of atheists are fundamentalists, but fanatics of this nature can and do exist. That's just my take on it, just saying that no type of person is safe from potential fanaticism. For that matter, I see no issue with including religious fanatics in the article.

You must be new here.

Seriously given how old arguments are saved for prosperity it is crazy.

^There is a thread in FAQ for this.

That doesn't address the counterpoint. It would have to be the philosophy of Atheism they espouse if it would be anything. Atheism itself is not a philosophy in and of itself and does not have enough criteria to really have the effect you describe.

What you are describing is Secularism, which can be put in pretty easily IMO.

But that may just be me splitting hairs, but I think their important hairs to split!

(must resist urge to edit before I receive a response . . . ;) )

Yeah, Secularism. That's what I was thinking of. Completely different to atheism. Let's see if Eddie swings round again and if we have his approval to make it Secularism then I'd be happy with that.

Taoist are not exempt

Right, fundamentalism implies that adherence to one's doctrine to the point where it dominates a person's life. According to which part of Buddhist texts are those Buddhists following when they murder those Taoists?

Given the link to Romance Of The Three Kingdoms, it's more historical precedent than specific text corruption.

But I can't comment accurately on it, that is only my speculation.

No, I doubt it since that is just a reference to being ancient China.

As I said, part of being a fundie has to do with following scripture or tennants of the philosophy they adhere to, as well as how they follow it in terms to treating others and themselves. Otherwise, we can basically call Ted Bundy "a Christian fundamentalist" since 1)he's a Christian and 2)he kills people, which is very silly. In order to be an example of fundamentalist there needs to be a link between their beliefs and their action. You can't just call a bunch of Buddhists who were burning Taoists because they were Taoist fundamentalist when there's no proof that Buddhism encourages such actions.

That's also where labeling Christians, for example, fundamentalist. As the Good Book Says..., when Moses led the Jews it was decreed that any man who lies with another man shall surely be put to death. Does this give license to persecute homosexuals? What about the age old line that judgment is god's not man's? Wouldn't this discourage such a course of action and tell readers not to become fundamentalist?

This isn't an examination into the hows and whys of The Bible, I'm just saying that it can be difficult to place religious followers as fundamentalist when their holy texts say one thing and they do another.

Well, at least the Bible says that there are circumstances where you can kill people, which can be extrapolated to other circumstances. It is a stretch, but not as much as this case with Buddhist where there's no evidence shown to link the two together.

So would it then be time to shift the goal posts so that Buddhism does somehow count?

Yeah, but I still want to know which Buddhist text can be extrapolated in the same way to justify the way those Taoists were killed.

Thing is, most of the time our experience with religion is with the Judo-Christianity, and thus when we look at religion from other cultures, we think the same thing can be applied to them as well. We think that since Chirstians often draw texts to justify them being dicks, when we see the Buddhists being dicks in the same way, we automatically think that tere must be somewhere in the Buddhists text that can be extrapolated in the same way to justify those same actions, which just isn't true.

Not being an expert I wouldn't be able to say. But taking the argument that atheism shouldn't count because there isn't a fundamental philosophy for atheists to act like dicks, if the same is true for Buddhists then who do atheists mysteriously get a pass on being branded fundamentalist?

First of all, atheism doesn't have a doctrine, Buddhism does and it is possible that killing people from other religions is part of it. It's just the I want proof that it actually is part of Buddhism (ie having Buddhist text that imply or can be extrapolated to justify such actions). The fact that it is possible that I am a bot pretending to be a human doesn't mean that I am.

Secondly, I actually now think that atheism itself doesn't have a fundamental philosophy per se and hence cannot be "fundamental to a doctrine" because there is none, which is why I prefer to label the "OMG ALL RELIGOUS PEOPLE MUST DIE" thing as anti-theism rather.

So no one is going to check the source to see if the described incident occurred, regardless of tenants? Wouldn't that settle the mater first?

Yeah, should do that as well.

Going back to whether or not atheism or secularism can be regarded as fundamentalist, antireligion I believe certainly can be. It is a narrow enough field and their fundamental belief is opposition to religion.

Honestly, going over the data, I'm not seeing Anti-Religion as anything more than a label placed on secularist advocates by the fearful.

I await an example, fictional or otherwise, which can demonstrate the concept better than its been explained so far.

Going over the data also left me wondering why "secularism" is left on par with the other concepts given its bases in rationality and evidential-ism. Being the effective voice of "Don't impose your predisposed thoughts on a concept" is really hard to be "Fundamental" about in any meaningful way.

So, again, I'm looking for examples we can put on the trope page first.

Though, even then, I'm not entirely sure how Terry Pratchets "Atheist Fundementalists" are supposed to work since most real world versions of Atheism fall into "Not enough evidence", "We just don't know" and "We'll never know so why bother" schools of thought on gods.

Guess it's the Mr. Terrific DC comics take on it "How do I know it's not just another super powered alien? or other thing claiming to be a god?"

Also, I just noticed: Fast Eddie's justification is basically a retread off the last myth listed on the Hollywood Atheist page: Atheists are smugly convinced of their own intellectual superiority and usually blinded to the "truth" by their own elitist pretensions and, usually, are Not So Different from their religious opponents.

So yeah, the argument is rather flawed, hence why I made the change.

Some atheist are, in fact, pretentious elitist. Those are the people being referred to in this article. Look, I've locked this. This pointless discussion has gone on long enough.

Yes, and I'm still waiting for your evidence or a proper counter to my points. We have entire tropes already dedicated to the subject makes the appellation both misplaced and redundant. Hell, we argued down that point in the archives specifically when me and Dammerung butted heads (which got to weird places very fast when he tried to dodge out of that one, but it was not countered).

This discussion has gone on a long time, but only in fits and spurts. This is not the Front Page nor is it the Avatar page during the height of its popularity. It's a topic people have strong opinions on. A lock just annoys people, it's not going to go away.

Hell, I'm probably the most vocal advocate for its removal, and I've repeatedly stated I'm willing to change if given the proper evidence. Why can't you give me that (Yeah, I know, busy—so appoint a second if you must). I'm a vocal person, stubborn and adamant—but I'm open minded and love being proven wrong. To give you an idea of how willing I am to be proven wrong, as I wrote this out, I realized that the first sentence definition could be used to include vocal atheists who campaign against religious intrusion in other areas. Not does, mind you, but could. If you are explicitly using that sentence as a definition, say so and that would by and large end it there. The other 2 points remain, but by and large, that would end it.

Silencing is the exact opposite of what is needed. I've repeatedly stated my reasons why. As a refresher:

1. The term Atheism is too broad have Fundamentalism applied to it. Is simply isn't a philosophy in and of itself no more than Theism is. Ergo, it needs a better term (such as Emperical Rationalism or Secular Humanism might work better).

2. 3 trope pages already dedicated to the concept of fundamentalism as applied to fictional atheists which are knowingly fallacious and no other examples of it are applied to the trope page aside from one hard to define Terry Pratchet example which speaks less to Atheism being fundamentalists than to Gods being jerks. It's more of a Flat-Earth Atheist example.

The inclusion off Atheism in the description portion of the page seems more to bend to popular opinion rather than report on things accurately.

But, like I said, I'm willing to listen. Hell, I'm willing to compromise. The Only reason I edited the page was to get your attention to argue back effectively so the matter could be settled.

Perhaps I am over thinking to much but a compromise might exist in simply replacing the term with a proper substitute ("Evidential-ism", "Secularism", etc) which better explains the position and is not so broad as to have no meaning at all.

Or that I should have waited a week to see if you had time to reply. I mean, Eddie has a whole site to keep track of and here I am yapping for special attention. Sorry if I'm being a bother.

So, if we are strictly adhering to the first line definition given, then that settles it. Otherwise, can counters to my 2 objections (bad terminology/redundancy) be offered? Either way, I'd be happy with answers to them from anyone.

Wasn't there discussion over fundamentalist = fanatic? If that is true then it can be clearly shown that atheists can become fanatical.

As a side note, if the inference of religious scaremongering over atheists is intended to reflect real life then the same is true of atheism, atheists who scaremonger over religion.

Edit: I know how important this is to you, so let's walk through the trope and examine it.

Looking up the dictionary term for fundamentalist we get this:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fundamentalist

''fun·da·men·tal·ism (fnd-mntl-zm) n. 1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.''

From Urban Dictionary

A person, or usually group of assholes who think the term "freedom of speech" means "oppress everyone with your views".

Any dispute over the term so far?

From the opening two paragraphs:

''We all know the type. Their beliefs are right, and anyone who does not believe as they do is stupid, crazy, evil or all three. The Fundamentalist is right, you are wrong, and being right is the only thing that matters. A common behavior of The Fundamentalist is a tendency to dehumanize or demonize those not in line with their particular brand of belief, which allows them to lie to, abuse and otherwise mistreat those opposed to their beliefs, often in contravention of their own professed beliefs.''

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

This deleted line is interesting:

It can pollute natural sciences. If a scientist has built his entire career backing a particular theory, he's not going to take it well when that theory is proven wrong in an experiment. Science has in some cases been set back decades by the efforts of Fundamentalists, of both the religious and scientific flavors.

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.

Now let's examine a couple of the quotes.

History has shown us that it's not religion that's the problem, but any system of thought that insists that one group of people are inviolably in the right, whereas the others are in the wrong and must somehow be punished. — Rod Liddle

This shows that not only can it include atheists but it doesn't have to be based on a fundamental belief.

I get the impression that many nonbelievers are just fine about tolerating religious belief as long as they can do it condescendingly, blowing off rational statements by believers as quixotic or delusional. Challenge the underlying assumption that nonbelief is inherently more intellectually sound or scientific than belief, or show that many of the most common arguments by nonbelievers are on the same superficial level as arguments by Intelligent Designers and, well, the gloves come off and the veneer of civility evaporates. — Steven Dutch

This is what Fast Eddie is referring to when it comes to, bluntly, atheist asshats, or fundie fanatics.

Now let's look up the dictionary term for fanatic, which is what we have discussed a fundamentalist is.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fanatic

''fa·nat·ic   [fuh-nat-ik] Show IPA noun 1. a person with an extreme and uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics.''

From here there doesn't have to be a fundamental belief system at work for someone to be a fanatic, as you argue there has to be for someone to be a fundamentalist.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fanatic

''fa·nat·ic (f-ntk) n. A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause.

fanatic [fəˈnætɪk] n 1. a person whose enthusiasm or zeal for something is extreme or beyond normal limits''

If fundamentalist also means fanatic as has been discussed then this would include atheists. Unless you'd wish to argue there are no atheist fanatics.

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!

Though it does suggest a trend in the united states of the term being re-defined over time to include atheism through years of misappropriation. Paranoia? Possibly, but not the first time that happened. Had someone argue that only definition one (below) applied in archived discussion, so there's that to consider to.

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 Chick Tract in terms of how badly is handles the subject matter. It claims them to be something they are clearly not and goes right to Flat-Earth Atheist 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 Flat-Earth Atheist.

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.

Something I feel needs to be brought up. You requested fictional examples of atheist fundamentalism. You got it, only now somehow it doesn't count. So what by your definition would count as atheist fundamentalism?

It's because I can re-categorize them so easily into the other fields that I asked if anyone had anything. Most times, authors like to make Atheists stubborn to the point of absurdity in a pot-keettle-black sort of shallow parody which is really just the Flat-Earth Atheist again.

The closest I can think of is already on the trope page:

• South Park inverts and parodies this trope and gives us the rare fundamentalist agnostic family, The Weatherheads.

If you see the episode, you see them going to extreme lengths to argue and enforce their viewpoint on the nature of reality. Atheism, having only one thing to say and being generally of two definitions (There is no Gods/Gods or There is Insufficient evidence for a God/Gods) generally makes it hard to have set views on things. As I said, the terms' to broad. The agnosticism in the episode is taken to an extreme for parody purposes so that the concept of uncertainty is applied to everything.

South Park's episodes on Atheist has a version of this in the future, but goes on to prove my point. Atheism in the Future isn't the source of the problem, its conclusion is basically "people will find stupid reasons to hate each other" as the big "Fundamentalist" war in the Future Cartman finds himself in is about how one opens oysters—on a table or on your belly.

The war, of course, is being fought between humans and super intelligent sea otters.

So yeah, they could be called Fundamentalists here, but their Atheism had nothing to do with it.

But, if one were to do the same with an Atheist, it might would generally take the form of an extreme form of skepticism, but that would, again, lean more towards Flat-Earth Atheist than anything else. It would have to be handled very, very delicately—heck it might even end up at Agent Scully. It's basically argument 2, how wouldn't these instances also meet the definitions those give?

Which is why I initially called for the separate philosophies to be put in place of Atheism if it were to be used. A Secularist Fundamentalist might, for instance, ask for the banning of religious iconography in churches in such a parody. A Absurdist would woft through such a parody, taking very little as concrete or 'real' or take issue with/lazily decry people trying to understand anything.

So basically your argument over atheists being portrayed as fundamentalist is that it's not a case of atheists being fundamentalist, it's when they are used as antagonists in fiction it's a case of them finding some stupid reason to hate people?

If that's what you're saying then I can see how fundamentalist isn't the right fit for atheists.

That's a decent part of Argument 2 in my 2 part objection (more as in they aren't being fundamental to Atheism despite the label and more acting out what the religious think a fundamentalist atheist would look like, trying to make it just like a religious fundamentalist to sell a golden mean fallacy), the other more explicit part being on how what is used in fiction is already covered by things like Nay-Theist and Flat-Earth Atheist. Argument 1 being more about what the actual words mean might be a bit pedantic.

I also want to point out that on the troper lock page, the Fundamentalist reasoning is given as this:

Refusal to allow atheists to be included as fundamentalist, discussion over including fanaticism. Repeatedly reverted moderator and admin edits.

First one is the core argument we're having now. Second was settled long ago in the archived discussion (it was ruled to keep them separate). The final one is over the first point, but is far more hard lined than others, and only occurs twice in recent history. Two strikes and you're out?

I fear that even if I prove my point it will not be taken as a consensus if Fast Eddie or other moderator forces are not convinced of it. The Mods are very busy people, so I'm leaning towards the possibility that they just missed the arguments being made in the discussion pages. The same thing happened with the Avatar page two years ago. I suspect its happening again. I just hope I won't have to compose a post like that again, but I fear I may have to. That time it worked, but it's always a risky thing to do.

I think the argument is that atheism is not a belief or a fundamental viewpoint, atheism is merely not believing in god.

Antitheism on the other hand is the belief of Religion of Evil and God Is Evil. It is from that basis the antitheist acts. I believe they can be portrayed as a fundamentalistfanatic.

I generally limit the application of Fundamentalism to a concept that has more tenants than a single line, like Anti-Theism does.

Like Atheism and just plain Theism, it is simply to generic to have the lifestyle dominating effects attributed to The Fundamentalist in the page quote. That's the benchmark. I'm sure there's an Anti-Theist Philosophy out there that can fit under the Fundamentalist doctrine, but it would have to be within that subset. Much like how many communist philosophies are atheistic, but Atheism is not on the trope page, but Communist is.

So if you want to put an Anti-Theist fundementalist on the trope page, you're going to have to list what god they are decrying.

What god would an antitheist decry? It is my understanding that they would decry all gods, but mainly the Christian JudoIslamic ones for their follower's role in what's wrong with the world. Such individuals and groups can back up their views of God Is Evil and Religion of Evil rather passionately, a read through of some of their dissections of the BibleQu'ran shows how adamant they can be in their belief that god and religion is stupid and wrong, and those who believe it should be convincedridiculed into giving up their beliefs.

It is my understanding that they would decry all gods, but mainly the Christian JudoIslamic ones for their follower's role in what's wrong with the world.

A true Anti-Theist can be summed up by Riddik's line in Pitch Black "I believe in God, and I absolutely hate the fucker."

If they can't utter that line, then they are not anti-theists.

Such individuals and groups can back up their views of God Is Evil and Religion of Evil rather passionately, a read through of some of their dissections of the BibleQu'ran shows how adamant they can be in their belief that god and religion is stupid and wrong, and those who believe it should be convincedridiculed into giving up their beliefs.

Clearly, you're working outside the realm of fiction (where tropes primarily live). We're not talking about people on the internet who point out the faults in holy books, those are not Anti-Theists despite what you may think. They are just very vocal atheists. Your automatic lumping of them into a God Is Evil and Religion of Evil tips your hat to it.

People can talk about what they consider to be fictional characters and align them along their morality schemes. And the key thing about Atheism that I've stressed repeatedly is that it has no organized structure.

And yes, I have read those dissections. I have the Skeptics Annotated Bible on my favorites. I know what you're referring to and your personal bias is showing.

And before you say that I have one too. I'm a skeptic. Show me evidence—good evidence, free of fallacy, falsehood and assumption, and I'll chance my tune in a heart beat and it will be awesome. But I honestly doubt they're forthcoming.

You're an atheist. You feel slighted at atheists being mentioned as fundamentalists. Fanatics. Human behavior. Perfectly normal. Nothing to do with trying to prove evidence of deity. Assumption I believe in god. Common mistake. Should remove religious and fandom connotations as well. After all we have to be fair. Otherwise have no choice. Atheists must be included as fundamentalists. Should mention edit history. Fast Eddie took part. He saw fit to include atheists. Might he be interested in being invited to this discussion?

You're an atheist. You feel slighted at atheists being mentioned as fundamentalists.

No, I feel slighted because it's a misappropriation made by people who don't know what Atheism is.

As I explained above repeatedly. If you're just going to make declarations, your contributions to this are worthless. Don't just declare things, show me the logical thought process. The evidnece! That's how you convince people of stuff!

Nothing to do with trying to prove evidence of deity.

Indeed, I didn't bring up evidence for a deity, but evidence for your claims. You're leaping to far afield.

Should remove religious and fandom connotations as well.

No. No you shouldn't. You've provided extremely poor justifications for doing so.

After all we have to be fair. Otherwise have no choice. Atheists must be included as fundamentalists.

I already explained this above in prior threads. Atheism cannot be Fundamentalist because its definition is to broad. It lacks tenets to control and dominate the person's life. You think Atheism is a unified front when it is analogous to THEISM, not any one religion. There are no Theistic Fundamentalist, but there are Christian Fundies.

Likewise, there are no Atheistic fundamentalists, but there are Communist Fundies.

That's what's going on.

Should mention edit history. Fast Eddie took part. He saw fit to include atheists. Might he be interested in being invited to this discussion?

No. He's got better things to worry about than your misconceptions. Read over the other discussions first before replying.

Atheism has no tennants to be fundemental to or to dominate a person's life.

You still haven't explained why anti-theism, which tenant is "all religions are evil and religious people should be exterminated" cannot be fundamental or dominate somebody's life.

If you say that's because they're not true anti-theists than I say that is a True Scotsman Fallacy.

Tell you what, I've taken the issue to Ask The Tropers and asked if the mods could give their input. Let's see if this can be sorted out there.

Of course you have, tsstevens, you tend to jump the gun repeatedly. Lets not. I'd rather not search down another thread and argue in multiple places at once. Besides, we may be a wiki, but the consensus rule of wikis is absolutely poisonous, IMO. Facts are not democratic.

Ira the Squire, the same supposition applies to Anti-Theism. It's a philosophy that is simply to narrow to have the full reaching effect of a fundamentalist philosophy. An Anti-Theistic philosophy would need to say more than just its Anti-Theism. Note the Communist example.

Hell your example of "Anti-Theism" is just shallow jerkiness as far as I'm concerned. It's not a philosophy unless it has more to say than what can summarized in a single sentence. Sure, you could for many a fundie belief, but there is much more to it.

Show me an Anti-Theist philosophy and maybe we'll get somewhere. I can name Atheist Philosophies pretty easily, but honestly, I'm starting to suspect that Anti-Theism is largely an over-reaction to jerks online.

Considering that Anti-Theism is synonymous with "Strong Atheism" (active belief there are no gods) the point becomes even more moot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Antitheism

I link these because I'm not sure the terms were properly understood when they were introduced.

Also, considering that this applies largely to fictional examples, try to find an example in fiction of a Fundementalist for these stances. We might get there with that one.

Already done I'm afraid. I get the imopression reading through the discussion you are not interested in listening. Hopefully with help we can put this matter to rest.

I'm only not interesting in listening to arguments I've heard before and have proven hollow upon inspection.

And I've been arguing this subject online for a very long time.

For three years. It might be benificial to have some fresh perspective.

I understand that you do not wish for atheists to be seen in a negative light. However this issue does need to be brought to an end, even if that does require outside intervention.

''Well, I always thought that strong atheism is more about the definite belief (for lack of a better word) that there is no such thing as a supernatural god (will be silly if they believe that Alexander the Great doesn't exist) and doesn't include active opposition to religion, which is in the realm do anti-theism.

However, there's still a problem of some of the examples in the title that gives the vibe that this page is a massive Take That against all religions and atheists and antithesis can do no wrong.

For example, where in Buddhists texts that tells Buddhists that people from other religions are "infidels" and can be killed? If there's none then those Buddhists in ancient China were not adhering to Buddhist ideas and calling them "Buddhist fundamentalists" is like calling an atheist psycho murderer "an atheist fundamentalist"- their actions have nothing to do with their philosophy at all.

Almost a decade, trust me, I've been at this a while.

It's not that I don't want Atheists to be seen in a negative light, it's that it logically doesn't fit. I'd be perfectly agreeable to an example if one existed, but it does not. Ergo, it's not applicable.

As I said: Atheism is the opposite of Theism, nothing more. There are no Theist Fundamentalists just as their are no Atheist Fundamentalists—the terms are to broad. There are however Christian and Communist Fundamentalists.

Those are proper philosophies to be fundamental to. Theism and Atheism are not philosophies but concepts of various philosophies which can be used to group them together.

That's the paradigm.

Personally, I hold that a Fundie belief needs a body count. But that's not the definition we're working with here.

OHCRAP! I'm sorry Ira the Squire—I didn't realize I edited your comment! I lost some of it when I edited it for what I thought was a response. I deeply apologize!

Here's what my response would normally look like:

Well, I always thought that strong atheism is more about the definite belief (for lack of a better word) that there is no such thing as a supernatural god (will be silly if they believe that Alexander the Great doesn't exist) and doesn't include active opposition to religion, which is in the realm do anti-theism.

Actually, the philosophy of Secularism covers that lack of a belief in supernatural better.

However, there's still a problem of some of the examples in the title that gives the vibe that this page is a massive Take That against all religions and atheists and antithesis can do no wrong.

You're looking at it from the wrong perspective. Given that Communism is explicitly mention, and is indeed an Atheistic (or "Anti-Theistic" in your statement), Atheist philosophies are already covered within. Furthermore, Atheism is, like Theism, simply inapplicable to the subject matter. So you're off on two counts.

For example, where in Buddhists texts that tells Buddhists that people from other religions are "infidels" and can be killed? If there's none then those Buddhists in ancient China were not adhering to Buddhist ideas and calling them "Buddhist fundamentalists" is like calling an atheist psycho murderer "an atheist fundamentalist"- their actions have nothing to do with their philosophy at all.

Fundementalism isn't just definied by how a believer adheres to the tennants, but how they treat others. Compare Christian Fundies like those who bomb abortion clinics with the good quotes of Jesus.

That said, I didn't add that example and am unsure of its veracity. It seemed plausible, but I'd love to see verification of it. Of course, the main thing I have for it was a talk which attacked the phrase "Religion of Peace" given by an Atheistic speaker where he eventually deduced that Jainism was the only true "Religion of Peace" out there as none of its tenants could be twisted to cause harm to others.

Again, I'm really sorry about that! Doing to many things at once . . .

That's all right. We all make mistakes. [tongue]

Fundementalism isn't just definied by how a believer adheres to the tennants, but how they treat others. Compare Christian Fundies like those who bomb abortion clinics with the good quotes of Jesus.

But the difference is that the Christian doctrine allows for Christians to kill others not agreeing with their ideas and ideals (eg you can stone people to death for wrong-doings in the Old Testaments, which makes it part of the Christian doctrine), whereas I've never seen anything in Buddhist texts that even remotely condones such behavior (in fact, Buddhism is a passive philosophy: Buddhists think that their way if living and thinking is the way out of suffering and there's no need to force others into it, ie there's no "good" vs "evil" kind of thought).

Actually, I think I should edit that bit out and let the guy who put it in explain himself.

Go for it, Is suspected, but haven't done the research.

Personally, I hold that a Fundie belief needs a body count. But that's not the definition we're working with here.

You believe we should count the deaths caused by fundamental belief? That is delving into Real Life territory. Did you not feel fine with excluding real life examples?

That was the consensus reached in the old discussion threads. Hence why I listed it as a personal marker in case you needed an alternative.

Besides, the edit wars and natter from when we DID include real life in this trope was absolutely horrific.

Okay, something I am confused about, without the slightest hint of sarcasm or exaggeration.

We have fandom mentioned with The Lord Of The Rings as a specific example. As far as I can tell how we interpret a work or character has no fundamental grounds. If atheism is merely not believing in god and thus shouldn't be on the page how come fandom is?

Honestly, I wouldn't mind tossing that out. I can see where it applies in some extreme cases (Jedi-ism and all that), but most of that would be too close to Real Life, and since that's out . . .

It's a bit irrelevant to the basic definition of Fundamentalist anyway.

How about Fred Hoyle, who rejected the Big Bang theory mainly because it conflicted with his philosophical views, and continued to reject it into the 21st century?

Well, as you say, he rejected Big Bang Theory because it conflicted with his philosophical views, not because he spent years disproving it with science. The same can be said for Albert Einstein, who tried so hard to disprove quantum mechanic just because he thinks "God does not play dice". In both cases, however, the scientists in question did not, as quote, "built his entire career backing a particular theory". I think this can happen, but they have to be really minor scientists because if you built your entire career on a theory that is quickly disproven and rejected by everyone else you must be a very bad scientist.

Because it's a misnomer. Atheism is not an ideology in and off itself. Instead, there are multiple atheistic ideologies (much as their are many theistic ideologies).

Normally, such acts are done under the name of the ideology rather than the lack of religion. IE: communism.

The most outspoken of the "Atheist Philosophies" is Secular Humanism. And under that banner, few agree on anything except a few basic concepts regarding the nature of the universe and the concept of God.

Getting Atheists to agree on anything is like herding cats, so organized movements are rare, and those that believe the below is extremely small (but vocal).

But, to answer your question, in the name of explicit atheism: there have been no bombings and no murders.

The only rights the explicit atheists wish to take away is, as they put it "The prevention of indoctrination of children" (IE: The right of parents to bring up children in a religious worldview).

The only minority groups they see as wicked (though not worthy of death) are the aforementioned indoctrinators. Not the indoctrinated, but the people actively proselytizing.

There is no Evil Atheist Conspiracy (At least, the one that exists takes its name ironically), despite the various claims made.

So, why does this article act like Atheist fundamentalists are common as dirt here in the West, exactly?

I would also disagree that they want to remove the right of parents to teach their children religion; even the most outspoken just wish they'd teach their children a bit about what other people believe and stress that the children have a choice, not 'belive or we'll hate you.'

Because people bitch a lot. Others cow to that bitching. Finally, wiki's often employ Golden Mean bull-crap in order to reach appeasement.

We remove it, we start a new cycle of 'Richard Dawkins is a Fundementalis" mindlessness.

And just by uttering that, someone's going to appear and say "But he IS!"

It's because of the Overton Window. The Overton window of American culture encompasses a religious-but-not-completely-extreme view, so anything outside of that is fundamentalist.

• whistles*

Madeleine Bunting quotes Sam Harris in saying "some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them," and states "[t]his sounds like exactly the kind of argument put forward by those who ran the Inquisition." Quoting the same passage, theologian Catherine Keller asks, "[c]ould there be a more dangerous proposition than that?" and argues that the "anti-tolerance" it represents would "dismantle" the Jeffersonian wall between church and state.

From what I've read, fundamentalists are those who believe in the strictist, most "fundamental" interpretation of their religion or philosophy and insist on following the "fundamentals" of that philosophy. In that case, not only is there no such thing as an "atheist fundamentalist" since atheism isn't a philosophy or religion (merely the lack of belief in any gods) and thus there's nothing for atheists to be "fundamental" about, but fundamentalists aren't always obnoxious and self-rightous as this article implies and, indeed, the Amish would count as fundamentalists.

"Fundamentalism is not just a religious phenomenon; non-religious ideologies like communism, capitalism, fascism, democracy, anarchism and even atheism can attract fundamentalists as well. It can also pollute natural sciences; if a scientist has built his entire career backing a particular theory, he's not going to take it well when that theory is proven wrong in an experiment. Science has in some cases been set back dozens of years thanks to the efforts of The Fundamentalist (of religious and scientific flavor) in academia.

Fundamentalists crop up in Fandom, too. If, for example, you see Gollum as anything less than a direct agent of the Valar sent to destroy the Ring once and for all, you are bad and wrong. The Fundamentalist is pathologically obsessed with being "right," even in subjects that might not have a right answer — art criticism, hermeneutics, straight down to the best flavor of ice cream."

Would this then not count and the trope be a solely religious one?

It's just that people say fundamentalism when they mean fanaticism. Fundamentalism has a very specific meaning. Fanaticism means strong, dogmatic adherence.

Then how about a name change to The Fanatic?

A quick google of the word fundamentalism brings a list of different usages. The use of it as implying fanaticism is pretty widespread.

True, an [insert opinion adherent type here] who demonizes people not sharing their beliefs could be other than a fundamentalist [insert opinion type here]. We can't escape the fact that they very often are, though.

To make matters worse we have those who are all 'How dare they label X fundamentalist, what an ass, rage rage rage' which has led to all types of butthurt, edit wars and bannings.

As the person half-responsible for blowing up this page the first time, I've always thought we should not have real life examples, mainly because the Overton window makes the threshold for some groups lower than for others.

For example, an atheist who says "Religion is wrong and people should stop being religious" would have been a fundamentalist, while a theist who says "Atheism is wrong and atheists should convert to religion" wouldn't be labeled a fundamentalist- essentially, it was a matter of one side being fundamentalist for thinking other philosophies are wrong, which really isn't the same thing.

How might you describe someone who goes 'look look look at them, look how silly they look, let's make fun of them' as if they were living a movie in their head of being the one to take down religion?

A Jerkass.

That sort of thinking isn't limited to Atheists. Religious people do the same to people who don't ascribe to their religion as well.

It's an inclusion/exclusion behavior deeply rooted in human behavior.

And ridicule is quite possibly the most powerful social force known to man. Mocking what you disagree with is something everyone does, to some extent. We are an entire species of Monster Clowns.

Shouldn't this trope just be renamed The Fanatic? That large numbers of people bulldoze the meanings of words doesn't mean that those meanings aren't there and it certainly doesn't mean that they were thinking about it. If the first paragraph of this trope is our entry definition then we are talking about fanatics.

Because it would then lump most Straw-Whatevers into this trope as well for one. Basically, it acts as "Straw Religious" in a sense. Or "Straw Idealist" to a degree. It also covers aspects that could be classified as The Fanatic.

Because of the combo, its has its own name. The Fundamentalist. It's also the name that was taken in real life by people who support the concept (Self Identified Fundamentalists, not perceived Fundamentalists).

But it's badly misnamed all the same. The Fundie, I could support as a name, since that's the pejorative term that is most often used for Fanatic Fundamentalists — very few non-fanatics would self-identify as a "Fundie".

But, since this is really about the most extreme, portrayal of Fundamentalism in the media, it would fit quite well in the "Hollywood X" tropes as Hollywood Fundamentalist — those are the tropes where a complex subject is oversimplified to one or two stereotypical, usually extreme images.

The problem with that name is trying to find a way to differentiate the portrayal from how self-identified (and otherwise) Fundamentalists act in real life.

I'd use Sir Richard Owen as a prime example of a Creationist Fundamentalist (redundant there, but bear with me) for some of his behavior.

Hell, I can just point to Creationist E-Mail exchanges with the scientifically minded and be done with it.

To give you an idea of how bad they can get, there's this quote from Jonathan Boyd: "It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."

Pretty innocuous right? Well, I'm sorry to say he's talking about killing BABIES.

The Fundie, though, could work.

We aren't a wiki for Real Life. Making a page for something with more concern for forcing in a Real Life group rather than a media and fiction portrayal is just flat ass-backwards.

You're missing the point. I just went and demonstrated that the general portrayal is not ass backwards as you claimed for the Hollywood Fundamentalist name change. Hence, why I backed the Fundie instead.

There are people who are honestly obsessed however. If we want to try and have Jack Chick as an example might there be a way to do so, either by allowing real life examples or changing the name of the trope?

Nah, I'm for the no-Real-Life examples thing, because then I don't have to explain to people that Richard Dawkins does not meet the criteria to be a Fundamentalist.

But then we'd be missing out on all the religious fundamentalists. Oh well, if you can live with that then so can I.

Fundamentalist does not always mean fanatic. That conflation is the mark of a Hollywood Fundamentalist. This page, as it stands right now, is about Fanatics, not Fundamentalists. And pointing at some Fundamentalists who are also fanatics doesn't prove anything except that some people are in both groups.

Trope pages to not have to have real life examples. This is not a wiki about real life.

Can you put that in the form of a trope summery? Because if you can it'd be good. It seems to be a bit of a stumbling block for some people, me included.

Sorry, but no. Fanatics are obsessed with an idea, concept or thing.

Fundamentalists are not just obsessed with their beliefs, but have it act as a cultural lens that filters nearly every aspect of their life, but believe their way is the only way—the right way.

Of course, there are some Fanatics who have their idea/concept/thing effectively supplant religious life, but they do not proselytizer nor do they insist that their way is the only way. Or if they do, they do not consist of the majority of fanatics. Further, they rarely have it act as a cultural lens.

If we change it to "The Fanatic" then we must merge almost everything within The War on Straw into this page. It will generalize it to meaninglessness.

Fundamentalism does not necessarily include fanaticism. And "Straw" doesn't necessarily include either fanatic or fundamentalist. Nor must we merge pages because they overlap — that's why we have super-, sub-, and sibling-tropes.

Fundamentalists are not just obsessed with their beliefs, but have it act as a cultural lens that filters nearly every aspect of their life, but believe their way is the only way—the right way.

Because every fan (derived from Fanatic) of any show uses that show as a cultural lens.

Wait, no, those are only the most extreme cases. Think about the role of religious philosophies in a society against the role of fandom in society.

Also consider for a moment how Fundamentalists are used in fiction. Just think about their role. Their function in a narrative.

Their role is that of the straw.

If that were the case then what would the more accurate portrayal of the Fundamentalist?

In the simplest terms: a person who imposes their worldview on others.

I'd add "Without regards for others" but because of their worldview, many view it as entirely for the benefit of others, regardless of the corporeal consequences.

You forgot the qualifying card: if we were to be honest it is those with fundamentalist beliefs who can be decried as a fundamentalist. Hence why you see mostly religious examples shown.

"I wonder why these, apprently, very common Atheist fundies never get mentioned on the news. What buildings have they bombed? Who have they murdered? Whose rights are they striving to take away? What minority groups do they see as wicked and deserving of death?"

"Because it's a misnomer. (...) But, to answer your question, in the name of explicit atheism: there have been no bombings and no murders."

You Fail History Forever. Look up Enver Hoxha's Albania, or Pol Pot's Khmer Rogue. Then tell me with a straight face there's no such thing as an atheist fundie.

Well, no, don't bother telling me your response. After looking at the discussion archives, it's pretty clear atheists are in very strong denial that they're capable of the exact same kinds of fanaticism that religious people can have.

What an awesome debate tactic. Here's what I believe, don't answer, shut up, you suck.

Might as well humor him so that observers can see just how wrong-headed random person here is.

Enver Hoxha's A Lbania and Pol Pot's Khmer Rogue were both Communist Regimes, not just Atheistic.

Communism in the 20th century was one of the most prominent philosophies of Atheism, but not the only one. Today, Secular Humanism is the more dominant (and outspoken) Philosophy. There's also Absurdists, Agnostics and even Ancestor-Worshipers and Buddhists that can be described as Atheistic (not believing in Gods, in the weakest form of that definition).

So, no, it's not Atheism itself that is rooted to those incidents, or to Stalin's paranoia for that matter. It was the philosophies they chose to follow. Because Atheism says nothing on Morality, an Atheist needs to choose their own moral system from the plethora of options available to them.

There are atheist fundamentalists, however they are not fundamentalist because they are athist. If they were on the platform of killing god then they would be fundamentalist because they are atheist.

Atheists don't believe in god, how could one stand up and say they want to kill something they believe doesn't exist? That's like saying a person wants to kill Santa Clause and they're over 30.

Going by the strict definition of fundamentalist (e.i., not just as a synonym for fanatic, like this page uses), an "atheist fundamentalist" would reject the idea of connecting a moral philosophy to atheism, such as secular humanism or Buddhism, and say that he or she ONLY rejects theism. A fundamentalist atheist would only be attached to the fundamentals of atheism - "there is no god" - and nothing else. S/he may not even feel the need to justify such a believe.

Just a thought.

Heh, tell that to any number of atheists today. No, they're not fundamentalists or fanatics, but a large number of them not only feel they have to justify their beliefs, they have to make sure everyone else does as well. If you don't believe in god, why do you need to stress over it?

Atheists don't believe in god, how could one stand up and say they want to kill something they believe doesn't exist? That's like saying a person wants to kill Santa Clause and they're over 30.

Therein lies the problem with such an argument. Any number of so called god killers, those who want to destroy something they don't believe in, they are not atheist. Atheists do not believe in god. Those who claim to be and harbor such a resentment they want to destroy god or religion are an insult.

To be fair, they could want to eliminate the serious belief in or the idea of God, which would make you an atheist, if a fanatical, evangelical prick of an atheist.

For all their much vaunted logic these "atheists" *air quotes* act in a wallbangingly illogical manner. "Der, we don't believe there is a god, but we get so worked uo about it we're here to make sure no one else does, huur." I Need a Freaking Drink.

Which goes to show that your really haven't talked with an Atheist about religion at all.

Wanna start?

Not a real atheist perhaps. Someone like Sam Harris, who claims to be, yet gives us the quote I provided before about it being ethical to kill those who hold certain beliefs. But I'm not here to argue about whether or not there's a god, or what measure is a non believer, I don't get stressed out over it the way some do. I was just saying.

Fine, let's have it your way. Every atheist in the world decides to shut up about their rights and let you make political decisions based solely on faith. 10 years later, they all end up in gas chambers.

Uh, who's your dealer? I want whatever it is you're smoking.

I'm no fan of religion, but that idea's just bug nut crazy.

Do you have any particular reason to think it's crazy?

Yes. For one there is a government process called checks and balances.In simple terms, say George Bush wanted to have atheists executed. It would have to go through the Senate and Congress and be agreed upon. Do you really think the US government, for one, would support such an idea?

For another, such an idea goes against the constitutional right to freedom of worship, which includes freedom from religion. There have been instances where this right had been violated, but if you are looking at atheists being executed, try Afghanistan or Iran.

For another, just where is there anything that gives support to the idea of atheists being executed? Can you name one instance in the past two or three hundred years where this was policy or even occured? There's been millions of religious murders by atheists (the fact that they were not because of religion is neither here nor there), can you show precedence of the inverse being true since...oh, since the 19th century?

Ah, but my post addressed that: "Every atheist in the world decides to shut up about their rights and let you make political decisions based solely on faith." The people who accuse others of being fundamentalist atheists also view all secular government as an atheist plot; for example, removing a monument of the Ten Commandments from public property is, to them, atheist fundamentalism. My hypothetical scenario assumes that your checks and balances would be ignored.

That is what you wanted, isn't it? I mean, you apparently define fundamentalism so loosely that saying "stop oppressing us" would qualify.

Not at all. Not believing in god is fine. Discussion is fine. Debate is fine. I just don't feel that I have to study the bible to find inconsistancies to use against religion is all. That's just me. You want to talk about things that do bug me, talk about hat a horrid person Jack is in Mass Effect. Talk about Mickie James being fired because she wouldn't sleep with Vince Mc Mahon. Talk about how Modern Warfare fans who scoff at Rock Band don't join the CIA to kill passengers at airports. The topic of religion and atheism, really, is that unimportant to me. Those who get so wrapped up that they see the other side as the enemy who wants to kill them all are in my opinion fundamentalist, fanatic.

Well I can agree with that at least, so thanks for being polite.

I just don't feel that I have to study the bible to find inconsistencies to use against religion is all. That's just me.

And that's fine for you, but for people who do not agree with some of the values exposed by religion, that is the best way to counter it: analyzing its source. "Know your enemy" and all that.

For another, just where is there anything that gives support to the idea of atheists being executed?

Believe it or not, along with Gypsies and Homosexuals, they were in the gas chambers too. Most were not secular humanists, though, but Marxist-Leninists (Communists).

There's been millions of religious murders by atheists (the fact that they were not because of religion is neither here nor there)

Oh, Stalin and Mao, your Communism always gets confused with Atheism proper.

Blaming Atheism for Mao and Stalin is like blaming 9/11 on religion itself. Only partly on the mark, but only gaining a half point.

But to be fair, that was an extreme example you were given and honestly a rather dishonest one. In the United States, Atheists share the same intolerance as Homosexuals. Not denial of Marriage, but hate-crimes are occasionally lobbed at them and every now and again we stumble across a state with a charter barring Atheists from holding public office.

People don't like Atheists and legislate against them regularly. Often, on religious grounds. In the past it was pretty bad—protect only by our extreme rarity and the prominence of other people to hate on. Also, the modern concept of Atheism (as Secular Humanism) didn't appear until the early 1940s and the term itself was only openly adopted int he 50s and 60s.

Because when people generally say "Atheism" they tend to mean "Secular Humanism". They do tend to be the loudest of us.

If you ever look for is the worst in people then that's all you're ever going to find. Angelina Jolie and Natalie Portman are both atheist, yet they do a lot of humanatarian work. Ditto avowed Christian Johnny Cash, he was a great man. There's cretins in both parties...how about Darwin Bedford, who calls himself the Atheist Avenger and wants war against religion? Or Father Mahoney, who was a unapologetic pedophile in the church? You think they speak for religion or atheism? Course not. Neither did Stalin or Mao, or Bin Laden, or even Hitler, whether he was Christian or an atheist.

To me, he was The Joker in control of a country, made up a new idendity each day to suit him.

Indeed there are cretins in both sides, it's just that the cretins are easier to track than the shining examples. The problem being that Atheism doesn't provide convenient rationalization for most of them. It can't rationalize anything. It provides no moral framework for people to make judgements on by itself. Of the four mentioned, the later two have consistent ideologies that can be pretty easily traced from their earlier works.

If you read Mein Campf and then study what he did, you'll find that it acts as a very good guide, and also confirms that he was a Christian in a "Young Earth Creationist" sort of sense. That, and he got a mostly Christian nation to follow his lead without flinching.

Unless you believe he had Mass Hypnosis capabilities...

Hitler's beliefs, whatever they may have been, are really a moot point. It may be a No True Scotsman argument but whether he was religious or atheist his underlying insanity defied any groundwork. In fact, if you don't mind the comparison, Hitler is a very scary and extreme example of allowing your fear and hatred of the enemy, an athist against a theist or a theist against an atheist for example, to control you.

It is a No True Scotsman, a rather common one that permeates modern culture, so don't feel bad about using it. He is a very scary guy and his brand of Christianity is one of the more screwed up versions I have yet to encounter.

He still believed in the basic tenants however (IE: Jesus Christ Died for your sins), he just did some odd things with the details (IE: Jesus was an Aryan).

Of course Himler's was weirder as it incorporated bits of Norse Mythology into it in addition to the above.

Just thinking out loud here, perhaps some of the reason why atheists are portrayed as fanatics is that some of them seem to have a Hair-Trigger Temper. I've been attempting for years to discuss atheism and the common story is "atheism good, religion bad, don't you dare question us" that is not only fanatical but unfair to atheists who would be tarred with the same brush.

I feel like pointing some things out here, months after the fact.

"I wonder why these, apprently, very common Atheist fundies never get mentioned on the news. What buildings have they bombed? Who have they murdered? Whose rights are they striving to take away? What minority groups do they see as wicked and deserving of death? "

—70.16.110.87

This is often said as a rhetorical question by Atheists in order to argue that there is no such thing as a violent, oppressive Atheist. However, there are very real cases of Atheists committing crimes against humanity, done in the name of purging religious beliefs.

There were two people mentioned by some other Unknown Troper who I do contend are prime examples of this—that is, Pol Pot of Cambodia and Enver Hoxha of Albania. They are seldom mentioned in the mainstream, despite the horrendous things they did to religious people of all kinds—which includes outlawing of religious literature, wanton destruction of religious property, summary execution of people caught praying in public, mass murders, torturing, humilitation, and execution of clergymen, monks, and priests ... the list goes on. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people, suffered or died at their hands, solely because they were religious or held theistic beliefs.

Yet, as the Unknown Troper quoted above demonstrates, that so many people suffered and died at their hands is unknown.

"The State recognizes no religion, and supports atheistic propaganda in order to implant a scientific materialistic world outlook in people."

—Article 37 of the Albanian Constitution of 1976

As has been demonstrated by the prior discussion, however, when these names are brought up Atheists are quick to deny that the actions of these people or their regimes have anything to do with Atheism. Instead, they will claim it was done in the name of something else, in this case Communism. This is a form of the No True Scotsman fallacy, as it is denial of very obvious religious persecution in the name of Atheism which is dismissed as not being "actual" or "true" examples of Atheists oppressing anyone. Majin Gojira demonstrated this in the very first reply to the Unknown Troper:

"Normally, such acts are done under the name of the ideology rather than the lack of religion. IE: communism. [...] But, to answer your question, in the name of explicit atheism: there have been no bombings and no murders."

—Majin Gojira

Although it is true that the concept of Communism as we know it was developed by an atheist who did view religion as mere "opium of the people," Communism itself deals with economics and social organization of property and/or government. The concept of State Atheism, a government's position on religious matters, exists independently of the concept of Communism; there is such a thing as religious Communist groups, and forms of State Atheism have existed in a few governments that were not Communist . Yet, the abundance of State Atheism in Communist regimes has given many Atheists a convenient (if fallacious) method of dismissing the violence and oppression committed in the name of their ideology.

In past experience, I have seen that many Atheists do this in order to maintain a "Holier Than Thou" (if you'll excuse the trope) air of superiority over others with different beliefs: "We Atheists have never oppressed or killed anyone, while religion/theism makes people kill and oppress others in the name of their gods."

Others seem convinced that their ideology is simply immune to the kind of fanaticism or exploitation of ideals to serve base ends that permeates human nature, even though it is not. This kind of attitude can be seen in some of the archived discussion, where it was mentioned that an anonymous Atheist troper repeatedly removed any and all examples mentioning an Atheist, claiming in the edit reasons that all such examples were "anti-Atheist rhetoric," "Christian propaganda," and that Atheists "have nothing to be fundamentalist" about.

The same Atheists who deny such things would never allow a Christian to deny that religion was a cause and motivating factor for, say, the Crusades or the Troubles, even though many of the arguments Atheists use to distance themselves from their own side's gruesome acts could easily be used by those on the other sides of the ledger. Of course, if they tried, Atheists would quickly dismiss them as committing a No True Scotsman fallacy, unaware(?) of the Double Standard they impose on the topic by doing so.

It's important to understand that my post here is not a claim that all Atheists are bad; many Atheists seem to think that refuting the "no such thing as violent, oppressive Atheists" claim is the same thing as saying "all Atheists are evil" or some such nonsense, as indicated by the example of the anonymous Atheist editor mentioned earlier. This is merely an assertion that yes, there have been cases where Atheists have killed or oppressed religious groups to push their own non-religious beliefs. The point of bringing up people like Enver Hoxha or Pol Pot is to demonstrate that fundamentalists really do exist all around, and more to the point, people willing to oppress and kill to silence those with differing beliefs can, have, and will exist on all sides.

Insisting that one's own ideology simply cannot produce such people is wishful thinking.

"Hitler's beliefs, whatever they may have been, are really a moot point. It may be a No True Scotsman argument but whether he was religious or atheist his underlying insanity defied any groundwork."

—Tropers/codenamehunterwolf

"It is a No True Scotsman, a rather common one that permeates modern culture, so don't feel bad about using it. He is a very scary guy and his brand of Christianity is one of the more screwed up versions I have yet to encounter."

—Majin Gojira

It is actually not a No True Scotsman fallacy, because there is sufficient evidence to point that Hitler identified himself as a Christian (and a Catholic) only for political purposes (this includes Mein Kampf, which was written with political intent, as well as his public speeches). Hitler very actively promoted the 'image' of being a God-fearing Christian because it allowed him to manipulate what was a predominantly Christian nation better than if he had expressed his true sentiments publicly.

Privately, Hitler expressed some strident anti-Christian statements during his reign, calling Christianity a "disease," a "meek" and "flabby" religion, and wished for a time when it would be ripe for him to publicly express his revulsion. This was noted in a diary entry Joseph Goebbels had written in 1939, recounting a conversation he had with Hitler at the time.

Hitler's true beliefs seem to be more generally Theist than tied to a specific religion; he was revulsed by Atheism as much as he was Christianity, the difference being that with Atheism, he could denounce it publicly with little difficulty, and was able to equate Atheism with Communism in the minds of his people, providing potent vilification of the Soviet Union. Regardless, the game of "hot potato" that Atheists and Christians play involving Hitler is pointless in this regard, especially since that game is played only because both sides would prefer to lay the association (and therefore "blame") for one of the world's most evil men on their opponents.

Of course, I see it as pointless because I recognize that human nature can produce corrupt or evil men regardless of the ideologies to which they subscribe.

Since this conversation was months over before I came across it, I don't think I'll check back for replies, though I'm sure someone will write a rebuttal to all that I have said. However, I hope I've given those who do read my comment some things to think about, and not merely dismiss out of hand.

I'm fast on replies ;) Unfortunately, your arguments are not that new or innovative as you'd like them to be. Apologetics is like that.

You really don't get it do you? Atheism has no defining ideology. No tenants of faith. No holy books. No holidays. No rituals. No laws. No traditions. Nothing unifies them except for a lack of a belief in a God or Gods. Some Atheists worship their ancestors. Technically, some variants of Buddhism are Atheistic.

Once you understand that, you can understand why a distinction is made between Atheism and the various philosophies adopted by atheism. Atheism can't CAUSE anything since it only has one thing to it: a lack of a belief in a god or gods. That's it. It has no moral structure what so ever, that is what the philosophies adopted by atheists are for.

You address this point in part but don't provide a counter for it.

The Double Standard you claim falls flat on its face in light of the various morally repugnant statements and acts done within the holy books of various faiths. Modern morality filters out many things modern people do not like (Dietary restrictions—Deuteronomy) but that doesn't mean they aren't still there. These texts are very much a product of the Bronze-age societies that made them. Krishna, for instance, taught that it's okay to kill people because they are simply re-incarnated. The multiple genocides and attempted genocides in the Bible are already well documented, so there's no need to go into too much detail. Atheism doesn't have that in its doctrine by way of fact that we don't HAVE a unifying doctrine.

Convenient? Sure, but it means we have to find our own moral codes to get through life.

We don't deny that Atheists have done horrible things, but it was not because of Atheism. It's hard to get motivated by a lack of a belief or, in some definitions a strong disbelief in a God or Gods. Atheism itself tells no on how to behave in regards to that core statement, so there's nothing about atheism that is related to or "Causes" the atrocities. As opposed to Religions whose Holy Books often provide motivations and justifications for such acts.

this includes Mein Kampf, which was written with political intent, as well as his public speeches

Horseshit. Mein Kampf was a personal document first and foremost. It was published WELL before he had dreams of being the head of state and was in line with many other political manifestos of the time. The writers were completely open with their extreme views. He was going to convince them with his strength of character and convictions through that piece of rhetoric.

Micheal Wong has a wonderful essay discussing it and pointing out the common objections to using Mein Kampf, which you so readily employ. I'll reproduce them here, but the citations and notes for these are found in the link.

The common excuse given by Christian apologists is that he was only pretending to be a Christian in his public speeches and writings, in order to curry the favour of Christians in Germany. However, this excuse has many serious weaknesses:

1. All of the evidence for this massive contradiction between public and private beliefs is hearsay. Typically, it involves uncorroborated accounts of private conversations. Any sensible observer must question why Hitler suddenly became so open about his secret beliefs that he would spew them even after having been informed that they would be documented.

2.Most accounts of his private conversations do not contain anti-Christian sentiments. In fact, when you look carefully at all the anti-Christian quotes attributed to Hitler, you will find that virtually all of them come from just two or three people! One must question why they alone were privy to secret thoughts that he carefully hid from everyone else in his life and his government. Why didn't he reveal these secret thoughts to Rudolf Hess? Heinrich Himmler? Joseph Goebbels? Hermann Göring? Are we supposed to seriously believe that Hitler kept all of these men in the dark for more than a decade while abruptly pouring out his heart to his secretary Martin Bormann, and an obscure provincial official named Hermann Rauschning?

3. In order to generate something more substantive than unreliable hearsay quotes, Hitler's actions or words against political opponents or competing brands of Christianity are almost invariably misrepresented as actions or words against Christianity as a whole. This is simply absurd; if we adopt denominational intolerance or political ruthlessness as the definition of anti-Christian attitudes, then most Christians throughout history have been anti-Christian, including the Roman Catholic church throughout most of its existence!

4. Hitler never publicly spoke out against Christianity right up until the very end, yet he demonstrated such extreme megalomania, capacity for self-delusion, and overconfidence in his own abilities (particularly as the war dragged on) that it seems absolutely ludicrous to believe that he was still hiding his true beliefs for fear of offending religious groups.

5. When one pays lip service to a common religious belief which one actually finds repugnant (as many of the American founding fathers did), one normally does not do it as clearly and enthusiastically as Hitler did.

6. There is no serious historical doubt that the roots of his anti-Semitism came from the Viennese Christian Social movement, or that he was inspired by Martin Luther (on whose birthday the infamous Kristallnacht occurred), who wrote the infamous racist screed "On Jews And Their Lies". Are we to believe that he admired these men and followed in their footsteps while simultaneously despising their beliefs?

7. Even if we accept the unfounded notion that Hitler pretended to be a Christian in order to curry favour with the public, we would still have to acknowledge that the Christian public was amenable to his message! There would have been no benefit in paying lip service to Christians if Christianity were as inherently unreceptive to his message as modern Christian apologists would have you believe.

The eagerness of you to cut and run and the lack of a proper handle makes me think you're a troll or at the very least are trolling. The shallowness of the arguments speaks further to that, IMO.

But I can be cynical at times, so I could be totally wrong on that last part.

May I just present this guy?

According to dictionary.com, "atheism" is defined as:

1.

the doctrine or belief that there is no god.

2.

disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

It seems what is happening here is that Majin Gojira is using the second definition, while 75.23.208.214 (whoever that is) is taking the first definition.

Using the second definition, obviously atheism can't cause anything. Really, if I just don't believe in a god, there's nothing there to tell me to "do this" or "do that". However, for some atheists atheism means that the lack of divine beings is a <i>doctrine</i>, which means that atheism will automatically include ideas "I'm an atheist, therefore I must make sure that everyone else is also an atheist", or even more extreme "I'm an atheist, therefore I must destroy religion, even if that means that I must put all the religious people in gas chambers". To be honest, myself I don't like calling the latter "atheists" atheists, but instead I call them "anti-theists", people who thinks that religion has to be evil (regardless of peaceful religions such as Buddhism. Yes, I know that Buddhists are not all nice people, but I have yet to encounter a Buddhist text that says "all non-Buddhists/homosexuals/etc are evil and must be exterminated". Buddhist going bad != Buddhist following their actual doctrine). I doubt that "EX-TER-MI-NATE ALL RELIGION!" is meant to be a part of atheism, according to its strictest definition.

This is actually kind of worrying. Atheism is supposed to be free of any doctrine, including "I must destroy religion at all costs" or "I must make sure that other people are atheists as well". By having any kind of doctrine (which are supposed to be anti-theistic) attached to atheism atheism risks becoming nothing more than just another religion.

Majin Gojira, just because 75.23.208.214 disagrees with you, that doesn't mean he's a troll. It looks like you tried to blow off his entire argument by dismissing him as a troll, essentially saying that he doesn't actually believe what he said and that he wanted to get a rise out of you. If you had actually read his arguments without cynically dismissing everything he said, you would have noticed that he makes quite a few good points and well thought-out arguments, at least compared to your repetition of the No True Scotsman argument that he already addressed. And really, you're calling his arguments shallow when you simply restate "Atheism has no doctrine" 8 times in a row and call his argument "Horseshit"? You have No True Scotsman, Ad Hominem, and Double Standard going against you. If anything, you're the one more likely to be trolling, since you use so many logical fallacies and wrote in such a condescending tone.

And your points regarding Hitler are debatable as well, though it's not quite relevent here.

As I stated, it was not because of disagreeing, but his eagerness to cut and run combined with his lack off a user handle made me suspicious that he was one. I did not declare him one, only announced my suspicion. My history of arguing with people like that has lead me to be warry of such instances.

Do not misconstrue suspicion with accusation.

However, a lack of reply from him in about a year is...not a good sign.

I do not believe he made any good points, really, as they were ones I'd seen before and frankly don't feel like dissecting one by one. I'm trying to get a life these days.

He did put effort into his post, I'll admit, but it's the same sort of apologetics I've seen a dozen times before. Makes me wonder where he's parroting from.

I point out the No True Scotsman because people really don't understand how broad a term atheism is. It's opposite isn't any one religion, but it's root word: Theism. Blaming something or making a specific claim about a Theistim is just as tricky as doing it with Atheism. It's that broad.

Really, that's a crux of it that, looking back, could have simplified the understanding of my points without getting into the double standard stuff, which was a bit off so I'll concede that point.

And I'm not going to touch the Hitler stuff today. I have work to do but I do disagree with you for one obvious point:

Roughly 90% of Germany was Christian at the time. Even if he himself wasn't, the rest off the Nazi's undoubtedly were. Which undermines the idea at its core of the disagreement that "A christian would never do such things!"

Because, statistically speaking, it's impossible for it to have been any other way.

You're referring to Poe's Law, right? People like that exist for any group in general, so I don't see how that extenuates the fact that atheist fundamentalists "Militant Atheists" "New Atheists" Hollywood Atheists are just as real as any religious fundamentalist.

Pretending to be a nasty example of a given group is a favorite tactic of trolls; I mean, the Poe's Law article even mentions a Christian angle of the trope in action.

Boy I'm just waiting for all the so called true Buffy fans coming out of the woodwork over the reboot. Yeah, Poe's Law does exist for any group, atheism is not immune to it as much as it might like to think it is. I'm just saying we get some real dopey people, those who say the most outrageous things, and they are taken as honest atheist...ah, beliefs? Nonbeliefs? You know what I mean. I hope.

Waiting? I think it's already started in the Buffy fandom ;)

I'd call them Beliefs. It's a pretty neutral word.

I believe that would be correct, even if the kids praying to an image of George Bush would be an appropriate trope image.

The Dictionary is your friend.

Meriam Webster: Fanatic: marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion.

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

One is about enthusiasm, the other about adherence.

Sounds like the Gollum example should be snipped.

Thank you for your answer! Now I'm confused a bit less :)

Is the strict adherence to "a set of basic principles" an only condition? I.e., if I understand correctly, The Fundamentalist (in the trope sence, not the real-life religious movement sence) is someone who, basically, has a brochure with set of rules, follows them come Hell or high water, and insists that everybody should follow them? If that is so, then I would propose to change the "common misconception" paragraph thusly:

"A common misconception of The Fundamentalist is to categorize any person or group who believe they are right and being right is the only thing that matters as a Fundamentalist. That is not so - to qualify as a Fundamentalist a person has to have a set of specific basic principles, follow them strictly and literally, and insist that everybody else should do exactly the same. So, while there are many people both in fiction and Real Life who are extremist and fanatical, if their beliefs are not rooted in some kind of fundamental dogma or not forced on others, then they're not The Fundamentalist."

I don't know whether the fact that only religios examples are listed is relevant to the paragraph's logic or not, so I'm not including it.

The original "fundamentalists" of the 1910's were those that believed that only 5 things (the "fundamentals") are really important to Christianity: the Bible being true, Jesus' virgin birth, his miracles, his death as a sacrifice, and his resurrection. To a true fundamentalist, nothing else was really an important part of Christianity. A true fundamentalist was someone who specifically would NOT turn everything into a religious issue - for instance, your position on homosexuality isn't a big deal because it's not one of the 5 fundamentals - which is the polar opposite of how this page & a big portion of the public have redefined the term.

The meaning of words evolve. I mean, look at how the words Liberal and Conservative had developed over time—fascinating stuff.

We're using the more modern definition for this page.

Also avoid the phrasing you used in the future, you might end up being accused of a No True Scotsman.

It's not evolution when the word "fundamentalist" is no longer related to the word "fundamental." It's just misuse.

I know it sounded like No True Scotsman, but it's along the lines of saying "someone who's never been to Scotland is no true Scotsman." A Scotsman ought to be from Scotland, a vegetarian ought to be someone who eats vegetables, and a fundamentalist ought to be someone who gets back to fundamentals.

You really don't know the myriad ways words can change. Misappropriation is one of them, another comes in the redefinition of other words.

Namely, the Fundamentals. Take those to be something else (like Biblical Literalism, the most common form of modern fundamentalist belief) and we get another group calling themselves fundamentalists.

By redefining the core term, the word evolved. It's not the same as other more obvious forms of word evolution, but its still valid.

I mean, look at how the phrase "Islamic Fundamentalist" has spread. It has nothing to do with the 4 Fundamentals, but remains in common use and has been for about a decade. Protestant movements do this with regularity—someone new comes along who says they're interpretation is better and BAMO! New sect.